The European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions (EFFAT) has called for an immediate ban on glyphosate-based herbicides and other harmful pesticides.
In a press release on Friday EFFAT stated “Protecting agri-workers’ health is EFFAT’s number one priority. EFFAT calls for an immediate ban on glyphosate in the renewal process, which ends in 2022. EFFAT also calls for more investments in the promotion of alternatives to the use of glyphosate and other harmful pesticides and urges a clear governance in charge of a smooth transition with the involvement of Trade Unions. Existing jobs must be protected and new quality ones created.
“The newly adopted position on the issue responds to EFFAT’s commitment to a more sustainable agriculture which underpins, inter alia, free trade agreements with binding requirement to respect highest environmental and social standards, investments in workers’ skills, social protection and research and development towards sustainable pest management.
“As sufficient evidence exists on the risks related to the use of glyphosate for workers, human health and biodiversity, EFFAT calls for the immediate ban of glyphosate as an active substance in herbicide products in the renewal process which is expected to end in 2022. The precautionary principle should guide EFSA and ECHA assessments.
Glyphosate Box
Glyphosate Residue Free Certification for Food Brands – Click Here
Test Your Food and Water at Home for Glyphosate – Click Here
Test Your Hair for Glyphosate and other Pesticides – Click Here to Find Out Your Long-Term Exposure
“If a transition period is to be set, it should be as short as possible and only apply for limited cases in professional use, whilst for uses in public areas, private gardens, railway tracks, desiccation, and all cases where Integrated Pest management (IPM) can be used, the ban should apply immediately. In any case, there should be no more use of glyphosate in Europe from 2024.
“EFSA, ECHA and the European Commission should carry out their assessment in atransparent and reliable way, free of the influence of the agro-chemical industry. The protection of agricultural workers’ health and safety must be considered as one of the main priorities throughout the scientific evaluation that will guide the process. The use of Personal protective equipment (PPE) should not be given a prominent position in the scientific assessment, as evidence shows that PPE is not always available, and its effectiveness is often over-estimated.
“Alternatives to the use of glyphosate and other harmful chemicals already exist and must be further promoted. This includes agronomic practices, mechanical and biological weed control, animal grazing and natural herbicides.
“A 13-week pilot study run by the Ramazzini Institute in Bologna in 2019 demonstrates that exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides from prenatal period to adulthood induced endocrine disruptive effects and altered reproductive developmental parameters in male and female rats. A recent study has proven glyphosate acts as an endocrine disruptor in the case of exposure during pregnancy.
“EFFAT supports the ambitious environmental objectives of the Green Deal and the Farm to Fork strategy, including the 50% reduction target for use and risk of pesticides by 2030.1 However, acting solely at a European level will not be sufficient to protect consumers’ health, safeguard our ecosystems and biodiversity and prevent soil erosion. On the contrary, it may affect jobs and the competitiveness of the EU agriculture sector. A vision towards a more sustainable agriculture without glyphosate and other hazardous chemical must be pursued at a global level. The EU should be at the forefront of this radical change, since the decisions taken in the EU will also have a substantial impact in other countries.
“It is not acceptable that harmful pesticides already banned in the EU keep being produced and exported by European agro-chemical companies. Foodstuff produced using pesticides banned in Europe should not enter the EU market.
“If the EU were to adopt a different approach to Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), this could contribute to building a more sustainable vision for the agriculture sector. Agriculture and food always require specific attention in the negotiation of FTAs, as the economic, social and environmental sustainability of these sectors is fragile and easily disrupted. Moreover, the respect of equal environmental and social standards must be a precondition to engage in negotiations.”
In today’s edition of The Redpill Series, James talks to James Delingpole, an ex-MSM journalist who has taken the red pill in the past year and a half and is now engaged in a series of conversations he never expected to be having on his Delingpod podcast. This is one of them.
When I was living in Northern California from 2008-2010, the state was rolling out wireless smart utility meters. I was one of the individuals who became disabled as the result of exposure to the pulsed microwave radiofrequencies. California held a number of hearings where individuals who were concerned about billing fiascos, privacy, security, cost, green-washing, surveillance, and health damages gave testimony.
I remember the testimony of one father whose young son had been in a serious accident and was being sent home to convalesce and heal . . . and it reminded me that any of us, in this point in time, might believe that smart meters are safe. But our circumstances can change in a moment. Many of us were already losing ground due to lack of sleep and constantly being induced by the frequencies – what would the experience be for a child with a metal plate in the head?
For those of us already recognizing that the meters and infrastructure installations were capable of causing tremendous disruption to normal, healthy brain function, it was a terrible experience to be in the presence of unresponsive, detached, autocratic decision-makers who ignored the early warnings for whatever reason, whether they did not believe what was happening, or didn’t care.
The posture of not believing and/or not caring has grown worse over time, with the unsubstantiated claims and prevailing beliefs that increased wireless telecommunication (including “fixed wireless broadband” and 5G) is safe, sustainable, and necessary. But as the industry spin and surveillance has increased, so has the dawning of reason.
Many mothers, fathers, and children have been recognizing risks, and taking action, throughout the country and around the world, and the numbers continue to increase. Many communities, neighborhoods, and families are seeking to prioritize wired, rather than wireless options.
Mother’s Day Countdown
In our series at Natural Blaze counting down to Mother’s Day, we learned about:
Godelieve Richards, the new mother who co- founded the Piti Theatre Group with her husband Jonathan, in Massachusetts and Switzerland, on her experience of the acute onset of EHS, her journey to receive an accurate diagnosis, and the efforts she has to make to protect her home environment.
Kirstin Beatty, a young mother and teacher forced to leave her profession, whose daughter is her advocate, who despite isolation due to EHS, works actively on legislative efforts on a number of environmental fronts.
Courtney Gilardi, whose community is opposing a macrotower, with many neighbors and her family experiencing adverse health effects when the tower was “turned on” after being installed without the knowledge and consent of the community, questioning outdated and inaccurate exposure standards and lack of legislative response.
Virginia Hines, a psychotherapist, noting the opportunity for cognitive coherence as society adopts health-protective choices; for examples, speaker phone, wired ear buds, and a chiropractic office that hardwired to protect the safety of their patients (after measuring the RF emitted from an iPad being used, unquestioningly, to check in patients.)
Mothers vs. Peter Valberg
In a 3-part series, we looked at historical efforts dating back to the late 1990s featuring Diana Warren and Peggy Patton; Thea Fournier, Julie Riccardi, and Nina Anderson, while noting the pervasive influence of Philip Morris tobacco scientist Peter Valberg on public policy regarding microwave radio frequencies and meters. Part 3 highlighted more recent efforts by Sandi Maurer of the EMF Safety Network, publisher Carol Bedrosian, Noise Pollution Activist Sandra Chianfoni, Dover-Sherborn mothers opposing a tower on school property, Janet Davis opposing yet another cell antenna in a church steeple, and MA for Safe Technology’s Cece Doucette.
In interviewing the women for Mother’s Day, a theme emerged: nearly everyone had some kind of experience or had been affected by the work of Peter Valberg. Because the product defense firm Gradient is located in Massachusetts, and the articles were based mostly around New England contacts, this pattern may not have seemed surprising. But in fact, Peter Valberg provided “expertise” to utilities promoting smart meters in many states, and provided testimony for regulators in many others – from Texas, Florida, Maryland, Arizona, Florida, Oregon, Pennsylvania, to Iowa. The exorbitant fees for his brand of science come from ratepayers. He served as the primary health expert for the defunct, pro-industry. Smart Grid Consumer Collaborative, which had no consumers, and was comprised of both industry and regulators.
In fact, in 2012, the National Conference of State Legislators shared a report with decision makers nationally from the Utilities Telecom Council that relied on Valberg’s opinion (along with mercenary scientists from another notorious product defense firm.)
In a testimony submitted in Minnesota regarding magnetic fields and power lines, Valberg was asked, “Describe how you maintain your expertise in the area of health effects related to radiofrequency fields and EMF.”
He responded, “On a continuing basis, the librarians at Gradient provide me with recently published articles related to EMF health effects. I review those publications that are relevant to health risks potentially attributed to RF and power-line exposure.”
Given that these firms that work for the wireless industry also work for the tobacco industry, including Valberg’s continuing work for Philip Morris Light cigarettes, I can only imagine a scene from the TV show Mad Men, with the cast sucking on cigarettes and the secretaries like Joan Holloway, “Now try not to be overwhelmed by all this technology. It looks complicated, but the men who designed it made it simple enough for a woman to use.”
No regulatory scrutiny of health concerns and complaints has been forthcoming, other than from engaged citizens. The industry, regulators, and electeds, in most cases, with a few exceptions, checked off the box – “get a tobacco scientist to sign off on the safety!” and have kept going, while running over a portion of the population.
This denotes that we are operating at a time in history reflected by treacherous collaborations between powerful entities. It is one level of evil to see tobacco science applied in a courtroom regarding adult consumers who unwittingly smoked and destroyed their health. It is another level of evil to see tobacco science underpinning federal infrastructure agendas that will extend to every neighborhood, under the banner of “Endless Frontiers,” “addressing the digital divide,” and “telehealth access.” The wireless agenda is being forcefully imposed on every man, woman, child, and nature environment, from land to sea to space, not only in the U.S., but worldwide. The implementation has been weaponized by enabling legislation that abuses human rights, including property rights.
Father’s Day, Many Honorable men
This week, we begin our countdown to Father’s Day, featuring fathers, sons, brothers, uncles, husbands, and friends who are engaged in the 5G/EMF/RF issue, whether due to smart meters, like Paul; or cellphone towers next to school, like Jeff; or WiFi in school, like David. We also highlight some of the researchers, scientists, and physicians working earnestly on the issue of the EMF/RF environmental stressor and pollutant.
None of them rely on “secretaries to provide recently published articles.”
Some treat actual patients, some conduct peer-reviewed scientific research. They don’t talk about “blue ribbon panels,” or “prepare an in-depth analysis,” using their intellectual gifts to protect harmful industries and to sustain harm and injury by irresponsible industries.
Elected and unelected officials who are not ready, willing, and able to practice discernment regarding the integrity of the experts they reference cannot be trusted to safeguard communities, human health, and the environment. This is malfeasance. The product defense firm industry must be removed from the driver’s seat of technological innovation, because the products the industry promotes are not safe. It’s not rocket science.
It’s time to require that the tech industry’s “get of jail free” card for health and environmental damages be revoked. It’s time to hold ourselves accountable, as a species, for rejecting consumer products that pose health risks, and to require the industry to develop safe products and infrastructure.
It’s way past time to move the needle on the RF/EMF science.
In honor of Father’s Day, as we start our countdown, here are “a few good men.”
Father Says No To School Cell Tower: Milestone Son Got Cancer Testimony to Anne Arundel Public Schools on a proposed cell tower at an elementary school. “Please don’t poison my babies.”
Patricia Burke works with activists across the country and internationally calling for new biologically-based microwave radio frequency exposure limits. She is based in Massachusetts and can be reached at stopsmartmetersMASS@gmail.com.
Chalk up a victory vs. public health tyranny! In the face of massive public resistance, so-called ‘officials’ have retreated from their unscientific and misanthropic propaganda tactics.
Another round of record protests across in London (barely acknowledged in corporate media) has served as a bellwether for the surging distaste against several forms of public health Covid edicts.
After more than a year ignoring the data and science to lockdown the world, public health officials have begun reluctantly abandoning many of their heavy-handed tactics. Taking a “carrot and stick” approach, global populations have been continually beaten with a medical stick to force compliance. Yet few doing the ‘beating’ cared to look at history or do a simple cost-benefit analysis to examine the erroneous plan for their populations.
Continued analysis of the data behind lockdowns shows epic failures that have set society back in unimaginable ways. Forcing public health edicts illogically has forever weakened confidence in governmental and global health bodies.
Canadian economist Douglas W. Allen recently published an examination of over 80 Covid-19 studies, taking a critical look at the literature to assess the lockdown Cost vs. Benefits:
“There are about 45 stringency points from the least stringent country (Russia: 40.28) to the most stringent (Ireland: 84.26). Over this range, moving from the least to most stringent lockdown increases the cumulative deaths per million by 630 deaths. Contrary to the popular understanding, lockdown is not associated with fewer deaths per million, but more. “
Despite the false assertion by public health officials that the limited, available science pointed to lockdowns being the only solution, Allen refutes this, stating:
“By August there was enough information available to show that any reasonable cost/benefit analysis would show that lockdown was creating more harm than good. It is unreasonable to suggest that a proper decision could not have been made in the fall when the second wave of infections hit.”
The public is emboldened like never before to both return to normal and disobey public health officials pushing irrational, unscientific orders whose only roots stem from virtue signaling, political jockeying and/or petty power plays. It’s over. And would-be government employees refusing to see the writing on the wall will be voted out of office.
Established in April 2020 and composed by a group of multi-disciplinary professionals, the Pandemics Data & Analytics (or PANDA) organization understands this. PANDA stands for open science, rational debate about replacing flawed science, and for retrieving liberty and prosperity from the clutches of a dystopian “new normal”.
The organization recently released its 17-page analysis and Declaration for the Protection of Children and Young People. It states:
“Evidence already shows serious damage to the physical, mental and social wellbeing of children and young people, as well as their educational attainment and future prospects (Lewis et al., 2021). There was never a reason to disrupt the lives of children and young people and there is every reason to restore normality to this population. Policymakers should take immediate action to protect children and young people from further harm and injustice, now and in the future.”
Meanwhile, the U.S. Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is facing down a scandal from several directions. First, internal emails revealed the agency relied upon politically motivated actors, rather than science, to craft its school reopening policy. Secondly, the agency’s mask guidance was peppered with confusion and questionable science.
Research examining mitigation practices and Covid-19 rates in Florida, New York and Massachusetts’ schools continued to drive home the CDC’s scientific misadventures. After looking at all the data encompassing public schools and districts for the 2020-2021 school year, the authors concluded “…we do not see a correlation between mask mandates and COVID-19 rates among students…”
Even at this advanced stage of public revelation and transparency to the failed policies of some tone-deaf public health officials, some are still desperately trying to move the goalposts. For example: After the goal of lowering case counts in an effort to return to normal was reached, officials in Australia and New Zealand demanded a zero-Covid approach! Good luck with that.
Meanwhile, Ontario has announced a three-step plan to reopen the province, starting with outdoor recreational amenities, as it gradually prepares to ease pandemic restrictions. But wait! Hold on! Forget about lower case counts or mortality rates, Ontario must wait at least two weeks after 60 per cent of adults have received one dose of the vaccine!
In the U.S., the reopening has happened too rapidly for power-hungry public officials still not ready to give up their ill-gotten fiefdoms. The vaccine passport idea continues to be a non-starter in the USA as many governors checkmated the idea with a slew of early executive orders and bills.
Defaulting to individual businesses, a few governors have resorted to making weary frontline business owners manually violate their patron’s health privacy by asking them to check the vaccine status of everyone who enters their establishment. This is the textbook definition of fascism, by the way: The marriage of government and industry.
Other businesses have simply removed their “face masks mandatory” signs and replaced them with masking suggestions for the unvaccinated. How many people are complying no one knows for sure.
A month ago, headlines told of an impending U.K. domestic vaccine passport despite widespread public distaste. It manifested in the form of an NHS app which had some concerning additional features as exposed during an interview on U.K.’s Talk Radio:
The NHS app has been updated to include far more than vaccine jabs.
Julia: “Data relating to mental health, lifestyle, ethnic origin, biometric data and alleged criminal behaviour; what the hell does that have to do with proving you’ve had two jabs!?”@JuliaHB1 | @silkiecarlopic.twitter.com/TFztDpoMpq
In a surprising plot twist, following this weekend’s capacity protests, plans for the U.K. vaccine passport have reportedly been scrapped. In a Telegraph exclusive, ‘officials’ working on Covid-19 status certification believe there is no chance the law will be changed to mandate vaccine passports’ use within the U.K. Called a “well-placed source” by The Telegraph stated, “No one is talking about it still as a potential thing … It has been killed off really.”
As travel and employment appear to be the new chokepoints to ram through vaccine certificates, are governments defaulting to private business to finish the op? Or will something happen that gives officials a rejuvenated push in the near future?
The following is a slightly shortened version of a BBC Portuguese-language report on a carefully conducted study published in 2020, which has been largely overlooked till now. The study shows that glyphosate contamination of water, driven by expanded GM soy production, leads to a large increase in infant mortality, as well as a higher probability of low birth weight and a higher probability of premature births.
Glyphosate is the most popular pesticide in Brazil. It represents 62% of the total herbicides used in the country and, in 2016, sales of this chemical in thousands of tons were higher than the sum of the seven other pesticides most commercialised in the national territory.
Used on GM glyphosate-tolerant soybeans, the herbicide contributed to Brazil becoming the largest producer of the grain in the world, surpassing the United States.
As a result, the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of soy-producing states has grown far above the economy of the country as a whole in recent decades. And the income generated by agricultural activity has stimulated other economic sectors in the producing regions.
But the new study, carried out by researchers at the universities of Princeton, FGV (Fundação Getulio Vargas) and Insper, reveals that this generation of wealth has a high cost. According to the study, the spraying of glyphosate on soybean crops led to a 5% increase in infant mortality in southern and central-western municipalities that receive water from soybean regions.
This represents a total of 503 more infant deaths per year associated with the use of glyphosate in soy production.
“There is great concern about the effects of herbicides on populations that are not directly involved in agriculture, who are not directly exposed to pesticides,” Rodrigo Soares, full professor at the Lemann Foundation Chair at Insper and one of the authors of the study, alongside Mateus Dias (Princeton) and Rudi Rocha (FGV), told the BBC.
“Although these substances are present in the body of more than 50% of the western population, we do not know if this is harmful or not,” added the researcher.
“Our article is one of the first to credibly show that this should indeed be a concern, as it demonstrates contamination through watercourses in areas far from the areas of use, in a way that has never been done before.”
Bayer, owner of Monsanto since 2018 – the company that launched glyphosate on the market in 1974, under the trade name Roundup – assesses the study as “unreliable and poorly conducted” and says the safety of its products is the highest priority of the company.
Aprosoja (Brazilian Association of Soy Producers), in turn, states that “the conclusions pointed out in the study do not seem to be supported by the scientific facts and reality found in the practice of Brazilian agriculture”.
Finally, CropLife Brasil, which represents the pesticide sector in the country, said that “for more than 40 years, glyphosate has undergone extensive safety tests, including 15 studies to assess the potential toxicity to human development and 10 studies to assess potential reproductive toxicity”.
“Regulatory authorities in Brazil, Europe, the USA and around the world have reviewed these studies and concluded that glyphosate does not pose a risk to human development or human reproduction,” said the organisation.
The use of glyphosate in Brazil
The most widely used herbicide in the world today, glyphosate was discovered by Monsanto in 1970. The pesticide is used to eliminate weeds in agriculture, acting by blocking an enzyme that is part of the synthesis of essential amino acids for plant development.
Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide – that is, it kills most plants. Because of this, it became widely used on crops genetically modified to resist the chemical, such as GM soybeans, marketed by Monsanto under the name Roundup Ready. Glyphosate herbicides were first sold by the company under the name Roundup. In 2000, however, the glyphosate patent expired, and the product is currently offered by several manufacturers under different trade names.
Genetically modified soy was first marketed by Monsanto in the United States in 1996.
In Brazil, a first authorization for use was granted in 1998, but was almost immediately suspended by the courts. In 2003, the government granted a temporary marketing authorization, which required the incineration of the remaining seeds to prevent their reuse in the following year.
In September of that year, a provisional measure allowed producers to reuse the seeds and, in October 2004, the temporary sale concession was renewed. Finally, in March 2005, the Biosafety Law permanently authorized the production and sale of transgenic soybean seeds.
The use of genetically modified soy has spread rapidly in Brazil since 2004, representing 93% of the grain-planted area in the mid-2010s, according to data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), cited by the study of researchers from Princeton, FGV and Insper.
Along with the productivity gain of the soybean crop, the use of glyphosate grew strongly in the country, more than tripling in volume between 2000 and 2010, from 39,500 tons to 127,600 tons.
Differences between Brazil and other countries
In the European Union, since 2015, there has been a wide debate about the possibility of banning the use of glyphosate, after a report by the International Cancer Research Agency (Iarc) that year classified the substance as “probable human carcinogen”, that is, as a possible cancer-causing agent.
In the United States, Bayer has already disbursed billions of dollars in deals to settle lawsuits over allegations that glyphosate causes cancer.
“In the European Union, unlike Brazil, the registration of pesticides is always for a finite time. Here, when a pesticide is registered, this registration is eternal, until it eventually comes to be questioned”, explains Alan Tygel, member of the coordination of the Permanent Campaign Against Pesticides and For Life.
In Europe, currently, the authorization for the use of glyphosate is valid until December 2022. Austria became the first country in the region to ban the product in 2019, while Germany plans to do without the herbicide from 2024.
Another important difference, according to the activist, concerns the maximum allowed value of concentration of the pesticide in water, so that it is considered suitable for human consumption.
“Brazilian water can be considered potable containing up to 500 micrograms of glyphosate per litre, while water in the European Union can have a maximum of 0.1 micrograms of glyphosate,” said Tygel. “So, the Brazilian limit is 5,000 times higher than the European Union limit.”
If these existing regulatory differences were not enough, Brazilian agribusiness has been pressing in recent years for the approval of the Bill of Law 6,299/2002, which eases the rules for inspection and application of pesticides.
In addition, within the federal government there has been a change in the correlation between forces opposed to and in favour of the use of pesticides.
“Until 2016, there was within the government a certain balance of forces between agribusiness, family farming and public policies to encourage agroecology,” said Tygel.
“From that year on, one of the first actions of the Michel Temer government [MDB] was to end the Ministry of Agrarian Development, which developed these organic agriculture policies. Since then, we have seen an exponential increase in the number of pesticide registrations,” he said.
In 2020 alone, Brazil approved the registration of 493 pesticides, the largest number ever documented by the Ministry of Agriculture, which has compiled this data since 2000.
Glyphosate and infant mortality
The authors of the study “Down the River: Glyphosate Use in Agriculture and Birth Outcomes of Surrounding Populations” say that they decided to study the relationship between pesticide and infant mortality due to the heated debate over the use of genetically modified seeds and their combination with herbicides.
“We thought the debate was very passionate and very uninformed,” says Rodrigo Soares, from Insper. “Then we realized that the expansion of GM soy in Brazil, mainly in the Midwest and the South, as it was very fast and very marked after the introduction of the GM seeds, could be an interesting context for analysis.”
The regulatory change that allowed the use of transgenic soybean seeds in Brazil has generated what is called in economics a “natural experiment” – an event brought about by external causes, which changes the environment in which individuals, families, companies or cities operate, and that makes it possible to compare groups affected and not affected by this event.
“One concern that existed is that there could be water contamination, since toxicological studies in the United States, Argentina and Brazil detected the presence of glyphosate in rivers, but in a one-off, non-systematic way,” says Soares.
“To evaluate this, we used information about the hydrographic basins in the country and the relative position of the municipalities – above or below areas of intensive use of glyphosate,” explained the researcher.
“It was a way of understanding how the expansion of the use of transgenic soy and glyphosate in a given municipality could affect the municipalities that receive water that passes through that region where pesticides are used.”
What the researchers did then was to analyze, for the period between 2004 and 2010, when the greatest expansion of transgenic soybean production occurred in Brazil and the use of glyphosate tripled, the birth statistics of these municipalities “downstream” from areas of use intensive herbicide.
“What we have shown is that there is a deterioration in health conditions at birth in these municipalities downstream from the municipalities that expanded soy production,” said the professor at Insper.
Within this deterioration in health conditions at birth are: a higher probability of low birth weight, a higher probability of premature births and – the most serious – an increase in infant mortality.
“We have also produced a series of other empirical analyzes to show that this was in fact associated with water and that this in fact appears to be associated with the expansion of soy.”
Isolating the effect of glyphosate
For example, comparing data from municipalities “downstream” with municipalities “upstream” – which therefore do not receive water that has passed through areas of use of glyphosate – the researchers find that municipalities “upstream” are not affected by this worsening of birth statistics.
The researchers also demonstrate that the negative effects on health outcomes at birth are particularly strong for pregnancies most exposed to the period of application of glyphosate, which in Brazil typically occurs between October and March, since soybeans are planted in the country between October and January.
The worsening of birth data is also greater when it rains more in the glyphosate application season, which the researchers showed by crossing health statistics with rainfall data. This finding is in line with the idea that more of the product reaches the rivers when soil erosion by rain is most significant.
Mateus Dias, a doctoral student at Princeton University and coauthor of Soares in the study, explained the researchers’ decision to analyse municipalities downstream and upstream, instead of the municipalities that apply the glyphosate itself.
“Glyphosate use has an impact on soybean productivity, and this may end up affecting child mortality in that municipality in other ways – for example, higher productivity can generate higher income and this will reduce child mortality,” he said.
The researchers also assessed whether the expansion of soybeans affected soil erodibility due to the advancement of agriculture over forested areas.
“We showed that this did not happen, because these areas that started to plant soy seem to have been pastures before, so there was no radical change in vegetation and consequently, there was no significant change in soil erodibility,” says Dias.
Study results may contribute to better regulation
According to the researchers, the objective of the study is not to “demonise” glyphosate, but to contribute to an improvement in public policies to regulate the use of pesticides in the country.
“We know what the use of agricultural substances in general has meant throughout human history – fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides. They have indeed enabled a revolution in terms of agricultural production and, in the net result, I believe that the effect was very positive,” said Soares, from Insper.
“We only have the production we have today, with its impact on the price of food and on the populations involved in agriculture that benefit from productivity gains, because of these substances,” he adds.
“This does not mean that we should not be aware of the potential negative effects,” he saod, defending changes in the regulations for the use and management of pesticides and the protection of water courses and water tables.
Alan Tygel, of the Permanent Campaign Against Pesticides and For Life – created in 2011 and composed of more than a hundred social movements, trade unions and class entities, NGOs, cooperatives, universities and research institutions, has a more radical opinion.
“We believe that the central objective is in fact to end the use of these substances, especially since today there is no doubt about the technical capacity to produce food without the use of chemical and synthetic pesticides,” the activist said.
According to him, the campaign’s proposals are contained in a bill (PL 6670/2016), which institutes a National Pesticide Reduction Policy, with measures that range from the ban on aerial spraying, through state support for agroecology, to the ban on pesticides banned in their countries of origin and the end of tax exemptions for pesticides.
“We will fight for every small gain that we may have, because we know that each percentage less of pesticides used results in lives saved,” says Tygel.
“But we know that there is no possible coexistence between organic production and the massive use of pesticides. The path that we envision is a production model that can be adopted nationally and is totally free of pesticides and transgenics.”
— The study:
Down the river: Glyphosate use in agriculture and birth outcomes of surrounding populations
Mateus Dias, Rudi Rocha, Rodrigo R. Soares
Latin American and the Caribbean Economic Association
Dec 2020 http://vox.lacea.org/files/Working_Papers/lacea_wps_0024_dias_rocha_soares.pdf
The World Economic Forum’s “Investing in Forests” program sounds great – who doesn’t want to plant more trees? But behind its philanthropic appeal lies a global surveillance grid, monitoring all activity on the planet — just as prescribed by Agenda 2030 and their 4th Industrial Revolution. Christian shares an unreleased document and reveals the truth in this special Ice Age Farmer broadcast.
Video available at Ice Age Farmer BitChute and Odysee channels.
As I’ve been demonstrating for a year, SARS-CoV-2 was never discovered, never isolated, never legitimately sequenced.
In yesterday’s article, I laid out how this fake pandemic story, focusing on Wuhan, obscured Wuhan’s role as the number-one global launch-point for opioid trafficking.
Synthetic opioids—especially fentanyl, which is a hundred times more potent than morphine—are killing and addicting and maiming millions of people worldwide. That’s the scope of what we’re talking about.
Understand that one of the cardinal effects of opioids is suppression of breathing. During the so-called COVID pandemic, you’ve heard this referred to as “hypoxia.”
Yes, hypoxia is listed as a COVID symptom. It has a number of causes that have nothing to do with a virus. But of course, in the rush to diagnose as many people as possible with COVID—and with a PCR test that spits out false-positives like water from a fire hose—opioid users suffering from hypoxia are labeled “victims of the coronavirus.”
Drugabuse.com: “…opiate [opioid] drugs also slow your breathing…and in case of an overdose, your breathing is slowed to a virtually non-existent and lethal level.”
“The opioids depress your breathing, bring on heavy sedation and make it impossible to wake up.”
For many months in 2020, New York was touted as the global “epicenter of the pandemic.”
Patients in New York mystified ER doctors because they showed up with hypoxia.
2018 estimate of deaths from opioid overdoses in New York: 3000. Many more people in the New York area are addicted to these drugs. In New York State, in 2017, the number of people discharged from hospitals, after treatment for opioid overdose or dependency: 25,000.
In 2020-21, people who have developed opioid hypoxia have been misdiagnosed with “COVID-19 lung problems.” A large number of these people are sedated further, in order to be put on ventilators—ignoring the need to deal with their overdose, their addiction, their withdrawal—and they die.
Backing up a few steps from all this, you can see how a diagnosis of COVID functions as a cover story, to conceal the destruction-and-death-toll resulting from opioids.
How convenient that the whole COVID fairy tale was launched in Wuhan, the city that is the number-one source for global opioid trafficking. The fairy tale obscured the real Wuhan story.
City-journal.org, May 12, 2020, “Wuhan’s other epidemic,” Christopher F. Rufo: “…many don’t know that Wuhan is also the source of another deadly epidemic: America’s fentanyl overdoses… Over the past decade, Wuhan has emerged as the global headquarters for fentanyl production. The city’s chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturers hide production of the drug within their larger, licit manufacturing operations, then ship it abroad using deliberately mislabeled packaging, concealment techniques, and a complex network of forwarding addresses. According to a recent ABC News report, ‘huge amounts of these mail-order [fentanyl] components can be traced to a single, state-subsidized company [Yuancheng] in Wuhan.’”
And history matters:
Do you think the current Chinese political leadership has forgotten the two notorious 19th-century Opium Wars China lost? (Opium is the original natural opioid.)
