The Astonishing Evidence That Made Carl Sagan Believe “Reincarnation Deserves Serious Study”

By Arjun Walia (via Collective-Evolution)


  • The Facts: Carl Sagan wrote in 1996 that reincarnation, among other topics within the realms of parapsychology, are worthy of serious study. He was aware of children being able to remember details about their past lives that should be impossible to remember.
  • Reflect On: Does consciousness survive after “death”?

Today more than ever, parapsychology, which is the scientific study of telepathy, remote viewing, clairvoyance, reincarnation and much more, is receiving extreme amounts of credibility. Numerous studies and repeatable experiments have shown statistically significant results, and various findings within quantum mechanics have also demonstrated that mind/matter interaction, also known as telekinesis, may very well be real.

On top of this we also have declassified literature from multiple countries that show parapsychological phenomena has been documented and demonstrated within human beings that poses “special abilities.” For example, this CIA document shows how “gifted children” in China were able to “teleport” small objects from one location to another, here’s another that documents the “paranormal writing” ability of a child. It’s quite fascinating, and understandable why so many people just don’t believe in this type of thing. It’s truly paradigm shifting and has the potential to change what we think we know about the nature of reality, forever.

Such discoveries and evidence have always been ridiculed and ignored by “intellectual” authorities simply because they don’t fit within the framework of accepted knowledge. Furthermore, when it comes to this type of study, which is also known as non-material science, we must go beyond the parameters of science. A lot of the phenomena documented and observed within these realms is simply not explained by science and our our perception of what science is and has become. In a lot of ways, science limits us today and there are many examples where dogma has become labelled as “science.”

Did you know that Carl Sagan, the late astronomer was a founding member of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP)? He once wrote that “there are three claims in the (parapsychology) field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study with the third being “that young children sometimes report details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation.” He wrote this in 1996, it’s now more than two decades later and the number of examples and evidence accumulated suggesting that reincarnation, or at least some form of it, is real is quite astonishing.

Serious scientific study of reincarnation has spanned the last several decades. There are many interesting cases of children remembering details they could not have obtained from anywhere else.

For example, a report published in 2016 in the journal Explore titled “The Case of James Leininger: An American Case of the Reincarnation Type” published by Jim B. Tucker, MD from the University of Virginia, explains,

Numerous cases of young children who report memories of previous lives have been studied over the last 50 years. Though such cases are more easily found in cultures that have a general belief in reincarnation, they occur in the West as well. This article describes the case of James Leininger, an American child who at age two began having intense nightmares of a plane crash. He then described being an American pilot who was killed when his plane was shot down by the Japanese. He gave details that included the name of an American aircraft carrier, the first and last name of a friend who was on the ship with him, and a location and other specifics about the fatal crash. His parents eventually discovered close correspondence between James’s statements and the death of a World War II pilot named James Huston. Documentation of James’s statements that was made before Huston was identified includes a television interview with his parents that never aired but which the author has been able to review.

At the age of two, James’s father was looking through a book called  The Battle for Iwo Jima 1945. His father reports that James pointed to a picture showing an aerial view of the base of the island, where Mt. Suribachi, a dormant volcano, sits, and said, “That’s where my plane was shot down.” His father said, “What?” and James responded, “My airplane got shot down there, Daddy.” That’s when it all started.  This is one of many cases that are similar. In this case James demonstrated knowledge of events from 50 years before he was born. Many of his accurate statements  were documented before the previous personality was identified.

On August 27, 2000, when James was 28 months old, he told his parents he had flown his plane off a boat. When his parents asked him the name of the boat, he said, “Natoma.” After that conversation, his father searched online for the word and eventually discovered a description of the USS Natoma Bay, an escort carrier stationed in the Pacific during World War II. He printed out the information he found, and the footer of the printout includes the date he did.

You can read about this specific case more thoroughly, here.

If you want to read about more examples, here’s an excellent paper published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration you can refer to. Here’s another from 2005. You can access many more research studies on the topic here, all from the Perceptual Studies department at the University of Virginia. It’s a great place to start if you want to dive deeper into the topic.

I’ve written about a reincarnation case in which a three-year old boy claimed to have remembered a past life. In this life, he remembered being struck by a big blow to the head with an axe, and having a long, red birthmark on his head.

The present-day boy, whose name remained confidential throughout the entire study, also had a birthmark in the exact same spot, which is interesting because multiple studies, like the one published in Explorepoint out how shared birthmarks are common to children who remember their past lives.

The boy’s father and a number of other relatives in the village decided to visit neighbouring communities to see if his past life identity could be established and Dr. Lasch was invited to join. On this journey, they visited multiple villages until the boy remembered the right one. He remembered his own first and last name, as well as the first and last name of his murderer.

You can read more about this specific story here.

Can “Consciousness” or “the mind” Survive “death” ? Is reincarnation one of many paths?

Reincarnation may not be “the” answer as to what occurs when someone dies. Perhaps it’s one out of many paths. I’ve come across a lot of interesting information suggesting that we are more than just our body, and when we leave this physical plane our “soul” can take multiple routes, and reincarnation might be one of them if we have to come back and complete/learn the lessons we were/are supposed to while experiencing life on this planet. I’ve also come across some interesting information that this is a choice before we are born, that we choose to incarnate here, that we “exist” before we are born, but such claims lack definitive proof despite the fact that they seem to resonate with many people. But then again, perhaps our definition and view of “proof” needs to change. There are anomalies in this word, like some mentioned at the beginning of this article that have enormous amounts of proof, yet they are simply “too much” for the average human being to believe.

These questions have been contemplated for thousands of years. In the Socratic dialogue, Meno by Plato, the character Socrates attempts to prove that life exists before birth. Instead of innate knowledge that we are simply born with, knowledge that simply comes naturally to us, Plato relies on prenatal knowledge to explain our ability to solve problems in mathematics and philosophy, and suggests that we must have known the answers to these problems all along.

Perhaps reincarnation isn’t really reincarnation? Perhaps these memories are simply proof that all consciousness, in some way, is connected and these children are simply picking up on aspects that’s simply another part of themselves? Perhaps they are simply retaining memories of the past life, and that specific consciousness or “soul” did not actually reincarnate into another body, because if it did would more memories not be present? Perhaps there is another explanation as to why these children can remember such things that don’t include the idea of reincarnation?

There are so many unanswerable questions.

Perhaps reincarnation is one path out of many, what about those who have learned what they came here to learn? Perhaps they came here for another reason and do not need to reincarnate? I’m not sure what the other paths may be, perhaps an experience as another being on another planet? Perhaps as a life form that doesn’t dwell within the physical realm? I don’t know, but I could think of several possibilities. Perhaps a trip back to where we all originated from? Perhaps consciousness is separate from a “soul” and one remains and lingers while the other moves on? Perhaps a “soul” can experience multiple “consciousnesses”?

The question of whether or not consciousness survives after death is at the forefront of many scientific circles. For example, Neurosurgeon Dr. Eben Alexander says that science shows that the brain does not control consciousness, that it’s more of a receiver of it, a channel for consciousness to come in from somewhere else. He believes there is reason to believe our consciousness continues after death, and that a physical body is not required for consciousness to exist.

Here is a great video from Dr. Gary Schwartz, professor of psychology, medicine, neurology, psychiatry and surgery at the University of Arizona discussing whether or not consciousness is the product of the brain or a receiver of it.

There is also the topic of Near Death Experiences (NDEs) that are quite astonishing. People who have “died” and come back on the operating table were able to describe being outside of their body and provide details they would not otherwise have been able to provide had they been “inside” their body. To read and learn more about NDEs, you can access the research here.

The idea that consciousness is a separate “thing” from our biology is supported by a wealth of evidence in the fields of quantum physics, parapsychology and neuroscience. Despite this evidence, the topic is still shunned within many mainstream academic circles, and perhaps it’s because the idea simply challenges our long held belief systems of what we think we know and have already discovered.

Cassandra Vieten, PhD and president/CEO at the Institute of Noetic Sciences offers a possible explanation.

There seems to be a deep concern that the whole field will be tarnished by studying a phenomenon that is tainted by its association with superstition, spiritualism and magic. Protecting against this possibility sometimes seems more important that encouraging scientific exploration or protecting academic freedom. But this may be changing.’ (source)

Consider the prominent physicist Lord Kelvin who stated in the year 1900 that, “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now…All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” It wasn’t long after this statement that Einstein published his paper on special relativity. Einstein’s theories challenged the accepted framework of knowledge at the time and forced the scientific community to open up to a broader/alternative view of reality. This type of thing will continue to happen throughout humanity history, the only thing constant is change and discovery that expands upon and changes what we once thought we knew.

Photo credit: Illustration by Jody Hewgill

“The Big Picture” Is Ignored in the COVID Debate. What Is the End Game?

By Peter Koenig (via Global Research)

What is the “Big Picture” of Covid-19, alias SARS-CoV-2 ? – Is it what we could also call the end-game, or what Aldous Huxley called the “Brave New World” (1932), science-fiction – gradually turning into reality in the form of the UN Agenda 2030 – with the implementing tool of the Bill Gates created Agenda ID2020 – see here?

We are at the beginning of the end-game. We are in what the 2010 Rockefeller Report calls “The Lockstep” scenario.

See here.

This is the first one of four scenarios, prompted by an invisible enemy, a virus, a corona virus, akin to the one that was at the origin of the SARS outbreak in China in 2002 to 2004.

This virus is to be propagated as a huge deadly danger. It’s a brainwashing fear campaign. The decision for the launch was taken during Event 201, in NYC on 18 October 2019 – a few weeks before the actual SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. And it was confirmed by the World Economic Forum (WEF) conference in January 2020 in Davos, Switzerland.

Event 201, hosted by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine (funded and created by the  Rockefeller Foundation) and the WEF, was chiefly a computer simulation of a SARS-like pandemic, killing some 65 million people in 18 months – and destroying the world’s economy as we know it – see here.

What was foreseen was a bio-warfare against humanity. The virus was called SARS-Cov-2, later for reasons of disguising from its creators, was renamed by WHO to “Covid-19”. The close companion of the virus was FEAR – weaponized Fear.

Together, with a huge propaganda and brainwashing effort, the entire world – 193 UN member countries were called a covid risk – and WHO declared a pandemic – as we later found out, it was a plandemic – on 11 March 2020. Imagine! With only about 44,279 “cases” worldwide (outside of China), the World Health Organization calls it a pandemic. The world fell in shock. When people are in shock, they are gullible to accept anything – see Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine” (2008).

A worldwide lockdown was ordered by an invisible Globalist Cabal to all 193 UN member governments at once, by mid-March 2020. Governments were bought, corrupted, coopted or threatened into behaving as ordered by a worldwide common must-narrative. The entire UN system was and is as of today part and parcel of this worldwide fraud. Indeed, those government leaders, who did not follow the narrative, who defied the plandemic – risked severe “punishment”.

The President of Burundi, Mr. Pierre Nkurunziza, died unexpectedly on 8 June 2020 shortly before the official end of his term. He was the longest-ruling president in Burundian history. His death was diagnosed as a heart attack. He was known for defying the official narrative of covid-19, and of kicking WHO out of his country – shortly before his death.

Tanzania’s popular President John Magufuli, died on March 17, 2021, from “heart complications”, in a hospital in Dar es Salaam. Mr. Magufuli was one of Africa’s most prominent coronavirus sceptics. He called for prayers and herbal-infused steam therapy to counter the virus. Shortly before his death, he said that he had PCR tests carried out on a papaya and a goat – and the tests came back positive, implying that the notorious PCR test kits were pre-tainted with the virus.

The public at large is being kept in the dark about what the Deep State, the corporate, banking and high-tech communication oligarchs, or simply the Globalist Cabal’s real plan is behind the covid fraud.

The so far almost invisible Big Picture, also called The Great Reset, or in the UN Agenda 2030 jargon, “Build Back Better” – consists of a threefold objective:

(i) Taking over total control of humanity, as in One World Order (OWO); by electromagnetic manipulation (that’s where 5G, later 6G come in); by digitizing everything, including all money; by converting humans into transhumans; they – Mr. Klaus Schwab, the co-author of the Great Reset, and his cabal, call it the 4th Industrial Revolution;

(ii) Shifting assets and resources from the middle and the bottom of society to the top few; and

(iii) Drastically reducing world population, via a eugenist depopulation agenda. Eventually, a small globalist elite – all those associated with managing and governing the OWO-tyranny – plus a relatively small world population of serfs – or what Aldous Huxley called the “Epsilon people” (the lowest cast working people) – in today’s world, “transhumans”, would survive. The serfs or Epsilon people, would all be electronically [digitally] controlled and manipulated, so they would not transgress into seeking their erstwhile “freedom” lost.

The Rockefeller-led Bilderberg Society and Rockefeller’s protégé Henry Kissinger, have been propagating a reduced world population for decades. Remember Henry Kissinger’s infamous saying:

Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.”

Bill Gates is today’s chief proponent of a reduced world population. He has also recently become the largest private farmland owner in the United States. He reportedly owns 242,000 acres (about 980 square kilometers) of farmland across 18 states. What does he intend to do with this farmland? – Well, who controls the food, controls the people. Gates is also a significant shareholder and partner in (Bayer-)Monsanto’s GMO seed- and pesticides branch.

At this point we can only speculate. But some of the not so farfetched speculations would indicate that Bill Gates under the guise of environmental protection (i. e. the good-old “climate change agenda”) and the New Green Deal – he may want to produce synthetic food, laboratory produced meat and GMO (genetically modified) grains and vegetables. This synthetic GMO-food, spiked with toxic pesticides, will then compete with ‘real food’ which – under the neoliberal market forces will become ever rarer – affordable only by the elite.

Synthetic food may include all kinds of “health and disease agents” to regulate population. The Epsilon people will of course have no clue. As the Great Reset concludes – They will own nothing and be happy.

While this is going on in the shadows, invisible for most people, the media make sure that the debate – official by governments, and unofficial by anti-covid protesters – is entirely focused on covid, the infection, the invisible atrocious enemy, the fear-mongering, plus all the repressive covid-measures, masking, social distancing, semi- versus full lockdowns, travel restrictions, vaxxing or not vaxxing – and the so-called obligatory electronic vaccination passports, akin to the Agenda ID2020.

All are concentrating on the covid-virus. Almost nothing lets you suspect that there is a Big Picture, a much larger, much deadlier agenda behind this all, that the virus and the atrocious Fear it promotes, is but an instrument to reach the larger objectives, those listed above.

Hardly does any public or unofficial debate, even massive anti-covid measures protests, like the „Wake up the World“ demo by the World Freedom Alliance – in Copenhagen on February 4, 2021 touch the Big Picture, what awaits us at the end of the UN Agenda 2030: You own nothing and are happy.

We are at war. Not just against an invisible enemy, the corona virus and the weaponized factor of FEAR, but also against our own ignorance and unconsciousness.

Plus, against the Global Cabal – the WEF and its Great Reset with its treacherous, fake New Green Deal, a new ultra-neoliberal capitalism, painted green – and intent of swallowing us all under the fake agenda of climate change and environmental protection, the rebirth of the Greta-agenda.

The British PM, Boris Johnson, addressed on 8 October 2020 via video his conservative Tory Party with  these words:

“After all we have been through, it is not enough just to go back to before. We have lost too much, we have mourned too many. We have been through too much frustration and hardship just to settle for the status quo and to think that life can go on as before the plague, and we will not.”  Hence, this government wants to “build back better” (UN slogan for Great Reset).

Let’s compare this with the words of Klaus Schwab in his “Covid-19 – The Great Reset”: Many of us ask, when will we return to normality? 

Screenshot Financial Review November 22, 2020

According to Schwab: 

“Many of us are pondering when things will return to normal. The short response is: NEVER.

The world as we knew it in the early months of 2020 is no more.

For many, life as they’ve always known it is unravelling at alarming speed.

Deep, existential crises also favor introspection and can harbor the potential for transformation. The fault lines of the world – most notably social divides, lack of fairness, absence of co-operation, failure of global governance and leadership – now lie exposed as never before, and people feel a time of reinvention has come.”

Wow! This is strong and quite insensitive language for the many people who died on covid-19 and especially – for those hundreds of millions, if not billions, who have lost everything, their jobs, their homes, their income – their families and friends – those who suffer from famine, who now live in misery, at the edge of sheer existence – those who are driven to commit suicide.

The grandiose WEF, the Rockefellers, Gates, Prince Charles, the Director General of WHO, the Chief of the IMF, the UN Secretary General, and all those who participated in the planning of this “pandemic” during Event 201, never mention these people. In other words, for this small elite, the planners and organizers of the Great Reset, those who represent the concept: You own nothing and are happy – these dumped-into-poverty “epsilon people” are dispensable.

If we cannot master the covid fraud, put an end to it, even unseating and bringing to justice the 193 lying, cheating and eventually murderous UN member governments – how can we come to grips with and escape the fangs of the “Big Picture”, The Great Reset – that eventually will deprive us of our daily nutrition, rendering us infertile and sterile with toxic artificial food with the forced vaccines – and bring about a mass genocide through genome-altering mRNA-type vaccines, pesticide-GMO food – with a soulless, masked life in solitude?

After a Year Under Lockdown, Will Our Freedoms Survive the Tyranny of COVID-19?

By John W. Whitehead (via Global Research)

The remedy is worse than the disease.”—Francis Bacon

One way or another, the majority of Americans will survive COVID-19.

It remains to be seen, however, whether our freedoms will survive the tyranny of the government’s heavy-handed response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Indeed, now that the government has gotten a taste for flexing its police state powers by way of a bevy of lockdowns, mandates, restrictions, contact tracing programs, heightened surveillance, censorship, overcriminalization, etc., we may all be long-haulers, suffering under the weight of long-term COVID-19 afflictions.

Instead of dealing with the headaches, fatigue and neurological aftereffects of the virus, however, “we the people” may well find ourselves burdened with a Nanny State inclined to use its draconian pandemic powers to protect us from ourselves.

Therein lies the danger of the government’s growing addiction to power.

What started out a year ago as an apparent effort to prevent a novel coronavirus from sickening the nation (and the world) has become yet another means by which world governments (including our own) can expand their powers, abuse their authority, and further oppress their constituents.

Until recently, the police state had been more circumspect in its power grabs, but this latest state of emergency has brought the beast out of the shadows.

It’s a given that you can always count on the government to take advantage of a crisis, legitimate or manufactured. Emboldened by the citizenry’s inattention and willingness to tolerate its abuses, the government has weaponized one national crisis after another in order to expand its powers.

The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration, asset forfeiture schemes, road safety schemes, school safety schemes, eminent domain: all of these programs started out as legitimate responses to pressing concerns and have since become weapons of compliance and control in the police state’s hands.

It doesn’t even matter what the nature of the crisis might be—civil unrest, the national emergencies, “unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters”—as long as it allows the government to justify all manner of government tyranny in the name of so-called national security.

This coronavirus pandemic has been no exception.

Not only have the federal and state governments unraveled the constitutional fabric of the nation with lockdown mandates that sent the economy into a tailspin and wrought havoc with our liberties, but they have almost persuaded the citizenry to depend on the government for financial handouts, medical intervention, protection and sustenance.

This past year under lockdown was a lesson in many things, but most of all, it was a lesson in how to indoctrinate a populace to love and obey Big Brother.

What started off as an experiment in social distancing in order to flatten the curve of this virus, and not overwhelm the nation’s hospitals or expose the most vulnerable to unavoidable loss of life scenarios quickly became strongly worded suggestions for citizens to voluntarily stay at home and strong-armed house arrest orders with penalties in place for non-compliance.

Every day brought a drastic new set of restrictions by government bodies (most have been delivered by way of executive orders) at the local, state and federal level that were eager to flex their muscles for the so-called “good” of the populace.

There was talk of mass testing for COVID-19 antibodies, screening checkpoints, mass surveillance in order to carry out contact tracing, immunity passports to allow those who have recovered from the virus to move around more freely, snitch tip lines for reporting “rule breakers” to the authorities, and heavy fines and jail time for those who dare to venture out without a mask, congregate in worship without the government’s blessing, or re-open their businesses without the government’s say-so.

To some, these may seem like small, necessary steps in the war against the COVID-19 virus, but they’re only necessary to the Deep State in its efforts to further undermine the Constitution, extend its control over the populace, and feed its insatiable appetite for ever-greater powers.

After all, whatever dangerous practices you allow the government to carry out now—whether it’s in the name of national security or protecting America’s borders or making America healthy again—rest assured, these same practices can and will be used against you when the government decides to set its sights on you.

The war on drugs turned out to be a war on the American people, waged with SWAT teams and militarized police. The war on terror turned out to be a war on the American people, waged with warrantless surveillance and indefinite detention. The war on immigration turned out to be a war on the American people, waged with roving government agents demanding “papers, please.”

This war on COVID-19 could usher in yet another war on the American people, waged with all of the surveillance weaponry at the government’s disposal: thermal imaging cameras, drones, contact tracing, biometric databases, etc.

Unless we find some way to rein in the government’s power grabs, the fall-out will be epic.

Everything I have warned about for years—government overreach, invasive surveillance, martial law, abuse of powers, militarized police, weaponized technology used to track and control the citizenry, and so on—has coalesced into this present moment.

The government’s shameless exploitation of past national emergencies for its own nefarious purposes pales in comparison to what is presently unfolding.

It’s downright Machiavellian.

Deploying the same strategy it used with 9/11 to acquire greater powers under the USA Patriot Act, the police state—a.k.a. the shadow government, a.k.a. the Deep State—has been anticipating this moment for years, quietly assembling a wish list of lockdown powers that could be trotted out and approved at a moment’s notice.

It should surprise no one, then, that the Trump Administration asked Congress to allow it to suspendparts of the Constitution whenever it deems it necessary during this coronavirus pandemic and “other” emergencies. It’s that “other” emergencies part that should particularly give you pause, if not spur you to immediate action (by action, I mean a loud and vocal, apolitical, nonpartisan outcry and sustained, apolitical, nonpartisan resistance).

In fact, the Department of Justice (DOJ) started to quietly trot out and test a long laundry list of terrifying powers that override the Constitution.

We’re talking about lockdown powers (at both the federal and state level): the ability to suspend the Constitution, indefinitely detain American citizens, bypass the courts, quarantine whole communities or segments of the population, override the First Amendment by outlawing religious gatherings and assemblies of more than a few people, shut down entire industries and manipulate the economy, muzzle dissidents, “stop and seize any plane, train or automobile to stymie the spread of contagious disease,” reshape financial markets, create a digital currency (and thus further restrict the use of cash), determine who should live or die.

These are powers the police state would desperately like to make permanent.

Don’t make the mistake of assuming that anything will change for the better under the Biden administration. That’s not how totalitarian regimes operate.

Bear in mind, however, that the powers the government officially asked Congress to recognize and authorize barely scratch the surface of the far-reaching powers the government has already unilaterally claimed for itself.

Unofficially, the police state has been riding roughshod over the rule of law for years now without any pretense of being reined in or restricted in its power grabs by Congress, the courts or the citizenry.

As David C. Unger, observes in The Emergency State: America’s Pursuit of Absolute Security at All Costs:

“For seven decades we have been yielding our most basic liberties to a secretive, unaccountable emergency state – a vast but increasingly misdirected complex of national security institutions, reflexes, and beliefs that so define our present world that we forget that there was ever a different America. … Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have given way to permanent crisis management: to policing the planet and fighting preventative wars of ideological containment, usually on terrain chosen by, and favorable to, our enemies. Limited government and constitutional accountability have been shouldered aside by the kind of imperial presidency our constitutional system was explicitly designed to prevent.”

This rise of an “emergency state” that justifies all manner of government tyranny in the name of so-called national security is all happening according to schedule.

The civil unrest, the national emergencies, “unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters,” the government’s reliance on the armed forces to solve domestic political and social problems, the implicit declaration of martial law packaged as a well-meaning and overriding concern for the nation’s security: the powers-that-be have been planning and preparing for such a crisis for years now, not just with active shooter drills and lockdowns and checkpoints and heightened danger alerts, but with a sensory overload of militarized, battlefield images—in video games, in movies, on the news—that acclimate us to life in a totalitarian regime.

Whether or not this particular crisis is of the government’s own making is not the point: to those for whom power and profit are everything, the end always justifies the means.

The seeds of this present madness were sown several decades ago when George W. Bush stealthily issued two presidential directives that granted the president the power to unilaterally declare a national emergency, which is loosely defined as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.

Comprising the country’s Continuity of Government (COG) plan, these directives, which do not need congressional approval, provide a skeletal outline of the actions the president will take in the event of a “national emergency.”

Mind you, that national emergency can take any form, can be manipulated for any purpose, and can be used to justify any end goal—all on the say so of the president.

Just what sort of actions the president will take once he declares a national emergency can barely be discerned from the barebones directives. However, one thing is clear: in the event of a national emergency, the COG directives give unchecked executive, legislative and judicial power to the executive branch and its unelected minions.

The country would then be subjected to martial law by default, and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights would be suspended.

The emergency state is now out in the open for all to see.

Unfortunately, “we the people” refuse to see what’s before us.

This is how freedom dies.

We erect our own prison walls, and as our rights dwindle away, we forge our own chains of servitude to the police state.

Be warned, however: once you surrender your freedoms to the government—no matter how compelling the reason might be for doing so—you can never get them back.

No government willingly relinquishes power. If we continue down this road, there can be no surprise about what awaits us at the end.

That said, we still have rights. Technically, at least.

We should not voluntarily relinquish every shred of our humanity, our common sense, or our freedoms to a nanny state that thinks it can do a better job of keeping us safe.

The government may act as if its police state powers trump individual liberties during this COVID-19 pandemic, but for all intents and purposes, the Constitution—especially the battered, besieged Bill of Rights—still stands in theory, if not in practice.

The decisions we make right now—about freedom, commerce, free will, how we care for the least of these in our communities, what it means to provide individuals and businesses with a safety net, how far we allow the government to go in “protecting” us against this virus, etc.—will haunt us for a long time to come.

At times like these, when emotions are heightened, fear dominates, common sense is in short supply, liberty takes a backseat to public safety, and democratic societies approach the tipping point towards mob rule, there is a tendency to cast those who exercise their individual freedoms (to freely speak, associate, assemble, protest, pursue a living, engage in commerce, etc.) as foolishly reckless, criminally selfish, outright villains or so-called “extremists.”

Sometimes that is true, but not always.

There is always a balancing test between individual freedoms and the communal good.

What we must figure out is how to strike a balance that allows us to protect those who need protecting without leaving us chained and in bondage to the police state.

Blindly following the path of least resistance—acquiescing without question to whatever the government dictates—can only lead to more misery, suffering and the erection of a totalitarian regime in which there is no balance.

Whatever we give up willingly now—whether it’s basic human decency, the ability to manage our private affairs, the right to have a say in how the government navigates this crisis, or the few rights still left to us that haven’t been disemboweled in recent years by a power-hungry police state—we won’t get back so easily once this crisis is past.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the government never cedes power willingly. Neither should we.

A year ago, I warned that this was a test to see whether the Constitution—and our commitment to the principles enshrined in the Bill of Rights—can survive a national crisis and true state of emergency.

Nothing has changed on that front.

James Madison, the “father” of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the fourth president of the United States, once advised that we should “take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties.”

These COVID-19 restrictions are far from the first experiment on our liberties. Yet if “we the people” continue to allow the government to trample our rights in the name of so-called national security, we can be assured that things will get worse, not better.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Cat’s Claw: Benefits, Side Effects, and Dosage

Written by Mary Jane Brown, PhD, RD (UK) (via Healthline)

Cat’s claw is a popular herbal supplement derived from a tropical vine.

It allegedly helps fight a range of ailments, including infections, cancer, arthritis, and Alzheimer’s disease (1Trusted Source).

However, only some of these benefits are supported by science.

This article tells you everything you need to know about cat’s claw, including its benefits, side effects, and dosage.

What Is Cat’s Claw?

Cat’s claw (Uncaria tomentosa) is a tropical vine which can grow up to 98 feet (30 meters) tall. Its name comes from its hooked thorns, which resemble the claws of a cat.

It is found mainly in the Amazon rainforest and in other tropical areas of South and Central America.

The two most common varieties are Uncaria tomentosa and Uncaria guianensis. The former is the type often used in supplements in the United States (2Trusted Source).

The bark and root have been used for centuries in South America as a traditional medicine for many conditions, such as inflammation, cancer, and infections.

Cat’s claw supplements can be taken as a liquid extract, capsule, powder, or tea.


Cat’s claw is a tropical vine used for centuries as a traditional medicine. Today, it’s commonly consumed as a supplement due to its alleged health benefits.

Potential Health Benefits 

Cat’s claw has soared in popularity as a herbal supplement due to its alleged health benefits — though only the claims below are backed up by sufficient research.

May Boost Your Immune System

Cat’s claw may support your immune system, possibly helping fight infections more effectively.

A small study in 27 men found that consuming 700 mg of cat’s claw extract for 2 months increased their number of white blood cells, which are involved in combating infections (3Trusted Source).

Another small study in four men given cat’s claw extract for six weeks noted the same results (4Trusted Source).