In the 19th century, selling opium to China was very big business for England. Of course, addictive opium was devastating to China, who tried to stop the trade. Two Opium Wars against China (1839-42 and 1856-60) resulted. The Encyclopedia Britannica states:
“In each case the foreign powers were victorious and gained commercial privileges and legal and territorial concessions in China [including the uninterrupted sale of opium]. The conflicts marked the start of the era of unequal treaties and other inroads on Qing sovereignty that helped weaken and ultimately topple the dynasty [which had ruled since 1644]…”
It would be hard to overstate the lasting fury and resentment of Chinese rulers against the foreign powers who defeated and humiliated them in the Opium Wars.
The UK Daily Mail [2017]: “[a new drug coming into the UK is] not just heroin. It had been mixed with two lethal man-made opioids – fentanyl, a painkiller 100 times more potent than morphine; and carfentanyl, an elephant tranquilliser 10,000 times stronger than street heroin.”
“Now the drugs have arrived in Britain – and a spate of sudden deaths in Hull, the worst incident in the UK so far, shows their devastating impact. Just a few grains of carfentanyl – 0.00002g – can be fatal.”
“These lethal drugs have begun cropping up across the country – first found in Blyth, Northumberland, then suspected in deaths and drug busts from Leeds to London, St Albans to Southampton, Wakefield to Winchester, and Wales to Northern Ireland.” [In 2021, the UK government states that opioid addiction and death aren’t overwhelming concerns. I find it hard to believe these assurances.]
FOX Business, March 31, 2017. Headline: “DEA: Made in China Lethal Opioid Fueling US Drug Epidemic.”
“A homemade designer version of fentanyl, the highly addictive opioid which is similar to morphine but is 50 to 100 times more potent, has been the center of drug busts across the country this month—with law enforcement pinpointing its origin from underground labs in China. The DEA says the China-U.S. supply is further fueling the country’s drug epidemic.”
“’This [Chinese] stuff is unbelievably potent. It is so powerful that even a tiny amount can kill you,’ DEA spokesman Rusty Payne tells FOX Business. ‘China is by far the most significant manufacturer of illicit designer synthetic drugs. There is so much manufacturing of new drugs, [it’s] amazing what is coming out of China. Hundreds of [versions], including synthetic fentanyl and fentanyl-based compounds’.”
“China only made the drug [fentanyl] illegal in 2015, and at that point black market Chinese labs began increasing production of their own versions, including the one turning up recently across the country [the US] called furanyl fentanyl.”
“’While heroin gets harder to buy on the street or from a dealer, fentanyl comes via FedEx,’ Brad Lamm, CEO of Intervention.com, tells FOX Business.”
“Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez announced this week details on a mail-order furanyl fentanyl smuggling ring bust. The operation had been bringing the drug — which has been dubbed ‘White China’ — into the U.S from Asia. NYPD Chief of Detective Bob Boyce said that this was the first time investigators have seen this type of fentanyl in New York City.”
“Also this week, Cincinnati Customs and Border Protection agents said they seized 83 shipments of illegal synthetic drugs, including 36 pounds of furanyl fentanyl, from China.”
The Boston Globe [2017]: “An extremely powerful drug used as an elephant tranquilizer has quickly become a new killer in the nation’s opioid epidemic, and New England authorities and health workers are bracing for its arrival.”
“The drug, carfentanil, is a synthetic opioid that is 10,000 times stronger than morphine and 100 times more potent than fentanyl, another deadly synthetic opioid.”
“The Drug Enforcement Administration has issued a nationwide alert about the drug, which its acting chief called ‘crazy dangerous.’ In Massachusetts, State Police have warned their crime lab staff about how to handle carfentanil during analysis. Even inhaling the drug or absorbing it through a cut can be fatal.”
“Law enforcement and health officials believe most users do not know they are ingesting carfentanil, which apparently is often mistakenly thought to be heroin or a mixture of heroin and fentanyl, a weaker but still lethal synthetic opioid.”
“If carfentanil’s trade route is similar to that of fentanyl, the path stretches from Chinese manufacturers to Mexican processors to smugglers who supply dealers in the United States, law enforcement officials said.”
“’There’s no quality control, so when it gets here the distributors don’t know what they have and the user has no idea,’ said Timothy Desmond, a special agent with the New England division of the DEA. ‘That’s where it’s a game of Russian roulette’.”
“Hamilton County officials are baffled by the marketing strategy behind such a lethal drug. ‘It doesn’t really make sense that you would want to kill your customers’,” Fallon said.
“Law enforcement officials also are concerned that carfentanil will harm first responders. The DEA has warned police not to conduct field tests on seized drugs that might contain carfentanil. Instead, the agency urged officers to secure their samples and deliver them only to colleagues with training and equipment to handle the drug.”
In 2020-21, the opioid catastrophe continues.
And its number-one trafficking source, Wuhan, is famous only for birthing a pandemic that doesn’t exist because the virus causing it has never been proven to exist.
A group of 117 Houston-area hospital employees on Friday filed a civil lawsuit against an employer hospital’s coronavirus vaccine mandate. The lawsuit alleges that the mandate violates both the Nuremberg Code and U.S. statutes that allow Americans to refuse “unapproved” medical treatments. It also alleges violations of Texas labor and employment laws.
That “people” are “trying to force you to put something into your body that you’re not comfortable with to keep your job is just insane,” lead plaintiff Jennifer Bridgestold Houston CBS affiliate KHOU.
The defendants are The Methodist Hospital, the Methodist Hospital System, and Houston Methodist The Woodlands Hospital. The people in charge of those entities responded to the litigation by saying the plaintiffs are but a small minority of voices among 26,000 employees and that it is “legal for health care institutions to mandate vaccines.”
The Lawsuit.
The sharply worded 56-page complaint argues that the COVID-19 vaccines currently on the market were authorized merely as “emergency” measures and, thus, are not fully “approved” vaccines.
At the top of the document are words attributed to David Bernard, the CEO of Houston Methodist San Jacinto Hospital: “100% vaccination is more important than your individual freedom. Everyone [sic] of you is replaceable. If you don’t like what your [sic] doing you can leave and we will replace your spot.”
Those alleged words did not sit well with the plaintiffs.
“For the first time in the history of the United States, an employer is forcing an employee to participate in an experimental vaccine trial as a condition for continued employment,” the lawsuit argues.
The document continues by alleging that the defendant hospital “became the first major health care system in the country to force it [sic] employees to be injected with an experimental COVID-19 mRNA gene modification injection (‘experimental vaccine’) or be fired.”
“Methodist Hospital is forcing its employees to be human ‘guinea pigs’ as a condition for continued employment,” the lawsuit’s opening paragraph also says.
The Washington Post on May 14 reported that the coronavirus vaccines available in the U.S. are no longer considered “experimental” because they have “completed clinical trials and have been authorized for emergency use.” The same report quotes a bevy of experts who asserted that the current vaccines are safe while noting that millions of Americans have been vaccinated without serious harm.
Still, the plaintiff employees remain skeptical.
“[T]here is much the FDA does not know about these products even as it authorizes them for emergency use, including their effectiveness against infection, death, and transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that is allegedly the cause of the COVID disease,” the lawsuit claims.
“Federal EEO laws do not prevent an employer from requiring all employees physically entering the workplace to be vaccinated for COVID-19, so long as employers comply with the reasonable accommodation provisions of the ADA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other EEO considerations,” the new EEOC technical assistance document reads.
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, Brighteon, and Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
“What we are facing is calculated. And it’s a mistake to call it madness because it’s very precise, it’s very calculated. And we need to understand that in order to be able to deal with what we’re facing.”
Reiner Fuellmich:
“That’s very interesting to hear because we have come to the conclusion that the other side, as we call them, is using two major tools. One is, of course, psychology — psychological operations. And of course the other, which transports this psychological operation, is the mainstream media.”
This interview is an excerpt from a series of interviews: Sitzung 54: Zwischen Nudging und Nebenwirkungen which can be found on youtube.
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, Brighteon, and Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Topics include:
The global manipulation of humanity during this planned “pandemic”
Mind control via psychological operations including Neuro-linguistic Programming (NLP)
This article takes off from the work of investigative reporter, Whitney Webb. Much of what I’m laying out here confirms her exposure of “the other Wuhan.” Webb writes at Unlimited Hangout and The Last American Vagabond.
When I put together Webb’s findings with my own COVID research, startling new dimensions of the false “pandemic” story come to light.
Who would have thought that, in less than a year, the image of the opioid drug, fentanyl, would undergo a face lift, enhancing it from “most destructive killer drug in the world” to “lifesaver in the treatment of COVID patients?”
And if this PR miracle is not a sufficient stunner, it just so happens that Opioid Central for illegally trafficking fentanyl to the planet is Wuhan, now the focus of claims that COVID was born in a lab there.
(Fake) pandemic transforms fentanyl into “vital COVID medication.”
(Fake) pandemic starts in Wuhan.
Wuhan is the city where killer drug fentanyl is shipped out to dealers all over the world.
High-level operators, focusing on Wuhan, manage to obscure, from the broad public, the city’s global role in killing millions of people with opioids…by claiming a pandemic was born in Wuhan. “The ONLY thing you have to know about Wuhan is the virus broke out there.”
This has the earmarks of a highly successful cover story.
Here’s a prime illustration of fentanyl’s PR facelift:
NJ [New Jersey] Spotlight News, April 14, 2020, “No Longer a Scourge, Fentanyl Is Now Most-Needed Drug in COVID-19 War.”
“…fentanyl, one of the drugs given to patients so they can withstand the pain of having a breathing tube inserted, is in short supply along with a handful of other crucial drugs.”
“The first wave of critical shortages exposed by the coronavirus was medical masks and gowns. Then it was ventilators. Now, a handful of crucial drugs are in short supply in overrun ICUs throughout northern New Jersey and New York City, many of which are needed to use the ventilators.”
“At the top of the list is fentanyl, the deadly synthetic painkiller — 100 times more powerful than morphine — the very drug that has become public enemy No. 1 in the nation’s war on opioid addiction. Demand for fentanyl has doubled nationwide and shot up more than 500% in the New York/New Jersey metropolitan region, the current global epicenter of the pandemic.”
“Fentanyl may have been killing people in record numbers on the streets of New Jersey in recent years, but in our hospitals, it is now saving lives.”
“Demand for fentanyl is followed by Propofol, a sedative also used with ventilators, according to Soumi Saha, Premier’s senior director of advocacy…Close behind those two is a new category of drugs to face shortages — neuromuscular blockers, which are also being used for ventilator patients because they keep them from involuntarily coughing on the healthcare worker inserting the vent tube.”
“During normal times, patients stay on ventilators for three or four days. Now, not only has the number of ventilated patients spiked, but the time they remain on the device is two to three weeks.”
I gave you an extended quote from that New Jersey article, because I’ll cover the real story behind ventilators later in this piece.
Right now, here are a few references pointing to Wuhan as Opioid Central.
City-journal.org, May 12, 2020, “Wuhan’s other epidemic,” Christopher F. Rufo: “…many don’t know that Wuhan is also the source of another deadly epidemic: America’s fentanyl overdoses… Over the past decade, Wuhan has emerged as the global headquarters for fentanyl production. The city’s chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturers hide production of the drug within their larger, licit manufacturing operations, then ship it abroad using deliberately mislabeled packaging, concealment techniques, and a complex network of forwarding addresses. According to a recent ABC News report, ‘huge amounts of these mail-order [fentanyl] components can be traced to a single, state-subsidized company in Wuhan.’”
The Atlantic, August 18, 2019, “The Brazen Way a Chinese Company Pumped Fentanyl Ingredients Into the US,” by Ben Westhoff: “According to Bryce Pardo, a fentanyl expert at the Rand Corporation, the two most commonly used fentanyl precursors—think of them as ingredients—are chemicals called NPP and 4-ANPP. When I first started researching them, in early 2017, advertisements for the chemicals were all over the internet, from a wide variety of different companies. Later, I determined that the majority of those companies were under the Yuancheng [company] umbrella.”
“Posing as a buyer, I answered an online advertisement for fentanyl precursors and was put in touch with a Yuancheng salesman who called himself Sean. We arranged to meet at the company’s main office in Wuhan, in the Wuchang district, near a busy subway station in a blue-collar neighborhood…”
LA Times, April 24, 2020: “For drug traffickers interested in getting in on the fentanyl business, all roads once led to Wuhan.”
“The sprawling industrial city built along the Yangtze River in east-central China is known for its production of chemicals, including the ingredients needed to cook fentanyl and other powerful synthetic opioids.”
“Vendors there shipped huge quantities around the world. The biggest customers were Mexican drug cartels, which have embraced fentanyl in recent years because it is cheaper and easier to produce than heroin.”
The Times article cites the pandemic as the reason for a decline in the fentanyl business. But lockdowns increased people’s desires for drugs. And of course, since economies have started loosening up, fentanyl trafficking operations are certainly booming again.
The highly successful cover story I described above…were there reasons for this cover, other than an attempt to conceal, from the broad public, Wuhan as the global center of opioid trafficking?
I can think of two other reasons. The first one I would introduce this way: “We’re killing people in the streets with fentanyl, but that’s not enough. We want to kill them in the hospitals, too.”
Heavy hitters, intent on getting rid of the elderly on a wide scale, saw an opportunity. And now we come to the ventilator story.
There is no doubt that, globally speaking, there has been a mad and destructive rush to put people diagnosed with COVID on breathing ventilators.
To deploy these devices in hospitals requires intubation, which is painful and very disruptive. Patients must be sedated. They must be kept sedated, while they’re hooked up to the breathing machines— for days and weeks.
Enter fentanyl and other opioids.
Since the whole story of the COVID virus was a fake from the get-go, some group would have to bear the burden of dying, in order to inflate death numbers; in order to make it appear that the “pandemic” was a fire sweeping through the world.
The group was and is the elderly, and in a series of articles on this gruesome subject a year ago, I left no doubt about the truth staring us in the face. (Note: CDC, May 14, 2021: “8 out 10 COVID-19 deaths reported in the US have been in adults 65 years old and older.”)
COVID is old people. Their premature deaths are forced. Their statistical numbers are gold for the planners of the operation. And this has nothing to do with a virus.
The Hill, (undated, late April 2020), reports on “data…gathered at Northwell Health, New York state’s largest hospital system. The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) examines 5,700 patients hospitalized with coronavirus infections in the New York City region, with final outcomes recorded for 2,634 patients. The average patient age was 63 years old… For the next oldest age group, ages 66 years and older, patients receiving mechanical [breathing] ventilation recorded a 97.2 percent mortality rate.”
97.2 percent of elderly patients put on breathing ventilators died.
Just in case other obvious strategies failed to produce premature death in the elderly, ventilators provided the method:
VENTILATORS PLUS SEDATION WITH OPIOIDS.
THE OPIOIDS CAUSE SUPPRESSION OF BREATHING AND DEATH.
OF COURSE, THAT SUPPRESSION OF BREATHING (“HYPOXIA”) IS CALLED A CARDINAL SYMPTOM OF COVID.
Don’t even think of saying, “Well, you see, those old people put on ventilators were already very sick and close to dying.” NO medical treatment that kills 97.2 percent of patients in a well-defined group is continued, unless there are orders mandating it. Unless there is insurance money to be saved. Unless the doctors are willing to follow orders and keep using the treatment, despite the results.
So yes, opioids were transformed, by a cover story, from a killer street drug to a “lifesaving treatment” for COVID—but at the deepest level, that meant murdering the elderly with the drugs.
The second reason for the cover story would have involved moving up the time table for launching the fake pandemic story in Wuhan.
Was there some sort of accident, in which the people of Wuhan were exposed to fentanyl, with deadly consequences? Desperately needing a phony cover-up explanation—was “THE VIRUS” story invoked?
I can only speculate about that possibility. However, China is famous for loose enforcement of safety regulations in factories, and it’s possible that some sort of accident occurred, which blew fentanyl or its components through the city of Wuhan, killing people on the spot.
There are analogous recent incidents in China.
The Wikipedia page for the 2019 Xiangshui chemical plant explosion, which killed 78 people and injured 617, mentions other events as well:
“On 27 November 2007, an explosion occurred in one of the chemical factories in Chenjiagang Chemical Zone, with seven killed and around 50 injured…In the early morning of 11 February 2011, rumors of toxic chemical release and potential imminent explosions in the Chenjiagang Chemical Industry Park led over ten thousand residents to evacuate in panic from the towns of Chenjiagang and Shuanggang during which four people died and many were injured. On the afternoon of May 18 and again on July 26 in 2011, there were explosions at local factories.”
As I keep reminding readers, the whole “pandemic” is a covert op. Such operations always deploy cover stories, in order to hide what is really being done, how it’s being done, and why.
Speaking of which, there are several major pharmaceutical companies who’ve faced heavy exposure for their roles in the opioid criminal trafficking business. For example, Purdue, and Johnson & Johnson. A third one is (Mossad-connected) Teva.
If you could offer Warren Buffet an ice cream cone with a truth-serum cherry on top, it would be interesting to ask him whether the PR campaign to push opioids as life-saving COVID treatments helped stabilize his 42,789,295 shares of beleaguered Teva, worth $412,916,000.
To connect one more dot (for now,) the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation holds 50 million shares, worth $11 billion, in Buffett’s company, Berkshire Hathaway. It is the Gates Foundation’s top investment.
The Conscious Resistance Network presents: The Pyramid of Power, a brand-new 16-part documentary series aimed at exposing the individuals and institutions which seek to manipulate our world.
Our first attempts to understand the influence of various institutions and individuals on our world, has focused on the education system, the establishment media, and Big Tech firms. Each of these pieces of the Pyramid of Power have an immense influence on the minds and decisions of people around the world. However, no other institution may have the impact of the U.S. Film Industry.
As we outlined in Chapter 2, the U.S. intelligence communities have largely infected and influenced mainstream establishment media since the 1950’s. This frightening trend continues with the relationship between the film industry and the U.S. military and Central Intelligence Agency.
In the early 20th century, film studios began centering their efforts around southern California in the area that would come to be known as Hollywood. From the outset, the U.S. Department of Defense and intelligence community developed an interest in using the film industry as a method for shaping public opinion. Some of the first collaborations between Hollywood and the U.S. military involved pro-World War 2 propaganda films like Winning Your Wings.
During WW2, the U.S. Office of War Information opened the Bureau of Motion Pictures to further their relationships with Hollywood. Between 1942 and 1945 this Bureau reviewed more than 1,600 scripts, and revised or abandoned projects that portrayed the U.S. government in a bad light.
According to Tanner Mirrlees, an associate professor of communication at Ontario Tech University, and author of Hearts and Mines: The U.S. Empire’s Culture Industry, the former head of the Office of War Information, Elmer Davis stated,
“The easiest way to inject a propaganda idea into most people’s minds is to let it go through the medium of an entertainment picture when they do not realize they’re being propagandized.”
Other historic examples of propaganda in film include the John Wayne film The Green Berets. The film was made after Wayne personally requested U.S. President Lyndon Johnson help him make a propaganda film about the Vietnam war. The Pentagon not only provided access to equipment and military bases, but they also retained final script approval. Most disturbing is the fact that the film depicted the North Vietnamese committing violent atrocities which in reality were committed by American soldiers. This is yet another example of the U.S. government and Hollywood shaping reality for the ignorant mass consumer.
The U.S. military is not the only government agency to develop a close relationship with Hollywood. From its founding in 1947, the U.S. CIA was involved in shaping the direction of films in a way that portrayed the agency in a positive manner or sought to remove negative associations. The CIA’s predecessor, the Office of Strategic Services, or OSS, had already developed a knack for Hollywood films that glorified the work of the agency with films like O.S.S. and Cloak and Dagger.
After WW2, the Department of Defense developed the first “Entertainment Liaison Offices” to act as conduits for U.S. government messaging to Hollywood studios. The CIA did not publicly establish a similar office until 1996. Much of the partnership between Hollywood and the government centered around authorizing the use of military locations and access to equipment, in exchange for giving the government some level of control over the final scripts.
Researcher Tom Secker uncovered a 1958 memo on “Films for Counterintelligence Training” involving screenings of the films, The Man Who Never Was and Walk East on Beacon. The memo makes it clear that some of the Hollywood films were being used to train new recruits.
Secker has also helped reveal other astounding connections between the entertainment industry and the intelligence community. In 1996, a CIA officer named Chase Brandon was hired to work directly with Hollywood studios to rehabilitate the agencies image. Chase Brandon is also the first cousin of actor Tommy Lee Jones.
“We’ve always been portrayed erroneously as evil and Machiavellian,” Brandon told The Guardian. “It took us a long time to support projects that portray us in the light we want to be seen in.”
Some of Chase Brandon’s work involves well known films like the 2002 Tom Clancy political thriller The Sum of All Fears starring Ben Affleck. The CIA gave Affleck and the film makers a personal tour of CIA headquarters and provided access to analysts. Chase Brandon visited the set to provide advice. He was also a regular on the set of tv show Alias, starring Affleck’s then-wife Jennifer Garner as Sydney Bristow, an undercover CIA agent. Garner would go on to film a promotional video for the CIA.
In 2017, Tom Secker and Matthew Alford, professor at University of Bath, released their book National Security Cinema providing conclusive evidence of the massive influence the U.S. intelligence and military have exerted on Hollywood. The book is based on files obtained via open records requests which detail how the Department of Defense offered support to more than 800 films between 1911 and 2017.
These films include some of the biggest pictures of their time: Transformers, Iron Man, Pirates of the Caribbean, Mission: Impossible, and The Terminator. The research of Alford and Secker shows that 7 of the top 10 highest-grossing film franchises of all time have benefited from Department of Defense and CIA support, including the Marvel Cinematic Universe, James Bond and The Fast and the Furious.
When it comes to the Transformers franchise, the DOD paid the filmmakers to gain “very early influence over the scripts” by giving them the most military assistance in filmmaking history, including “twelve types of Air Force aircraft and troops from four different bases.”
National Security Cinema also details how more than 1,100 tv productions received backing from the Pentagon. The vast majority of these took place after 9/11, including Flight 93, Ice Road Truckers, Army Wives, 24, Homeland, and The Agency. The CIA has helped with around 60 film and TV productions since 1947.
In 2017, Matthew Alford concluded:
“When we include individual episodes for long running shows like 24, Homeland, and NCIS, as well as the influence of other major organisations like the FBI and White House, we can establish unequivocally for the first time that the national security state has supported thousands of hours of entertainment,”
The practice of military or intelligence advisors on Hollywood films is more common than the average consumer of film might realize. In fact, even famed CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou made a living on the side by advising Hollywood. Kiriakou served on a board made up of former C.I.A. officers, diplomats, and F.B.I. agents, who reviewed scripts about spies or terrorism to make them more realistic.
However, the relationship is not simply about advising film makers about how to paint the U.S. government in a favorable light. At the heart of it, the relationship helps reinforce so-called “national security” interests, as well as shape public opinion on historical events.
According to the documents, the U.S. government has influenced movies in three distinct eras: 1943-1965, 1966-1986 and 1986 to the present. In the first era, films versions of George Orwell’s Animal Farm and 1984 were directly affected by the CIA. During this period, a man named Luigi Luraschi was the head of censorship at Paramount Studios where he was in regular contact with an anonymous individual at the CIA.
The purpose of the contact was to inform the CIA of the studios’ ability and desire to change movies to meet U.S. government expectations. For example, a 1955 film, Strategic Air Command, was changed so Americans did not appear as “a lot of trigger-happy warmongering people.”
In 1986, Top Gun started the modern era of military and intelligence influence in Hollywood films. The film served as a successful promotional film for the US Navy with enlistment for naval aviators jumping 500 percent. The authors of National Security Cinema believe this success caused the CIA to update its strategy for influencing the public via films.
A list of films which received advice and/or support – as well as script changes – includes:
The Bourne Identity (2002)
The Sum of All Fears (2002)
The Recruit (2003)
Avatar (2009)
Charlie Wilson’s War (2007)
Contact (1997)
Hotel Rwanda (2004)
The Interview (2014)
The Kingdom (2007)
Lone Survivor (2013)
Rules of Engagement (2000)
In 2016, professor Tricia Jenkins published leaked private memos as part of her book The CIA in Hollywood: How the Agency Shapes Film and Television. These memos and other memos show that, among others, the Osama bin Laden assassination movie Zero Dark Thirty and the film Argo, were heavily influenced by government officials to make the government look impressive or to downplay their mistakes.
As part of the arrangement with the makers of Argo, Ben Affleck was allowed to visit CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. Other actors who have visited spy HQ include Robert De Niro, Tom Cruise, Dan Aykroyd, Dean Cain, Will Smith, Claire Danes, Kevin Bacon, Patrick Stewart and Mike Myers.
The most recent example of the U.S. military seeking to influence the public’s perception via films came in early 2021 when it was revealed that the U.S. Marine Corps played an integral role in the development of James Cameron’s Avatar. Nearly 1,700 pages of documents released by the Corps’ entertainment media liaison office show this relationship in action. An April 2009 report details how Hollywood liaison officers “met with director/writer James Cameron”.
Avatar was interpreted by some critics as an anti-war film, using the alien planet as a metaphor for the U.S. military’s treatment of indigenous Americans or Iraqis. However, the documents reveal that the military viewed the film as a propaganda success, including having entertainment liaison officers invited to speak on a military panel at Comic Con in 2011. The military liked the film so much they arranged screenings on military bases and had actors and producers participate in a Navy Entertainment Program visit.
Despite this wealth of information that is now available, the public is still largely in the dark about the true extent of military and intelligence involvement in the film industry. Matthew Alford has said the Marine Corps admitted there are 90 boxes of relevant material in its archive. “The government has seemed especially careful to avoid writing down details of actual changes made to scripts in the 21st century.”
What is important to take note of is the power of film and tv to shape public opinion. Researcher Tricia Jenkins notes that one of the reasons the CIA and military desire to be involved in major films like Zero Dark Thirty is because they recognize that the public will largely form their opinions of real world events based on the fictional Hollywood retelling.
In December 2019 former CIA officer turned Democrat Representative Elissa Slotkin was questioned about her favorite CIA films and she candidly acknowledged that CIA was “helping Hollywood” understand the truth about the CIA.
“Some movies are just total craziness and don’t represent reality at all. Actually, the CIA has a whole office that will help Hollywood understand how to portray what really goes on.”
Sometimes script changes requested by the government can be subtle, like when Tricia Jenkins says the US government requested the script for the 1996 blockbuster Independence Day be changed so that the protagonists worked for the military rather than as civilians. The change is slight, but the message being delivered to the public is powerful: the military, the U.S. government – they are the heroes. They are to be trusted and idolized. These films can reinforce the narrative that the U.S. government and its various agencies are the authorities that care about us and can do no wrong.
If the public continues to consume television and film without understanding the U.S. military and spy agencies played a role in the finished product they will continue to be influenced and miseducated under the guise of watching harmless entertainment.
Solutions: Unplug from the Hollywood-Military-Intelligence-Complex
The solutions to the Hollywood-Military-Intelligence-Complex are simple. The easiest solution for those who seek to cleanse their minds of potential propaganda from the U.S. military, intelligence agencies and other pieces of the Pyramid of Power is to simply unplug. Unplug from Hollywood-Military-Intelligence-Complex by refusing to consume their propaganda. This might be extreme for some people, but for others, it will be the appropriate solution.
At the very least, take time to become the one in control of your heart and mind. To do this you must begin to question your assumptions and knowledge. Stop to ask yourself how much of your worldview has been consciously or subconsciously shaped by what you have witnessed on television and in movies since you were a child. The more you dig and probe, you might come to realize that Hollywood has been shaping our thoughts since most of us were children and watched our first Disney movie.
For example, maybe your perspective on how a mother and father are supposed to interact was heavily influenced by the sitcoms you watched as a child. Or perhaps, your view on how a couple are supposed to act when they fall in love, or what clothes and styles and music are popular – were all shaped by the images flashed before your eyes on the small and big screens.
The point is, the more in tune you are with your own preferences and thoughts, the more you can consume this content with a skeptical eye. This doesn’t mean you can never enjoy a movie or tv show again, but it does mean you are better served by watching with discernment rather than blindly soaking it up.If we aim to be free from propaganda aimed at feeding us a biased version of history, culture, or simply selling us a product, we must take steps to reclaim our hearts and minds. By making this effort we can be free from the Hollywood propaganda, the Big Tech censorship, the establishment media, and the state run education system.
“Until we understand the real agenda here — which is to control humanity at the
genetic level — I don’t think we’ll be able to get a grasp at what’s going on.” ~ James Corbett
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light 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.]
Topics discussed include:
The Great Reset
The history of eugenics in its many forms
The biosecurity state
Technocratic control of humanity
Unfolding global lawsuits
Global efforts to raise awareness and to create the society we want
Link to James Corbett’s documentaries including How Big Oil Conquered the World: https://www.corbettreport.com/corbett-report-documentaries/
Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act that may operate in violation of law. Appearances can be deceiving.
In his book, The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America, author Richard Rothstein, a leading expert on housing policy, describes the myth that cities came to be racially divided through de-facto segregation, that is, through individual prejudices, income differences, or the actions of banks and real estate agencies.
Rothstein makes clear that it was laws and policy decisions by local, state, and federal governments that directly promoted the discriminatory patterns. From racial zoning in the 1920s to urban planning of the 1950s, to federal subsidies to builders not to build homes for Blacks, it was plain, open discrimination, sanctioned by government, that violated laws that continue unabated today.
The color of law is a cover of law.
Color of Law = Unlawful Mandates
Color of Law operates today by unlawful mandates and Emergency Orders, which serve one purpose: to allow one group of people to abolish your inherent rights. Remember, no one has more rights than anyone else.
No school, no store, no bank, no library, and no governor can make any order or policy that violates your rights under Natural law. Natural laws are determined by fundamental forces within Nature. Natural law supersedes all other laws, including man’s laws. The Constitution is codified based on the Universal law that no man has the right to rule over another man, which will always be the truth from the day of birth to the day of death. Natural Law is based in two principles: Truth and Do no harm.