Cat’s claw seems to work both by boosting your immune response and calming an overactive immune system (3Trusted Source5Trusted Source). 

Its anti-inflammatory properties could be responsible for its immune benefits (6Trusted Source).

Despite these promising results, more research is needed.

May Relieve Symptoms of Osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis is the most common joint condition in the United States, causing painful and stiff joints (7Trusted Source).

In one study in 45 people with osteoarthritis in the knee, taking 100 mg of cat’s claw extract for 4 weeks resulted in reduced pain during physical activity. No side effects were reported.

However, there was no change in either pain at rest or knee swelling (8Trusted Source).

In an eight-week study, a supplement of cat’s claw and maca root — a Peruvian medicinal plant — reduced pain and stiffness in people with osteoarthritis. In addition, participants needed pain medication less frequently (9Trusted Source).

Another trial tested a daily mineral supplement alongside 100 mg of cat’s claw extract in people with osteoporosis. After 1–2 weeks, joint pain and function improved compared to those not taking the supplements (10Trusted Source).

However, after eight weeks, the benefits were not sustained.

It should also be noted that it can be difficult to determine the specific actions of cat’s claw in studies that test multiple supplements at once.

Scientists believe that cat’s claw may ease osteoarthritis symptoms due to its anti-inflammatory properties (6Trusted Source8Trusted Source).

Keep in mind that more research is needed on cat’s claw and osteoarthritis (11Trusted Source).

May Relieve Symptoms of Rheumatoid Arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis is a long-term autoimmune condition that causes warm, swollen, painful joints. It is increasing in prevalence in the United States, where it affects more than 1.28 million adults (12Trusted Source).

Some studies suggest that cat’s claw can help relieve its symptoms.

For example, a study in 40 people with rheumatoid arthritis determined that 60 mg of cat’s claw extract per day alongside regular medication resulted in a 29% reduction in the number of painful joints compared to a control group (13Trusted Source).

As with osteoarthritis, cat’s claw is thought to reduce inflammation in your body, easing rheumatoid arthritis symptoms as a result (6Trusted Source).

Although these results are promising, the evidence is weak. Larger, better-quality studies are needed to confirm these benefits.


Research suggests that cat’s claw extract may aid your immune system and reduce symptoms of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. However, more studies are needed.

Unfounded Health Claims 

Cat’s claw contains several powerful compounds — such as phenolic acids, alkaloids, and flavonoids — that may promote health (14Trusted Source15Trusted Source).

However, there is currently not enough research to support many of its supposed benefits, including for the following conditions:

  • cancer
  • viral infections
  • anxiety
  • allergies
  • high blood pressure
  • gout
  • stomach and bowel disorders
  • asthma
  • ovarian cysts
  • AIDS

Due to the lack of research, it’s unclear whether cat’s claw is an effective or safe treatment option for any of these ailments.


Despite many marketing claims, there is insufficient evidence to support using cat’s claw for conditions like cancer, allergies, and AIDS.

Safety and Side Effects

While side effects of cat’s claw are rarely reported, available information to determine its overall safety is currently insufficient.

The high levels of tannins in cat’s claw may cause some side effects — including nausea, stomach upset, and diarrhea — if consumed in large amounts (1Trusted Source).

Case reports and test-tube studies support other possible side effects, including low blood pressure, increased risk of bleeding, nerve damage, anti-estrogen effects, and adverse effects on kidney function (16Trusted Source17Trusted Source18Trusted Source).

That said, these symptoms are rare.

It is generally advised that the following groups of people should avoid or limit cat’s claw:

  • Pregnant or breastfeeding women. Cat’s claw is not considered safe to take during pregnancy or breastfeeding due to a lack of safety information.
  • People with certain medical conditions. Those with bleeding disorders, autoimmune disease, kidney disease, leukemia, problems with blood pressure, or who are awaiting surgery should avoid cat’s claw (1Trusted Source19Trusted Source20Trusted Source).
  • People taking certain medications. As cat’s claw may interfere with some drugs, such as those for blood pressure, cholesterol, cancer, and blood clotting, you should speak to your doctor before taking it (19Trusted Source).

The lack of safety evidence means that you should always use cat’s claw with caution.


There is insufficient research into the risks of cat’s claw, although side effects are rare. Certain populations, such as pregnant women or those with particular medical conditions, should avoid cat’s claw.

Dosage Information

If you decide to take cat’s claw, note that dosage guidelines have not been established.

However, WHO says that an average daily dose is 20–350 mg of dried stem bark for extracts or 300–500 mg for capsules, taken in 2–3 separate doses throughout the day (21).

Studies have used daily doses of 60 and 100 mg of cat’s claw extract for treating rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis of the knee, respectively (8Trusted Source13Trusted Source).

One potential risk is that many herbal supplements — including cat’s claw — are not tightly regulated by the FDA. Therefore, it’s best to purchase cat’s claw from a reputable supplier to reduce the risk of contamination.

Look out for brands that have been independently tested by companies such as, USP, or NSF International.


Available information to develop dosage guidelines for cat’s claw is insufficient. However, average daily doses range from 20–350 mg of dried bark extract or 300–500 mg in capsule form.

The Bottom Line

Cat’s claw is a popular herbal supplement derived from a tropical vine. 

While research to support many of its supposed health benefits is limited, some evidence suggests that cat’s claw may help boost your immune system and ease symptoms of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.

Because safety and dosage guidelines have not been established, it may be best to consult with your doctor before taking cat’s claw.

What Is Burdock Root?

Medically reviewed by Dominique Fontaine, BSN, RN, HNB-BC, HWNC — Written by Ana Gotter (via Healthline)

Burdock root

Burdock root is a vegetable native to Northern Asia and Europe, though it now grows in the United States. The burdock plant’s deep roots are very long and vary in color from beige to brown and nearly black on the outside.

Burdock root has been used for centuries in holistic medicine to treat a variety of different conditions. Traditionally, it’s been most commonly used as a diuretic and a digestive aid (1).

Now, researchers have discovered numerous potential uses and health benefits for burdock root. These benefits may be extensive enough to warrant using burdock root as a complementary treatment for certain conditions.

Burdock root benefits

1. It’s a powerhouse of antioxidants

Burdock root has been shown to contain multiple types of powerful antioxidants, including quercetin, luteolin, and phenolic acids (2). 

Antioxidants protect cells in the body from damage due to free radicals. They can help treat and prevent a number of different health conditions.

Antioxidants can also help to reduce inflammation. One study found that burdock root reduced inflammatory markers in the blood of patients with osteoarthritis (3).

2. It removes toxins from the blood

One of the most common uses for burdock root has been to purify the blood. 

Recent evidence has found that burdock root contains active ingredients in its root system that can remove toxins from the bloodstream. 

Research also found that burdock root effectively detoxified blood and promoted increased circulation in the surface of the skin (1).

3. It may inhibit some types of cancer

Burdock root, as it turns out, may not only purify the blood, but it may also inhibit certain types of cancer. 

Research has also found that burdock had “potent inhibitory effects” on cancer growth caused by cancers like pancreatic carcinoma (1). Another study found burdock root significantly interfered with cancer cell growth. 

While more research is needed to determine the full effects of burdock on different types of cancers and tumors, this is still a remarkable finding (13Trusted Source4Trusted Source5Trusted Source).

4. It may be an aphrodisiac

Another possible use of burdock root is as an aphrodisiac. In a nonhuman study, it was found that the extract of burdock root had an aphrodisiac effect. The extract enhanced sexual function and increased the amount of sexual behavior in the male rats (6).

Research is needed on humans, but anecdotal evidence supports this claim.

5. It can help treat skin issues

Burdock root has also long been used to treat skin conditions like acne and eczema. The root’s anti-inflammatory and antibacterial properties can help resolve skin issues when applied topically to the skin (7Trusted Source8Trusted Source). 

There’s also evidence that burdock root may help treat topical burns (9Trusted Source).

Potential risks and side effects

There’s limited or no research available on the pediatric uses of burdock root, and its safety hasn’t been studied in children. Because of this, you should never give your child burdock root unless under the supervision of your healthcare provider.

Some potential risks of burdock include the following:

  • If you’re taking burdock supplements, take only in moderation. More research is needed to determine the safety of the supplement.
  • Burdock is considered to be safe to eat, but you should only buy it from reputable sellers and should never collect it in the wild. The burdock plant resembles belladonna nightshade plants, which are highly toxic. They often grow together.
  • Burdock root is a natural diuretic, so you shouldn’t take it if you’re dehydrated. You also shouldn’t take it if you’re also taking other diuretics or water pills, as it can increase dehydration.
  • If you’re allergic to chrysanthemums or daisies, you may be at an increased risk of having an allergic reaction to burdock root and should avoid it.
  • Pregnant women or women trying to become pregnant shouldn’t take burdock root or supplements.

Forms and doses

There are a number of different forms of burdock root available. These include:

  • fresh burdock root
  • burdock tea
  • dried root powder
  • burdock oil or burdock extract

European Union to Vote this Week on Vaccination Travel Passport

By Children’s Health Defense (via Global Research)

The European Commission’s digital “Green Passport,” which would provide proof of vaccination and negative COVID test, would be used to exempt holders from quarantine and other restrictions.

On March 17, the European Commission proposed a digital “Green Passport” to facilitate the safe free movement of citizens within the EU during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The “interoperable” certificates would provide evidence that a person has been vaccinated or has tested negative for COVID. The pass would include information on the brand of the vaccine, date and place of inoculation and the number of doses administered, as well as information from a lab or hospital confirming negative test results.

Holders of the certificate (a QR code on a phone app or on paper) would be exempt from quarantine and other restrictions. The document would be common to all EU citizens, but it will be up to member countries to decide on how to use it.

The commission is also working with the World Health Organization and the International Civil Aviation Organization to ensure that the Green Pass would be recognized internationally. In the meantime, the passport would allow bilateral deals between EU countries and non-member states, provided the commission approves these deals.

Countries have different reactions according to their needs and to their confidence rate in vaccination. Greece and Spain are eager to use the passport to reopen their tourist economies, while France has low uptake of the vaccine, with close to half the population hesitant.

Many also find that there is not enough data on the vaccines and that it’s too early to issue such a certificate. Plus, there is still uncertainty about whether the vaccine can actually stop the disease from spreading.

Several European countries are now reinstating lockdowns and restrictions fearing a third wave. Vaccination and the Green Pass are presented as the “only way out” of the pandemic. The Green Pass is being promoted as a temporary solution, but many believe it will remain in place long after the pandemic is over.

The European Parliament and member states are rushing to vote on the proposal this week. One can only marvel at how legislators can decide, without debate, on such an important issue that violates fundamental principles of the Treaty of the European Union and violates individual rights.

Senta Depuydt, president of Children’s Health Defense Europe, and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., chairman, Children’s Health Defense, have expressed their concerns in this letter to the European Parliament

Depuydt and Kennedy urge others to contact European Parliament members on social media, by emailor by phone to express their views on this critical matter.

Billionaire Wealth: Who Are the 10 Biggest Pandemic Profiteers?

One year after the Covid-19 pandemic began, U.S. billionaires have made out like gangbusters at the expense of workers.

By Chuck Collins (via Global Research)

A year ago, the Institute for Policy Studies published “Billionaire Bonanza 2020: Wealth  Windfalls, Tumbling Taxes and Pandemic Profiteers,”  and began tracking billionaire wealth gains as unemployment surged.  We teamed up with Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) to track the wealth growth of America’s billionaires over the last year.  This report summarizes the extraordinary growth in wealth of those now 657 billionaires based on real-time data from Forbes on March 18, 2021.

Here are highlights from the last 12 months of billionaire wealth growth:

  • The combined wealth of the nation’s 657 billionaires increased more than $1.3 trillion, or 44.6 percent, since the pandemic lockdowns began. [See Master Table] Over those same 12 months, more than 29 million Americans contracted the virus and more than 535,000 died from it. As billionaire wealth soared over, almost 80 million lost work between March 21, 2020, and Feb. 20, 2021, and 18 million were collecting unemployment on Feb. 27, 2021
  • There are 43 newly minted billionaires since the beginning of the pandemic, when there were 614. A number of new billionaires joined the list after initial public offerings (IPOs) of stock in companies such as Airbnb, DoorDash, and Snowflake.
  • The increase in the combined wealth of the 15 billionaires with the greatest growth in absolute wealth was $563 billion or 82 percent. [See table 1] The wealth growth of just these 15 represents over 40 percent of the wealth growth among all billionaires. Topping the list are Elon Musk ($137.5 billion richer, 559 percent), Jeff Bezos ($65 billion, 58 percent) and Mark Zuckerberg ($47 billion, 86 percent).

The 10 biggest “Pandemic Profiteers” saw the greatest percentage increase in their wealth—at least 300 percent. [See Table 2]

They mostly multiplied their fortunes in the world of online goods, services and entertainment, as forcibly homebound Americans shopped, invested and diverted themselves in isolation. They include the owners of ecommerce leaders Quicken Loans, Square, Carvana, and cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase; social media sites Snapchat and Twitter; online streaming platform Roku; and digital ad agency Trade Desk. 19 other billionaires experienced increases of over 200% while 48 others more than doubled their fortunes with 100%+ gains.

  1. Bom Kim (670 percent/$7.7 billion): A U.S. citizen and founder of the e-commerce giant Coupang, the Amazon of South Korea. Kim’s fortune surged as high as $11 billion after the company’s IPO in early March.
  2. Dan Gilbert (642 percent/$41.7 billion): Owner of Quicken Loans, which capitalized on cloistered citizens tapping online financing. Lives in Michigan.
  3. Ernest Garcia II (567 percent/$13.6 billion): Biggest shareholder of Carvana, the online car sales and auto-financing giant. Arizona.
  4. Elon Musk (559 percent/$137.5 billion): Musk is now the second wealthiest Americans—at nearly $138 billion—as his shares in Tesla, Space-X and other companies that he owns continue to climb. Lives in Texas.
  5. Brian Armstrong (550 percent/$5.5 billion): Chief executive of Coinbase, the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the country. California resident.
  6. Bobby Murphy (531 [ercent/$10.1 billion): Co-founder of Snapchat, with his Stanford fraternity brother, Evan Spiegel. California resident.
  7. Evan Spiegel (490 percent/$9.3 billion): Co-founder of Snapchat with his other billionaire super-gainer, Bobby Murphy. California resident.
  8. Jack Dorsey (396 percent/$10.3 billion): Co-founder and CEOs of both Twitter and Square, the small business payment app. Lives in California
  9. Anthony Wood (331 percent/$5.3 billion): Founder of Roku, which enables online TV video streaming. California resident.
  10. Jeff Green (300 percent/$3 billion): Californian founder and chairman of The Trade Desk, a digital advertising firm.

Other notable billionaire wealth gains during the pandemicNet Worth of US Billionaires Has Soared by $1 Trillion to Total of $4 Trillion Since Pandemic Began

  • Eric Yuan, co-founder of video-conferencing technology Zoom, saw his wealth rise by $8.4 billion during the pandemic year, a gain of 153 percent. A year ago, Yuan had $5.5 billion which increased to $13.9 billion. Last year Zoom paid no federal income taxes on its $660 million in profits, which increased by more than 4,000 percent.
  • The three owners of Airbnb saw their wealth accelerate thanks to their pandemic year IPO. Brian Chesky’s wealth increased from $4.1 billion to $14.6 billion, a gain of $10.5 billion, an increase of 256 percent. Nathan Blecharazyk and Joe Gebbia, with equal ownership stakes valued at $4.1 billion a year ago, each saw their wealth increase to $13.2 billion, for gains of $9.1 billion each, or 222 percent.
  • Jim Koch, owner of Boston Beer Company and brewer of the Sam Adams brand, saw his wealth increase from $1.3 billion to $3.2 billion, a gain of $1.9 billion over the pandemic year, or 146 percent.
  • Dan and Bubba Cathy, the owners of drive-through sensation Chick-Fil-A, saw their combined wealth of $6.8 billion rise to $16.6 billion, a gain of $9.8 billion over the pandemic year, or 144 percent.
  • Harold Hamm, the politically connected oil and gas fracker, saw his wealth increase from $2.4 billion to $7.5 billion during the pandemic year, an increase of 5.1 billion, or 212.5 percent.

Of 17 industry categories, billionaires in the technology industry had the greatest collective wealth growth—$564 billion, or nearly 68 percent. [See Table 3]

They were worth $1.4 trillion on March 18, 2021, or one-third of the billionaires’ total. The titans of Wall Street—the Finance & Investment industries—saw their wealth grow by $226 billion—a nearly 37 percent increase. Automotive industry billionaires had the biggest percentage point increase in wealth—317 percent based on an increase in wealth of $172 billion. That was largely driven by the extraordinary rise in Elon Musk’s wealth—$137.5 billion or 559 percent.

All but three states saw the wealth of their billionaire residents increase. [See Table 4]

Topping the list in total wealth growth are California at $551 billion, Washingtonat $134.6 billion, and New York at $116.4 billion. The top three states with the greatest percentage increase in wealth are Michigan at 164 percent, Arizona at 110 percent, and Hawaii at 107 percent.

Billionaire wealth growth is calculated between March 18, 2020 and March 18, 2021, based on Forbesdata compiled in this report by ATF and IPS. March 18 is used as the unofficial beginning of the crisis because by then most federal and state economic restrictions responding to the virus were in place. March 18 was also the date that Forbes picked to measure billionaire wealth for the 2020 edition of its annual billionaires’ report, which provided a baseline that ATF and IPS compare periodically with real-time data from the Forbes website. PolitiFact has favorably reviewed this methodology.

Fauci and U.S. Officials Say AstraZeneca Released ‘Outdated Information’ from COVID-19 Vaccine Trial

By Andrew Joseph (via Global Research)

This Report by Stat News focusses on statements by Anthony Fauci pertaining to the Astrazeneka vaccine.

Fauci has supported the mRNA vaccine from the very outset. His statements against Astrazeneka do not address the more fundamental issue, namely that the mRNA vaccine is a dangerous “unapproved”(according to the FDA)  “experimental” drug.

There is fierce competition between four major Big Pharma conglomerates, all of which are involved in marketing the mRNA vaccine, namely Pfizer, Moderna Inc, Johnson and Johnson and Astrazeneka.

Fauci was asked “whether he was worried about people’s confidence in the AstraZeneca vaccine and others”. His response

“Obviously that’s a concern whenever something like this happens, that it could erode public trust, yes.”

U.S. health officials raised concerns early Tuesday that positive results that AstraZeneca announced Monday for its Covid-19 vaccine may have been based on “an incomplete view of the efficacy data” from a clinical trial and relied on “outdated information,” throwing another curveball in the saga of the company’s vaccine.

In a statement issued soon after midnight Tuesday morning, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases said it had been informed about the data questions by the data and safety monitoring board auditing the trial. DSMBs consist of independent medical experts who review data produced from clinical trials.

“We urge the company to work with the DSMB to review the efficacy data and ensure the most accurate, up-to-date efficacy data be made public as quickly as possible,” NIAID said.

In an interview Tuesday morning with STAT, Anthony Fauci, the head of the NIAID, said the DSMB raised concerns because it felt the results in a AstraZeneca press release Monday looked more favorable than more recent data from the vaccine study had shown.

“I was sort of stunned,” Fauci said. “The data and safety monitoring board were concerned that the data that went into the press release by AZ was not the most accurate and up-to-date data. That is what the DSMB communicated to AZ in a rather harsh note. Having seen that letter we could not just let it go unanswered.”

Asked why NIAID released its unusual statement, Fauci said,

“We just felt we could not remain silent. Because if we did remain silent, we could be understandably accused of covering something up. And we definitely didn’t want to be in that position.”

He added:

“In my mind, it’s an unforced error by the company.”

To Read the Complete Article click here

Why I Replaced My Entire Shower Regimen With a Single Bar of Soap

By Team Repeller (via Repeller)

Bathtubs attract a crowd. Shower gels, shampoos and conditioners, other shampoos and conditioners, body oil if you’re feeling fancy, shaving cream if that’s your bag, maybe an exfoliant or a scrub. But I’ve always enjoyed a little more solitude when I bathe, sticking to three products at most. I love a good Dr. Bronner’s, for example, which doubles as body wash and shampoo, as well as some light reading material while I wash. And I tend to stick to the same bottle of Aveda clay conditioner, which has proven effective for my naturally knotty stands. As someone who likes control but eschews responsibility, a modest kingdom is easier to maintain.

But even if I dreamed of getting my routine down to one product, I never thought it would actually be possible. And then, last year, I found the holy grail: Dr. Beekman’s COPA Soaps. Based in Philly but available online and at local markets, the all-purpose potential of this soap occurred to me by accident. I was sitting in the tub having a deep think, when I idly raised the soap bar — which I’d previously only used on my body — to my head and rubbed it all over my scalp, like an ancient monkey encountering modern cleansing instruments for the first time. The friction created very little lather at first, but after a while, successfully transferred the soap’s humectant properties to my hair. So much so that conditioner was superfluous: my hair felt soft, orderly and untangled.

COPA stands for the ingredient oils: coconut, olive, palm and almond. According to the packaging, the bars are “cold processed and all natural, using quality essential oils and herbs.” The soaps come in scents like sage, saffron, tea tree with peppermint, cider and avocado, but I always come back to the same six lavender varieties, which they helpfully bundle in one Lavender Collection. They are delicious but subtle, leaving behind only a whisper of their scent, an intimate privilege for anyone lucky enough to get close.Their glacé surfaces, when wet, resemble a gold bar dipped in condensed milk. I would eat them if I could.

bar soap

For a woman with winter-dry skin and fine, baby hair, keeping one nourished and the other squeaky clean is a delicate dance. But after my first full-body turn with this one bar, I emerged from the shower with fluffy hair and soft skin, in need of nothing more than a towel. I felt so portable. Like I could recreate my home spa experience in any shower in the world with an item that fit neatly in my palm. For there, I started using it for everything: face wash, body wash, shampoo, conditioner. In whittling down my bath product suite, I felt efficient and indulgent in one emollient stroke. I knew who I was and what I needed.

I can’t vouch for the universality of my practice — in the months since, I’ve given away bars to friends, who love it but haven’t embraced it monogamously. But it has me completely smitten, and my shower has never looked so gloriously empty.

The oneness of a uniform is contained in the word itself. Singularity is the thing, and with it comes certainty. What else can you be but what you are, when you wear one thing? A uniform takes self-definition and reproduces it semiotically. My beauty uniform doesn’t make me feel conformist or anonymous, but more like myself. After all, if it only takes one substance to make my hair bouncy and turn my skin to velvet, then I can believe that this soft, clean creature is who I really am. I am the luxury, and no one can ever take that away. I just need a bar of soap.

What’s your holy grail shower product? Would you ever use soap as shampoo? I’ll be waiting with my Dr. Beekman’s in the comments.

Photos by Louisiana Mei Gelpi.

7 Things Your Hair Says About Your Health

Your hair can let you and your doctor know whether you’re stressed, have a nutritional deficiency, a thyroid problem, or other health issues. Here are seven key things to look for in your locks.

By Madeline R. Vann, MPH Medically Reviewed by Ross Radusky, MD (via Everyday Health)

You probably think about your hair on a daily basis — fretting over a bad hair day or enjoying a nice blowout, or maybe wondering whether to try out the new style you noticed on your favorite celebrity. But you might be missing clues that your hair is revealing about your health. Research shows that changes in your hair’s look, texture, or thickness can be signs of underlying health conditions. Here’s how you can tell whether your hair changes are due to a health problem, genetics, stress, or a nutritional deficiency.

Stress (and Genes) Can Make You Go Gray

Gray Hair

Anyone who has watched presidential hair change from campaign to campaign has noticed that stress seems to make hair turn gray, and a study on mice published in the journal Nature suggested that chronic stress may indeed contribute to graying hair by causing DNA damage and reducing the supply of pigment-producing cells in hair follicles. Stress can also cause your hair to fall out.

Another type of stress, known as oxidative stress, may also play a role in gray hair. “Oxidative stress (when cell-damaging free radicals inhibit the body’s repair processes) may affect pigment-producing cells,” says Paradi Mirmirani, MD, a dermatologist with The Permanente Medical Group in Vallejo, California.

Going gray is actually a totally natural part of aging, as your hair follicles produce less color as you get older. Your genes also play a role in when your hair turns gray, adds Dr. Mirmirani — ask your parents how old they were when they saw the first sign of silver, and you might follow suit. In fact, a study published in March 2016 in the journal Nature Communications was the first to identify the gene responsible for gray hair.2

Brittle Hair Could Be a Sign of Cushing’s Syndrome

a person with brittle hair

Brittle hair is one symptom of Cushing’s syndrome, which is a rare condition caused by too much cortisol, the body’s primary stress hormone. But, notes Mirmirani, there are many other more obvious symptoms of Cushing’s syndrome, including high blood pressure, fatigue, and back pain.

Treatment for Cushing’s syndrome may include changing the dose of medication that could be causing the condition, such as glucocorticoids, which are steroids used to treat inflammation caused by a variety of illnesses. Other people might need surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation therapy to correct the adrenal gland’s overproduction of cortisol.

Hair Thinning Could Be a Sign of Thyroid Disease

a person with thinning hair

People who have hypothyroidism, a condition that occurs when your thyroid gland doesn’t produce enough thyroid hormones, might notice increased hair shedding and a change in hair appearance, says Mirmirani.

About 4.6 percent of the U.S. population ages 12 and older has hypothyroidism, although most cases are mild. It can cause thinning hair and other symptoms, such as tiredness, cold intolerance, joint pain, muscle pain, a puffy face, and weight gain. A thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) test will diagnose the condition, and treatment entails taking thyroid medication. 

In addition to thinning hair, certain thyroid disorders put you at risk for an autoimmune hair-loss condition called alopecia areata. This type of hair loss causes round patches of sudden hair loss and is caused by the immune system attacking the hair follicles. 4

Hair Shedding Could Be a Sign of Anemia

a hair brush full of hair

If you’re suddenly noticing a lot more hair in your hairbrush or on your shower floor, this could be a sign that your body has low iron stores, or anemia, and may warrant testing. “This is another blood test we do when you complain of hair changes,” says Mirmirani. She says she is particularly likely to order this blood test for people who are vegetarian or for women who have heavy periods, both of which increase the chance that hair changes are due to low iron.

It’s not completely known why low iron can cause hair loss, but iron is critical for many biological and chemical reactions, perhaps including hair growth, says Rebecca Baxt, MD, a dermatologist in Paramus, New Jersey. If your doctor determines that you are truly iron deficient, eating more foods that are high in iron, or taking an iron supplement, might help with hair loss, she adds.

Hair shedding can also happen (temporarily) with sudden changes in estrogen levels and is often noticed after pregnancy or stopping birth control pills.5

Hair Loss Could Indicate a Protein Deficiency

a man with balding hair

Protein is essential for hair health and growth (a lack of protein has been linked to hair thinning and loss). Protein deficiency isn’t a problem for most Americans, says Mirmirani — most adults need 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight. Good sources of protein include nonfat Greek yogurt, tilapia, chickpeas, and chicken breast.

People who have gastrointestinal difficulties or who just had gastric bypass surgery may have problems digesting protein. These specialized situations will have to be managed with your doctor’s help. But most hair thinning, even in women, is likely due to genetics.6

White or Yellow Flakes Could Mean You Have Dandruff

a man with dandruff

Yellow or white flakes in your hair, on your shoulders, and even in your eyebrows are a sign of dandruff, a chronic scalp condition. Dandruff doesn’t usually indicate a serious health problem, and it can usually be treated with over-the-counter specialty hair shampoos or a prescription shampoo.

One of the most common causes of dandruff is a condition called seborrheic dermatitisaccording to the Mayo Clinic. Those with seborrheic dermatitis have red, greasy skin covered with flaky white or yellow scales. A yeast-like fungus called malassezia can also irritate the scalp. Not shampooing enough, sensitivity to hair care products, and dry skin can also cause dandruff. (Dandruff is usually worse in winter, when indoor heating can make skin drier.)7

Damaged Hair Can Mask Other Health Problems

a person using a hair straigtener

Although hair can tattle on your health conditions, Mirmirani says that patients more commonly complain about the damage done by coloring and heat-treating hair to within an inch of its life. Too much heat, from daily flat iron use or daily blowouts, can certainly damage your hair, making it dry, brittle, and hard to maintain, says Tania Moran, a licensed hairstylist at Swank Hair Salon in New York City. Moran recommends using no more than one hot tool per day (infrequent double heat processes are okay, but not daily). Whenever you’re applying heat to your hair, always use products with protective ingredients, she adds. “Serums and shine drops tend to have qualities that preserve the hair when using direct and indirect heat,” she explains.

Getting your hair professionally colored is unlikely to cause much damage, Moran says, but bleaching your hair and using boxed hair color at home can have adverse effects. You can mitigate any damage to your hair by using the right products. “Post-color treatment, use proper color-preserving and moisturizing shampoo,” Moran recommends.

Perhaps most importantly, highly treated hair may mask certain problems and make it difficult to see or feel what your hair can tell you about your health.