Natural Law is based in principles of truth about the reality we live in. Principles are first and foremost, at the root, the most necessary and important, a foundation to build upon. The word “principle” expresses Natural Moral Law in the very way we use the word itself, such as “in principle” and “on principle”. Natural Law is an essential property of existence; it is born into being and is forever there in our reality without human causality. Our goal is to put these principle first-things first in our lives, to recognize and align with them because they are based in truth, not belief. Man’s society is not putting original, generative, beginning, foundational principles first, but trivialities, lies, and deception. Therefore, Natural Law is not man’s law.
What you need to know in 8 easy steps:
Your rights and freedoms are inherent or inborn, a birthright, granted by your Creator.
Government institutions do not grant rights. Institutions are established to protect your inherent rights.
Governments can only grant benefits and privileges, which comes with limits and consequences.
Governments cannot mandate anything under coercion or duress, such as, “Do this or else.”
Governments cannot use fear or safety as reasons to take peoples’ rights.
Therefore, a “mask policy” set up under government powers is a crime under the color of law that violates your rights and the principles of Natural Law.
Defending your rights and freedoms is a personal responsibility, ie., an ability to respond (appropriately, reasonably, morally).
Being accountable is the ability to account for your response.
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
If you understand that a government cannot abolish rights which it has no ability to grant in the first place, then you are armed with enough knowledge to begin the process of calling out the facade when you see it practiced. Each success brings confidence for future successes. Humanity, as a whole, moves from oppression to expression, from tyranny to freedom.
Christopher Key, a man who had enough of unlawful dictates, stood up to the Jefferson County School Board in Alabama, and called them out.
Pro Se litigant Luis Ewing shares information on maintaining your rights of public accommodation (without masks and medicines) based on religious discrimination, and violations of the state and federal constitutions under the 1964 Civil Rights Act pursuant to Title 42 Section 1983.
Texan, Randall Kenton sued the Texas Governor by name, in court, causing the governor to rescind the State mask mandate, allowing all bars and restaurants to reopen at full capacity. Twenty state governors followed suit, lifting their own mandates out of fear they would lose their insurance for fraud. See the complaint filed that could be used as a template anywhere. Health officials continued to recommend wearing a mask based on “personal responsibility” but no law: another example of Color of Law.
These people do not win by a belief. They win by a knowing. They know who they are. By holding their positions and protecting their rights, not only are they showing personal responsibility, but they are an example for others.
Cancel The Master-Slave Paradigm
What Christopher Key and others are showing is that when you reveal that a FRAUD has been perpetrated, and you follow it up by naming names, the perpetrators stand down. Behind all corporations are names of men and women. In general, suing corporate entities does nothing for the greater good, and never has. Corrupt companies, such as Pfizer, may be found criminally liable and fined in court over and over, but they continue to operate and to cause harm. However, going after individuals by name affects their pocketbooks.
No individual governor or prosecutor or judge or school board member wants their insurance rates to go up or to be dropped by insurers. Push just a little and the game has suddenly changed in the peoples’ favor.
Illegal, unlawful, and immoral acts are not only reprehensible but are also a violation of your Natural rights, as expressed in the American Declaration of Independence, and as reflected in the national and state constitutions. If you are the subject of intimidation or coercion by agencies or governments or schools or employers, forcing a medical experiment upon you as a condition to participate in society, your rights have been trampled.
Why do the majority of people become subservient to lawless authorities without any evidence of a clear and present danger? Why do people refuse to stand up for their rights and freedoms? Why do people believe they do not have a choice when it comes to forced muzzles or forced medicines when they do?
Because the majority of people have been indoctrinated through the 15,000-hour public school system and programmed by the Tel-A-Vision to not think for themselves. They have been conditioned to accept government handouts that create co-dependence. They have been dumbed down and emasculated to accept a master outside themselves.
What if accepting stimulus handouts increased the federal debt to bankrupt a nation, which amounted to a federal crime? What if knowing that a national bankruptcy could be the excuse used to reset the debt credit currency system to a Crypto credit system with your body as collateral?
What if this whole scenario already happened during the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic where masking was found to be the cause of secondary pneumonia and an invisible virus became the tool to rest society? The Great Depression followed the Spanish flu and a new system was established to enslave people using the birth certificate and social security system. From the Great Depression to the Great Reset, an invisible virus that never existed was blamed. Government promised people benefits and privileges in exchange for their rights. For more details, read Recycling the Spanish Flu Pandemic.
No government. No business, no medical professional, no school, and no employer can require or mandate ANY medical treatment or intervention, including injections or face coverings that block your ability to breathe freely. To require any injection as a condition to participate in society is unlawful coercion according to state law.
Use State Law In Your Favor
You can use state law in your favor. In California, Peggy Hall of thehealthyamerican.org teaches people how to protect their rights using the State Constitution and business codes. She provides documents on her website that you can print and carry with you, such as the right to public accommodation, as well as tools against discrimination. According to California Law:
24170: This is the Protection of Human Subjects in Medical Experimentation Act 24171: The Legislature hereby finds and declares … the right of individuals to determine what is done to their own bodies.
24172 This is the “experimental subject’s bill of rights,” and states that individuals…
(j) Be given the opportunity to decide to consent or not to consent to a medical experiment without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or undue influence on the subject’s decision.
Sec. 16. FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE; NO PREFERENCE TO BE GIVEN TO ANY RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENT OR MODE OF WORSHIP. The enumeration of rights in this constitution shall not deny or impair others retained by and inherent in the people. The right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any man be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any religious or ecclesiastical ministry, against his consent; nor shall any control of or interference with the rights of conscience be permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the state, nor shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious societies or religious or theological seminaries.
Shakespeare wrote, All the world is a stage. This is why appearances can be deceiving. In this world of appearances, you can separate yourself from the crowd. Do you beg for rights from government? Do you know who you are? Do you know where you live?
You live in your body. Therefore, you have inherent rights. Your rights include the right to say NO to deception. You can say NO CONTRACT. I DO NOT CONSENT to any offer, contract, testing, treatment, intervention, or injection. Ask them to show you the laws. Man’s laws compel artificial or legal PERSONS, but do not compel you. Know the difference. And think twice before signing your name.
You are not subject to masters unless you are a subject. You are not a slave unless you accept a master outside yourself. You have the power to shift the direction and devolution of humanity by taking responsibility for your actions.
Simple know who you are.
The Liberty of man consists solely in this, that he obeys the Laws of Nature, because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been imposed upon him externally by any foreign will whatsoever. – Mikhail Bakunin
What I’m about to lay out might seem “too staggering to believe.”
Fortunately, what people do or don’t believe isn’t the issue.
And with that, here we go. Buckle up.
For the past year, I’ve been presenting evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn’t exist. It’s never been proven to exist.
Those who claim it does exist have two legs to try to stand on. One: the virus has been isolated (discovered). And two: its genetic sequence has been found.
However, the mainstream scientific definition of “isolated” turns out to mean: “We have the virus in a soup in a dish in a lab. The soup contains all sorts of material. We never extracted the virus from the soup.” In other words, “isolated” means its opposite.
In the soup, in addition to the purported virus, there are human and monkey cells, toxic drugs, chemicals, and other genetic material. When the cells begin to die, researchers assert (with no proof) that the cause of cell-death must be the virus.
Therefore, the virus IS in the soup, and it is deadly.
However, the drugs and chemicals could be killing the cells, and the cells are being starved of nutrients, so that could certainly account for their death.
Bottom line: There is no proof of isolation. It isn’t even close. There is no evidence that the purported virus is in the soup.
I’ve published a typical account of virus-isolation from a study, and Dr. Andrew Kaufman did a step-by step analysis of this process and tore it to pieces. I published his analysis. Dr. Kaufman showed there was no merit to the claim that SARS-CoV-2 had been isolated.
What about the genetic sequencing of the virus? You can’t sequence something you haven’t isolated (discovered). To claim you have sequenced it would be like saying, “We have a generic fragment of iron dust, and we know it comes from a 1932 Ford Moon Rover fender.” There was never a 1932 Ford Moon Rover.
Researchers presume, assume, guess, pretend that “SARS-CoV-2” WOULD HAVE certain pieces of genetic material, and referring to libraries which contain data about such material, they use a computer program to cobble together pieces of data and present a genetic portrait of “SARS-CoV-2.”
If we were discussing a science fiction novel about a virus, we might say, “That’s an interesting genetic sequence. An interesting castle in the air.”
Now—to bridge over from this part of the article to the Wuhan lab, gain of function research, tweaking a coronavirus to produce a dangerous entity, we need to know one thing:
Mainstream researchers—virologists, molecular biologists—BELIEVE they are working with a real virus. Most of them certainly believe this. They are married to their fallacious and fantastical processes of proving a given virus exists.
And because they believe, so do politicians and public health officials and military leaders.
Therefore, we could certainly say, if the evidence is convincing, that there has been an effort to ramp up the function of a coronavirus in Wuhan.
But EFFORT and TRYING have nothing to do with the truth.
Based on unproven and untenable beliefs, people have TRIED TO DO all sorts of things. And some of those people have CLAIMED that they SUCCEEDED.
Therefore, it’s really quite easy to see how a) the virus has never been proven to exist and b) some researchers have been trying to ramp up the function of a fantasy they call a virus.
“But…but if the virus doesn’t exist, what are these researchers in their lab in Wuhan doing? What are they working with? What’s going on?”
Yes, I like that question. But you see, in the Church of the Virus, the inner sanctum, the holy of holies—THE HIGH-SECURITY LAB—is not open to you or me or anyone from the outside.
We (and dissenting scientists) can’t look over researchers’ shoulders. We can’t film every step they take. We can’t stop them at any point and make them explain what they’re actually doing. We can’t say, “You just fabricated a conclusion out of thin air, so justify it.” We can’t challenge their ironclad beliefs about the truth and validity of their procedures as they’re actually carrying out those procedural steps.
“What? You call that isolation? You didn’t isolate anything. You just stirred the soup in the dish. Explain yourself. And the gene you say you just tweaked? What gene? Let’s go back over that again. You just fiddled with DATA about a gene in a so-called virus. Makes no sense. Let’s review that move. Let’s break it down.”
No, we can’t do any of this.
Instead, we’re supposed to have faith in what these researchers have faith in.
If this amounts to science, Kool-Aid is the nectar of the gods.
“Excuse me, Doctor Towering-Arrogant, but you just plugged your latest ‘finding’ into a computer program, which is supposed to spit out the genetic sequence of the ‘new tweaked virus you just created’.”
“Yes? So?”
“First of all, you’re working with DATA here, not actual physical material. But we’ll put that aside for the moment. I want to know exactly what’s in this computer program. These five people standing with me here in the lab? They’re software pros. They have no allegiance to any government or funding entity. I want them to take the computer program apart and analyze it.”
“I’m not responsible for the program.”
“Who is?”
“Colleagues. I don’t know them personally.”
“Well, get them in here now. All research stops until we have them here in the lab. They’ll open the whole computer program to the light of day, explain it, and then I’ll have my people go through it with a fine-tooth comb.”
“That’s outrageous. Why?”
“To see if the program is credible, or just another fantasy constructed to give the false appearance that you’re actually sequencing something.”
We’re not permitted to do that, either.
We’re in Church. We must accept all the prescribed articles of faith.
For those people who not only claim SARS-CoV-2 was tweaked or invented in a Wuhan lab, but was made deadly there…they should consider the extraordinary lengths to which public health officials have gone to FALSELY pump up COVID case and death numbers.
None of that pumping would be necessary if an actual PANDEMIC virus existed and were loose in the world.
During the past year, I’ve covered all the criminal schemes to inflate case numbers. To cite just one scheme: Running the PCR test at an unconscionably high sensitivity has automatically created millions and millions of “positive COVID cases.” In concert with this fraud, the CDC has changed its definition of “a case,” so people who test positive but remain healthy with no symptoms can be counted as “COVID cases.”
Now, I’m going to present a Part Two to this article. It isn’t necessary, but some people are thinking: “If it isn’t the virus, why are so many people dying?” I’ve written perhaps a dozen pieces that answer this question. Here is a shortened version:
—The disease switcheroo; they don’t teach this in medical school.
I’ve mentioned this shell game hundreds of times in articles and lectures over the years. Here I want to boil it down to a protocol that has earned the medical cartel trillions of dollars.
We begin the story with an “outbreak.” Somewhere on Earth, we are told there is a cluster of unusual cases of illness.
The key word is “unusual.” Otherwise, who would care? People would instead say, “Forty people in Wuhan have lung congestion.” And that would spark no interest.
In Wuhan, it was “unusual pneumonia.” How so? No convincing answer. Some people have cited a “ground glass” appearance in pictures of patients’ lungs. Meaning gray areas, or opacity. Another claim: patients had extreme shortness of breath.
But opacity and shortness of breath were mentioned and described in medical literature long before COVID.
Something else must be offered, to justify the term “unusual cases.” And we get it almost immediately, while we’re still trying to figure out what makes these patients’ illness new and different:
It’s a virus. A never-before-seen virus.
Already a switcheroo is in progress. There is actually nothing unusual in the Wuhan cluster of cases. And just as we’re about to realize that, we’re hit with “new virus.” And then we forget there was no reason to look for a new virus in the first place.
Deadly air pollution has been hanging over Wuhan for a long time. It explains all sorts of lung infections, including pneumonia, the cardinal COVID symptom. And by the way, roughly 300,000 people in China die every year from pneumonia.
The “new virus” is trumpeted. But of course, as I’ve demonstrated many times, it hasn’t actually been found. No one isolated it. The so-called genetic sequencing of it was a fictional castle in the air based on supposition. How could it be otherwise? No one has an isolated and purified specimen of the virus that can be analyzed.
Accepting “new virus” as fact produces this situation: a list of very familiar clinical symptoms can now be called unique, because the cause is unique.
Suddenly, cough, chills, fever, fatigue, congestion, shortness of breath—which have been called flu, or just infection, or other names—are COVID. That’s the big switcheroo.
Next step: provide a diagnostic test for “the virus” that would automatically spit out false-positives like water from a firehouse. That’s the PCR. I’ve taken the PCR apart six ways from Sunday and exposed it as a fraud.
With the PCR in hand, the switcheroo is deepened. That list of familiar illness symptoms—taken together with the test—paints the picture of millions of cases of a “new plague.”
All this fabrication is on the order of—“Hey, Jim, sales of our widget number 6 are in the toilet. What can we do? Unless…let’s call it widget number 7, put it in a new box…”
People say, “But there ARE mysterious COVID cases that can’t be explained away as repackaged lung infections…”
Of course there are. When you make the net big enough, it will sweep in groups of cases that seem to defy explanation. But when you move in close enough, you discover a variety of factors that cause illness and death. New poisonous vaccination campaigns, toxic pesticides, lagoons of feces in giant pig factory-farms, opioid drugs; even various electromagnetic technologies.
I first caught on to the switcheroo in 1987, when I was doing research for my first book, AIDS INC. Scientists in Africa were investigating a “new” outbreak among people who, “incidentally,” were suffering from protein-calorie malnutrition, hunger, and starvation.
The scientists, cheap con artists that they were, called this “wasting syndrome,” then “Slim disease,” and finally “AIDS.” They announced the cause was HIV—a virus no one had isolated.
And lurking in the background, if you needed another cause of illness and death, there was the infamous World Health Organization mass smallpox-vaccination campaign in Africa, one of the most dangerous mass medical experiments ever carried out on a population. That campaign had wrapped up injecting millions of people several years before “the discovery of AIDS.”
The campaign was so dangerous that, at a secret WHO meeting in Geneva, a decision was made never to use that vaccine again, because it had caused smallpox (or something that looked like it).
In 1987, I combed through volumes of medical journals at the UCLA bio-med library, and discovered that the single most prevalent cause of T-cell depletion (“AIDS”) in the world is MALNUTRITION.
In Africa, malnutrition, hunger, starvation, contaminated water supplies, lack of basic sanitation, toxic vaccines, grinding poverty, war, fertile farm land stolen from the people by major agricultural corporations, toxic medical drugs…were all repackaged as a new disease caused by a new virus, HIV.
I then went on to study every so-called high-risk group for AIDS. I found that in each group, all the “AIDS symptoms” could be explained by non-viral causes.
At that point, I realized I was looking at a classic intelligence-agency-type covert operation, applied within the medical universe. The virus was the cover story. It was being use to hide ongoing government and corporate crimes. For example—forced starvation.
A con is a con.
Only the disease-names are changed, to protect the guilty.
With COVID, you must also consider the following: an extraordinarily high percentage of cases and deaths are occurring in people over the age of 65. The elderly. Many of these people are living in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities.
IB Times, 7/27/20: “New research from the Kaiser Family Foundation has indicated that while adults 65 and older only account for 16% of the U.S. population, they make up 80% of COVID-19 deaths.”
CDC, May 14, 2021: “8 out 10 COVID-19 deaths reported in the US have been in adults 65 years old and older.”
Why are these older people dying?
Because they have long-standing serious health problems. And for years, even decades, they’ve been treated with an array of toxic medical drugs.
Then, in 2020, they’re terrified they might be diagnosed with COVID. And then they ARE diagnosed. Which ramps up their terror.
On top of all of this, they’re neglected by nursing home staffs, even handled brutally in some cases. They’re isolated “because of COVID,” imprisoned, cut off from family and friends. They’re alone.
So they give up and fold up and die.
No virus required as an explanation.
In a large study of New York state hospitals, it was discovered that people over the age of 65 who were diagnosed with COVID, and put on breathing ventilators, died at the rate of 97.2 percent.
No matter what the prior condition of the patient, any treatment that has a death rate of 97.2 percent must be discontinued at once. But it wasn’t discontinued. It still goes on. This amounts to murder.
“People are dying, it must be the virus.” No. Wrong.
There is no “it.” People dying from various causes are fictionally brought under one umbrella, called COVID-19.
This is titanic fraud, tragedy, mass murder—murder compounded many times by the destructive vaccine, aka genetic treatment.
It didn’t originate in a lab in Wuhan.
But the story that it did originate there cements the premise, in many minds, that we are dealing with a virus.
Quite convenient.
The Wuhan lab, intentionally or unintentionally, becomes a cover story that obscures the truth.
You may be wondering what’s been happening to I.G. Farbensanto lately. It’s been a while since we’ve heard from, or about, them, so it may be worthwhile to newer readers to apprise them of whom we’re talking about. I.G. Farbensanto is our nickname for Big Agribusiness, and we used to call it Mon(ster)santo, until the big German chemical firm Bayer – a former component of I.G. Farben, the notorious German chemicals cartel that included not only Bayer, but BASR (also a still existing company, Badische Anilin und Soda-Fabrik) and some other companies – Bayer bought Monsanto (and Monsanto’s legal problems) a few years ago. Accordingly, we changed our nickname for Big Agribusiness to IG Farbensanto. Our other reason for the monikers was the dubious history of Big Agribusiness and its practices regarding GMOs, which I assume most readers here are familiar with.
The federal judge overseeing nationwide Roundup litigation on Wednesday denied Bayer’s latest attempt to limit its legal liability from future cancer claims associated with its glyphosate-based herbicides, citing numerous “glaring flaws” in a settlement proposed to apply to Roundup users who have not yet sued the company but may want to do so in the future.
Saying parts of the plan were “clearly unreasonable” and unfair to cancer sufferers who would be part of the class settlement, U.S. Judge Vince Chhabria castigated Bayer and the small group of lawyers who put the plan together in conjunction with Bayer.
He pointed out that the company has been “losing trials left and right” in claims brought by people suffering from non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) who alleged exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides were the cause.
Bayer has owned Monsanto since 2018 and has been struggling to defend the cancer claims ever since. Cancer victims have won three trials held to date, and tens of thousands of other plaintiffs have filed lawsuits alleging exposure to Monsanto’s herbicides caused them to develop NHL while Monsanto spent decades hiding the risks.
…
Judge Chhabria said in his decision that the company’s desire to set up a “science panel” to determine whether or not the herbicides actually cause cancer rather than leave that question to future juries is because of the trial losses the company has so far suffered.
The “reason Monsanto wants a science panel so badly is that the company has lost the ‘battle of the experts’ in three trials, the judge wrote in his order. “At present, the playing field on the issue of expert testimony related to causation is slanted heavily in favor of plaintiffs.”
Gee… fancy that. A multinational corporation which was formerly a part of I.G. Farben seeks to avoid legal liability for its products? Color me not surprised.
The article goes on to mention various other plans I.G. Farbensanto has for avoiding its mounting legal problems.
Here I have a suggestion for the I.G. Farbensanto board: why not take a page out of Big Pharma’s playbook, and invest heavily (and covertly) in gain-of-GMO-function research? This could easily be tied to quackcine research ala the suggestion of some scientific papers a few years ago where this very thing was being proposed: GMOs doubling as quackcines. With a few donations into the right pockets, one might be able to get the National Institute of Health, the Center for Disease Control, and the World Health Organization on board. At this point, you could hire a couple of Harvard chemistry professors, and locate your research facility in – oh, I don’t know, say, in Wuhan, China – and perhaps even be able to create a quackcine which is the “only” cure for a new kind of virus (that you could also support gain-of-function research into). Then you could use all of your influence on the propotainment media networks (which get lots of advertising revenue from you to begin with) to “fudge the numbers” a bit, and create a worldwide campaign of fear, while simultaneously getting your newly installed puppet in the White House to approve a slap-dash emergency GMO-quackcine approval plan (you could maybe call it Operation Warp Speed), bypassing the normal long-term trials, and, for good measure, exempting your firm from any liability for any “adverse GMO consumption reactions” because your new plants were rushed into production because the world was facing a crisis. On the way to achieving all this, you could also persuade your rubber glove company to support a campaign of food distancing, and wearing rubber gloves at all times, especially while dining. You could also persuade social media platforms to hire “fact checkers” in return for some carefully laundered donations, and censor any contrarian views. This way you won’t have to worry about any pesky lawsuits from whatever long-term effects of your products as might pop up in a few years.
In the meantime, one way to implement this would be to set up liaison committees with with various Big Pharma companies, to learn their techniques for avoiding legal liabilities for dubious products. While doing this, you could also donate heavily to the campaigns of Congressmen and Senators, and get special legislation passed to limit your liability, and establish “GMO courts” resembling “vaccine courts” to ensure that your liability is strictly limited.
Yesterday saw the another warning shot across the bows of the globalist front group that has hijacked the nation’s governance: knock off what you are doing – or else!
The London demo on 29th was YET AGAIN huge. Reports are that it was four miles long and comprised a million citizens.
It is impossible to know exact numbers but as someone who was there, I’d say these reports are pretty accurate. It was an honour to be part of it and to find oneself among so many fine people from every generation and social background.
The sheer scale of the protest was breathtaking. The latest in a long series of demos and the biggest yet, it showed that far from running out of steam, the movement is growing fast, accumulating more citizens as the list of government lies, deceits, cons, falsehoods and efforts to terrorise grows.
If it goes on this way, if the government does not get honest and straight, the architects of this attack on the nation will find they have no friends left.
The corporate media, of course, either tries to pretend it didn’t happen or to minimise it with false reports of “hundreds” and the usual misrepresentation of of what the demonstrations are about.
This is a far cry from simply “reporting the news”. It is in essence an effort to covertly control the citizenry using false or heavily redacted reports disguised as “reporting the news”.
Thanks to the wonders of modern technology, it is now easy to prove what REALLY took place and show the CMM (Corporate Media Matrix) up as resoundingly false. At yesterday’s demonstration there were hundreds of thousands of people taking pictures and making video clips so that by today there are in circulation hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence that nullify the CMM effort to convey a false reality.
And so inexorably, lie by disproven lie, the corporate media’s status as “conveyor of news” suffers a death of a thousand cuts. Its decline can be traced to its failure to do its job and to honour the trust once placed in it.
Couple that unmasked dishonesty with the erosion of it pretence at impartiality. It is relatively easy to determine that editors and so forth answer to owners ands those owners have their own agenda. By way of a brief example, take Rupert Murdoch who owns the biggest vaccine company in Australia. His family has been deeply immersed in that industry for generations, and he has partnerships with Glaxo and with all the big vaccine makers. [Source https://degraw.substack.com/…/crimes-against-humanity…]
The Corporate Media likes to think it sets public opinion. It doesn’t. If the CMM set public opinion we would not be seeing protests like yesterday’s in London. And of course for every person who was there, there are ten who weren’t for one reason or another, so one can surmise that what is occurring as our already considerable numbers grow, is a seismic shift of public opinion in a direction OPPOSITE to the direction in which the CMM, leaving no truth unturned, is trying to steer it .
The CMM is a dead irrelevance as a resource for truthful information. It has been supplanted by the People’s Media which operates free of corporate/oligarchical control.
The People’s Media, multifaceted and representing the much broader and more contentious spectrum of freely exchanged ideas, is not of course always right in everything it says. We leave that pretence to a Corporate Media that stifles all challenges to its orthodoxy.
The People’s Media, manned by earnest human beings with no claims to omniscient infallibility, makes mistakes but in that climate of freely exchanged and debated ideas, those mistakes can be freely challenged and debated rather than welded irrevocably into the national psyche by authoritarian diktat.
The People’s Media has but to remain sincere, to get its facts straight as best it can and take responsibility for honest errors. Its primary mission is to maintain the public’s access to ideas, data and viewpoints outside the orthodox spectrum. It is to persuade people to use their native capabilities to inspect, question and challenge what they are told rather than blindly accept everything that comes out of the mouths of devious politicians and the front men for corporate vested interests.
As such, the People’s Media is seeking to do the exact opposite to what the corporate media is doing.
Observably, the corporate media, long dead as a source of real news, is seeking to implant a matrix of ideas for which there is no challenge.
Part of that effort is, for instance, trying to keep from the nation’s citizens the horrible truth that there has now arisen a thus-far peaceful revolt against the lies and deceit of a criminal government.
And so it is incumbent upon the People’s Media, which in effect actually embraces every single member of the Freedom Movement with a voice to speak or a social media or email account through which to relay, to disseminate as broadly as possible the evidence of what really happened.
So here is our contribution, which is also a celebration, courtesy of some very fine people who made these videos and Bitchute that published them, of the fact that in the face of oppression, humanity is rising.
What REALLY happened yesterday was something wonderful . .
Our latest fact-check examines the Covid bioweapon theory. The origins of it, the evidence for it, and the possible motivations behind its sudden resurgence.
Sometime in the winter of 2019/2020, when the coronavirus “pandemic” was still only incipient, a theory started doing the rounds that the alleged “novel coronavirus” had in fact been grown in a laboratory, and either released by accident or deployed deliberately as a bioweapon.
Calling it “the theory” is somewhat of a misnomer, really. It was more a collection of theories with the same core idea. Variations on a theme, if you will.
So both the main branches of the theory have a vague basis in fact that makes them hypothetically possible, but not much more than that.
What was the mainstream media reaction?
That’s an interesting question.
At first, last spring, it was universally derided as “misinformation”. Mainstream outlet after mainstream outlet chortled at the conspiracy theorists spreading their crazy nonsense. Some people said they were racists for blaming China. The Guardian blamed Russia, as they usually do.
In this way, the theory served a purpose for the mainstream narrative – it was used to attack all Covid sceptics by association. As recently as February this year, research papers were being published that “debunked” this “conspiracy theory”.
But that was then, and this is now. Things change,
Recently mainstream outlets have been giving what they call the “lab leak theory” a little bit of serious consideration. The New Yorker, just two days ago, published an article stating:
Scientists and political commentators are no longer dismissing the possibility that COVID-19 emerged from a Chinese laboratory.
Covid origin: Why the Wuhan lab-leak theory is being taken seriously
The change is not just in the media sphere, but the political one, too. Joe Biden’s administration is ordering an investigation into the “lab leak” theory.
It’s not just the US either.
Last year, WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, ordered an investigative team to write a report on the origins of the virus. Their report, which was released a few weeks ago, found a laboratory origin to be “extremely unlikely”. But Ghebreyesus, rather than simply accepting the findings of his team, stated more investigation was needed. Keeping the lab leak theory alive in the public mind.
Nowhere is the volte-face of the establishment voices more apparent than Dr Anthony Fauci, who has totally flipped on the lab-leak theory after dismissing it out of hand last year.
Why the sudden change?
That’s a very good question. And one that we can’t answer until the current craziness picks a direction and goes with it. Suffice to say, last year it served the establishment’s agenda to rubbish the lab-leak theory, and this year it serves their agenda to endorse it.
This could be an attempt to scramble together a “pandemic” narrative that has never made much sense, it could be a sign that the unified “Great Reset” policy is crumbling and China is going to be scape-goated. It could be nothing but noise and chaos to distract people.
As usual, what the mainstream and politicians are saying has absolutely no bearing on the reality of the situation, and can tell us nothing about anything, except their current agenda.
However, the lab-leak theory does serve the Deep State agenda in one fashion: it reinforces the idea that the virus is a real problem that needs to be solved, rather than a fear-based control narrative.
Fear is fear, and whether it’s of a zoonotic virus or a bioweapon, it can be used to bend a population to your will.
…OK, but seriously, could Covid be a bioweapon?
Well, obviously it could be. We don’t know enough to say that it’s impossible. But it’s not very likely.
For one thing, there’s the question of efficacy.
It’s still a matter of some debate whether the Sars-Cov-2 virus has been isolated to the point it has even been proven to exist. Supposing it definitely exists as a discrete entity, it hasn’t at this time fulfilled Koch’s postulates to the point it is proven to cause disease.
But even if you accept those two questions as resolved: The virus does exist, and it does cause Covid19. Well, you’re still looking at a disease that is symptomless in the majority of people exposed to it, only ever mild in the vast majority of people who get sick, and has a 99.8% survival rate.
If Covid is a bioweapon, it’s a rubbish one.
Secondly, there’s the question of efficiency and expense.
What, exactly, would be the point in a bioweapon which is no more deadly than common flu viruses? Why go to the trouble of creating a pretty much harmless virus in a lab?
Supposing you were interested in creating a pandemic, would that be a good way of doing it? Would it be worth the expense? Wouldn’t it be simpler to just make-believe there was a plague through fear-porn and statistical sleight-of-hand?
After all, an imaginary pandemic can infect whoever you want, spare whoever you like, start and stop at your convenience, obey any rules you care to make up and be cured instantly as long as everyone pays you for your “vaccine”.
* * *
In conclusion: No direct evidence that the alleged Sars-Cov-2 virus was created in a lab has ever been produced. It’s nothing like as virulent as you’d expect a bioweapon to be, and logically an actual virus would not serve the Deep State agenda as well as a largely imaginary one.
Maybe the virus was grown in a lab, maybe it just jumped from bats to people. Since all evidence suggests it’s not very dangerous, it doesn’t really matter.
The debate sure does make a good distraction though.
Video available at Computing Forever BitChute and Odysee channels.
Excerpts:
“Over the past year, we’ve witnessed a horrifying psychological attack on our population and, indeed, on our very human nature.
Many people are now afraid of touching or being near other people. They have been brainwashed into being terrified of the very things that make us human.
Suffice to say, a species that is repulsed by contact with itself — one that has been made to fear and loathe itself, to see others as festering bags of toxic biowaste — that’s not a species that will have a particularly long future.
From face masks, obsessive hand sanitizings, social distancing, and social isolation — such that most human communication is now done through technology — and, finally, the mRNA vaccines that are sold as the solution to the “pandemic”, there’s a not-so-subtle message that human beings are essentially broken and that they are in need of a prothesis, of enhancement, of some kind of pharma or tech-based upgrade so as to correct their nasty, dirty, disgusting and flawed natural state of being.
The globalists clearly have satanic tendencies. An attack on our nature and human form is an attack on God’s creation. It’s an attack on the human soul…”
###
“But there’s something that you must consider. As dark as things may seem, I believe we’ve been given a gift — those of us who can see it at least . It’s an ability to see the truth.
And there has never been a greater privilege to be on the side of all that is good, righteous and beautiful in this life, all that is meaningful.
We get the opportunity to stand against the darkest, most powerful, insidious, satanic and psychotic evil that humanity has ever faced…”
###
“Those of us who see the truth have been called to defend this, no matter what the costs to ourselves and no matter how difficult the challenge may be. There is no higher a responsibility and no cause more noble. The challenge is so tremendously great because it is so worthwhile.”
What health authorities are like in 2021. Receiving information from figureheads that are your trusted health authorities and taking it on blind faith is the highest recommendation in 2021. Here’s what that enlightened experience is like.
This week on “James Corbett Redpills the Normies,” James talks to Alison Morrow, a self-described refugee from mainstream journalism who quit her 12-year career as an award-winning reporter after her attempts to report real news were consistently thwarted. (Learn more about Alison’s incredible story in this interview.) Today, Alison interviews James about the centralization of control, communication, and consciousness in the hands of an oligarchical elite and how we can combat their agenda.
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, Brighteon, and Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Millions of Face Masks Officially Declared Dangerous
This is not an article about whether face masks work.
As my readers know, for the past year I’ve been demonstrating that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has never been proven to exist. Therefore, face masks are nothing more (or less) than a mind-control ritual.
However, much has been written about the harm the masks cause.
And now we have an official declaration. On April 2, 2021, Health Canada issued an advisory, warning people not to “use face masks labelled to contain graphene or biomass graphene.”
Andrew Maynard covers this issue in a medium.com article, “Manufacturers have been using nanotechnology-derived graphene in face masks—now there are safety concerns.”
Those concerns? Masks could create lung problems.
Of course, since COVID-19 is claimed to be a lung disease, you can see where that leads: the remedy turns out to cause what it’s supposed to prevent. I could write a book detailing how many times this “coincidence” pops up in the field of medicine.
Maynard’s article traces the safety concerns to a Chinese mask manufacturer, Shandong, but points out that millions of graphene-containing masks are in use around the world, produced by a whole host of companies.
So far, it’s not clear whether the nanoparticles of graphene in the masks also contain metals—which are highly destructive.
The mainstream literature on graphene is ambiguous: yes, it’s probably toxic to the lungs; perhaps not seriously so; perhaps only temporarily; there are more questions than answers.
Since there are more questions, why have these masks been certified anywhere in the world for public use? Why haven’t the CDC and the WHO made definitive statements about safety concerns?
At materialstoday.com, we have, “Is graphene safe?”
“But, it is the very nature of graphene that might be cause for concern: thin and lightweight, yet tough and intractable particles are notoriously worrisome in terms of the detrimental effects they can have on our health, particularly when breathed in…”
“Ken Donaldson is a respiratory toxicologist at the University of Edinburgh and he and his colleagues are among the first to raise the warning flag on graphene, at least for nanoscopic platelets of the material. It is not too great a leap of the imagination to imagine how such tiny flakes of carbon might be transported deep within the lungs similar to asbestos fibres and coal dust. Once lodged within, there is no likely mechanism for the removal or break down of such inert particles and they might reside on these sensitive tissues triggering a chronic inflammatory response or interfering with the normal cellular functions.”
Does this make any sane person feel safe about wearing a mask and breathing in those graphene particles all day long?
In fact, you could rightly call the masks graphene-inhalation transporters.
“We have a new idea and a new product. It’s designed to force you to breathe in nanoparticles of graphene. Who knows? There might be health benefits. Try it and see.”
Yes, try it. And if you then develop a lung infection, since that is called a cardinal pandemic symptom, you could hit the jackpot and earn a diagnosis of COVID-19.
At which point the fun really begins, as you try to explain to your doctor that the cause isn’t a virus, but rather nanoparticles of graphene in your mask. If you play your cards right, you could end up in the psych ward with other “conspiracy theorists.”
“Can you believe it, nurse? I had this guy a few hours ago coughing and dripping mucus all over the place. Inflamed lungs. Classic COVID case. But he tells me he’s breathing in NANOPARTICLES. I gave him a sedative and sent him to the Crazy Pen. Where do these people get these stories? Have you ever heard of graphene? That’s what they put in pencils, right?”
“I don’t know, Doc. My cousin thinks she’s breathing in these nanos, too. I told her she needs a Thorazine drip.”
There’s a good chance the masks are COVID-diagnosis promoters. Step one: breathe in nanoparticles of graphene. Step two: therefore develop a so-called major COVID symptom—lung infection. Step three: test false-positive on the PCR test (happens millions of times, as I’ve documented). And boom, you’re a COVID case.
In keeping with local laws, I’ve applied for a license to own a mask as a weapon. If I gain approval, I plan to seal it in a glass box and mount it on the wall next to my grenade launcher and Civil War cannonball.
ANNAPOLIS, Maryland, May 27, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Citizens from all over Maryland descended on the state capital to protest an unconstitutional order mandating all students and employees in the University of Maryland system receive coronavirus vaccines before returning to school this fall.
“I’m opposed to mandating anyone to get this vaccination,” Maryland House Delegate Lauren Arikan told LifeSite’s Jim Hale, who was on the scene. “It’s still in its infancy in terms of research, and mandating things that are under emergency use authorization is inappropriate.”
Arikan said that families who have always gotten their children the full schedule of vaccines are saying, “‘Look, I gave my child every recommended vaccination. This one is not on the schedule for a reason: It hasn’t been studied yet, and so I’m not giving it to my child.’”
Arikan noted that these parents are pulling their money out of the state. “They’re not going to send their kids to a Maryland school now. That’s a big deal and we need the governor to listen to that.”
“The separation of people is a very bad idea. If you’re already vaxxed, you’re fine. You don’t have to worry about unvaccinated people,” said one young man who was holding an American flag.
“I just feel like this is just a straight up abuse of rights, abuse of power, and they need to be reeled back. Hard,” he advised. “Be strong. Stand up for yourself. And stop listening to the rules. Believe in yourself, not just the government.”
“Forced consent isn’t consent,” said one young woman.
“It’s not good to force a vaccine on people that hasn’t been sufficiently tested,” said another. “And with the moral concerns with aborted cell lines just doesn’t sound like a good idea.”
“It hasn’t even been FDA approved,” noted her friend, who indicated that people who have had serious negative reactions to the vaccine are being pushed out of sight.
“There’s a big temptation to just go ahead and take the vaccination rather than look into it,” she continued. “I feel it’s important to not just rush into it and be smart about it.”
A woman who has three kids – each of whom has had and recovered from COVID-19 – enrolled at three different Maryland university campuses said she worries about the side effects of the vaccine.
“I worry about the results of the vaccine. I know what the result of having COVID was for them because they’ve lived through it,” she said. Taking a vaccine that is not fully tested “is too big of a risk.”
“The safety trials won’t be completed until 2023,” she noted.
A man at the rally whose wife is an employee at the University of Maryland said that administrators told her in an email that they want her to be vaccinated by August 1.
“She is being threatened ‘get the vaccination or lose (your) job,’” he said.
“I’m here to protest the mandate that all University of Maryland system students have to take this experimental shot in order to go to classes on campus,” said Linda Kouroupis of Ellicott City, Maryland. “I think it’s wrong.”
“I’m very upset,” she continued. “I had a daughter go to College Park, my husband is an alumnus, I’m an alumnus of the grad school. I think it’s totally wrong. I’m doing as much as I can to stop it.”
“This is not going to stop after tonight,” she promised.
Another woman who introduced herself “as a mom and a grandmom” told LifeSite that mandating the vaccine for young people seems counterintuitive, especially since the risk from side effects is worse than the risk from contracting the virus.
“Is Big Pharma pushing this?” she wondered. “Why would you give somebody your money when all they want to do is give your kids an experimental shot?”
“The state law is very clear that you don’t have to take an experimental vaccine. That’s federal law as well,” said Maryland House Delegate Dan Cox, who explained that what is being attempted in the Old Line State is illegal.
“So when they’re talking about mandating and limiting students who exercise their rights for a medical, religious, or flat-out exemption that state law allows for college students … it’s not going to fly. That’s an illegality,” he said.
“Speak up. Don’t let anyone silence you or intimidate you into this,” said Cox. “You have a right to your own personal integrity. All you have to do is exercise it. Don’t waive those rights.”
“And when someone asks you if you’ve been vaxxed with this experiment, just smile back and remind them that’s your privacy,” he advised. “They don’t have a right to ask.”
Doctors and journalists all over the world are creating panic over the fungal infections currently alleged to be affecting people in India.
It is claimed by some that the fungal infections are a new symptom of covid-19.
Others say the fungal infections are caused by the over-prescribing of steroids for covid-19.
And yet more blame diabetes mellitus.
Both of these may contribute to the fungal problem but I do not believe they are the sole or even the main cause.
I believe this is yet more scare mongering designed to encourage people to accept one of the experimental pseudo-vaccines.
The alleged epidemic of fungal infections is caused by mask wearing. The problem is particularly prevalent in India where poor people cannot afford to buy new masks on a regular basis, thus the same mask is being worn again and again. Also, the hot weather, which increases sweating, exacerbates fungal infections in those wearing face masks.
I warned that this would happen nine months ago.
Fungi love dark, moist areas. That’s why fungi can grow in damp houses – particularly in bathrooms. Fungal infections grow in skin folds where there is little light but a good deal of moisture. Mushrooms grow in moist areas.
There are millions of types of fungi and more than one type can grow on the skin. When a mask is worn for more than two hours or so there is a huge risk that fungal growths will develop and will affect the skin, the nose, the mouth and the lungs.
The authorities don’t like to admit it but the fungal infections now affecting so many people are caused by the masks they are wearing. And, of course, masks are damaging immune systems – which increases susceptibility to all types of infection (bacterial and fungal in particular). Added to this, lockdowns and the covid ‘vaccine’ may also damage the immune system, leaving people susceptible to fungal infections and complications caused by fungal infections.
Here are relevant short extracts from my book Proof that Masks Do More Harm than Good:
1) Many people wear the same mask for more than two hours (which is dangerous), wear disposable masks more than once (which is dangerous), fail to wash cloth masks (which means they accumulate bacteria, fungi and viruses – all of which are breathed in) touch their mask while it is in position (which makes the mask even worse than useless), put masks into their pockets or handbags and then put them back on creased and grubby (a very dangerous thing to do since the wearer will then be breathing in whatever bugs have been transmitted to the mask.)
2) Leading German virologist Professor Streeck has criticised the use of masks, which he has said are a wonderful breeding ground for bacteria and fungi.
3) `I’m seeing patients that have facial rashes, fungal infections, bacterial infections,’ said Dr James Meehan. ‘Reports coming from my colleagues all over the world, are suggesting that the bacterial pneumonias are on the rise. Why might that be? Because untrained members of the public are wearing medical masks, repeatedly in a non-sterile fashion. They’re becoming contaminated. They’re pulling them off their car seat, off the rear-view mirror, out of their pocket, from their countertop, and they’re reapplying a mask that should be worn fresh and sterile every single time.’
The solution is simple. Persuade people to remove their masks.
The AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccines came under scrutiny again this week as more reports of deaths — largely due to blood clot disorders — surfaced in Belgium, Canada and Greece, and a new report linked the AstraZeneca vaccine to strokes in young adults.
The AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID vaccines came under scrutiny again this week as more reports of deaths — largely due to blood clot disorders — surfaced in Belgium, Canada and Greece.
Adding to the vaccine makers’ woes is a new report out of London from researchers who identified the first cases of strokes occurring in young adults who received the AstraZeneca vaccine, which was co-developed by the University of Oxford University in the UK.
Belgium suspends use of J&J vaccine
Belgium said Wednesday it was suspending vaccinations with J&J vaccine, for people under the age of 41, following the death of a woman from blood clots after she received the shot. This is the second time Belgium has paused the one-shot vaccine.
“The Inter-ministerial conference has decided to temporarily administer Janssen’s vaccine to the general population from the age of 41 years, pending a more detailed benefit-risk analysis by the EMA,” said a statement issued by Belgium’s federal health minister and seven regional counterparts.
The woman, who was under the age of 40, died May 21 after being admitted to the hospital with severe thrombosis and platelet deficiency, Reuters reported.
The government asked for urgent advice from the European Union’s drug regulator, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), before it would consider lifting the suspension.
The EMA said it is reviewing the death of the woman in Belgium, along with other reports of blood clots, with the Belgian and Slovenian medicines agencies, and has asked J&J to carry out a series of additional studies to help assess a possible link between the shot and rare blood clots.
J&J said April 20 it would resume the roll-out in the EU of its COVID vaccine, marketed under the company’s Janssen subsidiary — with a warning on its label — after several countries, including Belgium, first paused the vaccine amid concerns of its possible link to blood clotting disorders.
The EMA confirmed a “possible link,” but concluded the vaccine’s benefits outweighed the risks. The drug regulator’s safety committee (PRAC) said a warning should be added to the product label, but the blood clot-related disorders should be listed as “very rare” side effects of the vaccine.
On April 23, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) voted to resume the use of J&J’s vaccine without restrictions after the vaccine was paused to investigate reports of rare blood clots. The recommendation by the CDC’s advisory panel said the link between blood clots and J&J’s COVID vaccine was “plausible,” but concluded the vaccine’s benefits outweighed the risks and recommended use for persons 18 years of age and older in the U.S. under the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization.
Researchers identify strokes in young adults after AstraZeneca shot
The first cases of large-vessel arterial occlusion strokes in young adults linked to AstraZeneca’s vaccine were described in detail for the first time in a letter published online in the Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.
“These are the first detailed reports of arterial stroke believed to be caused by VITT after the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, although stroke has been mentioned previously in the VITT data,” senior author, Dr. David Werring, professor of clinical neurology at the Stroke Research Centre, University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, told Medscape Medical News.
“VITT has more commonly presented as CVST (cerebral venous sinus thrombosis) which is stroke caused by a venous thrombosis; these cases are showing that it can also cause stroke caused by an arterial thrombosis,” Werring explained.
Werring noted the reports do not add anything to the overall risk/benefit of the vaccine, as they are describing only three cases. “While VITT is very serious, the benefit of the vaccine still outweighs its risks,” he said.
The first case, a 35-year-old woman, experienced intermittent headaches on the right side and around her eyes for six days after vaccination. Five days later, she awoke feeling drowsy and with weakness to her left face, arm and leg.
Imaging revealed the woman had a blocked right middle cerebral artery with brain infarction and clots in the right portal vein. She underwent brain surgery to reduce the pressure in her skull, plasma removal and replacement, and treatment with anticoagulant and fondaparinux, but suffered brain stem death and subsequently died.
The second case, a 37-year-old woman, presented with headache, confusion, weakness in her left arm and loss of vision on the left side 12 days after vaccination with AstraZeneca. Imaging showed occlusion of both carotid arteries, as well as blood clots in her lungs and brain. She improved clinically with treatment.
The third case occurred in a 43-year-old man who presented 21 days after vaccination with problems speaking. Imaging showed a clot in the left middle cerebral artery. He was treated and remains stable.
The researchers said young patients presenting with ischaemic stroke after receiving AstraZeneca’s vaccine should urgently be evaluated for VITT.
Ontario man dies from ‘rare but real’ blood clot after first dose of AstraZeneca
An Ontario man in his 40s died after receiving his first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine, public health officials confirmed Tuesday.
Dr. Barbara Yaffe, Ontario’s associate chief medical officer of health, said his death is being investigated, but the man suffered from VITT.
“While the investigation is ongoing and a final cause of death has yet to be officially determined, it has been confirmed that the individual did have VITT at the time of his death,” Yaffe said Tuesday. “The risks associated with this vaccine are [rare], but they are real.”
Chief Medical Officer Dr. David Williams restricted AstraZeneca vaccinations for people who have not yet received the first dose as of May 11, due to a higher-than-expected rate of blood clots.
Greece investigating four cases of blood clots after AstraZeneca shot
Α 63-year-old woman from Greece died of blood clots after vaccination with AstraZeneca. The case was one of four being investigated by the National Organization for Medicines (EOF) for a potential correlation between AstraZeneca’s vaccine and rare blood clots, according to the Greek City Times.
Also in Greece, a 44-year-old woman is in serious condition after experiencing VITT. Her case was the second incident found by EOF to be linked to the vaccine, according to the Greek Reporter.
A third blood clotting incident involved a 35-year-old man from Crete who suffered two blood clots after receiving AstraZeneca’s vaccine. The man was hospitalized after suffering a clot in his leg a few days after getting the jab. He suffered a second blood clot in his brain while hospitalized
As The Defender reported April 7, European regulators said they confirmed a “possible link” between AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine and “very rare” blood clots, but concluded the benefits of the vaccine still outweigh the risks.
The EMA did not recommend restricting use of the vaccine based on age, gender or other risk factors, but did say cases of blood clotting after vaccination “should be” listed as a possible side effect, according to a statement issued by the agency’s safety committee.
The AstraZeneca vaccine is not yet authorized for use in the U.S.
Today James continues the discussion on “positive propaganda” by looking at some examples of #antiganda. Activists around the world are creating eye-catching messages designed to get people to question their conditioning. Here’s how you can join them.
One of two Facebook Insiders featured in Project Veritas’ recent #ExposeFacebook series that revealed the company’s censorship of vaccine concerns on a global scale has officially come out of the shadows.
Data Center Technician Morgan Kahmann felt compelled to speak out publicly and shine a light on Facebook’s decision to hide their censorship plans from users.
Kahmann informed Project Veritas of a Facebook decision to suspend and remove him from his office pending an “Investigatory Meeting” with Human Resources. Meeting was called off at the last minute.
Kahmann: “What happened was I was at work, and I got a message from my supervisor, out of the blue, basically saying ‘go ahead and wrap up your area and clean up your stuff, gather your personal belongings and meet me in a meeting room in the lobby of the building.’ They’re basically going to have me meet with the investigative team and grill me on this whole situation.”
Kahmann was able to secure additional internal Facebook documents before his suspension that confirm the “vaccine hesitancy” algorithm is live and being implemented globally across Facebook and Instagram platforms.
Kahmann hopes more are inspired to Be Brave, and Do Something about the wrongdoing they witness inside Big Tech, media, and government.
Kahmann is one of two Facebook insiders that came to Project Veritas with this information, and he explained in an interview how he found out about his suspension.
“What happened was I was at work, and I got a message from my supervisor, out of the blue, basically saying ‘go ahead and wrap up your area and clean up your stuff, gather your personal belongings and meet me in a meeting room in the lobby of the building,’” Kahmann said. “They’re basically going to have me meet with the investigative team and grill me on this whole situation.”
Kahmann also explained to Project Veritas what motivated him to blow the whistle on Facebook’s wrongdoing in the first place.
“What would happen if this [Facebook Vaccine Hesitancy Comment Demotion policy] was scaled larger and scaled to Twitter and the internet as a whole is way worse than anything that could happen from me getting fired from my job,” he said. “To me, that, it far outweighs that. Because it’s about more than me. It’s about really everyone in the world.”
Before being suspended, Kahmann secured additional internal Facebook documents showing that the Big Tech giant’s “vaccine hesitancy” policy has now been fully implemented.
He says that by doing what he did, more brave patriots working inside powerful institutions will come forward when they witness corruption.
“I think that the main reason why people don’t want to come out [as whistleblowers] — because what if I, you know, I have two kids, I have my wife, and if I lose my job, it’s like ‘what do I do?’ But that’s less of a concern to me.”
Lockheed Martin executives attended a three day ‘white male reeducation camp’.
During these brainwashing sessions, they were taught that racist “white male culture characteristics” include having “principles,” a “conscience,” working hard and having a “can-do attitude.”
People expect so many answers without giving anything back in return.
If the “tin foil hatters” are so nuts, how about the rule followers give some answers for once.
Explain how the flu disappeared but has been replaced with something which has the EXACT same symptoms.
Explain how the only proof that Covid exists is a computer modelled genome with zero physical proof.
Explain how you prove something into existence without going through an isolation or purification process.
Explain why no government agency has any quantifiable proof that “it” even exists.
Explain why they downgraded “Covid 19” to a non consequential infectious disease days before they declared a pandemic.
Explain how they pulled the coronavirus Act 2020 legislation out of their arseholes in a matter of days, despite the act being several hundred pages long.
Explain why they have to use bullshit criteria like “deaths for ANY reason within 28 days of a positive test”.
Explain why they banned autopsies.
Explain why they changed the law to allow any practitioner to diagnose covid through observation alone, even if it is done through video consultation.
Explain why undertakers have seen no difference in custom.
Explain how all cause mortality is at an all time low.
Explain how millions of protesters across the globe aren’t getting sick with “Covid.”
Explain how this is the only crisis that needs an advertising campaign paired with a constant barrage of repetitive brainwashing propaganda on the TV and in the streets.
Explain how tens of thousands of people stood on the streets of London last Saturday but it wasn’t once shown on ANY TV channel.
Explain how thousands were yelling “shame on you” outside the BBC HQ in both London, Manchester and Cardiff but it wasn’t shown on the TV?
Explain how the people who are wearing the masks and following the rules are the only ones who are catching “COVID”.
Explain how the creator of the PCR amplification tool is on record for stating that the PCR was not designed as a test for infectious diseases.
Explain why they are using the PCR to diagnose an infectious disease.
Explain why it’s been changed from Covid deaths, to covid infections to covid “cases” .
Explain how the “anti- vaxxers” are being blamed for the rise in “cases” when the only people who could possibly be contributing to the statistics are the people who are getting the “test” in the first place.
Explain why the hospitals were empty during the height of the “pandemic.”
Explain why 1000s of nurses are getting fired for saying that their hospitals were empty.
Explain why the hospitals are now filling up with vaccine adverse reactions but the MSM aren’t reporting it.
Explain why kids need to be vaccinated when, by your own definitions, covid isn’t dangerous to children.
Explain, if all the vulnerable people have already been vaccinated, why do all the healthy people need to get vaccinated if you’re already protected and the recovery rate was already 99.96% without the vaccine.
Explain why the average age of death with “Covid” is higher than the average age of death without.
Explain how you can get banned from Facebook and Twitter for sharing official government links.
Explain why there are several class actions in progress, taking governments across the globe to court for crimes against humanity, but there is zero MSM coverage.
Explain why most government leaders are reading from the same script.
Explain how all the things that you were laughing at us for talking about last year are now becoming a reality this year.
American Governors Sign Laws to Ban Vaccine Passports & Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination
Governors from many American states are now framing a legal structure and are signing laws to ban Vaccine Passports and mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. Governors from Wyoming, South Carolina, Montana, South Dakota, Arizona, Idaho, and Texas have issued executive orders to prohibit Covid-19 Vaccine Passports, while North Dakota, South Carolina, Arkansas and Utah have passed bills into law to prohibit Vaccine Passport.
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey and Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed the bills into law. They are joining other states that do not support Covid-19 Vaccine Passports at the state level.
On May 24, Ivey signed Senate Bill 267 (read below) into law. On May 20, Reynolds signed House File 889 into law.
“Since the development of the COVID-19 vaccine, both Dr. Harris [the state health officer] and I have said that we would not mandate vaccines in the state of Alabama. I am supportive of a voluntary vaccine, and by signing this bill into law, I am only further solidifying that conviction,” Ivey said in a statement.
Reynolds said she “strongly oppose[s] vaccine passports” last month and that she would like to take legislative or executive action.
These two laws are same and prohibit state agencies from issuing identifications to show personal vaccine records. It states that no government entities or businesses should need Vaccine Passport to offer service.
The Iowa version targets Covid-19 Vaccine Passports, while the Alabama version appears to be more than this.
Iowa requires that contracts or grants funded by state revenue should not be renewed or awarded with respect to a governmental entity or business that violates the law. The Alabama version does not offer any such punishment mechanism.
Two paths have been taken by states to counter vaccine passports including either via legislation or executive orders.
Governors from Wyoming, South Carolina, Montana, South Dakota, Arizona, Idaho, and Texas have issued executive orders to prohibit Covid-19 Vaccine Passports, while North Dakota, South Carolina, Arkansas and Utah have passed bills into law to prohibit Vaccine Passport.
Most of us have heard about ‘Vaccine Passports’ only after the pandemic, when different governments started emphasizing the requirement of ‘Vaccine Passports’ for travelling to other countries or even for going to public places.
What these roadmap talk about is not just some document that would restrict your entry or movement to certain places. What they envision is an entire COVID eco-system, a future where each and every aspect of your life is monitored and regulated as per the whims and fancy of these Pharma Overlords.
When we were leaving Oregon and researching states, we didn’t have the advantage of knowing how crazy or sane each state’s governor truly was. You guys, who are considering a move now, get to see which governors have handled the last year the best. I’m really glad we left Oregon, seeing how Kate Brown has treated Oregon residents and business owners.
Let’s be clear–I was not a fan of lockdowns or face covering mandates, at all. I think people need to breathe and should be able to make their own choices about whether they want to wear a mask or not, and whether they want to stay home or not. I think that vaccine passports will lead down a terrible, discriminatory, ugly path and I pray that our country does not implement them.
Assuming you’re still following and want to know more, let’s dive in and figure out which ones handled lockdowns, masks, and this whole vaccine passport idea the BEST, and WORST (ahem, Oregon). Also, it’s important to note how the stay-at-home-orders impacted people’s livelihoods, so I have included the current unemployment rate for each state.
While many do not want to admit that the virus restrictions have been political–it is clear, when you research the facts, that this has been very political. In general, states with Democrat governors had more restrictions and states with Republican governors had less. To show this point, I have marked states with Republican governors in red and Democrat governors in blue.
By the way, for the naysayers who believe we should lock down, wear masks and check everyone’s vaccination status from now until the end of time, I’ll also share the deaths per million residents of each state. In my opinion, the states that promoted freedom, don’t exactly look like they have “blood on their hands,” as some would say (talk about extreme rhetoric!). Okay, moving on…
The States, In Order (Best to Worst)
Based on scores from the data below, with COVID-19 Deaths per million listed next to every state. States at the top were the least restricted states and also the states that lost the least businesses and have the smallest unemployment numbers. The states at the bottom were the most restricted states and also have the highest unemployment rates and the highest number of businesses lost.
**Please Note** The COVID death counts did NOT increase because a state was less restrictive. NOR did COVID death counts decrease because a state locked down longer, shut down churches or banned HCQ.
**Also Note** When people say that the lockdowns and masks and banning of life-saving meds was “not political,” they’re lying. Look at the red vs blue states. Republican governors, in general, cared about freedom and Democrat governors, in general, ceased the opportunity to control their people. Again, their extreme control did not prevent deaths, which was what they told us they were doing. This has definitely been political.
Arkansas, under 2,000 per million
South Dakota, 2,000 per million or more
North Dakota, under 2,000 per million
Nebraska, under 1,500 per million
Utah, under 1,000 per million
Florida, under 2,000 per million
Iowa, under 2,000 per million
South Carolina, under 2,000 per million
Tennessee, under 2,000 per million
Alabama, 2,000 per million or more
Ohio, under 2,000 per million
Wyoming, under 1,500 per million
Georgia, under 2,000 per million
Missouri, under 2,000 per million
Idaho, under 1,500 per million
Indiana, 2,000 per million or more
Texas, under 2,000 per million
Arizona, 2,000 per million or more
Alaska, under 1,000 per million
Wisconsin, under 1,500 per million
Kansas, under 2,000 per million
Oklahoma, under 2,000 per million
Montana, under 2,000 per million
West Virginia, under 2,000 per million
Mississippi, 2,000 per million or more
New Hampshire, under 1,000 per million
Pennsylvania, 2,000 per million or more
Colorado, under 1,500 per million
Louisiana, 2,000 per million or more
Michigan, 2,000 per million or more
Kentucky, under 1,500 per million
Vermont, under 1,000 per million
Minnesota, under 1,500 per million
Maryland, under 1,500 per million
North Carolina, under 1,500 per million
Massachusetts, 2,000 per million or more
Virginia, under 1,500 per million
Connecticut, 2,000 per million or more
Rhode Island, 2,000 per million or more
Maine, under 1,000 per million
Delaware, under 2,000 per million
Washington, under 1,000 per million
Nevada, under 2,000 per million
Illinois, under 2,000 per million
District of Columbia, under 2,000 per million
New Mexico, under 2,000 per million
Hawaii, under 1,000 per million
Oregon, under 1,000 per million
New Jersey, 2,000 per million or more
New York, 2,000 per million or more
California, under 2,000 per million
Our state, Virginia, isn’t doing so hot! BUT! We moved from Oregon (#48) to Virginia (#37), so at least we’ve moved up in the world! ?
Where do you want to live, now?
THE DETAILS
If you’d like to know how each state ranked in each area, here are the details! This is a very long post!