By Anveya (via Anveya)

Ayurveda has wonderful and effective means to ensure a long-term sustainable hair health. Whether you’re blessed with long and healthy hair and your goal is to keep it as so for the years to come, or whether you’re dealing with hair issues like hair fall and damaged hair and similar scalp issues, a natural practice which can work well for you and can stay with you for years in the best one. Ayurvedic remedies have proven themselves for thousands of years for Indian hair, and they will work out wonderfully well for your hair too. Here is a list of Ayurvedic herbs for hair growth, nourishment, and for dealing with hair fall.




This Ayurvedic herb is often used as a replacement for chemical shampoo products due to its excellent cleaning properties. Commonly found in India, and scientifically known as ‘acacia concinna’, it is packed with important vitamins such as Vitamin A, K and E which are all beneficial in maintaining hair health.


  • Controls and lessens dandruff. Dandruff is often one of the factors for hair loss.
  • Cleanses your scalp thoroughly and improves scalp health.
  • Strengthens the roots of your hair. Strengthens hair overall.
  • Promotes strong hair and hair growth.


Named ‘Brahmi’, after the God Brahman, this Ayurvedic herb has several redeeming qualities for hair health. Scientifically known as ‘bacopa monnieri’, Brahmi is used as an oil or as a paste applied onto the scalp and hair to prevent hair loss and to make hair thicker and healthier.


  • Not only does Brahmi reduce hair fall, it even reduces stress.
  • It is beneficial in nourishing the hair scalp.
  • It promotes and causes hair to grow healthily, strongly.



Scientifically known as ‘lawsonia inermis’, henna or mehendi as we popularly know it, is widely known for its usage of hair colouring and making beautiful patterns on women’s palms, hands and feet. However, it has several beneficial qualities such as antibacterial and astringent properties which make it extremely beneficial for promoting hair health. It prevents clogging of the pores in your scalp by removing any excess oil and is often applied in the form of a paste onto your hair and scalp.


  • It acts as a natural hair dye, with repeated usage.
  • It helps manage or treat oily hair and scalp.
  • It aids in restoring the pH level of our scalp.
  • It helps in repairing any damage caused to our scalp and hair. Controls hair damage.


Alternatively known as a false daisy, bhringraj is a medicinal herb growing primarily in moist areas. Scientifically known as ‘Eclipta Alba’, when this herb is used in the form of an oil, it has miraculous effects on our hair, skin and bodily health. Mainly, it prevents hair loss and rejuvenates our scalp. It can even aid those who are experiencing greying of some hair strands at a young age. Bhringraj can be used as a natural dye as well.


  • Makes your hair appear lustrous, adds shine to your hair.
  • Promotes healthy hair growth.



Scientifically known as ‘Phyllanthus Emblica’, Amla is a well-known fruit in the Indian subcontinent whose oil is used widely in India for nourishing and moisturising hair. It is a fruit loaded with Vitamin C and antioxidants which all aid in the production of collagen. Collagen, of course, boosts production of hair and promotes a healthy and strong hair. Amla can be used either as an oil with Coconut oil or a paste with water by combining dry amla powder with water or any carrier oil.


  • Amla helps reduce greying of hair.
  • Promotes strong and healthy hair.
  • Help treat dandruff and any other underlying scalp condition.
  • Conditions or moisturizes hair well.


Popularly known in Indian households as ‘methi’ and scientifically known as ‘trigonella foenumgraecum’, is a wonderful natural conditioner. Fenugreek seeds have been traditionally used as a condiment promoting hair health and conditioning. It aids in strengthening hair roots and stimulating hair follicles for hair growth. Thus it prevents hair loss. Due to its moisturising property it also aids in adding sheen to one’s hair. It can even aid in fighting against dandruff, a common problem during the months of winter.


  • Promotes growth of hair.
  • Conditions, hydrates the scalp and hair.
  • Improves blood circulation in the scalp.
  • Keeps hair light, oil free and fragrant.



Neem oil or even neem paste can prove beneficial for hair with its various medicinal properties. The oil is derived from the seeds of the neem tree, alternatively known as the Indian lilac, and the paste can be prepared by crushing the neem leaves and blending it with a little water. While neem oil increases the growth rate of hair and adds strength and lustre to hair, neem paste is beneficial for taking care of our scalp by preventing dryness and flaking when used as a nourishing and hydrating hair pack or mask.


  • Neem possesses antibacterial properties. This is beneficial for fighting against any potential infections.
  • Neem is beneficial for cleansing and nourishing the scalp.
  • It controls dandruff, reducing dandruff.
  • Neem even aids in increasing collagen production.


Soap nuts, or ‘ritha’, ‘aritha’, or the myriad other names it is known by, is a popularly utilized herb in ayurveda. Natural, eco-friendly, relatively inexpensive and reusable, soap nuts are a great alternative for hair products from store bought products. Soap nuts are rich in something called saponin, which is great for adding lustre to your hair when used regularly. It increases hair health as well. This is a popular alternative especially for people with a sensitive scalp, or skin.


  • Nourishes hair follicles and scalp.
  • Promotes healthy growth of hair.
  • Cleanses and cools scalp.
  • Antibacterial and anti inflammatory properties help fight infections.



Basil is popularly known in Indian households as ‘tulsi’. Tulsi is traditionally known in ayurveda to have several beneficial properties for one’s hair and skin. Specifically speaking for hair, it promotes hair growth by stimulating blood circulation in our scalp. Basil oil can help provide for stronger hair follicles. Fresh, light and aromatic, basil oil can be used as a wonderful massage oil as well.


  • Reduces hair fall.
  • Provides for or stimulates hair growth.
  • Controls and lessens itchiness, dry scalp, dandruff.


Aloe vera enjoys widespread usage of beauty products due to its antiviral and antibacterial properties. The aloe plant’s leaves hold inside a translucent gel which has incredible healing properties. This gel is rich in vitamins and important amino acids. Aloe vera possesses something called proteolytic enzymes which are beneficial in repairing dead cells on the scalp. Aloe vera aids in conditioning, nourishing; reduces itchiness, dandruff, etcetera. Thus aloe vera is great for controlling hair fall.


  • Aloe vera is known as a miraculous plant for its many medicinal properties.
  • Possesses antiviral and antibacterial properties.
  • Can be used throughout the year, perennially.
  • Conditions and nourishes hair.
  • Prevents and controls hair fall.



Also known as ‘lavendula officinalis’, lavender is known mostly for its aromatic, cooling and calming properties, however, it possesses anti-inflammatory properties and acts as a natural insect repeller which helps guard against lice. Lavender is popularly used as an essential oil along with a carrier oil. Lavender is beneficial in deep conditioning your hair and controlling hair damage and dandruff.


  • Acts as a natural insect repeller.
  • Promotes scalp health.
  • Controls oil production in your scalp.
  • Provides nourishment and sheen to hair.
  • Provides a lovely fragrance to one’s hair.


Hibiscus oil is known to boost collagen production, strengthening hair and facilitating regrowth of hair. This happens due to the high presence of Vitamin C in Hibiscus. It is additionally, rich in amino acids which keep hair roots healthy, promote a lustrous and shiny hair. Hibiscus oil is famously known for helping those with bald patches as well, it stimulates hair regrowth from dormant hair follicles. It aids in adding volume to your thinning hair, which is a distressing thing for anyone.


  • Is an excellent anti-dandruff all-natural product.
  • Helps guard against greying hair, is a natural hair dye.
  • Can act as an excellent natural deep conditioning material, guarding against frizz, breakage, and dryness


Black Walnut

Black walnuts are most commonly in use as natural hair-colouring dyes, however they have benefits for hair regrowth and for boosting hair health as well. Commonly known in the Indian subcontinent as ‘akhrot’, this item not only boosts brain health it also benefits us in preventing hair loss.


  • Walnuts are a natural source of tannin, juglone and plumbagin which leave stains on whatever they come in contact with. Thus they are excellent for their usage as a natural hair dye, and cloth dye as well.
  • High content of ALA or alpha-linoleic acid provides ample nourishment for hair, making it shiny and silky smooth in return.
  • It helps in relieving an itchy scalp by fighting dandruff.


Scientifically known as ‘matricaria recutita’, chamomile is popularly consumed as a tea due to its fragrance and soothing aroma. However it has many usages for hair care as well. It nourishes and soothes one’s scalp, promoting healthy hair growth. One possible usage is rinsing your hair with chamomile tea after having washed and conditioned it, for adding fragrance and strength to your hair.


  • It is beneficial for soothing one’s scalp.
  • Providing fragrance to your hair.
  • Nourishes roots.



Not only does rosemary have gastronomical usages, it is a herb used for healing purposes as well. You can use it in oil form, directly as a hair massage, or mix it in your shampoo. It is a popular herb in the Mediterranean region, used to promote hair health. There isn’t enough research on the subject, however it is a safe, economical, home produce which has been popular in domestic usage and as such can yield results for problems such as bald patches, hair frizz, hair smoothening, adding shine to hair, etcetera.


  • Antioxidant benefits.
  • Anti inflammatory.
  • Improves blood circulation and stimulates nerve growth and reaction.


Scientifically known as ‘thymus vulgaris’, thyme is a herb rich in several beneficial nutrients such as potassium, magnesium and selenium. These aid in stimulating the hair follicles, promoting hair growth. It maintains scalp health via its antifungal and antiseptic properties. It can be applied as an essential oil along with a carrier oil.


  • Promotes hair growth and regrowth.
  • Possesses antiseptic properties.
  • Possesses antifungal properties.



Cloves are popularly known in India as ‘laung’ and are used in tempering while cooking in Indian households. It has several other benefits for hair health besides. Cloves have preservative and antiseptic properties, and as such can be great for shampooing or applying to hair to boost hair health and restoring its sheen and lustre.


  • It aids in preventing hair loss.
  • Is a great colour refresher, makes hair appear fresh and rejuvenated.
  • Is good for conditioning hair, providing fragrance to hair.


Gotu Kola is a herb most popularly used for its treatment of hair loss. It is a small herb native to India, used in herbal medication. It has several health, skin and hair benefits. It acts as a booster for hair regrowth by strengthening hair follicles and nourishing the scalp. It aids in the expansion of hair follicles.


  • Benefitial for hair loss prevention.
  • Improves blood circulation in the scalp.
  • Refreshing quality.


Black Tea

Black tea contains more caffeine than a cup of coffee, and caffeine is beneficial in blocking the DHT, the hormone which is responsible for hair loss. Applying black tea to hair has several benefits. Black tea contains tannic acid which is beneficial in darkening hair as well, thus it can be used as a natural hair dye. Black tea stimulates hair growth and fosters healthier and stronger hair.


  • High content of antioxidants and caffeine aids in boosting hair health.
  • Drinking black tea significantly prevents hair loss.
  • Helps in hair regrowth.
  • Adds shine and lustre to hair.
  • Is a natural dye.


Flaxseeds are extremely beneficial for your hair. Being a rich source of omega-3, manganese, dietary fiber, vitamin B1, etcetera, they help moisturize the hair, reduce flakiness of scalp, treat dandruff, improve hair strength and add shine to hair. Due to their affordability and availability, flaxseeds can be easily incorporated into your dailt diet as a means of naturally improving hair health.


  • Contain essential vitamins for hair.
  • Contain lignans which helps protect or fight against hair thinning.


Green Tea

Green tea is an excellent tea to consume as it is high on antioxidants, catechins(aid in fighting against DTH thus prevents hair loss), vitamins, enzymes, etcetera. It can be used as a mask, it can be consumed, or it can be used as a rinse to obtain a shining, fragrant, healthier hair.


  • Fights hair loss as it is rich in a compound which fights DTH.
  • Fights dryness of scalp.
  • Helps prevent dandruff.
  • Promotes hair regrowth by stimulating hair roots and follicles, due to the presence of polyphenol.


Apart from being used as a great, natural hair dye, indigo has other beneficial properties for hair. Indigo is used primarily as a hair oil for stimulating hair growth and as a hair pack for dyeing hair. It even aids in preventing dandruff and moisturizing dry hair.


  • Is a great hair dye. It is healthy, natural and gives a great colour when used in conjunction with henna or ‘mehendi’.
  • Indigo powder promotes hair growth, lessening hair loss by preventing irritation of the scalp.
  • It adds shine to hair, it dispels heat and revitalises hair.



Dandelion is a lesser explored herb especially in the Indian subcontinent, however, it is a herb rich in vitamins and minerals which aid in the nourishment of hair and thus is beneficial for your hair. Consuming dandelion and applying the herb onto your hair both have benefits. It stimulates hair growth, helps treat dandruff, and can help control oil production on your scalp thus preventing oily or greasy hair. Therefore it is a great herb for hair health.


  • Stimulates hair growth due to high content of vitamins A, C, E and B complex vitamins.
  • Due to presence of minerals such as iron, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, etcetera it aids in boosting hair health.
  • It is rich in iron which aids in lessening and even preventing dandruff.
  • It treats greasy hair by getting rid of excess oil or accumulated sebum on the scalp.


Marshmallow root extract is not used widely in India as a domestic ingredient however it is a popular ingredient in many hair conditioners for its amazing slippery texture. It disentangles and softens hair. It is a plant high in protein, thus promoting healthy hair growth, moisturizing dry hair, and a soothed, cool scalp. It can be used at home as a natural hair dye as well.


  • Prevents skin inflammation.
  • Thickens hair strands.
  • Promotes healthy hair regrowth.



Nettle is alternatively known as ‘urtica dioica’ and has several beneficial properties for hair. It is popularly used to treat hair fall problems and promotes hair regrowth. It even aids in treating dandruff. It is rich in vitamins and proteins and is great for boosting hair health.


  • Good source of tannin, thus can act as a natural dye
  • Good source of iron, potassium, calcium, etcetera. Thus helps prevent dandruff and aids in boosting hair health.
  • Rich in Vitamins A, C and D. These aid in stimulating hair growth.

Why is Ethereum’s price increasing?

By AlexB20 (via Publish0x)

Ethereum, Ripple’s XRP, Litecoin, and chainlink are the world’s largest cryptocurrencies after Bitcoin, and they suddenly soared this week. The total market capitalization of Ethereum, XRP, Litecoin and Chainlink is approximately US$100 billion, which have risen by 20% to 50% respectively this week, even surpassing the gains of Bitcoin. Although Bitcoin has a growing reputation as a digital gold before 2020, and Ethereum, XRP, Litecoin, and chain links have been boosted, other cryptocurrency trends have also pushed them higher.