Mask Mandates
In my opinion, mask mandates have been ridiculous, unproven, government overreach. While some states have were lenient when it came to people with health conditions or the hearing impaired, some states required masks no matter what, even outdoors, and on athletic fields.
States that Did Not Mandate Masks Note that some of these states did have mask mandates in particular cities or counties.
Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wyoming
States that are Expected to End their Mask Mandates Soon
Massachusetts, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia
States that STILL Have Mask Mandatesas of May 22, 2021
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington
Stay at Home Orders
In all situations through history, the sick were quarantined, NOT the healthy. In my opinion, stay at home orders were a crazy, controlling, unproven decision.Some governors kept the stay-at-home orders going for too long, while others never imposed such orders.
States that Did Not Impose Stay at Home Orders
Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
States with Stay at Home Orders Lasting 30 Days or Less
Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas
States with Stay at Home Orders Lasting 40 Days or Less
Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Nevada, West Virginia
States with Stay at Home Orders Lasting 50 Days or Less
Arizona, Indiana, Maryland, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin
States with Stay at Home Orders Lasting More than 50 Days
California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont
States with Stay at Home Orders Lasting More than 60 Days
Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania
States with Stay at Home Orders Lasting More than 70 Days
Michigan, New Jersey, Virginia
Business Shut Downs
Nearly every state ordered restaurants and “non-essential”businesses to shut down. This title, “Non-essential,”was also used in World War II–by Hitler and the Nazis. There was no place for this kind of government overreach and these measures have caused many small businesses to close down.
The Only States that Did Not Shut Down Restaurants
South Dakota, Nebraska (Restricted but not shut down)
States that Did Not Shut Down “Non-Essential” Businesses
Arkansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
Businesses Lost
Shutting down businesses leads to the permanent loss of businesses, as all states are experiencing to some degree.
States that were Not Included On a List of States that Lost the Most Businesses
Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Tennessee, Utah
States that Lost Less than 150 Businesses Per Million Residents
Delaware, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, West Virginia
States that Lost Less than 200 Businesses Per Million Residents
Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Wisconsin
States that Lost More than 200 Businesses Per Million Residents
Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Wyoming
States that Lost More than 250 Businesses Per Million Residents
Colorado, Oregon, Washington
States that Lost More than 300 Businesses Per Million Residents
California, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Nevada
Gathering Restrictions
Most states limited groups of people from meeting. Each state varied in the number of people who could gather, and some states prohibited gatherings entirely.
States that Restricted Gatherings to 50 People
Arizona, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota
Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas,Colorado, District of Columbia,Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine,Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Wyoming
States that Restricted Gatherings to 5 People
New Mexico
States that Restricted All Gatherings
California, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin
School Closures
The shut downs impacted children, too. As of Spring 2021, this is where each state stands on schools reopening.
States that Have Required Schools to Reopenor at Least Some Grades to Reopen
Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Texas, West Virginia
States that are Allowing Districts to Decide About Reopening
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona,Colorado, Connecticut,Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming
States that Have Partial Closures in Effect
California, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, New Mexico
Church Closures
Americans have the right to assemble, and the governor should not make any laws or restrictions on this right, no matter what. Closing down churches was unconstitutional government overreach.When bars and casinos were allowed to open but churches were not, it became very clear that this was indeed, political.
As of September 2020
States with No Church Restrictions
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
States that Restricted Church Gatherings to 500 People
Alaska
States that Limited Church Gatherings to 75%Capacity
Louisiana
States that Limited Church Gatherings to 250 People
Minnesota
States that Limited Church Gatherings to 50% Capacity
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington
States that Restricted Church Gatherings to 150 People
New Jersey
States that Restricted Church Gatherings to 125 People
Rhode Island
States that Restricted Church Gatherings to 100 People
California, Connecticut, District of Columbia
States that Restricted Church Gatherings to 50 People
States that Limited Church Gatherings to 25% Capacity
New Mexico
States that Restricted Church Gatherings to 10 People
New York
States that Banned Singing in Church
California
Last State to Lift the Ban on Church Services
New Jersey
As of April 2020
States with No Church Restrictions
Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia
States that Restricted Church Gatherings to 50 People
Connecticut
States that Restricted Church Gatherings to 25 People
Oregon
States that Restricted Church Gatherings to 10 People
Alabama, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,Massachusetts,Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
States that Restricted Church Gatherings to 5 People
Rhode Island
States that Banned Church Gatherings Altogether
Alaska, California, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, Washington
Unemployment Rates
All of the closures, of course, impacted unemployment rates.
States with Unemployment RatesUnder 3.0
Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont
District of Columbia, Illinois, Louisiana, New Jersey, Pennsylvania
States with Unemployment Rates Over 8.0 (The Highest in the Country)
California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico, New York
States that Banned or Restricted a Potentially Life-Saving Medication
Hydroxychloroquine suddenly became a political drug when President Trump mentioned it in a press briefing. Even though it showed promise in preventing extreme cases of the virus, some states decided to ban the medication. Many believe the governors who did this caused unnecessary deaths.
States that Allowed the Use of HCQ for COVID-19 or Did Not Prohibit It
District of Columbia, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland,Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming
States that Banned or Restricted HCQ Use for COVID-19
Arizona, California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia
Vaccine Passports
Vaccine passports are a scary concept! If we need a vaccine passport to get on a public bus or to enter a store, I believe we will be very near to Jesus returning. We can’t know the day or the hour, but end times prophecy will be lining up…
States that have Banned Vaccine Passports
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wyoming
States that have Discussed Banning Vaccine Passports
Alaska, Delaware,Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin
States that are Unsure or have Mixed Policies about Vaccine Passports
Connecticut, Colorado, Kansas, Maine,Maryland, Massachusetts,Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma,Vermont, West Virginia
States that have Discussed Issuing Vaccine Passports
California,Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, Virginia
States that are Working On or Have Issued Vaccine Passports or Have Made it Necessary for People to Show their Vaccine Card (Effectively, Vaccine Passports)
Hawaii, New York, Oregon, Washington
COVID-19 Deaths
One might expect that no mask mandates and no stay home orders would mean more deaths. This hasn’t necessarily been the case.
Arkansas, California, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia
States with 2,000 Deaths per Million or More
Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New York, New Jersey,Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota
Some Individual State Notes
When I found interesting information about each state’s requirements, I shared them here:
Alabama
“Businesses are not required to deny entry to people who aren’t wearing a mask, but they retain the right to do so.”
“The order doesn’t apply to people with a medical condition or disability that prevents him or her from wearing a facial covering.”
“The facial-covering requirement does not apply to people who are actively engaged in exercise or athletic activities.”
However, “The penalty for violating the order can result in a $500 fine and/or jail time.”
“Exceptions for exercise. The facial-covering requirement does not apply to:
3
(i) Any person who is actively engaged in exercise in a gym or other athletic facility
if he or she maintains six feet of separation from persons of another household;
(ii) Any person who is directly participating in athletic activities in compliance with
paragraph 11 of this order; or
(iii) Any person who is in a swimming pool, lake, water attraction, or similar body of
water, though wearing a face covering or social distancing is strongly encouraged
if safe and practicable.
c. Exceptions for effective communication. The facial-covering requirement does not
apply to:
(i) Any person who is seeking to communicate with another person where the ability
to see the person’s mouth is essential for communication (such as when the other
person has a hearing impairment); or
(ii) Any person speaking for broadcast or to an audience if the person maintains six
feet of separation from persons from another household.
d. Exceptions to facilitate constitutionally protected activity. The facial-covering
requirement does not apply to:
(i) Any person who is voting, though wearing a face covering is strongly
encouraged; or
(ii) Any person who cannot wear a facial covering because he or she is actively
providing or obtaining access to religious worship, though wearing a face
covering is strongly encouraged.
e. Exceptions for essential job functions. The facial-covering requirement does not apply
to:
(i) Any first responder (including law enforcement officers, firefighters, or
emergency medical personnel) if necessary to perform a public-safety function; or
(ii) Any person performing a job function if wearing a face covering is inconsistent
with industry safety standards or a business’s established safety protocols.”
Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson said at a news conference on March 16 that restaurants can remain open “on their own choosing and based upon market demand”. Source
California
“For outdoor activities,” what Ghaly called “mega outdoor events” with attendance of more than10,000, he announced, “We are recommending that those operators have a system to verify vaccination or verify.” Operators of those events can also “give that person an option to come into the event and wear a mask.” Source
Delaware
“There are challenges with respect to mostly enforcement because you don’t know who’s vaccinated or not,’’ he said. “We’re not going to be in the business of asking people for a so-called vaccine passport.”
“Here in Iowa, we will protect Iowans from being forced by tyrannical governments to inject their body with chemicals that they may or may not wish to have,” state Sen. Jake Chapman (R), said, according to the Register.”
“I really think the focus for us and for the commonwealth generally should be on getting everybody who wants to get vaccinated vaccinated as quickly as we possibly can. There’s plenty of time to talk about some of this other stuff,” Baker said during the press briefing in Revere.”
“I was asked about the vaccination passport, if I was open-minded to it at one point. I said ‘Yeah, that’s something that I’d be open minded to,’” said the governor. “I don’t want anyone to think that we’re up here pounding the table, to think that this is something we unquestionably support. The CDC is the place that that discussion and that guidance has to come from.”
“Hoverson said that “The mask is a part of a larger apparatus of a movement of unelected, wealthy bureaucrats, who are robbing our freedoms and perpetuating lies.” He also reportedly said, “Our state is not a prison camp.”
“In order to meet the CDC guidance that someone who is vaccinated does not need to wear a mask, or keep their distance, we need to know who is vaccinated. We need someone to disclose their vaccination status so they can remove their mask in a setting and not keep their distance,” Dr. Sidelinger said.”
You would think that during the worst Pandemic since the 1918 Spanish Flu life insurance companies would be hedging their bets to avoid major losses from Covid-19. I haven’t written a life policy for several years so I was wondering what was going on? I called one of the brokers I deal with that interacts with hundreds of big life insurers to get an inside look into how the Covid crisis has changed their business.
Imagine my surprise when she said it was pretty much business as usual! Last year when the hysteria was just getting ramped up she did say the companies temporarily tightened up underwriting and reduced the amount of coverage they would offer. But as time went by and the hard data came rolling in those same companies went back to business as usual.
I asked her specifically if life insurers wanted a Covid test as part of the underwriting process and she said none that she was aware of. Hmm, that’s pretty interesting isn’t it? The most lethal pandemic in decades descends on the globe with deadly mutations taking millions of innocent lives and the life insurance companies couldn’t care less.
I also asked if the cost per thousand of coverage had increased due to Covid and again she said no. Rates were pretty much the same as they were before the Covid Pandemic ravaged the earth. Life Insurance companies are very risk adverse. They don’t like losing money to unnecessary claims. The fact they’re treating Covid as a nonevent should be an indicator that something is very wrong with the whole narrative.
The Conscious Resistance Network presents: The Pyramid of Power, a brand-new 16-part documentary series aimed at exposing the individuals and institutions which seek to manipulate our world.
By now, most viewers will be familiar with the well-publicized problems of social media. It’s purposefully addictive, produces jealousy, insecurity, and depression (and this) in some people, and the big socials sell your data for a profit. Despite the growing awareness of these problems, companies like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube are still some of the most widely used platforms in the world. Billions of people download these apps and use them to stay informed about the world. (Or, so they believe.)
While these issues are absolutely worrisome, they are not the only issues we should be concerned about. To understand the role social media plays in the “Pyramid of Power” we need to understand the origins of social media. More specifically, we need to understand the origins of the so-called “Big Tech” giants behind social media.
The Big Tech companies are the largest and most dominant companies in the information technology industry of the United States, namely Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft. Alternatively, there are other labels, such as FAANG, which refers to the five prominent American tech companies: Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, and Google, or Alphabet, Inc, Google’s parent company. The point is that these companies dominate information technology in most of the world and shape the direction of the various markets they operate in.
Amazon dominates the e-commerce/online sales market, as well AI smart assistants and smart speakers. Apple and Google share a monopoly on cell phones. Google, of course, claims the title of leading online search engine for most of the world, as well top video sharing with YouTube, and top online mapping and navigation with Google Maps. Microsoft dominates the operating system markets, shares the cloud computing market with Amazon, and is highly influential in the video game industry via their XBox system. Facebook is known for being one of the top 3 companies in digital advertising which they gained through their social networks. They also dominate image sharing with Instagram and messaging with WhatsApp and FB Messenger.
In fact, Big Tech’s growth in wealth and influence over the last decade has surpassed the wealth and influence of the Big Media companies we covered in chapter 2.
So where did these companies come from and are they influencing our world for ill or good?
The basic narrative, we are told, is that the Big Tech companies were started by brilliant men, mostly in California, in the area now commonly known as Silicon Valley. Through their hard work and determination, these companies were able to rise from garages and college dorms to become the giants we know them as today. There’s just one problem: this version of events is cartoonish at best and an outright deception at worst.
It’s important to understand that nearly every Big Tech tool you use today was funded, in part, by the U.S. intelligence community and supported in various ways by the U.S. government itself. The Rise of the Big Tech companies is not a fairy tale of free market success, but rather a dark and disturbing story of corporate welfare and deep ties to the intelligence community. In fact, most of the digital tools you use – including cell phones, GPS, and the internet itself started out as tools for the military. These tools were designed by the U.S. Department of Defense, under the direction of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or DARPA.
The Big Tech-Intelligence Complex
What we know as the internet, or the World Wide Web, was first developed by the military as the ARPANET. One of the best sources for the true origins of Big Tech is the book Surveillance Valley by researcher Yasha Levine. In his groundbreaking book, Levine outlines the role that the military and the intelligence apparatus played in advancing these tools from being used exclusively by the military, to being used by billions of people around the world.
Yasha Levine’s book Surveillance Valley cannot be overstated as an invaluable resource for understanding how the military and intelligence community helped fund various tools in the private sector in the hopes that doing so would provide them more data about the public at large.
In 2017, a former director of the the National Science Foundation shed more light when he published an article exploring the true founding of Google:
“The research arms of the CIA and NSA hoped that the best computer-science minds in academia could identify what they called ‘birds of a feather:'[sic] Just as geese fly together in large V shapes, or flocks of sparrows make sudden movements together in harmony, they predicted that like-minded groups of humans would move together online.
“Their research aim was to track digital fingerprints inside the rapidly expanding global information network, which was then known as the World Wide Web. Could an entire world of digital information be organized so that the requests humans made inside such a network be tracked and sorted? Could their queries be linked and ranked in order of importance? Could ‘birds of a feather’ be identified inside this sea of information so that communities and groups could be tracked in an organized way?”
Jeff Nesbit goes on to describe how Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the ostensible founders of Google, were originally funded “through an unclassified, highly compartmentalized program that was managed for the CIA and the NSA by large military and intelligence contractors. It was called the Massive Digital Data Systems (MDDS) project.”
Eventually, the research by Brin and Page under these grants became the heart of Google’s search engine. Nesbit writes, “The intelligence community, however, saw a slightly different benefit in their research: Could the network be organized so efficiently that individual users could be uniquely identified and tracked?”
In 2014, more details emerged regarding the relationship between Sergey Brin, former Google Executive Eric Schmidt and the National Security Agency. A Freedom of Information Act request revealed that Brin and Schmidt were on a first name basis with then-NSA chief General Keith Alexander. Additionally, Google was part of a “secretive government initiative known as the Enduring Security Framework,” and this initiative involved Silicon Valley partnering with the Pentagon and the US intelligence community to share information “at network speed.”
The connections between Google and the intelligence firms that have spent decades spying on the public, infiltrating the public school system and establishment media, also involve the CIA’s venture capital firm, In-Q-Tel. For example, we know that the software that would become Google Earth was born out of technology originally developed by the company Keyhole, Inc., which itself had a close relationship with the U.S. intelligence community.
However, Google was not the only Big Tech firm who maintained a relationship with In-Q-Tel. Facebook executives also had close ties to CIA venture capital firm In-Q-Tel. Journalist James Corbett reports (from here 14:49-15:50):
“Publicly, In-Q-Tel markets itself as an innovative way to leverage the power of the private sector by identifying key emerging technologies and providing companies with the funding to bring those technologies to market.
In reality, however, what In-Q-Tel represents is a dangerous blurring of the lines between the public and private sectors in a way that makes it difficult to tell where the American intelligence community ends and the IT sector begins.
Two of the names that come up most often in connection with In-Q-Tel, however, need no introduction: Google and Facebook.
The publicly available record on the Facebook/In-Q-Tel connection is tenuous. Facebook received $12.7 million in venture capital from Accel, whose manager, James Breyer, now sits on their board. He was formerly the chairman of the National Venture Capital Association, whose board included Gilman Louie, then the CEO of In-Q-Tel. The connection is indirect, but the suggestion of CIA involvement with Facebook, however tangential, is disturbing in the light of Facebook’s history of violating the privacy of its users.”
Around the time Facebook was launched, a similarly themed government project was coming to an end. LifeLog was a project of the Information Processing Techniques Office of DARPA, designed, “to be able to trace the ‘threads’ of an individual’s life in terms of events, states, and relationships”, with the ability to “take in all of a subject’s experience, from phone numbers dialed and e-mail messages viewed to every breath taken, step made and place gone”.
USA Today reported that, “Cameras and microphones would capture what the user sees or hears; sensors would record what he or she feels. Global positioning satellites would log every movement. Biomedical sensors would monitor vital signs. E-mails, instant messages, Web-based transactions, telephone calls and voicemails would be stored. Mail and faxes would be scanned. Links to every radio and television broadcast heard and every newspaper, magazine, book, Web site or database seen would be recorded.”
DARPA contractors stated that LifeLog’s software “will be able to find meaningful patterns in the timetable, to infer the user’s routines, habits and relationships with other people, organizations, places and objects.” Ultimately, the program was abandoned because of surveillance fears.
On February 4, 2004, Wired Magazine reported that the Pentagon was abandoning the Lifelog Project. Ironically, this is the exact day that Mark Zuckerberg launched his first iteration of Facebook.
Lifelog’s creator Douglas Gage recently told Motherboard he feels that in many ways Facebook has accomplished the goals of LifeLog. “I think that Facebook is the real face of pseudo-LifeLog at this point. I generally avoid using Facebook, only occasionally logging in to see what everyone is up to, and have never ‘liked’ anything.”
Another important note regarding social media and intelligence agencies, relates to the 2013 revelations by Edward Snowden. According to one of the documents leaked by Edward Snowden, the British government maintains software for “Online Persona Management”. The British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) operates an elite unit known as the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG).
The documents outline tactics employed by the agency, including ways to manipulate public opinion, understand human thinking and behavior, and encourage conformity. One of the reports from 2011 outlines JTRIG’s tactics, including uploading YouTube videos containing “persuasive communications,” starting Facebook groups and Twitter accounts, and creating fake online personalities and supporters “to discredit, promote distrust, dissuade, deter, delay or disrupt.” The unit used social media campaigns to encourage and foster “obedience” and “conformity”.
The British Intelligence and the US Intelligence community both desire to promote obedience and conformity within the public. They use social media to keep the public propagandized, distracted, misinformed, and fighting amongst themselves.
We could go on to detail the intelligence connections and partnerships between Facebook, Apple, Google, and Amazon, but the point is that the origins of the Big Tech firms which control information technology are much different from what is promoted in the mainstream. These companies have directly and indirectly benefited from the financial investments of the U.S. military and intelligence sectors. They have also shown a willingness to share user data with law enforcement.
These Big Tech firms are also furthering the all pervasive surveillance state. Not only are Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon tracking your habits (on and offline), they are profiting from that knowledge. With the growth of AI smart assistants and speakers like Amazon Echo, Google Nest, Apple’s Siri, and other devices, millions of people around the world are welcoming the surveillance state into their homes.
Amazon is well known for their online marketplace, but less people are aware that the Big Tech firm has been developing facial recognition software called Rekognition. Amazon has marketed the facial recognition tools to police departments in the United States, claiming that the software will allow real-time surveillance using body cameras.
In 2018, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch, the Freedom of the Press Foundation and nearly 40 other organizations filed a lawsuit demanding that Amazon cease providing law enforcement access to surveillance technology.
“Amazon has been heavily marketing this tool—called “Rekognition”—to law enforcement, and it’s already being used by agencies in Florida and Oregon. This system affords the government vast and dangerous surveillance powers, and it poses a threat to the privacy and freedom of communities across the country. That includes many of Amazon’s own customers, who represent more than 75 percent of U.S. online consumers.”
In 2020, Amazon was reportedly talking with a police department from Jackson, Mississippi to connect their Ring doorbell cameras to a 24-hour surveillance center operated by the police. The Jackson police surveillance center would conduct a 45-day pilot program to live stream the security cameras of participating residents, including a direct line to residents’ Amazon Ring doorbell cameras. By June 2020, Amazon announced it was implementing a one-year moratorium on police use of Rekognition, in response to the George Floyd protests. However, in February 2021, documents revealed that the LAPD had already used the Ring doorbell cameras to monitor activists.
The Big Tech-Military Industrial Complex
In 2020, the public became aware of the true power wielded by the Big Tech companies that run the popular social media platforms. Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Tik Tok, Google, and Amazon all sought to down rank, shadow ban, delete and/or ban information that went against the accepted narratives for COVID19, the 2020 election, and basically any other topic deemed controversial. While many people chose to frame this attack on free expression as an attack on “conservatives” or the “Right wing”, the reality is that prominent left wing pages and channels also suffered the same fate because they also committed the cardinal sin of social media: asking questions and making claims not accepted by the so-called authorities. In short, if you ask too many questions and do not parrot the mainstream Right or Left wing positions, it’s highly likely you will find yourself demonetized or banned altogether.
Some folks incorrectly argue that Big Tech is made up of private companies which have the freedom to decide what goes on their platforms. This argument ignores the wealth of evidence indicating the close relationship between Big Tech and U.S. intelligence, as well the seed funding received by many of the companies. Essentially, these companies would not be as monolithic as they are without the support of the government. They are hardly a representation of free market economics.
Which brings us to the final point: these Big Tech firms often serve the purpose of reinforcing a particular narrative that is beneficial to the U.S. government and intelligence community. It’s no mistake that the pages and channels which have been removed have often been those which expose the U.S. war machine, the violence of police, and overall, the lies of the U.S. government.
Although most of the public was unaware, the attacks on independent journalism and free voices began in earnest immediately after the election of Donald Trump in November 2016. The media began promoting story after story claiming that government insiders had evidence that the Russians interfered with the U.S. elections by propagating fake news stories that favored Trump and attacked Hillary Clinton. The Washington Post and other mouthpieces for the establishment ran with a report from the organization PropOrNot which claimed to identify websites that were spreading fake news and, possibly, working as Russian propagandists. The list contained many well-known American alternative media sites, including Activist Post, Mint Press News, The Free Thought Project, and The Anti Media.
Although Trump popularized the “Fake News” meme, it was very quickly used to demonize alternative and independent media who did not fall in line with the Russian narrative. The rise of the “Fake News” meme had immediate repercussions for the alternative media: many sites lost access to Google Ads for revenue generation, others were shadow banned on Facebook and Twitter, while still others were cut off from payment processors like Paypal and Patreon.
The relationship between the Military Industrial Complex and Facebook was made even more clear in May 2018, when Facebook announced a new partnership with the Atlantic Council, a think tank which officially claims to provide a forum for international political, business, and intellectual leaders. The social media giant said the partnership was aimed at preventing Facebook from “being abused during elections.” The press release promoted Facebook’s efforts to fight fake news by using artificial intelligence, as well as working with outside experts and governments.
The Atlantic Council of the United States was established in 1961 to bolster support for international relations. Although not officially connected to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Atlantic Council has spent decades promoting causes and issues which are beneficial to NATO member states. In addition, The Atlantic Council is a member of the Atlantic Treaty Association, an umbrella organization which “acts as a network facilitator in the Euro-Atlantic and beyond.” The ATA works similarly to the Atlantic Council, bringing together political leaders, academics, military officials, journalists and diplomats to promote values that are favorable to the NATO member states. Officially, ATA is independent of NATO, but the line between the two is razor thin.
Essentially, the Atlantic Council is a think tank which can offer companies or nation states access to military officials, politicians, journalists, and diplomats to help them develop a plan to implement their strategy or vision. These strategies often involve getting NATO governments or industry insiders to make decisions they might not have made without a visit from the Atlantic Council team. This allows individuals or nations to push forth their ideas under the cover of hiring what appears to be a public relations agency but is actually selling access to high-profile individuals with power to affect public policy. Indeed, everyone from George H.W. Bush to Bill Clinton have spoken at or attended council events.
Clearly, despite what Facebook says, this partnership will further align the goals of Facebook with the Western Military-Industrial Complex. This was made evident in October 2018, when Facebook announced they were unpublishing, or purging, over 500 pages and 200 accounts who were accused of spreading political spam. Several of these pages and writers were also removed from Twitter on the same day.
“Today, we’re removing 559 Pages and 251 accounts that have consistently broken our rules against spam and coordinated inauthentic behavior,” Facebook stated in a blog post. Facebook states that the people behind this alleged spam “create networks of Pages using fake accounts or multiple accounts with the same names” and “post the same clickbait posts in dozens of Facebook Groups”.
This action by Facebook became known as “The Purge of 2018” and was only the first of many to come. With Facebook and other Big Tech firms developing a revolvingdoorrelationship between the Military Industrial Complex, it’s highly likely that anti-establishment voices will continue to be stifled.
Now that we understand the Big Tech firms are cartels of information technology with deep ties to the U.S. intelligence community and military – who sell their users data and manipulate their emotions – it’s time to figure out what we are going to do about these problems.
Solutions: Better Tech
The solutions for dealing with Big Tech are deceptively simple: Boycott them. It’s as simple and difficult as that. If we each consciously choose to deny Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft our data and our money, we can limit the ways they affect our lives. So what does boycotting Big Tech look like?
Let’s start with social media. Right now, in this moment, you can choose to leave Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, Tik Tok, and Twitter. You can starve them of your data and instead choose to participate with and support companies that do not steal or sell your data, or collaborate with the U.S. military industrial complex. There are better alternatives, including Flote.app, Odysee, Minds, Junto, PeerTube, Element, Matrix, and many others.
Obviously, these platforms do not have all the content you might be accustomed to seeing on the Big Tech sites but the sooner we encourage people to exit from these platforms and support better alternatives, the sooner we will see the content we know and love.
What about getting away from Big Tech email, storage, maps, and other digital services?
Again, there are alternatives to each of these which do not share your data with advertisers or governments. We are including some helpful links (1, 2, & 3) in the transcript to this documentary for anyone who seeks this information. The simple fact is that you have to make an effort to get away from Big Tech. It will inevitably involve changes to your lifestyle and habits.
When it comes to cell phones and computer operating systems it can be a bit more difficult and expensive to find alternatives, but they do exist. The Linux operating system has been offering consumers a non-Microsoft experience for decades, and recent years have seen the growth of cellphones which do not have Google or Apple built in. Again, we have included some tips for those seeking to move beyond the Big Tech paradigm.
Thankfully, there are also literally hundreds of thousands of developers working on decentralized technologies – including decentralized versions of the internet itself – which have the potential to free the people from the grips of Big Tech. With time, the people will have more options to choose from and the monopolistic control of our digital lives will come to an end.
For those interested in diving deeper into this topic, we recommend reading Surveillance Valley from Yasha Levine as well as the 2017 investigation by Jeff Nesbit. We also recommend watching the documentary, The Secrets of Silicon Valley, from The Corbett Report.
The mother of 17-year-old Gregory Hatton, diagnosed with pericarditis within days of his second dose of the vaccine, said her son “basically has a heart condition now and it’s terrifying.”
One week after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced it was investigating heart inflammation in recently vaccinated young adults, Connecticut reported 18 new cases of heart problems among teens who had received a COVID vaccine.
“It’s terrifying,” said Hatton. Her son started complaining of severe chest pain three days after his second vaccine dose. It worsened on the fourth day, causing back pain.
After blood work and an x-ray, doctors diagnosed Gregory with pericarditis, an inflammation of the tissue surrounding the heart that can cause sharp chest pain and other symptoms.
“They hooked him up to a heart monitor, did more EKGs, echocardiograms. Infectious disease actually came and ran their own set of blood work to try to figure out if it could have been caused by something else, some sort of infection, something else, like Lyme disease. They tested him for all sorts of things and one by one those tests came back negative,” said Hatton.
Doctors couldn’t confirm Gregory’s condition was caused by the COVID vaccine, but two more recently vaccinated patients presented to the hospital with similar symptoms. A spokesperson from Connecticut Children’s said patients have presented with both pericarditis and myocarditis
Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle that can lead to cardiac arrhythmia and death. According to the National Organization for Rare Disorders, myocarditis can result from infections, but “more commonly the myocarditis is a result of the body’s immune reaction to the initial heart damage.”
Mayo Clinic doctors say treatment focuses on the cause of the condition and symptoms, such as heart failure and shortness of breath.
Hatton said her son is now out of work, on medication and hooked up to a heart monitor. He will have another MRI in June to see if his condition has improved.
“I don’t sleep because … if I hear my son sneeze or if he sounds like he’s out of breath when I call him on my break at work, I get nervous because I just don’t know what else could happen. He basically has a heart condition now and it’s terrifying,” she said.
NBC Connecticut spoke with other parents of teens who received their first dose of COVID vaccine and are scheduled to get their second.
“I can’t believe the government would really put out a shot that would really negatively impact the health of my child so I’m behind the vaccine 100%,” said Heather Salgado.
“I’m just trusting the science and the recommendation is to get the vaccine,” said Theresa Galizia.
Other parents, like Siobhan Cefarelli, had reservations. “It’s one thing for me to get the vaccine, but for my child to get the vaccine, it’s kind of scary not knowing what’s going to happen and not having a lot of research having been done on it.”
Hatton said she shared her son’s story because she wanted parents to be aware. Despite doctors saying the condition is rare, Hatton explained it doesn’t feel rare when it’s affecting your own child.
The CDC has not determined if vaccines were the cause of the reported heart condition in the Connecticut cases. But the CDC safety committee released an advisory May 17 alerting doctors to reports of myocarditis, which seemed to occur predominantly in adolescents and young adults, more often in males than females, more often following the second dose and typically within four days after vaccination with Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki said during a press briefing Monday the Biden administration will continue to advise young people to get vaccinated, despite reported cases of myocarditis.
“Our health and medical experts still continue to convey that it is the right step for 12- to 15-year-olds to get vaccinated, that these are limited cases, and that, obviously, the risks of contracting COVID are certainly significant even for people of that age,” Psaki said.
According to CDC data, the death rate among adolescents ages 0 to 17 who get COVID and are subsequently hospitalized is 0.7%, with many experiencing either mild or no symptoms at all. The COVID death rate in all adolescent age categories is less than 0.1%.
While the CDC numbers appear to contradict Psaki’s assessment of young people’s risk of getting COVID, new research suggests that even the CDC’s numbers are too high.
As The Defender reported, two papers published May 19 in the journal of Hospital Pediatrics found pediatric hospitalizations for COVID were overcounted by at least 40%, carrying potential implications for nationwide figures used to justify vaccinating children.
How Reiner Fuellmich became aware that something was seriously wrong with the official narrative about the pandemic
How the Berlin Corona Investigative Committee was formed and how it proceeded to grow into what is now an international endeavor.
The fraud of the PCR test and the man who “invented” it without ever having seen the virus (Christian Drosten)
The agenda behind this planned pandemic which has been planned for at least 10 years. He mentions Event 201 which took place in October 2019 and it’s connection to The World Economic Forum.
The role of pharmaceutical companies creating a “public health emergency of international concern” and the end game of getting everyone vaccinated with an experimental gene therapy.
How the stage was set to push this genetic experiment onto the whole world with the rollout of Emergency Use Approval in the US and Conditional Use Approval in Europe.
How covid cases, that previously did not exist, were created by using the fraudulent PCR test
Upcoming lawsuits — with 200 to 300 lawyers cooperating worldwide in various class action and individual lawsuits.
The damages caused by this agenda that includes population reduction (including serious adverse affects by untested “vaccines”) and destruction of small businesses.
GAVI, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation & ties to The Great Reset agenda.
The role of the mainstream media in pushing and protecting this corporate agenda.
Censorship of truth by mainstream media, social media, youtube and google — and the corruption within governments that pushes the agenda.
How some of the agenda is not going according to plan. One of the worst effects is all these adverse effects from the vaccinations that are happening worldwide.
Regarding the possibility of class action lawsuits for those who were harmed or kill as a result of the covid vaccines, and in light of the fact that the manufacturers of the vaccines claim immunity from such suits, Reiner Fuellmich responds:
“They claim that in the United States and in some other parts of the world there’s no liability for them. They’re immune. They claim immunity. But there’s no immunity from intentional infliction of harm. And this is what this is.”
Crimes against humanity — The Nuremberg Code and it’s protections against medical interventions without full informed consent.
Connect with James Delingpole via his Delingpod podcast or Rumble, Odysee and Vimeo channels
When controversial Bill Gates-funded vaccine trials culminated in the deaths of seven children, the West’s media looked the other way.
We’ve seen a lot of India in the news recently. A lot more than we usually do. There’s an apocalypse of sorts going on there, if the popular media is to be believed. But as is often the case, these reports are devoid of any context or perspective. While the world’s media can’t get enough of India today, in its rush to support a narrative of terror about Covid-19, twelve years ago when there was a real story going on there, the world’s media was nowhere to be seen.
SOME BACKGROUND
In 2009, a Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) funded NGO carried out unauthorised clinical trials of a vaccine on some of the poorest, most vulnerable children in the world. It did so without providing information about the risks involved, without the informed consent of the children or their parents and without even declaring that it was conducting a clinical trial. After vaccination, many of the participating children became ill and seven of them died. Such were the findings of a parliamentary committee charged with investigating this wretched affair. The committee accused the NGO of “child abuse” and produced a raft of evidence to back up its claim. This entire incident barely registered on the radar of Western media.
PATH (formerly the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health) is a Seattle based NGO, heavily funded by BMGF but which also receives significant grants from the US government. Between 1995 and the time of writing (May 2021), PATH had received more than $2.5bn from BMGF.
In 2009, PATH carried out a project to administer the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. The project’s aim was, in PATH’s own words, “to generate and disseminate evidence for informed public sector introduction of HPV vaccines”. It was conducted in four countries: India, Uganda, Peru and Vietnam. Another Gates-funded organization, Gavi, had originally been considered to run the project, but responsibility was ultimately delegated to PATH. The project was directly funded by BMGF.
Significantly, each of the countries selected for the project had a different ethnic population and each had a state-funded national immunisation program. The use of different ethnic groups in the trial allowed for comparison of the effects of the vaccine across diverse population groups (ethnicity being a factor in the safety and efficacy of certain drugs), The immunisation programs of the countries involved provided a potentially lucrative market for the companies whose drugs were to be studied: should the drugs prove successful and be included on these countries’ state-funded national immunisation schedules, this would represent an annual windfall of profits for the companies involved.
Two types of HPV vaccine were used in the trial: Gardasil by Merck and Cervarix by GlaxoSmithKline(GSK). In this article, we are going to examine PATH’s trial of Gardasil in India.
It’s worth noting here the relationship between BMGF and one of the companies whose drugs were being tested. In 2002, BMGF had, controversially, bought $205m worth of stocks in the pharmaceutical sector, a purchase which included shares in Merck & Co. The move had raised eyebrows because of the obvious conflict of interest between the foundation’s role as a medical charity and its role as an owner of businesses in the same sector.
The Wall Street Journalreported, in August 2009, that the foundation had sold its shares in Merck between 31st March and 30th June of that year, which would have been around the same time that the field trials of the HPV vaccine were starting in India. So for the entirety of this project (which was already in operation by October 2006), right up to its final field trials, BMGF had a dual role: as both a charity with a responsibility for care, and as a business owner with a responsibility for profit.
Such conflicts of interest have been a hallmark of BMGF since 2002. When Gates was makingregularTVappearances last year to promote Covid-19 vaccination, giving especially ringing endorsements of the Pfizer-BioNTech effort, his objectivity was never brought into question. Yet his foundation is the part-owner of several vaccine manufacturers, includingPfizer, BioNTech and CureVac.
HPV VACCINE
HPV vaccine aims to prevent cervical cancer. Gardasil had been launched successfully by Merck in the US in 2006, but its sales suffered after a series of articles in American medical journals had judged that its risks outweighed its benefits. Especially damaging was an analysis of reports made to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) about adverse reactions to Gardasil. This analysis was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) on August 19th 2009. The 12,424 adverse reactions which had been reported included 772 which were considered serious, 32 of which were deaths. Other reported serious side effects included autoimmune disorders, venous thromboembolic events (blood clots) and Guillain-Barré syndrome.
In the same edition of JAMA, Dr. Charlotte Haug, then editor-in-chief of the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, wrote, “Whether a risk is worth taking depends not only on the absolute risk, but on the relationship between the potential risk and the potential benefit. If the potential benefits are substantial, most individuals would be willing to accept the risks. But the net benefit of the HPV vaccine to a woman is uncertain. Even if persistently infected with HPV, a woman most likely will not develop cancer if she is regularly screened. So rationally she should be willing to accept only a small risk from the vaccine.” Dr. Haug also noted, “When weighing evidence about risks and benefits, it is also appropriate to ask who takes the risk, and who gets the benefit”, in a clear dig at Gardasil manufacturer Merck.
Merck’s attempts to promote Gardasil had been controversial. Dr. Angela Raffle, one the UK’s leading experts on cervical cancer screening, described Merck’s marketing strategy as “a battering ram at the Department of Health and carpet bombing on the peripheries.” Dr. Raffle was concerned that the push to mass vaccination would harm the successful screening programme which had operated in the UK since the 1960s. “My worry is that the commercially motivated rush to make us panic into introducing HPV vaccine quickly will put us back and worsen our cervical cancer control programme.”
Professor Diane Harper, then of Dartmouth Medical School in New Hampshire, had led 2 trials of the vaccine and was adamant that Gardasil could not protect against all strains of HPV. When Merck launched a huge public relations campaign in 2007 to persuade European governments to use the product to vaccinate all the continent’s young girls against cervical cancer, she said, “Mass vaccination programmes (would be) a great big public health experiment….We don’t know a lot of things. We don’t know the vaccine will continue to be effective. To be honest, we don’t have efficacy data in these young girls right now. We’re vaccinating against a virus that attacks women throughout their whole life and continues to cause cancer. If we vaccinate girls at 10 or 11 we won’t know for 20 to 25 years whether it is going to work or not. This is a big thing to take on.”
So at the time that PATH was carrying out its trials in India, Uganda, Peru and Vietnam, Gardasil was a controversial vaccine: its safety, efficacy and Merck’s attempts to promote it were being questioned, not by anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists, but by the international medical establishment and the respected mainstream media.
THE GIRLS OF KHAMMAM
Children of the Koya tribe, Khammam
Khammam district, in 2009, was a part of the eastern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh (boundary changes made in 2014 mean that today Khammam district belongs to the state of Telangana). The region is predominantly rural and is considered to be one of the poorest and least developed parts of India. Khammam is home to several ethnic tribal groups,with some estimates putting its tribal population at about 21.5% (approximately 600,000 people). As is common for indiginous people throughout the world, the tribal groups of Khammam suffer from a lack of access to education. Consequently, their level of literacy is of a standard considerably lower than that of the region as a whole.
Some 14,000 girls were injected with Gardasil in Khammam district during 2009. The girls recruited for PATH’s project were between 10 and 14 years of age and all came from low-income, predominantly tribal backgrounds. Many of the girls did not reside with their families; instead they lived in ashram pathshalas (government-run hostels), which were situated close to the schools the children attended. Professor Linsey McGoey, of the University of Essex, later stated she believed girls at ashram pathshalas had been targeted for the project as this was a way of “side-stepping the need to seek parental consent for the shots.”
Although we have seen a lot of India in the news recently, coverage of this country and its affairs is usually low-key. Despite being home to almost one fifth of the world’s population, reporting on India is sparse. Few of us are aware, for example, of its abysmal history of health and safety or its long-standingtradition of corruption in government.
Such failings have been taken advantage of by unscrupulous profit-seekers for decades. Western media only reports on the consequences of these actions when their magnitude is too great to ignore. We learned that up to 7,000 people were killed and more than half a million were injured after being exposed to deadly methyl isocyanate gas, following a gas leak at the Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal. But we learned nothing in the years leading up to it of the culture of poor standards and disregard for regulation which was ultimately responsible for the disaster.
So it was typical that PATH’s project to administer and study the effects of the HPV vaccine went unheralded in the West. Typical, too, that the same was true in India itself: the Indian media is no more renowned for its reporting on tribal groups than the Western media is for its coverage of Indians. Despite concerns expressed about the project in October 2009 by Sama, a Delhi-based NGO that advocates for women’s health, the matter remained absent from India’s news.
This project, then, couldn’t have been more off-the-map had it taken place on the moon, and it remained so for several months until, early in 2010, stories began to filter out from Khammam that something had gone terribly wrong: many of the girls who had been involved in the trials had subsequently fallen ill and four of them had died.
In March 2010, members of Sama visited Khammam to find out more about the emerging stories. They were told that up to 120 girls had experienced adverse reactions, including epileptic seizures, severe stomach ache, headaches and mood swings. The Sama representatives remained in Khammam to investigate the situation further.
The involvement of Sama finally brought the matter to the attention of the Indian media and, amid a barrage of negative publicity, the Indian Council of Medical Research (IMCR) suspended the PATH project. At this point theIndian Parliament’s Standing Committee on Healthbegan an investigation into the affair.
On May 17th, Sama produced a damning report highlighting, among other things: that the trials had been promoted as a government immunisation programme and not a research project, that the girls had not been made aware that they could choose not to participate in the trials, and that parental consent had neither been asked for nor given in many cases.
The report stated that “Many of the vaccinated girls continue to suffer from stomach aches, headaches, giddiness and exhaustion. There have been reports of early onset of menstruation, heavy bleeding and severe menstrual cramps, extreme mood swings, irritability, and uneasiness following the vaccination. No systematic follow up or monitoring has been carried out by the vaccine providers.” Sama also disputed the Andhra Pradesh State Government’s claim that the deaths of four of the girls who had participated in the trials had nothing to do with vaccination.
THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
The wheels of bureaucracy are slow to turn. It was more than three years later, on 30th August 2013, when the report of the Indian Parliament’s Standing Committee on Health was finally published. Although many had expected the report to be a whitewash, it was anything but: it made for shocking reading.
The report excoriated both PATH and the IMCR, concluding that the “safety and rights of children were highly compromised and violated.” The committee found that PATH, despite operating in India since 1999, had no legal permission to do so. It noted that although the organisation had finally received a certificate from India’s Registrar of Companies in September 2009, this certificate itself was in breach of the law.
The report stated that “PATH….has violated all laws and regulations laid down for clinical trials….its sole aim has been to promote the commercial interests of HPV vaccine manufacturers….This is a serious breach of trust….as the project involved the life and safety of girl children and adolescents who were mostly unaware of the implications of vaccination. The violation is also a serious breach of medical ethics. This act of PATH is a clear cut violation of the human rights of these girl children and adolescents. It is also an established case of child abuse.”
The committee charged thatPATH had lied to it and had attempted to mislead it during the course of its investigation and recommended that the Indian Government report PATH’s violations of human rights to the WHO, UNICEF and the US Government.
The report declared that PATH’s whole scheme was a cynical attempt to ensure ongoing profits for Merck and GSK. “The choice of countries and population groups; the monopolistic nature, at that point of time, of the product being pushed; the unlimited market potential and opportunities in the universal immunisation programmes of the respective countries are all pointers to a well planned scheme to commercially exploit a situation. Had PATH been successful….this would have generated a windfall profit for the manufacturers by way of automatic sale, year after year, without any promotional or marketing expenses. It is well known that once introduced to the immunisation programme it becomes politically impossible to stop any vaccination.”
It went on, “To achieve this end effortlessly, without going through the arduous and strictly regulated route of clinical trials, PATH resorted to an element of subterfuge by calling the clinical trials ‘Observational Studies’ or ‘a Demonstration Project’ and various such expressions. Thus the interest, safety and well being of subjects were completely jeopardized by PATH by using self-determined and self-servicing nomenclature which is not only highly deplorable but also a serious breach of the law of the land.”
These charges were echoed by leading voices in India’s medical community. “It is shocking to see how an American organization used surreptitious methods to establish itself in India,” said Chandra M.Gulhati, editor of India’s influential Monthly Index of Medical Specialities, “(this) was not philanthropy”. Samiran Nundy, editor emeritus of the National Medical Journal of India and a long-standing critic of corrupt practices in health, did not mince his words: “This is an obvious case where Indians were being used as guinea pigs.”
The standing committee’s report was also highly critical of the relationship between PATH and members of several of India’s health agencies, highlighting multiple conflicts of interest.
On the issue of informed consent, the committee confirmed the allegations made by Sama to be true, finding that the majority of consent forms weren’t signed by either the children or their parents, that many consent forms were postdated or not dated at all, that multiple forms had been signed by the same people (often the caretakers of the hostels the girls lived in) and that many signatures didn’t match the name on the form. It found that parents had not been given information on the necessity of vaccination, its pros and cons or its potential side effects.
No insurance was provided for any of the children in the event of injury and “PATH did not provide for urgent expert medical attention in case of serious adverse events.” Further, PATH seriously contravened Indian health regulations by carrying out a clinical trial of a drug on children before first conducting a trial of the drug with adults as subjects.
Regarding the girls who had died, the committee criticized PATH, Indian medical authorities and the Andhra Pradesh State Government for summarily dismissing the link between their deaths and vaccination without conducting thorough investigations. By 2016, some 1,200 of the girls who had been subjects in the two HPV vaccine trials in India were reporting serious long-term side effects, more than 5% of the total cohort of 23,500. By then, the total number of deaths had risen to seven.
A DEATHLY SILENCE
This appalling breach of medical ethics and human rights went almost completely unmentioned outside India. The Indian Parliament’s Standing Committee on Health had literally accused an American NGO of child abuse, providing extensive evidence to support their charge, yet practically no mention of this was to be found anywhere in the Western media.
Popular science publications Nature and Science each contained a brief article about the debacle, but neither goes into any detail about PATH’s legal and ethical breaches. While the Science article is at least slightly critical, the Nature piece gives more space to a rebuttal of the charges by PATH director Vivien Tsu.
The Guardian, for all its claims to give a voice to the most vulnerable in the world, stayed curiously silent about the young girls of Khammam. That is, except for one article, published in October 2013, about six weeks after the release of the standing committee’s report.
The article was written not by one of the girls or one of their parents, not by one of the women from Sama who had advocated on the girls’ behalf, not even by one of the Indian parliamentarians who had been charged with investigating the affair. No. It was written by an American man called Seth Berkely. Berkely is the CEO of Gavi, another BMGF funded health behemoth.
Berkely used his forum in The Guardian to claim that the girls who had died after being vaccinated in Khammam had committed suicide. Speaking about the 14,000 subjects involved in the trials, he said, “it would have been unusual if none of them went on to kill themselves.” Compassion wasn’t the only element missing from his article. Not once did Berkley address the multiple breaches of law and ethics which had occurred or the role of PATH and that of his employers, the Gates Foundation, in his dismissal of this iniquity.
The Guardianbegan receiving funding from BMGF in August 2010. Prior to that arrangement, in 2007, the newspaper had published two separate articles which were critical of the lobbying tactics used by Merck to promote Gardasil and which questioned the efficacy of its use in mass vaccination programs. Subsequent to their arrangement with Gates, all coverage by the Guardian of this drug (and of HPV vaccination in general) has been positive.
HOW THINGS TURNED OUT
The Indian government was reluctant to take any of the measures recommended by the committee. After all, there were huge amounts of money being made available to the state, institutions and individuals from organisations likePATH. So no official reports of human rights violations were ever made by the Indian government to the WHO, to Unicef or to the American government, as had been recommended by the standing committee. However, in 2017, it announced it would no longer accept grants from BMGF for its Immunisation Technical Support Unit, an organisation which provides “vaccination strategy advice” in relation to an estimated 27 million infants. Nevertheless, the Indian government continues to accept the foundation’s grants in other areas.
Merck, and their HPV vaccine Gardasil, have done very well since the dismal events recounted in this article. The Khammam scandal never really affected the company, due to a lack of awareness about it outside India. In 2018 alone, Gardasil sales amounted to more than $3bn, thanks to its inclusion on immunisation schedules around the world, and its launch that year in China.
PATHhas never been better. Just like Merck, the lack of reporting about what happened in Khammam meant the organisation didn’t suffer. Since 2010, it has continued to receive huge funding from BMGF and, to a lesser extent, the US Government. During this period, BMGF has provided PATH with more than $1.2bn in funding.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has continued expanding its web of influence. Describing the organisation’s practices around the time of the events outlined here, Jacob Levich said, “In essence, BMGF would buy up stockpiled drugs that had failed to create sufficient demand in the West, press them on the periphery at a discount, and lock in long-term purchase agreements with Third World governments.”
The foundation has since moved on to even more lucrative pastures. The Covid-19 pandemic has really pushed BMGF to centre stage. Gates himself has seen his public profile and political influence grow to an extent that would have been unimaginable even in 2019. Despite his lack of either scientific qualifications or an electoral mandate, he regularly presses the need for mass global vaccination with products made by the companies he owns, using platforms given to him by the media outletshe funds.
And the girls of Khammam? Well, those poor children and their plight wasn’t even widely known outside of India back in 2010. To say they had been forgotten would be to imply that anybody knew about them or cared about them in the first place.
On April 1, 1933, shortly after Hitler was appointed chancellor, the Nazis staged a boycott of Jewish businesses in Germany. Members of the Storm Troopers (“die Sturmabteilung,” or the “Storm Department,” as I like to think of them) stood around outside of Jewish-owned stores with Gothic-lettered placards reading “Germans! Defend yourselves! Do not buy from Jews!” The boycott itself was a total disaster — most Germans ignored it and just went on with their lives — but it was the beginning of the official persecution of the Jews and totalitarianism in Nazi Germany.
Last week, here in “New Normal” Germany, the government (which, it goes without saying, bears no resemblance to the Nazi regime, or any other totalitarian regime) implemented a social-segregation system that bans anyone who refuses to publicly conform to the official “New Normal” ideology from participating in German society. From now on, only those who have an official “vaccination pass” or proof of a negative PCR test are allowed to sit down and eat at restaurants, shop at a “non-essential” stores, or go to bars, or the cinema, or wherever.
Here’s a notice from the website of Prater, a popular beer garden in Berlin:
Of course, there is absolutely no valid comparison to be made between these two events, or between Nazi Germany and “New Normal” Germany, nor would I ever imply that there was. That would be illegal in “New Normal” Germany, as it would be considered “relativizing the Holocaust,” not to mention being “anti-democratic and/or delegitimizing the state in a way that endangers security,” or whatever. Plus, it’s not like there are SA goons standing outside shops and restaurants with signs reading “Germans! Defend yourselves! Don’t sell to the Unvaccinated and Untested!” It’s just that it’s now illegal to do that, i.e., sell anything to those of us whom the media and the government have systematically stigmatized as “Covid deniers” because we haven’t converted to the new official ideology and submitted to being “vaccinated” or “tested.”
Protesting the new official ideology is also illegal in “New Normal” Germany. OK, I think I should probably rephrase that. I certainly don’t want to misinform anyone. Protesting the “New Normal” isn’t outlawed per se. You’re totally allowed to apply for a permit to protest against the “Covid restrictions” on the condition that everyone taking part in your protest wears a medical-looking N95 mask and maintains a distance of 1.5 meters from every other medical-masked protester … which is kind of like permitting anti-racism protests as long as the protesters all wear Ku Klux Klan robes and perform a choreographed karaoke of Lynyrd Skynyrd’s Sweet Home Alabama.
Who says the Germans don’t have a sense of humor?
I don’t mean to single out the Germans. There is nothing inherently totalitarian, or fascist, or robotically authoritarian and hyper-conformist about the Germans, as a people. The fact that the vast majority of Germans clicked their heels and started mindlessly following orders, like they did in Nazi Germany, the moment the “New Normal” was introduced last year doesn’t mean that all Germans are fascists by nature. Most Americans did the same thing. So did the British, the Australians, the Spanish, the French, the Canadians, and a long list of others. It’s just that, well, I happen to live here, so I’ve watched as Germany has been transformed into “New Normal Germany” up close and personal, and it has definitely made an impression on me.
The ease with which the German authorities implemented the new official ideology, and how fanatically it has been embraced by the majority of Germans, came as something of a shock. I had naively believed that, in light of their history, the Germans would be among the first to recognize a nascent totalitarian movement predicated on textbook Goebbelsian Big Lies (i.e., manipulated Covid “case” and “death” statistics), and would resist it en masse, or at least take a moment to question the lies their leaders were hysterically barking at them.
I couldn’t have been more wrong.
Here we are, over a year later, and waiters and shop clerks are “checking papers” to enforce compliance with the new official ideology. (And, yes, the “New Normal” is an official ideology. When you strip away the illusion of an apocalyptic plague, there isn’t any other description for it). Perfectly healthy, medical-masked people are lining up in the streets to be experimentally “vaccinated.” Lockdown-bankrupted shops and restaurants have been converted into walk-in “PCR-test stations.” The government is debating mandatory “vaccination” of children in kindergarten. Goon squads are arresting octogenarians for picnicking on the sidewalk without permission. And so on. At this point, I’m just sitting here waiting for the news that mass “disinfection camps” are being set up to solve the “Unvaccinated Question.”
Whoops … there I go again, “relativizing the Holocaust.” I really need to stop doing that. The Germans take this stuff very seriously, especially with Israel under relentless attack by the desperately impoverished people it has locked inside an enormous walled ghetto, and is self-defensively ethnically cleansing.
But, seriously, there is no similarity whatsoever between Nazi Germany and “New Normal” Germany. Sure, both systems suspended the constitution, declared a national “state of emergency” enabling the government to rule by decree, inundated the masses with insane propaganda and manipulated “scientific facts,” outlawed protests, criminalized dissent, implemented a variety of public rituals, and symbols, and a social segregation system, to enforce compliance with their official ideologies, and demonized anyone who refused to comply … but, other than that, there’s no similarity, and anyone who suggests there is is a dangerous social-deviant extremist who probably needs to be quarantined somewhere, or perhaps dealt with in some other “special” way.
Plus, the two ideologies are completely different. One was a fanatical totalitarian ideology based on imaginary racial superiority and the other is a fanatical totalitarian ideology based on an imaginary “apocalyptic plague” … so what the hell am I even talking about? On top of which, no swastikas, right? No swastikas, no totalitarianism! And nobody’s mass murdering the Jews, that I know of, and that’s the critical thing, after all!
So, never mind. Just ignore all that crazy stuff I just told you about “New Normal” Germany. Don’t worry about “New Normal” America, either. Or “New Normal” Great Britain. Or “New Normal” wherever. Get experimentally “vaccinated.” Experimentally “vaccinate” your kids. Prove your loyalty to the Reich … sorry, I meant to global capitalism. Ignore those reports of people dying and suffering horrible adverse effects. Wear your mask. Wear it forever. God knows what other viruses are out there, just waiting to defile your bodily fluids and cause you to experience a flu-like illness, or cut you down in the prime of your seventies or eighties … and, Jesus, I almost forgot “long Covid.” That in itself is certainly enough to justify radically restructuring society so that it resembles an upscale hospital theme park staffed by paranoid, smiley-faced fascists in fanciful designer Hazmat suits.
Oh, and keep your “vaccination papers” in order. You never know when you’re going to have to show them to some official at the airport, or a shop, or restaurant, or to your boss, or your landlord, or the police, or your bank, or your ISP, or your Tinder date … or some other “New Normal” authority figure. I mean, you don’t want to be mistaken for a “Covid denier,” or an “anti-vaxxer,” or a “conspiracy theorist,” or some other type of ideological deviant, and be banished from society, do you?
Meme sourced from David Icke (Memes and Headline Comments category)
May 25, 2021
You are being HAD people – and Carlson has fallen for it, too. Suddenly the system and its lapdog media are pushing the ‘virus escaped from the lab’ story as the song sheets are handed out and (among other things) it’s to divert you from the truth they don’t want you to know – THERE IS NO ‘VIRUS’
As I’ve been documenting for the past year, the COVID experts have been contradicting themselves six ways from Sunday. As charlatans, they’re abject failures. They can’t keep their own story straight.
Thanks to an alert reader, I’ve come across a new blockbuster.
BY THEIR OWN STANDARDS, the FDA should never have allowed the Pfizer COVID vaccine to be shot into a single arm. The Agency’s Emergency Use Authorization was a crime—according to their own data.
Here we go.
The document, posted on the FDA website, is titled, “Vaccines and Related Biological Products; Advisory Committee Meeting; FDA Briefing Document Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.” [1]
It is dated December 10, 2020. The date tells us that all the information in the document is taken from the Pfizer clinical trial, based on which the FDA authorized the vaccine for public use.
A key quote is buried on page 42: “Among 3410 total cases of suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group [who received a saltwater shot].”
Those shocking numbers have never seen the light of day in news media.
The comparative numbers reveal that the vaccine was not effective at preventing COVID-19. It was certainly not 50% more effective than no vaccine at all—the standard for FDA Emergency Use Authorization.
To make all this clear, I need to back up and explain the theory of the vaccine clinical trial.
The researchers assumed the SARS-CoV-2 virus was spreading everywhere in the world, and during the clinical trial, it would descend on some volunteers.
The billion-dollar question was: how many people receiving the vaccine would become infected, vs. how many people in the placebo group?
If it turned out that FAR FEWER people getting the vaccine became infected with SARS-CoV-2, the vaccine would be hailed as a success. It protected people against the virus.
But as you can see from the numbers above, that wasn’t the case at all.
So now we come to the vital weasel-phrase in the FDA document I just quoted: “suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 [cases].”
“Well, you see, we can’t say these were ACTUAL COVID-19 cases. Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t. They’re in limbo. We want to keep them in limbo. Otherwise, our clinical trial is dead in the water, and we’ll never get approval for the vaccine.”
What does “suspected cases” mean? It can only mean these people all displayed symptoms consistent with the definition of COVID-19, but they’re unconfirmed cases because…their PCR tests were negative, not positive.
However, if their tests were negative, why would they be called “suspected cases” instead of “NOT CASES”?
Something is wrong here. The FDA is hedging its bets, muddying the waters, obscuring facts.
By FDA/CDC rules, a case of COVID-19 means: a person has tested positive, period.
That’s the way cases are counted.
These several thousand volunteers in the Pfizer clinical trial were either COVID-19 cases or they weren’t. Which is it?
The official response to that question is obvious: the FDA decided to throw the data from all those suspected cases in the garbage and ignore them. Poof. Gone.
Why do I say that?
Because if the FDA had paid serious attention to the several thousand “suspected cases,” they never would have authorized the vaccine for public use. They would have stopped the clinical trial and undertaken a very deep and extensive investigation.
Which they didn’t.
This is called a crime.
“But…but it’s not that simple. This is a complex situation. It’s a gray area.”
“No. It isn’t. If you were running a clinical trial of a new drug, and a few thousand people in the trial, who were given the drug, nevertheless came down with the disease symptoms the drug was supposed to cure, wouldn’t you cancel the trial and go back to the drawing board?”
“You mean if we were being honest? That’s a joke, right? We’re not honest. Don’t you get it?”
Yes. I get it. You’re criminals. Killers.
But wait. There’s more. The FDA document also states: “Suspected COVID-19 cases that occurred within 7 days after any vaccination were 409 in the vaccine group vs. 287 in the placebo group.”
That’s explosive. Right after vaccination, 409 people who received the shots became “suspected COVID cases.” This alone should have been enough to stop the clinical trial altogether. But it wasn’t.
In fact, the FDA document tries to excuse those 409 cases with a slippery comment: “It is possible that the imbalance in suspected COVID-19 cases occurring in the 7 days post vaccination represents vaccine reactogenicity with symptoms that overlap with those of COVID-19.”
Translation: You see, a number of clinical symptoms of COVID-19 and adverse effects from the vaccine are the same. Therefore, we have no idea whether the vaccinated people developed COVID or were just reacting to the vaccine. So we’re going to ignore this whole mess and pretend it’s of no importance.