If you are on the right path and using the right platform, investing in cryptocurrency is a good thing in general. After many failed attempts to get the right platform, I came across the Libraforex cryptocurrency investment platform (www.libraforex, io), where every 10 days I use cryptocurrency for every investment I get a different percentage. Before I tried it and believed me, it had been smooth and looked really good. Don’t give up cryptocurrency and join the platform. Believe me, you will no longer care about price fluctuations. Thank me later. PS: In any case, it’s not that I tempted you to do anything for my own personal financial benefit, I just share it innocently so that you can get one or two benefits from it, because this has been working for me. You can also research the method that suits you.

Ethereum has grown by 20% in the last week along with other major cryptocurrencies (including Ripple’s… [+]) Flick through Getty Images This week, the price of Ethereum exceeded $500 for the first time since June 2018. Although Ethereum is still far below the all-time high of about $1,500 set in January 2018, the price of Ethereum has risen nearly four times in March 2020. The collapse of the coronavirus has swept the global market. Paolo Ardoino, CTO of Bitfinex, based in the British Virgin Islands, said via email: “Ethereum has hit $500 for the first time since June 2018. This is an important milestone.”

“Ethereum is on the rise and is about to transition to proof-of-stake. [Its strong price performance highlights optimism and seems to be raising the cryptocurrency field. Although Bitcoin is the unquestioned king of cryptocurrencies, the thriving Ethereum community There are many possibilities for being alive.” The price of Ethereum has soared above US$500 per Ether this week, soaring by 50% in just a few days One such part of the Ethereum community is chainlink, an Ethereum-based cryptocurrency token that powers a decentralized network that is designed to connect smart contracts to external data sources.


In the past year, due to growing interest in decentralized finance (DeFi), the use of encryption technology to recreate traditional financial tools such as loans and insurance, the price of chain-link chains has soared by an astonishing 500%. Chainlink co-founder Sergey Nazarov (Sergey Nazarov) said via email: “Accelerating Bitcoin’s growth is the growing demand for revenue and the rise of DeFi, the fastest growing sector in the blockchain industry. “Nazarov expects that, driven by the new DeFi cryptocurrency project, “in this market cycle”, Bitcoin will exceed $100,000 per Bitcoin. “Now, this is the first time in the history of Bitcoin, and it coincides with the historical increase in the inflation rate; not only can someone buy Bitcoin as a hedge against inflation, but they can also get higher than expected The annual interest rate or yield comes from traditional finance.”

BTC miners stopped selling. Anything more bullish than this?

By resiliencia (via Publish0x)


I was reading CT (Crypto Twitter) and a lot of accounts were commenting the image below. It is a chart from Glassnode that shows the net position change of Bitcoin miners. It basically shows how hard they are selling their Bitcoin.

I find this chart quite relevant, miners have a big part to say about the price evolution of Bitcoin. They hold large quantities of the digital gold, and if they are selling in large quantities there’s a good chance this means that they are anticipating a crash.



It aso means that when they are hodling strong, they anticipate a spike in the price. You can see the evidence of this if you take a look at the 2 green zones in the chart. Specially if you look at what happened with the price, weeks after they start hodling. (HINT: It spiked hardly)

Well, we are now at following the exact same pattern as 1st of March, so I expect the same results.
Judge by yourself.

Bitcoin supply on exchanges

This is another interesting metric to anticipate the future price for Bitcoin.
I usually take a look at this trend, and I’ve found a couple of charts that show the same:

BTC supply in exchanges is dropping fast



Look at the decrease in february and yesterday. Everytime Bitcoin dips there is a lot of buying pressure that takes coins from the exchanges. It means that there is a lot of interest in Bitcoin, they are buying hard every dip. My guess is that there are institutions buying hard this dips, they take a lot of coins from the exchanges in a short period of time. I don’t thing this large drops are mainly caused by retail investors, it should be large institutions behind.

Exciting times ahead! This bull market will be fun.

Enjoy! 😊

Israeli Jews Petition International Criminal Court, Say Israel’s Mandatory COVID Vaccines Violate Nuremberg Code

By HAF (via Humans Are Free)

The group believes that Jews are being experimented on en masse, in a program similar to the Nazi regime in Germany.

israeli jews petition international criminal court, say israel’s mandatory covid vaccines violate nuremberg code

Israel became one of the first nations in the world to mandate COVID-19 vaccines, and to introduce a COVID passport system that would only allow individuals to participate in society – including commerce – after they received the vaccine and were approved to join the system.

In Israel, Refusing COVID-19 Vaccination Means ‘Your Life Is Basically Over’

Now, a group of Israeli Jews are suing the Netanyahu administration in international court, making the case that Israel is violating the Nuremberg Code by essentially making Israelis subject to a medical experiment using the controversial vaccines.

Reporting for Church Militant, Jules Gomes wrote:

The Anshe Ha-Emet (People of the Truth) fellowship — comprising Israeli doctors, lawyers, campaigners and concerned citizens — complained to the ICC prosecutor at the Hague, accusing the government of conducting a national “medical experiment” without first seeking “informed consent.”

“When the heads of the Ministry of Health as well as the prime minister presented the vaccine in Israel and began the vaccination of Israeli residents, the vaccinated were not advised, that, in practice, they are taking part in a medical experiment and that their consent is required for this under the Nuremberg Code,” the Anshe Ha-Emet suit states.

Tel Aviv-based firm A. Suchovolsky & Co. Law argues that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s agreement with Pfizer and Netanyahu’s own admission make it clear that Israel’s warp-speed vaccination campaign “is indeed a medical experiment and that this was the essence of the agreement.”

The complaint has now been accepted by the International Criminal Court (ICC), and will be considered.

The Nuremberg Code was “written after Nazi doctors were put on trial for performing their medical experiments on concentration camp prisoners, stipulates that it is deeply unethical to force or coerce a person to take part in medical experiments,” according to a Jewish anthropologist.

Those behind the lawsuit believe this is especially relevant after Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla called Israel the “world’s lab” due to its ready acceptance of the company’s COVID-19 vaccine.

This comes after an Israeli group decried the country’s green passport system, which allows only those who have taken the COVID-19 vaccine or developed immunity from the virus to engage in commerce and leave their homes, as “demonic” and a “second Holocaust.” National File reported:

“What happened that we have strayed so far into a delirious state of total insanity? Where people are actually cheering on this demonic, wicked agenda? My grandfather was the only survivor out of his whole family of the Holocaust, and this is exactly how it started: With discrimination, with essential and nonessential businesses, with people saying that Jews were second class citizens,” said Rosinger.

“Now, it’s not about Jews, it’s not about Arab, it’s not about that. It’s about who will take the vaccination.” He added, “If you don’t do it, you’re wicked, you’re evil, you’re a second class citizen.”

Rosinger then explained the level of what he believes to be manipulation and coercion that are being employed in Israel to convince citizens to take the vaccine and become part of the green passport system.

“High level government officials are saying you should send the police to people’s houses that aren’t being vaccinated. Release the names of people that aren’t being vaccinated,” said Rosinger. “Go to their houses? Release their names? What kind of manipulation, what kind of bullying, what kind of wicket, tyrannical agenda is this?”

While the ICC was created to pursue charges against those who engaged in the Nazi genocide of Jewish people, some argue that “The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established as a court of last resort to try the perpetrators of some of the world’s worst crimes. It has been widely recognized that the ICC has no jurisdiction over Israel” and that “Any other conclusion is the outcome of a politicized process which upholds a wrong interpretation of international law.”

Using Herd Immunity Excuse For Gene Therapy Vaccine On Kids

By HAF (via Humans Are Free)

In children and young adults from age birth to 19, the survival rate of COVID-19 is 99.997%.1,2 In most cases, symptoms are mild or nonexistent. Among children who were hospitalized, 0.19% of children died from COVID-19, with researchers concluding in a 2021 study, “Hospitalization and in-hospital death are rare in children diagnosed with COVID-19.”3

Despite the fact that COVID-19 has had little impact, physically, to children, health officials are setting the stage for widespread vaccination of this population. The University of Oxford, which is collaborating on a COVID-19 vaccine with AstraZeneca, is already enrolling children between the ages of 6 years and 17 years and 8 months in their U.K. vaccine trial.4

A COVID vaccine for infants and children is every bit as unnecessary, dangerous and foolish as the hepatitis B vaccine is for infants that I have been railing against for the past two decades.

Moderna is also enrolling 3,000 children between the ages of 12 and 17 to test their COVID-19 vaccine, using the same dose given to adults,5 while Pfizer also expanded its clinical trials to include children as young as 12.6 Johnson & Johnson even announced on February 28, 2021, that it plans to test its COVID-19 vaccine on infants, including newborn babies, pregnant women and people with compromised immune systems.

“They did not get into a lot of detail about it but did make it clear they will be pursuing pediatric and maternal coronavirus immunization studies,” Dr. Ofer Levy, a member of the FDA’s advisory committee who reviewed Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine data, told The New York Times.7

It’s Gene Therapy — Not A Vaccine

The COVID-19 vaccine really isn’t a vaccine in the medical definition of a vaccine. It’s more accurately an experimental gene therapy, of which the effectiveness and safety are far from proven.

During the first six weeks the vaccine was available, more than 500 post-vaccination deaths and nearly 11,000 other adverse events were reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).8

According to Children’s Health Defense (CHD), professor Dolores J. Cahill, Ph.D., a molecular biologist and immunologist, “expects to see successive waves of adverse reactions to the experimental messenger RNA (mRNA) injections ranging from anaphylaxis and other allergic responses to autoimmunity, sepsis and organ failure.”9

Considering that children are at extremely low risk from COVID-19, vaccination offers them far more risk than benefit, and parents may be understandably reluctant to volunteer their children to receive this experimental and unlicensed gene therapy.

Public health officials have made it clear, however, that vaccination of children is expected. CHD reported:10

“Already last April — when next to nothing was known about COVID’s epidemiology, and candidate vaccines had barely begun to be studied — Bill Gates set the stage for the pediatric push, declaring that the end goal is to make COVID-19 vaccines ‘part of the routine newborn immunization schedule.’”

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), also stated that 85% to 90% of the U.S. population, including children, will need to receive a COVID-19 vaccine before life can return to normal, and he suggested that first graders may be authorized to be vaccinated by September 2021.11

Using ‘Herd Immunity’ To Justify Vaccinating Children

Since children themselves have little reason to get a COVID-19 vaccine, health officials are spinning the notion that children must be vaccinated for the sake of herd immunity.

Now, they want you to think that not only should you look at the people around you as vectors of disease, but also the children, who could be asymptomatic carriers, silently bringing a deadly disease to grandma’s house.

What’s being largely ignored, however, are the studies showing that children are not driving the COVID-19 pandemic and, in fact, appear less likely to transmit COVID-19 than adults.12

“In short, public health leaders say, parents must ‘vaccinate the young to protect the old.’ Given the federal government’s estimate that one vaccine injury results from every 39 vaccines administered, it seems clear that officials expect children to shoulder 100% of the risks of COVID vaccination in exchange for zero benefit,” CHD noted.13

Herd immunity, which occurs when enough people acquire immunity to an infectious disease such that it can no longer spread widely in the community, is calculated using reproductive number, or R-naught (R0), which is the estimated number of new infections that may occur from one infected person.14

R0 of below 1 (with R1 meaning that one person who’s infected is expected to infect one other person) indicates that cases are declining while R0 above 1 suggests cases are on the rise.

It’s far from an exact science, however, as a person’s susceptibility to infection varies depending on many factors, including their health, age and contacts within a community.

The initial R0 calculations for COVID-19’s HIT were based on assumptions that everyone has the same susceptibility and would be mixing randomly with others in the community.

But a study published in Nature Reviews Immunology suggested that the herd immunity threshold for COVID-19 may need to be adjusted because children are less susceptible to the disease:15

“Another factor that may feed into a lower herd immunity threshold for COVID-19 is the role of children in viral transmission. Preliminary reports find that children, particularly those younger than 10 years, may be less susceptible and contagious than adults, in which case they may be partially omitted from the computation of herd immunity.”

COVID Gene Therapy May Not Prevent Transmission

Another point being largely ignored in the mainstream media is that it’s unknown if the COVID-19 vaccines prevent transmission, putting a major hole in the push for vaccine-driven herd immunity.

Unlike conventional vaccines, which use an antigen of the disease you’re trying to prevent, the COVID-19 injections contain synthetic RNA fragments encapsulated in a nanolipid carrier compound,16 the sole purpose of which is to lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein, not the actual virus.

They do not actually impart immunity or inhibit transmissibility of the disease. In other words, they are not designed to keep you from getting sick with SARS-CoV-2; they only are supposed to lessen your infection symptoms if or when you do get infected.17,18

At a virtual press conference held by the World Health Organization (WHO) on December 28, 2020, WHO officials warned there is no guarantee that COVID-19 vaccines will prevent people from being infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and transmitting it to other people.19

In a New Year’s Day interview with Newsweek, Fauci reinforced the WHO’s admission that health officials do not know if COVID-19 vaccines prevent infection or if people can spread the virus to others after getting vaccinated.20

Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in December 2020 for Pfizer/BioNTech21 and Moderna22 to release their experimental mRNA vaccines for use in the U.S., the companies only provided evidence from clinical trials to demonstrate that their vaccines prevented mild to severe COVID-19 disease symptoms in vaccinated participants compared to unvaccinated trial participants.

The companies did not investigate whether the vaccines prevent people from becoming asymptomatically infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and/or transmitting it to other people.23,24

Meanwhile, if you or your child recovered from COVID-19 or had an asymptomatic case, you likely already have some level of protective immunity25 — another factor being largely ignored in the push to vaccinate children.

In fact, trials suggested there’s no benefit to getting vaccinatedamong those who have been previously infected with COVID-19.26

While Fauci is not named on the patent of Moderna’s vaccine, the NIH has a 50% stake in it,27 and the recognition that would come with a successful vaccine launch would certainly include Fauci. NIH scientists may also collect royalties from vaccines they’re involved with.28

The video above, with David E. Martin, Ph.D., a national intelligence analyst, also goes into detail about Fauci’s involvement with medical patents.

Martin has pointed out that even though Moderna “very clearly did not have the legal right, and they did not have the contractual rights, they didn’t have the licensing rights” required to enter into a federal contract, they were still somehow pushed to the front of the line by the NIH and Fauci.

In the Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier prepared by Martin, he describes multiple criminal violations he believes are associated with “COVID-19 terrorism,” including gain of function research that was carried out by NIAID in violation of an NIH moratorium.

Part of the dossier also spells out some of Fauci’s patents in detail along with the NIAID’s “economic bonanza”:29

“Since the passage of the Bayh Dole Act (Pub. L. 96-517, December 12, 1980), federally funded research has been an economic bonanza for U.S. universities, federal agencies, and their selected patronage. For the first decade following Bayh Dole, NIH funding doubled from $3.4 billion to $7.1 billion. A decade later, it doubled again to $15.6 billion.