Back in April of 2020, I predicted the vaccine manufacturers would use this strategy to explain away COVID cases occurring in the vaccine groups of their clinical trials.
It’s called cooking the data. It’s a way of writing off and ignoring COVID symptoms in the vaccine group—and instead saying, “The vaccine is safe and effective.”
And the FDA document, as I stated above, just puts an impenetrable cloud over all the volunteers in the Pfizer clinical trial by inventing a category called “suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 cases,” and throwing those crucial data away, never to be spoken of again.
I’m speaking about them now. Any sensible person, looking at them, would conclude that the vaccine should never have been authorized.
Unless fraud, deception, profits, and destruction of human life via the vaccine were and are the true goals.
Finally: When you have “suspected cases,” and their ultimate status depends on doing a test, you do the test. You do it as many times as you need to, until it registers positive or negative. Then each “suspected case” becomes an actual case or no case at all.
Perhaps these “suspected cases” in the clinical trial were tested, and many of them came up positive, revealing they were actual COVID cases—but the researchers lied and covered up the fact that they were tested.
Or if you really don’t want to know whether “suspected cases” are actual cases, you don’t test them. You leave them in a convenient limbo and park them, never to be seen again.
Either way, the situation is patently absurd. By official standards, the PCR test decides whether a person is a case or not a case. Just do the test. Saying “we don’t know” is nothing more than a con and a hustle.
I’d love to hear the researchers try to talk their way out of this one. Here is how the conversation might go:
“So you’re saying these several thousand suspected COVID cases couldn’t be adjudicated one way or another?”
“That’s right. Their PCR tests were ‘indeterminate’.”
“That says something devastating about the test itself.”
“Well, sometimes you just can’t tell whether it’s positive or negative.”
“I see. And this ‘indeterminate’ result occurred in SEVERAL THOUSAND suspected cases.”
“I guess so, yes.”
“You know, you could have done something else with these suspected cases. A different test. You could have taken tissue samples and looked for the virus itself in a more direct way.”
“No. That wouldn’t work.”
“Why not?”
“Because…the actual virus…”
“Because no one has been able to come up with a specimen of the actual SARS-CoV-2 virus.”
“Right.”
“So tell me—what does that indicate? I’ll tell you what it indicates. You can’t prove the SARS-CoV-2 virus exists.
“I have to go. I’m late for a meeting.”
“You’re late for more than just a meeting. Is it true a person becomes a virologist by cutting out a coupon from the back of a comic book and mailing it to a PO Box in Maryland?’
“Absolutely not. That’s outrageous.”
“What then?”
“The PO Box is in Virginia.”
SOURCES:
[1] https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download
Three Tips for Checking Whether a Medical Study Is Legit or Bulls-It
You’ve just watched a video of a high-profile, Covid-sceptic speaker saying that shedding of the spike protein from vaccinated people endangers those they come in close contact with. You want to find out more, so you look at one or two of the links under the video that provide source material for what the speaker said. (Great those links are there; most videos don’t have them.)
Or a friend who is a believer in the official narrative about Covid has sent you a news item with a scary headline about the Indian ‘triple-mutation new variant.’ You’re pretty sure the article is very misleading, so you want to check out the study it’s based on.
How can you find source material and — if and when you find it – try to quickly figure out whether it’s legit?
Because there’s a huge, hot complicated mess of claims and counter-claims out there. And unfortunately there’s misleading information coming from ‘experts’ on both sides of the Covid divide.
And this isn’t unique to Covid. As Scott Adams — who created the Dilbert cartoon strip and now is a pundit — points out in page 14 of his book Loserthink:
“One thing I can say with complete certainty is that it is a bad idea to trust the majority of experts in any domain in which both complexity and large amounts of money are involved.”
So I’ve put together three tips to help you quickly discern whether a medical paper is meaningful or meaningless. I’ve distilled the tips from my decades of reading, writing and editing scientific and medical papers.
Tip One: Is key information left out or hidden?
Tip Two: If the source material is a study about the effect of an intervention, does the study measure serious illness or death in humans, or is it on animals or theoretical, test-tube models?
Tip Three: Does the study contain the information that the article or video referring to it says it contains?
Tip One: Is key information left out or hidden?
You’ve very likely seen the April 30, 2021, news article from the Salk Institute. It’s titled, ‘The novel coronavirus’ spike protein plays additional key role in illness.’ Its subtitle is, ‘Salk researchers and collaborators show how the protein damages cells, confirming COVID-19 as a primarily vascular disease.’
The article has been weaponized to bolster virtually every Covid-related viewpoint. For example, many news reports about it — such as this one – claim that the Salk paper provides yet more proof that Covid is deadly, and also shows that Covid exerts its action via the spike protein attacking blood vessels.
And many other pieces — such as this video – say that it demonstrates yet another way mRNA vaccines are injuring and killing millions of people.
Here’s how you can easily and quickly check whether this paper is solid.
It’s easy to find the study: here’s a hyperlink to the studyin the second paragraph of the Salk article. Click the hyperlink, and you’ll see the study, which is on the Circulation Research journal’s website.
But – ugh – it looks complicated: the title is ‘SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Impairs Endothelial Function via Downregulation of ACE 2.’
Don’t despair. It turns out it’s easy to figure out whether the paper is full of holes or not.
Scroll down through the study.
First, you’ll see that in the study the researchers created an artificial, spike-protein-coated, viral shell (and didn’t put any RNA into the shell). Then they place a number of these viral shells into each hamster’s trachea, which is the top of the windpipe leading to the lungs.
So this is very far removed from meaningful studies involving humans. See Tip Two for more on this topic. (Note also that the study wasn’t at all related to injection of mRNA or to vaccines — so it’s a real stretch to extrapolate from it to what could happen in people who have receive an mRNA jab.)
Then scroll down more, and you’ll see this bombshell:
“Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study, including statistical analyses and reagents used, are available from the corresponding author upon request.“
(‘Corresponding author’ refers to the person who’s the contact for responding to queries about the study.)
Whoa! You have to write to one of the study’s authors to get key information about the study?! That’s a whopper of a red flag.
I wouldn’t send this Salk news article and accompanying study – or videos or articles making assertions about them – to others.
Not unless you want to: email the study’s corresponding author asking for the missing data/material, receive the material, analyze it and determine whether it holds water. And the very fact that one has to do all that is enough to conclude there’s something very suspicious going on.
(And by the way, there are many other ways of hiding critical information. A very common one is burying the key results in supplemental tables or charts. [‘Supplemental’ is a term for information that’s not included in the main paper but instead is in a separate document or documents.] To find a current example of this, because I know it’s extremely common, yesterday I went to the medRχiv website, scrolled down a bit and clicked on ‘View by Month.’ Then I clicked on the title of the paper at the top of the list that came up. That paper was published May 20. It’s on how airway antibodies reappear after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. I scrolled down and saw it only shows the abstract – that is, a summary of the study. [There’s also other info under the abstract, including a ‘Funding Statement’ that says the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was among the funders of the study. That’s a big red flag.] To look at the full paper, I scrolled back up to the top of the page and clicked ‘Download PDF’ on the right-hand side. Then I looked at the ‘Results’ section of the PDF of the paper. Sure enough [after skipping the first section of the ‘Results,’ on ‘Patient enrollment, assessment of disease severity and timeline,’ which in fact is part of the methods rather than results (sigh)], I saw that the reporting of key results is largely in figures and tables in the supplemental material. So a person would have to click on the supplementary-material hyperlink, download the material, and then search for and examine the figures and tables with the key results. How many people have time or inclination to do that?)
Tip Two: If the source material is a study about the effect of an intervention, does the study measure serious illness or death in humans, or is it on animals or theoretical, test-tube models?
We’re constantly being told that a particular ‘treatment,’ ‘vaccine’ or ‘public-health measure’ is saving lives. And that a ‘new variant’ or ‘viral-escape mutation’ is very deadly.
But such claims are meaningless unless they are objectively, verifiably, shown to be true.
So for starters, they’ve got to be studied in people. Not in mice or monkeys, nor in test tubes or petri dishes (AKA ‘in vitro’).
And those human studies have to focus on whether the interventions reduce serious illness and death, or whether things like the ‘new variants’ increase serious illness and death. (Serious illness and death are ‘hard outcomes’ – where the tire hits the road. These are definable, measurable/quantifiable and clinically meaningful. ‘Soft outcomes’ are things like antibody levels in the blood, and relatively minor complaints like coughing, fever, fatigue or a headache.)
(One additional caveat: even if papers are on humans and study serious illness or death, they probably are skewed in some very significant ways. Virtually all medical studies conducted in at least the past three decades have been funded by an organization or company with financial and/or political interests. So studies are set up to produce results that further those interests.)
By way of examples, here are two papers that supposedly provide ‘proof’ that the Indian ‘triple-mutation’ new variant dubbed B.1.617 is highly ‘transmissible’/infectious and, by extrapolation, very dangerous and deadly. [Note added May 25: These papers aren’t easy to find: the vast majority of pieces on the Indian ‘new variant’ don’t provide primary-source material.]
1) The first paper was posted on the website of the online journal bioRχiv onMay 3, 2021, titled,’Convergent evolution of SARS-CoV-2 spike mutations, L452R, E484Q and P681R, in the second wave of COVID-19 in Maharashtra, India.’
Here’s what the paper’s authors wrote about the approach they used to figure out whether the new variant is more ‘transmissible’:
“For assessment of the noted mutations on binding to neutralizing antibodies, the SARS-CoV-2 spike RBD domain complexed with two selected mAbs REGN10933/ P2B-2F6 were retrieved (PDB ID: 6XDG; resolution 3.90Å and 7BWJ; resolution 2.65 Å respectively)15,16. Point mutations were carried out using Biovia Discovery studio visualizer 2020 and the structures of the complexes were subjected to energy minimization using macro model tool in Schrodinger 2020 using default parameters. The molecular interactions between the RBD-ACE2 interface, within the RBD and between the neutralizing mAbs-RBD[,] were analyzed using non-bonded interactions tool in Biovia Discovery studio visualizer 2020.”
Translation: the study was done in artificial conditions in vitro using highly complex methods, equipment and computations.
You can’t get more removed from real life than that!
2) The second paper was posted on bioRχiv on May 5, 2021, titled, ‘SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.167.1 is highly pathogenic in hamsters than B.1 variant.’
The study was done with 18 hamsters.
(And the scientists didn’t even attempt to see whether this ‘new variant’ actually moves between hamsters faster than other forms of the novel coronavirus or any other virus, and/or sickens and kills more of them.)
So these two studies tell us virtually nothing about whether the Indian ‘new variant’ is more dangerous in humans than other forms of the novel coronavirus.
Tip Three: Does the study contain the information that the article or video referring to it says it contains?
For illustrative purposes, I’ll use this tip to tackle the topic of ‘spike-protein shedding.’
This is the theoretical scenario in which a person receives an mRNA shot, makes copies of the spike protein in their cells, releases a sizable number of these copies into the environment, and then large quantities of the spike-protein copies enter body of someone nearby.
One group that’s fanning flames of fear surrounding shedding is America’s Frontline Doctors. On April 26, 2021, the group released an ‘issue brief for citizens, policymakers and physicians’ on complications after Covid vaccination.
The third section of that issue brief is titled, ‘Can the unvaccinated get sick from contact with the vaccinated?’ The section is crammed with claims about damage that occurs in people after they receive the mRNA vaccines. But it has only one hyperlink to source material. That hyperlink is in the second sentence.
Here’s that whole section (I’ve added bolding for emphasis):
“The vaccine produces many trillions of particles of spike proteins in the recipients. Patients who are vaccinated can shed some of these (spike protein) particles to close contacts. The particles have the ability to create inflammation and disease in these contacts. In other words, the spike proteins are pathogenic (“disease causing”) just like the full virus. What is most worrisome is that a person’s body is being suddenly flooded with 13 trillion of these particles and the spike proteins bind more tightly than the fully intact virus. Because of the biomimicry (similarity) on the spike, shedding appears to be causing wide variety of autoimmune disease[s] (where the body attacks its own tissue) in some persons. Worldwide cases of pericarditis, shingles, pneumonia, blood clots in the extremities and brain, Bell’s Palsy, vaginal bleeding and miscarriages have been reported in persons who are near persons who have been vaccinated. In addition, we know the spike proteins can cross the blood brain barrier, unlike traditional vaccines.”
But note again that there’s just one primary-source paper for that paragraph/section; it’s hyperlinked to the word ‘shed.’ The primary-source material is a study published online on September 1, 2020 in a journal called SN Compr Clin Med (the short form for SN Comprehensive Clinical Medicine [I don’t know what ‘SN’ stands for][Note added March 25: SN is ‘Springer Nature]). Its title is, ‘COVID-19 and its Modes of Transmission.’
The paper is about indirect and direct modes of transmission of Covid. But it does not mention vaccines, vaccination or injection of mRNA at all.
Therefore it doesn’t back up the claim by America’s Frontline Doctors that people who receive Covid mRNA vaccines shed the spike protein.
While we’re at it, let’s look at whether there’s any primary-source material that does support the ‘spike-protein shedding’ claim.
One document that’s being used by a lot of people to try to support the claim that shedding occurs after Covid vaccination is a November 2020 Pfizer document that details the protocol for Pfizer’s Covid-vaccine study.
The focus of all that attention is the first part of subsection ‘8.3.5.1. Exposure During Pregnancy,’ on pages 67 and 68 of the document. Subsection 8.3.5.1 reads as follows (bolding added by me for emphasis):
‘An EDP [exposure during pregnancy] occurs if:
A female participant [in the study] is found to be pregnant while receiving or after discontinuing study intervention.
A male participant who is receiving or has discontinued study intervention exposes a female partner prior to or around the time of conception.
A female is found to be pregnant while being exposed or having been exposed to study intervention due to environmental exposure.Below are examples of environmental exposure during pregnancy:
A female family member or healthcare provider reports that she is pregnant after having been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact.
A male family member or healthcare provider who has been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact then exposes his female partner prior to or around the time of conception.’
The term ‘study intervention’ in this document refers to the Pfizer Covid vaccine.
The section is saying that someone can be ‘exposed to the study intervention during environmental exposure,’ and that that ‘environmental exposure’ is via ‘inhalation or skin contact.’
But how can people make the leap from there to saying that the Pfizer-protocol document is referring to the following theoretical sequence: people receiving the mRNA jab, spike protein being made in their bodies, the spike protein spreading into the environment and then the protein entering the bodies of people nearby (and then making them ill)? There’s no basis for that in the document.
Unfortunately some prominent people are making that leap a lot, and misquote the Pfizer document to make it match what they’re claiming.
For example, Dr. Christiane Northrup says in a May 21, 2021, video, “If you look at the Pfizer document from the very beginning, on page 67 it actually says that ‘no male should be impregnating a woman for seven weeks, and no female should get pregnant for seven weeks,’ and they say right on there because of ‘skin contact’ or ‘sexual contact.’ So you have to ask yourself, what did they know, or do they know, that they’re not telling us?” (She must be referring to page 67 of the Pfizer protocol document, because as far as I know there’s no other document about Pfizer’s Covid vaccine that discusses pregnancy and exposure/transmission, at least not one that discusses them on page 67.) Another example of Northrup misquoting the protocol document is this May 20, 2021 interview of her, starting at 3:30.
I found the first clue to what this section of the protocol is much more likely to mean by simply looking at other parts of the Pfizer document. For example one page later, in the last paragraph of subsection ‘8.3.5.2, Exposure During Breastfeeding,’ it says (bolding added by me for emphasis): ‘Anexposureduring breastfeeding is not created when a Pfizer drug specifically approved for breastfeeding women (eg, vitamins) is administered in accord with authorized use. However, if the infant experiences an SAE [serious adverse event] associated with such a drug, the SAE is reported together with the exposure during breastfeeding.’
That mention of ‘exposure’ in this paragraph seems to refer to ‘a Pfizer drug’ … ‘(eg, vitamins).’
So could all the sections in the Pfizer protocol relating to ‘exposure’ from the ‘study intervention’ in fact be using boiler-plate language be referring not to shedding, but instead to people coming into physical contact through the air or another mechanism with the study drug?
That seems the most likely explanation to me.
I searched online and, indeed, this does seem to be Pfizer’s boilerplate-like language.
For example, if you look at section ‘8.10. Exposure During Pregnancy’ in the 2015 Pfizer protocol for its study of dacomitinib (a drug for non-small-cell lung cancer), that section reads (bolding added by me):
“For investigational products and for marketed products, an exposure during pregnancy occurs if:
1. A female becomes, or is found to be, pregnant while receiving or having been exposed (eg, because of treatment or environmental exposure) to the investigational product, or the female becomes, or is found to be pregnant after discontinuing and/or being exposed to the investigational product;
An example of environmental exposure would be a case involving direct contact with a Pfizer product in a pregnant woman (eg, a nurse reports that she is pregnant and has been exposed to chemotherapeutic products).
2. A male patient has been exposed (eg, because of treatment or environmental exposure) to the investigational product prior to or around the time of conception and/or is exposed during his partner’s pregnancy.
It has a reasonably strong resemblance to the section on exposure during pregnancy in the Pfizer vaccine protocol document. (And it’s not at all likely that a cancer drug sheds.)
So the only conclusion I can draw is the Pfizer-vaccine protocol document doesn’t provide any sort of support for the concept that people who have received Covid mRNA shots are shedding the spike protein and spreading it to others.
And the fact that America’s Frontline Doctors attempts to support its assertion that Covid mRNA vaccines cause shedding with a paper that has nothing to do with vaccination indicates that there is not any evidence this can take place.
Using very shaky ‘evidence’ to try to ‘prove’ something suggests that in fact there’sprobably no proof of it at all.
I do think the vaccines are dangerous and are negatively affecting people who’ve received them; I also believe that people who’ve been in close contact with vaccine recipients can be negatively affected.* There are plenty of plausible reports of, for example, altered periods in women who have been in the vicinity of people who’ve been vaccinated. So altered periods are quite possibly related to being in close proximity with vaccinated people. But there’s zero proof, as far as I’ve seen, that the spike proteins produced by the mRNA jabs cause those altered periods.
Maybe it’s something else in the shots that’s resulting in all the negative effects in people who’ve been in proximity to individuals who’ve had the jabs. Or maybe perhaps it’s not something in the shots, but somehow another phenomenon associated with receiving the shots.
At the moment it’s very hard to know. Chasing misinformation just makes us go down blind alleys and delays or even permanently stops us from finding the truth.
Spreading information that has extremely flimsy grounds also givessignificant fodder to our opponentsto paint us all as spreaders of lies. That turns many people away from listening to what any of us are saying.
It alsomakes people on our side support the physical and emotional separation of Covid believers/pro-vaccinators and us (which is exactly what the architects of the Covid coup want). For example, Dr. Larry Palevsky at 41:00 in this April 27, 2021, video says people who’ve received these vaccines “should be quarantined and have a badge on their arms that say[s], ‘I’ve been vaccinated’ [i.e., like Jews were marked by yellow-star badges in WWII]) … so that we know to avoid them on the street … and not go near them anywhere in society.”
The bottom line? Try to resist the pull to believe an article or video just because it fits with your Covid-sceptic view and is from someone you reflexively trust.
You can use thethree tips in this article to work towardstaying objective and figuring outfor yourself whether there’s solid evidence behind claims made by ‘experts.’
*.Sentence was edited in Rosemary Frei’s original article on March 28 for clarity.]
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, Brighteon and Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Last week, Texas Governor Abbot, signed an executive order prohibiting government entities from mandating masks, which in turn banned mask mandates by public schools and local governments. Government officials are finally beginning to dismantle these tyrannical mandates, but it has really been the pressure put on them by brave citizens like yourselves. Take a look at just a handful of the men and women who have fought for our freedoms.
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light Brighteon, and Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Dr. Pinky Feinstein, the chairman of the Israeli People’s Committee, with a crucial message to the world – NEVER HAS A VACCINE INJURED SO MANY!
The American VAERS system reveals 3,409 reports of mortality amongst vaccinated people in the United States in the first 4 months of 2021.According to US VAERS system 7 deaths in ages 0-17 were reported in relation to Covid 19 vaccination during 2021, 6 of them of Pfizer-Biontec.
We received 330 reports of deaths occurring in proximity after the vaccination (90% up to 10 days after the vaccination). 64% are men.
According to the ministry of health’s statement: only 45 deaths occurred in proximity after the vaccination.
According to data from the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), during January-March 2021, in the midst of the vaccination operation, there was a 18% increase in overall mortality in Israel compared to the tri-monthly average mortality in the previous year. In fact, the period of January-March 2021 is the deadliest one in the last decade, with the highest overall mortality rates, when compared to the corresponding months over the last 10 years.
According to this assessment, it is possible to estimate that the number of deaths in Israel, which have occurred in proximity after the vaccination, currently stands at about 1600-1700 people. There is a high correlation between the number of people vaccinated per day and the number of deaths per day, in the range of up to 10 days post vaccination, in all age groups.
The risk of death after the second vaccination is higher than the risk of death after the first vaccination.
Up until the publication date of this report, a total of 2,646 reports of adverse events have been recorded by The Israeli People`s Committee, and the reports continue to flow in.
These reports indicate damage to almost every system in the human body. They also highlight the incomprehensible gap between official Israeli media reports and what is really happening, enabling a “two worlds” situation due to journalistic failure to sense, identify and report on what is actually happening in citizens’ real-life.
This assessment is added to the fact that around 250,000 people did not show up to get the second dose of vaccine, despite all massive social and occupational pressure of the green passport. We believe that the majority of them decided to do so due to experiencing adverse effects following the first vaccine dose.
In our analysis, we have found a relatively high rate of cardiac-related injuries. 25% of all cardiac events occurred in young people below the age of 40, the most common diagnosis in these cases being myocarditis or pericarditis.
Additionally, a high prevalence of massive vaginal bleeding, neurological, skeletal and skin damages have been observed.
It should be noted that a significant number of adverse events reported are related, directly or indirectly, to coagulopathy (myocardial infarction, stroke, miscarriages, disruption of blood flow to the limbs, pulmonary embolism). There are probably many thousands of unreported cases.
We get growing numbers of reports about this phenomenon from medical staff within hospitals and clinics. The general impression is that hospitals seem to be dealing with a chaos and confusion regarding the way to handle growing numbers of vaccine injured patients while at the same time to keep them out of records.
Many doctors in emergency rooms nowadays begin their anamnestic inquiry by the question: “When were you vaccinated?” yet write nothing about it in discharge letters. In light of all the above and the detailed information ahead and for the sake of the good, reliable and advanced medicine, for all people and from the pure intention, we would like to hereby declare the statement that all branches of medicine should agree about:
“Once you apply new medication of all sorts to mass people and have insufficient knowledge about its true safety, all adverse effects that follow must be regarded as related to this medication until proven otherwise. This is the only way to obtain the true information, to ensure maximal safety surveillance and to make sure that non-medical motives will have no influence on the process of evaluating and learning the true nature of this medication and its influence on people.”
Before I get to the financial bonanza, I have to make a few comments about the COVID RNA vaccine itself.
This shot-in-the-arm gene treatment should be seen AS AN EXTENSION of genetic research into altering humans.
Because that’s what it is.
The field of gene research includes “creating better humans” and eugenics.
Eugenics involves what American Rockefeller and Nazi researchers were setting up: depopulation; population control; selecting out “superior genetic strains” for survival.
William Engdahl and Dr. Peter Breggin have done excellent historical analysis of the eugenics movement. [1] [1a] [1b] [2] [2a]
Another point: In recent articles, I’ve pointed out that ALL genetic research—beyond its motives—is also fraught with unintended ripple-effect consequences. Never believe that the targets and the consequences can be contained. [3] [4]
For example, the notion that the COVID shot will do nothing more than force cells of the body to produce one protein is absurd. It’s on the level of saying, “During rush hour, on the most crowded high-speed highway in the world, we can engineer a two-car crash that will only result in two minor fender-benders…” [4]
Both short and long-term effects of the COVID shot are unknown and unpredictable.
The perpetrators of the COVID RNA shot are criminally insane.
And with that…on to the MONEY.
Bring on the angels and trumpets. Bring on the cash.
A year ago I told you COVID vaccine-testing was rocketing ahead, because Bill Gates, the Rockefeller institute, NIH, the manufacturers, and Fauci saw the light at the end of the tunnel— [5]
The fake pandemic was their golden opportunity to win approval for the first RNA pharma product in history, and once that victory was achieved—
They would beat the drum for new RNA vaccines, WHICH ARE CHEAPER, EASIER, AND FASTER TO MANUFACTURE, AND FAR MORE PROFITABLE. [6]
They would hype new genetic treatments across the board—on the back of the fact that there is not a single genetic cure for any disease. But who cares about facts?
Now, as massive numbers of injuries and deaths from the COVID RNA vaccine pile up, Stephen Ubl, president and CEO of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), gushes: “…We’re really entering the golden era of medicine.” He goes on to sell blue-sky “RNA platforms” for reversing child blindness and MS. [7] [7a]
Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer, bloviates about coming genetic cures for flu and cancer. [7b]
Biospace.com: “mRNA tech used in COVID vaccines could be used to cure HIV, cancer, and other diseases.” [8]
Nature/Biotechnology (“Messengers of hope,” 29 December 2020; 39, page 1 (2021)): “Emergency Use Authorizations for two mRNA COVID-19 vaccines represent a turning point in the pandemic. They also herald a new era for vaccinology.” [9]
Think of these hustlers as cartoon characters dancing on a sea of real blood and death created by the RNA COVID vaccines.
In case you’ve forgotten, Moderna, whose COVID shot is now firmly entrenched, had never brought a single product to market in its brief history, but with Fauci’s guidance, managed to snatch $500 million in US government funding to develop the vaccine. Moderna was committed to RNA technology; that was its ticket to fame and fortune. [10]
The landscape of fake promotion about genetic cures is basically a cover for extreme damage created by corporations and governments.
“Confidentially, the truth is, what we’re calling autism isn’t a disorder or a disease. It’s neurological INJURY caused by vaccines and other environmental toxins. But we SAY autism is genetic. We can keep raising money for research—if you want to call it that—and hide what’s really going on.”
Some of these researchers are true believers in the Gene Cult. They actually think the day will come when a person can strip naked and bathe in a pool of poisonous effluent pouring out of a factory pipe—and because that person has received a genetic treatment (like the RNA COVID vaxx), no harm will come to him.
Look for this to happen soon: it’ll be a child, a child with “a rare disorder.” Perhaps blindness. And now: the child can see. Breakthrough. Genetic treatment. Of course, the details of the published study will be somewhat murky. You know, “proprietary technology.”
And quite possibly, only four children in the world have this rare disorder. That means the genetic treatment is 25% effective—an unbelievable marvel.
“Was it RNA, Doctor? Is that what you injected?”
“Well, Lesley, I can’t take you and the 60 Minutes crew into the lab. It’s a high security facility. But yes, for your audience, I can reveal that we deployed the most up to date CRISPR gene-editing technology, and it worked exactly as we hoped it would…”
“Is the cure permanent?”
“Lesley, I remember something my mentor at NIH, Doctor Goldbrick Hogcrusher, told me a long time ago. In this world, we live one day at a time. Who can say what tomorrow brings? We count our blessings, and we move on…”
Behind the propaganda: money and population control.
Sisauda is a village with a population of 1500 people located in the Terai, 70 km from the district headquarters of Barabanki.
There is so much awareness about the adverse events from vaccine and post-vaccination deaths in this village that when the Health Department team arrived here for vaccination, about 200 villagers ran away and reached the shore of river Saryu.
When the Health Department team got information that the villagers were out of the village towards the river, they went to convince them.
Seeing the team coming towards them, the villagers could not find a way to escape and jumped into the Saryu river to avoid getting vaccinated forcefully.
Sisauda is a village with a population of 1500 people located in the Terai, 70 km from the district headquarters of Barabanki.
There is so much awareness about the adverse events from vaccine and post-vaccination deaths in this village that when the Health Department team arrived here for vaccination, about 200 villagers ran away and reached the shore of river Saryu.
When the Health Department team got information that the villagers were out of the village towards the river, they went to convince them.
Seeing the team coming towards them, the villagers could not find a way to escape and jumped into the Saryu river to avoid getting vaccinated forcefully.
Seeing the villagers leap into the river, the Health Department team requested the villagers to come out but the villagers were not ready to move out.
Later, Ramnagar SDM Rajiv Shukla and Nodal Officer Rahul Tripathi reached the spot and told the villagers that would not be vaccinated, only after which they came out of the river.
Regional Indian media is full of such incidents. There is a very high level of vaccine hesitancy mostly in rural India.
There are also cases where the Vaccination Team is not even allowed to enter the village. On the other hand in many villages the Health Team members were beaten up with sticks and stones.
In a village in Gujarat, the entire vaccination drive had to be stopped after the villagers demanded that the government take responsibility if anything happens to them after being vaccinated.
The Indian government advertises its policy to contain COVID-19 as the world’s largest vaccination drive. However, it keeps the data on adverse events and deaths after vaccination a top secret. Moreover, there is no online registry to report post-vaccination deaths or adverse effects in India.
Ogilvy was also hired by the current government for an image makeover to win 2014 election. Our long time readers would remember the origins of Ogilvy come from British Intelligence and specifically the psychological warfare techniques they employed during World War 2.
Kristina Borjesson of The Whistleblower Newsroom in powerful conversation with attorney Tom Renz.
Lawyer Thomas Renz discusses why he and a group of lawyers have filed a temporary restraining order against various government agencies in an Alabama court to halt vaccinations of children. Among their reasons for filing the order: FDA Emergency Use Authorization in this case is illegal; children have virtually zero chance of getting or transmitting covid; the vaccines are experimental and children should not be experimented upon, the vaccines already have an inordinately high rate of serious adverse reactions and deaths.
Listen to The Whistleblower Newsroom on BitChute or as podcast at PodBean
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, Brighteon, and Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
We provide these studies without comment at this time on their applicability to current phenomenon being reported following receipt of certain medical interventions.