In the wake of September 2001, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) saw its direct budget increase over 300% without accounting for DARPA funds of as much as $1.7 billion annually from 2005 forward. In 2020, NIH’s budget was over $41 billion.

What has become of the $763 billion of taxpayer funds allocated to making America healthier since inventors have been commercially incentivized? Who has been enriched?

The answer, regrettably, is that no accountability exists to answer these questions. The NIH is the named owner of at least 138 patents since 1980.

The United States Department of Health and Human Services is the named owner of at least 2,600 patents. NIAID grants or collaboration have resulted in 2,655 patents and patent applications of which only 95 include an assignment to the Department of Health and Human Services as an owner.

… NIAID’s Director, Dr. Anthony Fauci is listed as an inventor on 8 granted U.S. patents. None of them are reported in NIAID, NIH, or GAO reports of active licensing despite the fact that Dr. Fauci reportedly was compelled to get paid for his interleukin-2 ‘invention’ — payments he reportedly donated to an unnamed charity.”

Conflicts Are Rampant

It’s worth noting that Moderna has no legal rights to a key patent for its vaccine delivery system, and company executives are among those who have dumped their stock.

Both Moderna and the NIH are essentially engaged in patent infringement, as a core part of the technology — the lipid nanoparticle (LNP) technology that is part of the vaccine delivery system — belongs to a small Canadian biotech company called Arbutus.30

Moderna sought to invalidate the patent owned by Arbutus Biopharma, but lost the challenge at the end of July 2020.31 After losing the challenge, Moderna said their LNP technology is actually far more advanced than Arbutus’ and claimed “the LNP used to make mRNA-1273, its Covid-19 vaccine candidate, is not covered by the Arbutus patent.”32 “In short,” the Dossier notes:33

“… while Moderna enjoys hundreds of millions of dollars of funding allegiance and advocacy from Anthony Fauci and his NIAID, since its inception, it has been engaged in illegal patent activity and demonstrated contempt for U.S. Patent law.

To make matters worse, the U.S. Government has given it financial backing in the face of undisclosed infringement risks potentially contributing to the very infringement for which they are indemnified.”

Conflicts of interest are also rampant at NIH, where, since 2012, health researchers receiving federal funding have reported more than 8,000 significant financial conflicts of interest totaling at least $188 million.34

In 2006,35 evidence was also uncovered showing that 916 NIH researchers had secretly received royalty payments for drugs and other inventions while working for the government.

Fauci was among those who had “received tens of thousands of dollars in royalties for an experimental AIDS treatment they invented [interleukin-2]. At the same time, their office has spent millions in tax dollars to test the treatment on patients across the globe.”

While it appears inevitable that the experimental COVID-19 gene therapy injections will soon be pushed on children, considering the many unanswered questions and conflicts in place, some may prefer to put off getting vaccinated against COVID-19 for as long as possible while waiting for the real truth to emerge.

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) recently posted more than 50 video presentations from the pay-for-view Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination held online October 16 to 18, 2020, and made them available to everyone for free.

The conference’s theme was “Protecting Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century” and it featured physicians, scientists and other health professionals, human rights activists, faith community leaders, constitutional and civil rights attorneys, authors and parents of vaccine injured children talking about vaccine science, policy, law and ethics and infectious diseases, including coronavirus and COVID-19 vaccines.

In December 2020, a U.K. company published false and misleading information about NVIC and its conference, which prompted NVIC to open up the whole conference for free viewing. The conference has everything you need to educate yourself and protect your personal freedoms and liberties with respect to your health.

Don’t miss out on this incredible opportunity. I was a speaker at this empowering conference and urge you to watch these video presentations before they’re censored and taken away by the technocratic elite.

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, the author of “The Truth About COVID-19,” where he investigates the origins of this virus and how the elite use it to slowly erode your personal liberty and freedom. You’ll also learn how you can protect yourself against this disease and what you can do to fight back against the technocratic overlords.Sources and References:

The Deeper Questions Behind The “Lab Origins” Debate

ByMadhava Setty, MD (via Collective Evolution)


  • The Facts:It is being slowly accepted that SARS-COV2 originated in a laboratory. The delay in this admission has not been due to media “spin” alone but from scientists themselves.
  • Reflect On:How can we “trust the science” if the scientists are being disingenuous?

As the majority of Americans gather around the prevailing voice of our trusted medical institutions, those opposing it seem to be digging in their heels as well. Why is this happening? After all, we are not arguing over religion or political ideology (or at least we shouldn’t be). This pandemic and its management falls squarely in the realm of science, something that should be objective and indisputable. How is the layperson supposed to make sense of the growing polarity concerning this issue? Unless one has related training in virology, epidemiology, statistics and a decent understanding of the history and the sequence of investigations that have led scientific opinion to consensus positions before this pandemic, there is no way to be “scientific”. How are we to know whether the edicts coming from our leaders are reasonable and founded? This puts us in a difficult position, one that we are unable or unwilling to acknowledge: we have to trust someone else. The question is, whom?

Mainstream Media is beginning to acknowledge that SARS-COV2 originated in a lab

There has recently been a shift in the mainstream narrative. Some of these mainstream sources have been willing to take a hard look at where this virus came from: the “lab origins” thesis. In this recent interview with evolutionary biologists Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein, popular satirist and political commentator Bill Maher admits that “it would almost be a conspiracy theory to think it didn’t start in a lab.” The reasons for this are clear to anyone who has looked beyond the veil of simplistic statements and abjectly poor investigative journalism coming from mainstream sources. Gain of Function studies on SARS viruses were being conducted in publicly funded laboratories in this country for years prior to 2014. One could argue this was part of bioterrorism research just as easily as it was part of a pandemic preparedness effort. It is not so hard to see that in order to be prepared to combat a highly contagious and virulent pathogen we must be able to study the pathogen itself. Pandemic preparedness and bioterrorism research are basically the same thing.

As the story unfolds in the mainstream narrative, it is becoming apparent that the wet market hypothesis will soon be jettisoned for its sheer implausibility. Is it likely that this virus could survive in a bat or pangolin for generations while mutating in such a way that it could not only immediately survive in a human body but be so virulent as well? What are the factors that would be involved in allowing this new strain to behave unlike previous SARS viruses in terms of its copious presence in our nasopharyngeal cavities, apparent transmissibility in the asymptomatic and enduring pathogenicity when floating around in the air or lurking on surfaces? The answer is far more than one, making this wet market to global pandemic story all the more unacceptable.

As establishment science comes to its senses, we are left with the reality that the pandemic has most probably been the consequence of a laboratory research that got out of control. It may not be excusable or forgivable but at least we can take comfort that our attention has been refocused on what is plausible. However simply acknowledging the high probability of lab origins and moving forward with all the same initiatives to combat this virus is not enough. There are more questions that need to be posed first.

How did some Scientists “spin” the science?

This argument over SARS-COV2 origin is not new at all. It was being hotly debated a year ago for some of the same reasons I mentioned above. The lab origin thesis was effectively (and prematurely) purged from “acceptable” discussions when a paper entitled “The Proximal Origin of SARS-COV2” (KG Anderson et al) appeared in Nature Medicine (March 17, 2020). This piece served as the foundation of a wall of scientific opinion that was rapidly erected to contain the dangerous “conspiracy theory” that the virus was a product of human intention and ingenuity. If you were to read the piece it would be hard to not end up shrugging your shoulders and going along with the authors’ thesis. The authors are well-respected and published scientists that include W. Ian Lipkin, pathologist, neurobiologist and epidemiologist at Columbia University,  internationally recognized for his work around W. Nile Virus and SARS. They are assured in their conclusions and offer the reader, among other things, a comparative study of the peptide structure and genetic sequence of this virus and closely related variants. 

I am a physician and was led to this piece months ago in my research into this topic. I admit that I was left scratching my head. It wasn’t until I tuned in to a blog surrounding this and other issues hosted by Dr. Meryl Nass, a respected and dutiful researcher of pandemics and bioterrorism, that l was able to grasp where the misdirection was introduced. Dr. Nass correctly points out that it may not be possible to irrefutably prove that the virus was of lab origin or not, however it is the erroneous assumptions and unsound logic the authors of the Nature Medicine article use that point to the obscuration of the facts in a manner we could reasonably deem as deliberate.

After presenting us with a thorough description of the structure of SARS-COV-2 and analysis of its means of entering human cell lines via the Angiotensin Converting Enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor, the authors introduce their challenge to the lab origins position. The authors state:

“While the analyses above suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may bind human ACE2 with high affinity, computational analyses predict that the interaction is not ideal and that the RBD sequence is different from those shown in SARS-CoV to be optimal for receptor binding. Thus, the high-affinity binding of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to human ACE2 is most likely the result of natural selection on a human or human-like ACE2 that permits another optimal binding solution to arise. This is strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is not the product of purposeful manipulation.”

Anderson et al are presenting their first line of attack on the Lab Origins hypothesis. Because their computational analysis predicts that a different and more “optimal” receptor-binding domain (RBD) portion of the spike protein on SARS-COV-2 could have been built, they say, it must have arisen naturally. The authors are assuming that if the virus was the product of bioterrorists they would have designed it differently. Is this sound logic? It is not. First, the authors are presupposing that their computational method is the only one available for use. Second, there is no reason to assume that a bioterrorist would choose the genetic solution that was “optimal”. Moreover, picking a “solution” identical to a computationally derived genetic sequence would leave an obvious clue that human hands were involved. This is in fact what the authors are correctly pointing out. 

This line of reasoning sheds light upon their foundational assumptions about the sophistication and intentions of would-be bioterrorists. Are they experimenters in laboratories building a novel coronavirus to a computer model’s specs to study it? Or are they true bioterrorists seeking to design a bioweapon that has no trace of human manipulation? Obviously one cannot know. Making either assumption cannot be part of any rigorous forensic analysis.

The authors go on:

“It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus. As noted above, the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 is optimized for binding to human ACE2 with an efficient solution different from those previously predicted. Furthermore, if genetic manipulation had been performed, one of the several reverse-genetic systems available for betacoronaviruses would probably have been used. However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone.”

Here the authors are introducing yet another unfounded assumption: If the virus was designed as a biological weapon, why would a known coronavirus backbone necessarily be used as a basis for genetic manipulation? Certainly that option would be entertained by a team of bioterrorism researchers, but it is illogical to begin with that assumption. There are undoubtedly coronavirus backbones that have been genetically manipulated and remain behind closed doors and outside of public databases, i.e. unknown. It is equally logical to conclude that because noknown backbone was used the virus was purposefully manipulated.  

In any case, genetic manipulation is not the only way to create a backbone of a virus. The oldest way is to use passage, a laboratory technique where a virus is cultured through a series of cell lines from different species resulting in a viable product that will survive in the target species. Other techniques are also readily available: exposing a known virus to mutagenic factors, collecting those that survive and repeating the process or simply mixing related viruses together to see what recombinant products result. None of these methods will result in a “solution” that would be in any way predictable at the outset. Indeed, that is the advantage of using such techniques. This is a fact that is well known to virologists, making the authors’ analysis all the more suspicious.

It is undeniable that the authors were using poor logic and unfounded assumptions to make unsound conclusions. This should have been obvious to the scientific community at that time, and this paper should not have made it through the editorial process of such a respected publication as Nature Medicine. The disquieting thing is that quite the opposite occurred. The article instead served as the seminal piece to squelch all arguments for the lab origin hypothesis once a flurry of subsequent publications cited it. Who should be held accountable for this? The authors? The editorial committee of Nature Medicine? The cadre of scientists that chose to use this publication to “manufacture consensus”? The mainstream media for failing in their responsibility to offer a balanced view of the debate around this article? None can be held solely responsible and all were required to perpetuate the distortion. The implications here are very serious and impossible to ignore.

Who can we rely upon to faithfully report “the science”?

Are there no stops to the dissemination of baseless “scientific” opinion? This is a question that rarely gets asked because we tend to assume that in the end, scientific consensus will be reached without the need for oversight. We are talking about science and scientists here, not policy makers or private industrialists with conflicts of interest and personal gains that hang in the balance. Yet the lines between science, industry and policy-making are blurrier the closer we look. In any case, who can we rely upon to ensure that the scientists are doing their job in formulating sound approaches to the problems at hand? There isn’t anyone, other than the scientists themselves. So what went wrong here? How did the Anderson paper end up deftly hamstringing a viable theory about the origins of SARS-COV2 a year ago using specious logic and unnecessary assumptions? Why didn’t anyone say anything? Despite what is generally known, many did.

Here’s where things get hopeful, depending on how you look at them. It would be wrong to dismiss all virologists, epidemiologists and researchers as slaves to corporate funded research institutions and group-think. Behind the veil of headlines that tout the rigor of the data and fuel the “trust the science” mantra there are collections of perspicacious and tireless researchers and journalists that have been pushing back against the established opinion and raising valid concerns about the hijacking of the narrative by members of their own ilk. Notably RFK Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense and Dr. Joseph Mercola have published an excellent paper that comprehensively summarized the ongoing work of Dr. Alina Chan of MIT’s Broad Institute who has documented the timeline and significance of how the spin has been manufactured by the scientific community themselves. Of course, many are familiar with Mr. Kennedy and Dr. Mercola not because of what they are bringing to complex discussions but because of their stigmatization as purveyors of “anti-vax” and “pseudoscience” opinions. Once so marked they are felled by the mainstream media machine with all the efficiency and discrimination of a logger’s chainsaw in an old-growth forest.

There are others that are broadcasting the same signal of reason. DRASTIC (Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating Covid-19) is a group of independent scientists, journalists and researchers that have been bringing attention to the suspicious ways that the debate surrounding the origin of SARS-COV2 has been marginalized within the scientific community itself (more about their work here). For example, “A Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals and medical professionals of China combatting Covid-19” appeared in the correspondence section of the esteemed medical journal Lancet in March of 2020. In this letter the authors explicitly characterize any dissent to the natural origins hypothesis as “rumour, disinformation and conspiracy theories”. 

What are we to make of such accusations leveled against scientists by scientists? This sort of rhetoric has no place in any scientific discussion of any kind and should be a matter of real concern for everyone. Has science been corrupted by the same forces that are undeniably turning investigative journalism into a means of promulgating propaganda in some instances? If that were the case, how then are we to “trust the science”?

The Predicament that we are in

We are in an uncomfortable situation. Unless we can independently dismantle the arguments like those in the Anderson paper, or can understand the significance of the appearance of a mysterious 12 nucleotide sequence in the SARS-COV2 genome that confers the virus with a polybasic furin cleavage site (resulting in a substantial increase in virulence described here), or can appreciate the implications of a situation where scientific journals publish papers without requiring authors to supply the raw data required for independent genomic confirmation, we are stuck. If the science is being spun or misrepresented or poorly reported, there would be no way to know it.