ABSTRACT: Low efficiency is often observed in the delivery of DNA vaccines. The use of superparamagnetic nanoparticles (SPIONs) to deliver genes via magnetofection could improve transfection efficiency and target the vector to its desired locality. Here, magnetofection was used to enhance the delivery of a malaria DNA vaccine encoding Plasmodium yoelii merozoite surface protein MSP1(19) (VR1020-PyMSP1(19)) that plays a critical role in Plasmodium immunity. The plasmid DNA (pDNA) containing membrane associated 19-kDa carboxyl-terminal fragment of merozoite surface protein 1 (PyMSP1(19)) was conjugated with superparamagnetic nanoparticles coated with polyethyleneimine (PEI) polymer, with different molar ratio of PEI nitrogen to DNA phosphate. We reported the effects of SPIONs-PEI complexation pH values on the properties of the resulting particles, including their ability to condense DNA and the gene expression in vitro. By initially lowering the pH value of SPIONs-PEI complexes to 2.0, the size of the complexes decreased since PEI contained a large number of amino groups that became increasingly protonated under acidic condition, with the electrostatic repulsion inducing less aggregation. Further reaggregation was prevented when the pHs of the complexes were increased to 4.0 and 7.0, respectively, before DNA addition. SPIONs/PEI complexes at pH 4.0 showed better binding capability with PyMSP1(19) gene-containing pDNA than those at neutral pH, despite the negligible differences in the size and surface charge of the complexes. This study indicated that the ability to protect DNA molecules due to the structure of the polymer at acidic pH could help improve the transfection efficiency. The transfection efficiency of magnetic nanoparticle as carrier for malaria DNA vaccine in vitro into eukaryotic cells, as indicated via PyMSP1(19) expression, was significantly enhanced under the application of external magnetic field, while the cytotoxicity was comparable to the benchmark nonviral reagent (Lipofectamine 2000).
Kary Mullis invented the Polymer Chain Reaction (PCR), and won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his efforts. He attempted to expose Fauci for what he really is, which is not what is presented to the public. The public interest was not widespread, nor were Mullis’s revelations accepted at the time, and just three months before the Covid scam was purposely manufactured and perpetrated against humanity, Kary Mullis mysteriously died of what was said to be pneumonia. This was very convenient for the inventors of this evil and deadly fraud, and Mullis’s invention was intentionally misused for very nefarious reasons that allowed the people to be fooled into believing that a dangerous virus and pandemic would be the death of tens millions. It was all a lie!
This four minute video tells a tale that should be viewed by everyone, and touches on Fauci’s thirty year reign of terror against the innocent. Fauci belongs in prison for life, and so do all those involved in this scam.
A new push is underway to sell wearable devices and sensors as the solution to the opioid and prison crises in the US. However, this “solution” is set to come at a major cost to civil liberties and human freedom in general.
However, at the same time, the marketing of wearable technology, or wearables, as a solution to both of these hot-button issues has become promoted by key players in both the public and private sectors. Especially since COVID-19, these electronic devices that can be worn as accessories, embedded in clothes or even implanted under the skin, are frequently heralded by corporations, academics and influential think tanks as “cost effective”, technological solutions to these deeply rooted problems.
Yet, as will be covered in this article, the shift towards wearables may offer more costs than benefits, particularly when it comes to matters of civil liberties and privacy.
The World Economic Forum and Wearables
On paper, the World Economic Forum (WEF, also known as the International Organization for Public Private Cooperation) is an NGO and think tank “committed to improving the state of the world.” In reality, it’s an international network of some of the wealthiest and most powerful people on Earth. The organization is best known for its annual gathering of the (mostly white, European and North American) ruling class. Each year hedge fund managers, bankers, CEOs, media representatives and heads of state gather in Davos to “shape global, regional and industry agendas.” As Foreign Affairs once put it, “the WEF has no formal authority, but it has become a major forum for elites to discuss policy ideas and priorities.”
In 2017, WEF Founder Klaus Schwab put out a book called “The Fourth Industrial Revolution.” The WEF uses the term Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) to denote the current “technological revolution” that is changing the way people “live, work, and relate to one another,” and with implications “unlike anything humankind has experienced before.” The 4IR is characterized by new technologies like artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, 3D printing, and the “internet of things,” which essentially denotes embedding things with sensors – including human bodies in the form of wearables.
Like the industrial ‘revolutions’ that came before, the main theme for the WEF’s Fourth Industrial Revolution is that it will allow companies to produce more, more quickly and for far less money.
In the book, Schwab positions wearable technology as key to helping companies become organized around remote work by providing one’s employers “with a continuous exchange of data and insights about the things or tasks being worked on.” In a similar vein, Schwab emphasizes the “wealth of information that can be gathered from wearable devices and implantable technologies.”
But unlike the industrial ‘revolutions’ of the past, the WEF’s 4IR aims to blur the distinction between the physical, digital, and biological spheres. And the WEF is a vocal advocate for wearables in their propensity to propel what it calls ‘human enhancement.’
In 2018, Schwab teamed up with WEF’s “Head of Society and Innovation” Nicholas Davis to write a follow up book entitled “Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.”Having been with the organization for over a decade, Davis was the obvious choice to co-author this book as he now “lead[s] the theme of the Fourth Industrial Revolution” at the WEF.
Schwab and Davis see wearables as just a stepping stone for the 4IR, writing that wearable devices “will almost certainly become implantable” in the body and the brain. “External wearable devices, such as smart watches, intelligent earbuds and augmented reality glasses, are giving way to active implantable microchips that break the skin barrier of our bodies, creating intriguing possibilities that range from integrated treatment systems to opportunities for human enhancement,” they write.
The authors note the potential to “drive an industry of human enhancement” that would, in turn, enhance “worker productivity.” However, other groups, including those partnered with the WEF, see other potential applications for their use well beyond the workplace.
Wearables, the Opioid Crisis and the War on Drugs
Deloitte, the world’slargest accounting firm and a longstanding partner of the WEF, has promoted wearables as a way to resolve the opioid epidemic. In 2016, Deloitte’s Center for Government Insights put out a report outlining how to fight the opioid crisis. The authors make the case that “technologists” and “innovators” should be part of the solution to the opioid crisis. Then, in 2018, the firm put out an article called “Strategies For Stemming The Opioid Epidemic,” explaining how data analytics could be used to help pharmacy benefit managers chart their course.
Other WEF partners are more directly involved in this effort. For example, WEF ‘Global Shaper’ Ryan O’Shea is the co-founder of Behaivior, a company that says it’s creating “technology to predict and prevent addiction relapses” using wearables. O’Shea, in addition to his WEF ties, is also the social media manager for Humanity Plus, formerly the World Transhumanist Association, which received $100,000 from Jeffrey Epstein in 2018 in addition to previous donations from Epstein-linked charities. Epstein also donated significant sums to Humanity Plus’ chair, Ben Goertzel.
According to the Behaivior website, the company’s mission is described as follows:
“We are creating software that can take real-time data streams from wearable devices that detect heart rate, heart rate variability, skin temperature, motion, and galvanic skin response (which is related to stress levels). This data is combined with other digital information about behavior, such as GPS location. As behavior and physiology changes, our software screens users for whether or not they are in a pre-relapse craving state.”
Hunter and his co-authors argue that remote monitoring through wearable sensors is a superior alternative to traditional surveillance cameras. “ … Our proposal requires prisoners to wear a series of remote sensors—including those for sound, video, and movement—that are connected to central computer systems that can detect unauthorized behavior,” they write.
Hunter and his co-authors further insist that the third step, the “remote immobilization of offenders,” would actually make this technological incarceration more secure than a conventional prison, since there is no chance of prisoner escape.
Hunter’s model of incarceration is declared as a “system that can determine whether a prisoner is having a psychotic episode (from speech recognition and audio processing of a prisoner’s emotional states), is threatening another (from audio processing of the emotional states of all the people within the prisoner’s environment and video processing of the prisoner’s behavior), or is seeking to leave a designated zone (from GPS tracking).”
Of note is the fact that several prisons and jails in the US are already using biometric voice identification technology and geolocation tracking on prisoners and the non-prisoners they call on the phone.
Additionally, Hunter’s plan to use wearables to move away from traditional prisons, first outlined a number of years ago, seems closer to coming to fruition than it did a few years ago. For example, in 2019, the DOJ gave a grant to researchers at Purdue University, to help them develop a wearables-based monitoring system for those who would otherwise be in prison. The electronic monitoring system was deployed in Tippecanoe County Corrections in Indiana under a “home detention” program.
What’s more, the other half of Hunter’s plan, utilizing AI to process prisoner communications and prevent crime, is already underway across the U.S.
Amazon now markets its AI transcription services to both prisons and law enforcement. The company’s AI system employs speech-recognition technology and machine learning software to build a database of words. As reported by ABC News, “they then notify law enforcement partners when the system picks up suspicious language or phrasings.”
“A year from now, all that slang could be obsolete – so investigators are constantly feeding new intelligence about prison slang into databases tailored to their unique jurisdiction or regional area,” explained ABC.
“We’ve taught the system how to speak inmate,” said James Sexton, an executive at LEO Technologies, a company using Amazon’s transcription services.
“Solving” Crises By Surveilling Everything
Additionally, due to the COVID-19 crisis, the federal government has adjusted both opioid treatment policy and prison policy to cater more to new, wearables-based solutions.
Under the Trump Administration, the Federal Bureau of Prisons began prioritizing home confinement to limit the spread of COVID-19 in prisons. While those inmates were to report back to prison when the ‘coronavirus emergency’ was over, Biden recently extended the national emergency and the HHS expects the crisis to last at least through December.
Furthermore, also because of the COVID-19 crisis, the US Department of Health and Human Services amended its regulations in 2020 so that treatment for opioid addiction can now be done remotely. “The pandemic has made it possible to see a licensed provider from home,” reported the New York Times.
In addition, the use of these health-tracking wearables has grown by more than 35% during the pandemic. “All of these surveillance technologies, like many other COVID-19 mitigations, are being rolled out rapidly amidst the crisis,” explained the digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).
Several wearable technologies have been marketed specifically as responses to the COVID-19 crisis, with a number focused solely on tracking the location of their users for social distancing or quarantining enforcement. “RightCrowd” is a lanyard employees can wear to help companies enforce social distancing and contact tracing at the office. “SafeZone” is a wearable sensor that emits a light when people get within six feet of one another, and is currently being used by the NFL. And, as reported by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), “Courts in Kentucky and West Virginia have mandated electronic ankle shackles for individuals who refused to submit to quarantine procedures after testing positive for COVID-19.”
The Oura Ring biometric tracker. Source: https://ouraring.com/
Yet many of today’s new wearables are capable of accessing data that goes far beyond one’s location. The Oura Ring, a finger worn sleep tracker, monitors your temperature in order to predict the onset of fever in COVID-19, and is currently being used by the NBA. Amazon’s Halo, a wristband, will soon be able to detect COVID-19 symptoms. Halo scans the user’s body and voice, monitors blood pressure, and is meant to “report back on your emotional state throughout the day.” And, in March 2020, the US FDA granted Emergency Use Authorization to armbands made by a company called Tiger Tech. The bands are designed to monitor blood flow and analyze pulse rate and hypercoagulation, an onset symptom of COVID-19.
So you know how anyone who points out any problems with the rush to inject everyone on the planet with an experimental form of gene therapy is portrayed as a stupid, scientifically illiterate, COVID denying, grandma killing anti-vaxxer by the dinosaur media?
And you know how any of your attempts to articulate these problems to your (former) friends will get you labeled as an anti-science loony and castigated from society?
Well, imagine if a team of researchers from a prestigious scientific institution infiltrated the COVID skeptic community to expose their scientific ignorance . . . and instead ended up discovering that the skeptics by and large care more about science—and are more knowledgeable about the scientific process—than their critics?
Guess what? You can stop imagining, because that’s exactly what just happened.
It’s not hard to see why this paper was overlooked. If one merely skims through the paper’s abstract, it seems relatively innocuous. The researchers aim, we are informed, is to better understand how COVID skeptics use data visualizations to spread “[c]ontroversial understandings of the coronavirus pandemic” on social media. To do this, they used “a quantitative analysis of how visualizations spread on Twitter and an ethnographic approach to analyzing conversations about COVID data on Facebook.”
So far, so uninteresting. It’s the researchers conclusions about these visualizations where the real fireworks go off.
The first clue comes in the abstract, where the paper’s authors note “an epistemological gap
that leads pro- and anti-mask groups to draw drastically different inferences from similar data.” (Bonus points if you recognize this point as the central conceit of my Same Facts, Opposite Conclusions episode of #PropagandaWatch from last November.) But buried further down in the article are a raft of observations that cause problems for those trying to assert that “anti-maskers” and “anti-vaxxers” are scientifically illiterate.
For example, we are told that “anti-maskers often reveal themselves to be more sophisticated in their understanding of how scientific knowledge is socially constructed than their ideological adversaries,” that “their approach to the pandemic is grounded in a [sic] more scientific rigor, not less,” and that “anti-mask users in particular were predisposed to digging through the scientific literature and highlighting the uncertainty in academic publications that media organizations elide.”
The study even admits that, “calling for increased media literacy can often backfire: the instruction to ‘question more’ can lead to a weaponization of critical thinking and increased distrust of media and government institutions.” (Yet more bonus points for those who recall Forbes‘ infamous Don’t Do Your Own Research! pronouncement from last year.)
And, in one particularly remarkable passage, the researchers outright admit that the COVID skeptics are not only scientifically literate, but in fact pioneering new ways of incorporating data visualizations into their critiques of the scientific establishment:
“Arguing that anti-maskers simply need more scientific literacy is to characterize their approach as uninformed and inexplicably extreme. This study shows the opposite: users in these communities are deeply invested in forms of critique and knowledge production that they recognize as markers of scientific expertise. If anything, anti-mask science has extended the traditional tools of data analysis by taking up the theoretical mantle of recent critical studies of visualization.”
None of this is at all surprising to anyone who has spent the last year in the reality-based community, where the tricks and sleights-of-hand of the PCR test-driven casedemic have been exposed on a regular basis. But to find MIT researchers writing this up in a mainstream academic paper is rather remarkable. Reading these excerpts, you would be forgiven for thinking that establishment science had finally gained some self-awareness and realized how laughable it has become.
. . . But you would be wrong. No, somehow the paper manages to take these remarkable findings and shoehorn them back into a pat establishment-friendly narrative: These COVID skeptics’ critiques of the mainstream consensus are completely wrong and we need to figure out how to get them to accept our pronouncements with less resistance in the future.
Even so, the paper is worth reading (especially the passage toward the end of the introduction where they echo my Science Says podcast with an acknowledgement that “there is no such thing as dispassionate or objective data analysis,” but rather “stories shaped by cultural logics, animated by personal experience, and entrenched by collective action”). Also worth reading is the accompanying article from MIT News, which gives more insights into how the research team used “Deep Lurking” to infiltrate COVID skeptic communities and how they were amazed to find that skeptics’ arguments are not only scientifically literate but “really quite nuanced.”
So is it possible we’re going to see a more open and constructive debate between the establishment consensus crowd and the skeptics as a result of these realizations? Of course not.
In case there was any question as to whether COVID skeptics will be treated fairly in mainstream debates going forward, we could look to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO)’s statement of April 30 for an answer. The CPSO, Ontario’s physician licensing body, are evidently so concerned about doctors daring to speak out on social media about the shoddy science underpinning the scamdemic narrative that they decided to put their foot down:
“The College is aware and concerned about the increase of misinformation circulating on social media and other platforms regarding physicians who are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations. Physicians hold a unique position of trust with the public and have a professional responsibility to not communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing and anti-lockdown statements and/or promoting unsupported, unproven treatments for COVID-19. Physicians must not make comments or provide advice that encourages the public to act contrary to public health orders and recommendations. Physicians who put the public at risk may face an investigation by the CPSO and disciplinary action, when warranted. When offering opinions, physicians must be guided by the law, regulatory standards, and the code of ethics and professional conduct. The information shared must not be misleading or deceptive and must be supported by available evidence and science.”
In response, a group of physicians from across Canada signed a declaration of their own denouncing the CPSO and their inherently anti-scientific statement. In a section of their declaration specifically accusing the CPSO of denying the scientific method itself, they write:
“The CPSO is ordering physicians to put aside the scientific method and to not debate the processes and conclusions of science.
“We physicians know and continue to believe that throughout history, opposing views, vigorous debate and openness to new ideas have been the bedrock of scientific progress. Any major advance in science has been arrived at by practitioners vigorously questioning “official” narratives and following a different path in the pursuit of truth.”
They then go on to decry the censorship of scientific debate, noting that it constitutes a violation of doctors’ pledge to provide evidence-based medicine for their patients and that it violates the principle of informed consent, which, they note, is not just a “sacred duty” of physicians but also a legal obligation under the Nuremberg Code.
The declaration has so far been signed by 448 physicians and co-signed by over 11,000 concerned citizens from across Canada, but CPSO has yet to retract their order.
This is the state we have arrived at in the ongoing Orwellian nightmare of the COVID scam. Even mainstream researchers can no longer pretend that the skeptics are scientifically illiterate dunces, but it doesn’t matter. Any and all dissenting voices are being squelched out at the organizational level. The establishment is closing ranks to defend its narrative.
This is not surprising to those of us who have followed the unfolding of COVID-911 and who know that—far from a seat-of-the-pants response to an out-of-the-blue and ultra-deadly pandemic—the events of the past year have been a long-planned series of actions designed to lead us through a biosecurity state into a Great Reset, and, ultimately, the end of humanity. Unfortunately, there are still relatively few of us who understand what is happening and many, many people whose ignorance about science, medicine, politics and economics has been effectively weaponized against us. These zombies will be the ones to lead us into the coming nightmare by clamouring for vaccine passports and forced “vaccinations” and all the other pre-planned “solutions” to this pre-planned crisis.
Case in point: this reddit thread where a vaccinated hospital worker casually admits that many doctors and nurses at his hospital refused to take the “vaccines” because they “didn’t trust them.” The response of the mindless lemmings to this deeply unsettling news? “That sucks to hear 🙁 But I’m glad you got the shot!!”
So, if you are reading these words, congratulations: You are not a zombie. You are—as MIT admits—scientifically literate enough to have seen through the smokescreen of lies and manipulations that have bamboozled the masses. Of course, the bad news is that means you are now firmly in the crosshairs of both the establishment and their zombie hordes.
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.
If you recently accepted an experimental injection, you may be experiencing strange physical adverse effects at the injection site, throughout your body, and in relationship to your electronic devices.
You may be connecting to your surroundings in new and improved ways.
Are you a direct connection to Bluetooth?
Are you questioning who you are?
Since each person is unique, some adverse effects will manifest differently. But other effects may be eerily in synch. Best to be aware of any changes as you notice them, since there is no trial data with which to compare. You are the experiment.
This is not about retribution. This matter is going forward — we are in a live exercise here to get this right.
If you recently accepted an experimental injection, you may have noticed that many “adverse side effects” are really “direct effects” and that these effects are being normalized. Do you experience problems with menstrual cycle? Mysterious rashes? Miscarriages? Infertility? Blood clots? Ringing in the ears? Fever, Headache, Fatigue? You will be told that the vaccine is working properly. What you may not be told is that the covid vaccine does not seem to protect people with immune disorders.
What about unusual effects?
Do magnets stick to your body?
Can radiation detectors pick up levels of EMFs at the site of injection?
Can your veterinarian’s chip scanner go off if you get too close when taking your pet for a check up?
Are you giving off high levels of electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs)?
Connectivity Effects
The only way to find out if COVID vaccinated people are emitting high levels of radiation is to measure the emissions and document the readings. Important information would include: 1) vaccine maker, 2) date of injection, 3) level of radiation identified at injection site, 4) levels of radiation identified at other sites in the body, 5) Bluetooth connectivity to electronic devices.
It would also be prudent to test the differences between a test group (vaccinated) and the control group (unvaccinated). How do the levels compare? Do some samples show that the vaccinated emit EMF readings ten times higher than the unvaccinated? Do they emit more than their cell phone?
Can the vaccinated synch up with unvaccinated people similar to iphones? Or do you need to have the software built in?
Can these emissions affect the unvaccinated through transference?
What might cause the release of EMFs or radiation?
Experimental trials are happening now, in vivo, on the human population. Very few answers are available, but the science has already been done.
NanoMagnetic Human Studies
Generally, the nanomaterials pose many new questions on risk assessment that are not yet completely answered. Thus, a reliable risk assessment related to human health and environment and safety evaluation of these materials should be performed for all in vivo studies.
Prior to the live exercise in vivo, scientists studied the unknowns of using magnetic nanotechnology. One 2010 study, published in Pharm Res concluded with a warning:
What do we know?
Nanoparticles in the body act as receivers and transmitters so they are traceable by scanners. They are also responsive to an outside source of radiation, such as a 5G tower and its frequencies. Functioning as magnetic chips in the body, nanoparticles could also leave human behavior open to be modified (i.e., mind control). For more on nanobots, and how they self-replicate in the body, read The Nanobot Evolution.
The technology of the COVID experimental injections are tied to MagnetoDNA from research on a molecular scale. MagnetoDNA can be injected into the genome of a virus and injected into animals to manipulate neuronal activity.
Several studies have shown that nerve cell proteins which are activated by heat, designer drugs, and mechanical pressure “can be genetically engineered so that they become sensitive to radio waves and magnetic fields, by attaching them to an iron-storing protein called ferritin, or to inorganic paramagnetic particles.”
They are also called ferrofluids or magnetic fluids, meaning colloidal suspensions of magnetic particles in a liquid carrier. Generally, these particles are part of nanotechnology, which can be defined as engineering of functional systems on a molecular scale.
Ferrofluid was developed in the early 1960s by Steve Papell, an engineer at Lewis Research Center, now Glenn Research Center. He discovered a way to disperse magnetic nanoparticles in rocket fluid as a way to draw it from a storage tank into an engine in the absence of gravity. A few years later, a company called Avco Space Systems won a NASA contract to further characterize and develop ferrofluid and created a variety of liquids that ranged up to 10 times the magnetic strength of the initial Lewis invention.
If iron particles are clumping at the site of injection, could they be clumping elsewhere in the body to cause blood clots?Would ferrofluids flowing in the human body emit high levels of radiation, internally and externally, as it travelled? Would this radiation affect others in close proximity? Would it be transferred through bodily fluids? Breathing? Sex? Would it connect you to the internet?
In 2021, these studies are focusing on Manipulative Magnetic Nanomedicine that purport to be the answer to all the lab-created viral epidemics (such as H1N1, H5N1, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), Ebola, Zika, and coronavirus) that “created deadly infections associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome.”
To control or to be controlled? That is the question.
Nanobot technology is run by Artificial Intelligence. With the added electromagnetic tech integrated into human DNA, it is possible that mRNA ferroproteins in injections are giving off high amounts of EMF frequencies, to both control other electronic devices, while also being controlled by outside EMF sources.
What does it mean?
The Internet of Things Changing Humanity
Did you think 5G was for faster downloads and higher definition? Think again.The Internet of Things seeks to make humans part of the worldwide web by connecting the human neural system to the grid. By your consent to be injected, you sign up for connectivity. But there is still more to come. Read about how ultrafine threads can be woven into your brain, as part of the Neuralink, for more details.
Evidence for this can be found in a patent using pulsed frequencies that can cause deep subliminal skin temperature oscillations that can induce sleepiness, drowziness, relaxation, a tonic smile, ptosis of the eyelids, a tense feeling, sudden loose stool, or sexual excitement, depending on the precise pulse frequency used. For certain higher frequencies, the induced subliminal skin temperature oscillations cause fractured thought and a slowing of certain cortical processes.
The 5G frequencies are microwaves that affect water, with humans comprising 99.9% water on a molecular level. 5G microwaves have already been used to control human behavior as crowd control technology as directed energy weaponry by the military. None of this tech is new.
On the positive side, whales use infrasounic waves to communicate with each other since the sound can travel hundreds of miles. Might be a good idea to learn telepathy.
Aside from external threats of frequency manipulation, there is the threat of an internal army of tiny robots deployed in the privacy of your body. Nanobots inside the body means there is no privacy and no self-control. A bio-invasion of nanobots also eliminates autonomy over your mind even though government agencies already have the ability to decipher human thoughts via patent 4,877,027.
Nanobots in your DNA via viral mRNA (Covid injection) represent a genetic bioweapon attack on the human landscape; body, mind, and spirit, at the nanoscopic level. From November 2012, The Atlantic reports:
genetic bio-weapons able to target a single human being based on their DNA. The authors paint a scenario of the development of a virus that causes only mild flu in the general population but when the virus crosses paths with cells containing a very specific DNA sequence, the sequence would act as a molecular key to unlock secondary functions that would trigger a fast-acting neuro-destructive disease that produces memory loss and, eventually, death.
The Pentagon’s research arm claims agricultural nanobots are intended to defend crops, but doesn’t deny ‘dual-use’ potential as biological weaponry. On another level, it could represent the creation of a whole new species.
Got Bot Brain?
Can the 5G network activate the bots to turn your cells on, then turn them off? Does the network feed off of your energy? Are you a generator for the Internet of Things? Have you noticed the 5G towers on school grounds and 5G fins atop water towers? Are your thoughts not your own? Will you hear other people’s ideas echo in your head? Have your memories been erased? Is your fertility being erased? Are you hackable? Will others be the first to notice your odd behavior? Does your Bot Brain hookup to your computer? Your refrigerator? To Google? All of the above?
With Bot Brain, there is no need to think for yourself. The Internet of Things (IoT) can do that for you, wherever you are.
With the mask charade ending, and people directed to remove the identify concealment device, is it time to be fitted for a tin foil hat?
The Borg of the Star Trek The Next Generation series are considered the greatest enemies of the crew of the Starship Enterprise and the Federation (i.e., humans). The Borg absorbs you and erases your identify. It’s famous quote: Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. Later in the series of six Borg episodes, the Borg became infected with a sense of individuality, showing that nothing is set in stone and anything is possible.
Let The Kids Breathe and the smile project is a national initiative supported by Cape Cod Against Medical Mandates
Protest Calls:
When: Monday May 24, 2021 7:45 AM – 9:45 AM
Where: Nauset School Administration, 78 Eldridge Park Way, Orleans, MA
Stand with Nauset parents in support of bodily autonomy, parental choice, and medical freedom in our schools.
When: Tuesday May 25, 2021 at 8 AM (not 10 AM as previously posted)
Where: Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 75 Pleasant St, Malden, MA
Stand with all Massachusetts students. The ‘Let The Kids Breathe’ main demonstration will take place at the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education in Malden because this is where the statewide “orders” for schools are handed down. Organizers are calling for a boycott of schools until all restrictions are lifted. They are suggesting people bring noisemakers (buckets and sticks).
Making kids wear masks is a form of child abuse. Masks inhibit the intake of oxygen which children need for their developing brains. They force people to re-breathe the carbon dioxide that they exhale. There is little evidence that masks help to prevent the spread of viruses, and plenty of evidence that wearing them is physically and mentally harmful.
Further, children have now come to think it is normal for everyone to wear a mask, and they are being deprived of the ability to understand other people by reading the expressions on their faces. Parents have been so intimidated by “pandemic” fear that they have essentially allowed the state to abuse their children.
Children are not able to understand what is being done to them, and parents, who are in a position to understand, have failed to protest health mandates being blatantly used for political, not health, reasons.
On May 13, 2021 medical tyrant Anthony Fauci said that “children too young to be vaccinated will still have to wear masks when they are indoors and around others, even if older kids and adults are free to take off face protection once they are fully vaccinated. “
Adults have been held hostage with mask and social distancing rules in order to force them to to get the covid injection. Now our children are being held hostage for the same reason. Children are at very low risk of harm from whatever the illness is that has been called covid 19. Adverse effects so far reported among those age 16 and up who have gotten the jab make it a certainty that if the injections are forced on children, they will cause more and much worse harm than the illness.
According to neurologist Dr. Margarite Griesz-Brisson, “For children and adolescents, masks are an absolute no-no. Children and adolescents have an extremely active and adaptive immune system and they need a constant interaction with the microbiome of the Earth. Their brain is also incredibly active, as it is has so much to learn. The child’s brain, or the youth’s brain is thirsting for oxygen. The more metabolically active the organ is, the more oxygen it requires. In children and adolescents every organ is metabolically active. To deprive a child’s or an adolescent’s brain from oxygen, or to restrict it in any way, is not only dangerous to their health, it is absolutely criminal. Oxygen deficiency inhibits the development of the brain, and the damage that has taken place as a result CANNOT be reversed. The child needs the brain to learn, and the brain needs oxygen to function. We don’t need a clinical study for that. This is simple, indisputable physiology. Conscious and purposely induced oxygen deficiency is an absolutely deliberate health hazard, and an absolute medical contraindication. “
According to psychologist Jack Dresser, “Children are closely attentive to both the facial expressions and voice intonations of their caretakers and surrounding adults. Deprivation or attenuation of these psychologically essential cues constitutes child neglect, which can affect brain development and be more psychologically damaging than overt abuse.”
Emily Burns, founder of the smile project (banner above), had this to say about our taking any further orders from a tyrranical public health establishment:
“As John Ioannidis has said, ‘medicine has now become the enemy of health.’ In order to remedy this, public health officials must resume their rightful position as public servants who provide information and guidance, rather than dictates and punishments. Restoring this balance will restore trust in public health, and improve health outcomes. In the current modality, where un-elected public health officials have been given god-like power and prestige, there is no incentive for them to provide accurate information. They do not guide, they rule. Rulers don’t give information, they give commands. To the extent they give information, it is to justify their commands. This is exactly how the CDC has behaved since March. In the absence of the ability to compel, you must inform. Thus, in order to get the CDC and other public health organizations to begin accurately informing us, we must strip them of their power to command us. The moment this is done, we will all have better information, and a public health apparatus that serves us–not the other way around.”
Attachedis a [downloadable word file] plea for sanity on masks in schools written by a mother of three school-age children in Tempe, Arizona, addressed to the school administrators enforcing the abusive masking policy common to most public schools across America. The arguments in this letter apply equally to all students forced to wear masks in schools on Cape Cod. The argument is simple: parents need to stand up to protect their children.
###
Update: Mask rules are due to be lifted in Massachusetts on May 29, 2021, but not in schools. The updated order of May 17, 2021 is that public school students and adults must continue to wear masks indoors.