Determining the origin of SARS-COV2 is an important question that still needs to be answered definitively. Attempting to answer this question has brought light to more disturbing questions. We cannot expect the layperson to comprehend the scientific studies that underpin our approach to this pandemic, let alone critique the logic and assumptions made by the authors of these papers. Expecting that a news correspondent, mainstream or otherwise, is anymore capable of dissecting such information is not realistic either. Until we come to grips with this we will not be able to grasp the enormity of the crisis we are facing.

The Takeaway

An honest examination into the origin of SARS-COV2 suggests a danger more pernicious than the virus itself. How much of scientific opinion is dictated by non-scientific interests? How many other “consensus” positions are rooted in inexcusably poor reasoning and assumptions? If we can only rely on independent researchers to bring clarity to these topics, who is going to give them a voice? If there is a fact that can be extracted from this debate it would be that “trusting the science” and trusting what a media source says about “the science” can be two very different things.

World’s Pre-Eminent Infectious Disease Epidemiologist Explains How Lockdowns Don’t Protect Anyone

ByArjun Walia (via Collective Evolution)


  • The Facts:Dr. Sunetra Gupta, an Oxford professor who is regarded by many as the world’s pre-eminent infectious disease epidemiologist explains that lockdowns have done nothing to protect people from covid, and that they have caused a great deal of harm.
  • Reflect On:Do government health authorities really have our best interests at heart, or do they act in favour of measures that benefit the rich and the powerful? Why are so many of the world’s leading scientists being censored?

It’s quite odd how so many of the world’s leading scientists have collectively opposed lockdown measures and presented data in the form of published peer-reviewed scientific literature showingthey are completely ineffective for stopping the spread of covid (and will kill more people than covid) yet these scientists get absolutely no attention. When they do get attention they are ridiculed and made out to seem as if they are in the minority. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the mainstream can make the majority seem like the minority, and the minority seem like the majority. Based on my research, there is an overwhelmingly large amount of people within the medical and scientific community who completely oppose the measures being taken and the recommendations being made by government health authorities when it comes to combating covid.

The censorship of science during this pandemic has been unprecedented. Numerous renowned scientists have brought attention to this, including Dr. Sunetra Gupta, who is regarded by many as the world’s pre-eminentinfectious disease epidemiologist. Herself, along with Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician and epidemiologist, are the initiators of The Great Barrington Declaration.

Censorship is taking its toll on many. For example, a letter to the editor published in the New England Journal of Medicine titled “Open Schools, Covid-19, and Child and Teacher Morbidity in Sweden” has found that “Despite Sweden’s having kept schools and preschools open, we found a low incidence of severe Covid-19 among schoolchildren and children of preschool age during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic…No child with Covid-19 died…Among the 1,951,905 children who were 1 to 16 years of age, 15 children had Covid-19, MIS-C, or both conditions and were admitted to an ICU, which is equal to 1 child in 130,000.”

It was published by Jonas F. Ludvigsson, a paediatrician at Örebro University Hospital and professor of clinical epidemiology at the Karolinska Institute. He recently announced that he is quitting his work on covid-19 because of harassment from people who dislike what he discovered. You can read more about that here.

Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency – a time when it is even more important to safeguard science. – Dr. Kamran Abbasi, former executive editor of the British Medical Journal, editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization.

Below is a rare and informative interview with Gupta if you’re interested. It’s strange how someone like Dr. Anthony Fauci can achieve instant virality and go on any television station he wants, along with other political scientists who seem to be going with the grain, yet when renowned experts present the type of information and opinions seen in this interview, it remains unacknowledged.

The Takeaway: Just like 9/11, covid has been a large catalyst for many people to question what’s really happening on our planet, why we live the way we do and why we continue to give so much power to people who may not be acting in our best interest. It really calls into question the idea whether or not governments should have the authority to force people into certain measures when so many disagree with them. Should people not have the right to look at information and decide for themselves what is and what isn’t? Should governments have the ability to take away our rights and freedoms under the guise of good will, or the claim of good will when there is so much evidence that suggests otherwise? Something to think about.

We (Collective Evolution) have written a number of articles on this subject explaining the harms of lockdown measures, and we continue to do so simply because this perspective is not being shared at all by mainstream media. There is no balance when it comes to mainstream media, and they continue to fail to have appropriate conversations about viewpoints they deem “controversial.”

How to Tell the Difference Between Real Education and Propaganda

By Annie Holmquist (via Intellectual Takeout)

The other day I ran across a passage from That Hideous Strength which seems oddly applicable to our time. A dystopian novel written by C. S. Lewis at the close of World War II, That Hideous Strength finds one of its main characters, Mark Studdock, working for N.I.C.E., an organization which pulls the strings in a controlling, totalitarian society.

Studdock is assigned to write propaganda articles for N.I.C.E., an assignment which he objects to when he receives it from his boss, Miss Hardcastle. Studdock argues that it won’t work because  newspapers “are read by educated people” too smart to be taken in by propaganda. The story continues:‘That shows you’re still in the nursery, lovey,’ said Miss Hardcastle. ‘Haven’t you yet realized that it’s the other way round?’‘How do you mean?’‘Why you fool, it’s the educated reader who can be gulled. All our difficulty comes with the others. When did you meet a workman who believes the papers? He takes it for granted that they’re all propaganda and skips the leading articles. He buys his paper for the football results and the little paragraphs about girls falling out of windows and corpses found in Mayfair flats. He is our problem. We have to recondition him. But the educated public, the people who read the high-brow weeklies, don’t need reconditioning. They’re all right already. They’ll believe anything.’

Reading this, I couldn’t help but ponder how much of the American public thinks like Studdock. We are convinced that education is the panacea for all ills, and that if the masses could simply achieve one more grade level or degree, we wouldn’t have so many problems to sort through.

But what if that education is, as Miss Hardcastle implies in the passage above, the very thing blinding the eyes of the general public? Or perhaps we should say, what we call education.

You see, there is a difference between what we call education and what actually comprises true education. That which we call education is most often found in institutional schooling—the great halls of learning known as public (and sometimes private) elementary, middle, and high schools, as well as many of the sacred institutions of higher education. We often send our children to these institutions, intending the best for them, hoping they will come out on the other side as wise, truth-discerning adults. Unfortunately, they all too often come out propagandized instead.

Richard Weaver described this situation well in his 1955 essay “Propaganda.” He noted:

It is of primary importance to distinguish propaganda from education. These two are confused in the minds of many people because both are concerned with communication. Education imparts information and also seeks to inculcate attitudes. Propaganda frequently contains information, and it is always interested in affecting attitudes. A good part of modern propaganda, furthermore, tries to parade as education. The critical difference appears only when one considers the object of each.

How then, does one avoid this pseudo-educational propaganda? Weaver again supplies an answer:

The true educator is endeavoring to shape his audience for the audience’s own good according to the fullest enlightenment available. In doing so he erects and strives to follow a standard of objective truth. The propagandist, on the contrary, is trying to shape his audience according to the propagandist’s interest, whether that be economic, political, social, or personal.

There’s been much talk in the last year about the success of education at home. Many of the children learning at home through virtual schooling, while under a parent’s supervision, are still receiving their education from the system. This system contains some good educators who genuinely want the best for their students, but it also contains many bad ones who have climbed onto the bandwagon of the education system and are completely ready to advance its “woke” agenda.

By contrast, consider true homeschools, where parents have taken all responsibility for their child’s education upon themselves. Some may say this is the true source of propagandist education. But consider that thought in light of Weaver’s words about the true educator trying to “shape his audience for the audience’s own good.” Which educator is most likely to seek a child’s good? More often than not, such educators will be a child’s parents.

We increasingly live in a world where Big Tech, politicians, and so-called experts tell us what we should do and why when it comes to COVID, the vaccine, elections, and many other topics. Like those at N.I.C.E., they are likely not worried about convincing the “educated” among us. Rather, they are likely more worried about the truly educated, those they frame as “workmen,” those who may not have elite jobs or have gone to elite schools, but who have been trained by those who truly care about them and want them to know and follow truth.

It is this latter camp that we should strive to get our children into. It doesn’t matter if they have prestigious jobs or run with the elite. What matters is whether their eyes are able to discern propaganda parading itself as education.

Teach your children to know and love truth. Your children will thank you, and so will your countrymen.

Why the Middle Ground Between Left and Right Is so Elusive

By Kenneth LaFave (via Intellectual Takeout)

“I really wish this country would come into the middle,” Trump lawyer Michael van der Veen remarked on Fox News last month. “It’s so polarized on the Left and on the Right.”

Van der Veen is not alone in this desire, expressed shortly after Trump’s second impeachment acquittal. Many commentators have noted that the country is “polarized” between left and right. This divide, it is further assumed or asserted, is not a good thing. It must be overcome by coming to “the middle.”

“Middle” has a comforting feeling to it, cognate with “reasonable” and “agreeable.” But is it possible? Surely if there’s a left and right, a middle must be possible.

But while these terms are used casually as if everyone knows what they mean, their origin suggests something that may map onto their current usage. As political terms, left and right are a recent vintage. During the early years of the French Revolution, those favoring retaining the King sat on the right side of the Assembly in Paris, while those favoring his elimination sat on the left. A reading of this split would lead one to believe that “right” must indicate support for governmental power, while “left” stands for freedom from the same. This is how many dictionaries summarize left and right: “liberal and compassionate” on the one side, and “authoritarian” or even “dictatorial” on the other.

As with many terms, a lack of context distorts the true meaning. The assemblymen who sat on the right did indeed favor retaining the king, but for a reason that constitutes the opposite of “governmental power.” King Louis XVI was known in France at that time as “The Restorer of Liberty.” After the tyrannical reign of Louis “I am the State” XIV and the wishy-washy rule of Louis XV, Louis XVI extended freedoms to French entrepreneurs to an extent never before known. His predecessor had asked French businessmen what the state could do for them, and they had famously answered, “Laissez-nous faire”—“let us make our own way”—and this, of course, is the origin of “Laissez-faire,” the byword of free-market economics. But it was Louis XVI, not Louis XV, who acted on it, withdrawing regulations and lowering taxes so as to encourage the flourishing of businesses. That is why those sitting on the right wanted the king to remain connected to his head, so that he might continue to ensure the liberties of the French middle class. Freedom from government control was the desire of the right-sitters.

What did the left-sitters want? Equality.

For leftists then as for leftists now, there is no true freedom when people are divided by class and condition. Freedom as independence from state control is for them superficial freedom, freedom in name only. Until people are made equal—as the Terror made them equal under the blade of the guillotine, destroying wealthy businessmen, ordinary shop owners, landlords, servants, and priests—there can be no freedom, because the critical point is that equality is fundamental to true freedom. Neither “liberality,” nor “compassion,” nor any other shortcut definition of the left will do, because this is the common denominator: For the left, there can be no real freedom without equality as a starting place, while for the right, freedom is the starting place, the fundamental social condition required for a just world. Equality enters into it, but only in the sense that in a truly just society, every individual is free in a degree equal to all others; if one person has the right to pursue happiness, all people do.

By now it should be clear that a “middle ground” between left and right can no more be found than can a middle shape between a square and a circle. How could there be compromise between a view that sees freedom as the one essential ingredient of a just society, and the view that freedom is meaningless without the prior elimination of all inequalities? There simply cannot be.

What people mean when they call for a middle ground is not really a halfway place between two incompatible modes of thought, but a peaceful reasoning between advocates of the two antagonistic positions. Those on the right can and must most urgently wish for such a thing. But if recent events are any indication, the left realized long ago that peaceful reasoning is unnecessary, since it can win political power without engaging the other side.

Pfizer Bullies Nations to Put Up Collateral for Lawsuits

By Dr. Joseph Mercola (via Global Research)

As reported by New Delhi-based World Is One News (WION),1 Pfizer is demanding countries put up sovereign assets as collateral for expected vaccine injury lawsuits resulting from its COVID-19 inoculation. In other words, it wants governments to guarantee the company will be compensated for any expenses resulting from injury lawsuits against it.

WION reports that Argentina and Brazil have rejected Pfizer’s demands. Initially, the company demanded indemnification legislation to be enacted, such as that which it enjoys in the U.S. Argentina proposed legislation that would restrict Pfizer’s financial responsibility for injuries to those resulting from negligence or malice.

Pfizer rejected the proposal. It also rejected a rewritten proposal that included a clearer definition of negligence. Pfizer then demanded the Argentinian government put up sovereign assets — including its bank reserves, military bases and embassy buildings — as collateral. Argentina refused. A similar situation occurred in Brazil. Pfizer demanded Brazil:

  1. “Waive sovereignty of its assets abroad in favor of Pfizer”
  2. Not apply its domestic laws to the company
  3. Not penalize Pfizer for vaccine delivery delays
  4. Exempt Pfizer from all civil liability for side effects

Brazil rejected Pfizer’s demands, calling them “abusive.” As noted by WION, Pfizer developed its vaccine with the help of government funding, and now it — a private company — is demanding governments hand over sovereign assets to ensure the company won’t lose a dime if its product injures people, even if those injuries are the result of negligent company practices, fraud or malice. liability protection is warranted, but certainly not for fraud, gross negligence, mismanagement, failure to follow good manufacturing practices. Companies have no right to ask for indemnity for these things. ~ Lawrence Gostlin, Law Professor

Aside from Argentina and Brazil, nine other South American countries have reportedly negotiated deals with Pfizer. It’s unclear whether they actually ended up giving up national assets in return.2

Vaccine Maker Accused of Abusing Its Power

According to STAT News,3 “Legal experts have raised concerns that Pfizer’s demands amount to an abuse of power.” Lawrence Gostin, law professor at Georgetown University and director of the World Health Organization’s Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law told STAT:4

“Pharmaceutical companies shouldn’t be using their power to limit lifesaving vaccines in low- and middle-income countries. [This] seems to be exactly what they’re doing … Some liability protection is warranted, but certainly not for fraud, gross negligence, mismanagement, failure to follow good manufacturing practices. Companies have no right to ask for indemnity for these things.”

Mark Eccleston-Turner, a lecturer in global health law at Keele University in England, added:5

“[Pfizer] is trying to eke out as much profit and minimize its risk at every juncture with this vaccine development then this vaccine rollout. Now, the vaccine development has been heavily subsidized already. So there’s very minimal risk for the manufacturer involved there.”

Don’t Expect Compensation if Injured by COVID-19 Vaccine

In the U.S., vaccine makers already enjoy full indemnity against injuries occurring from this or any other pandemic vaccine under the PREP Act. If you’re injured, you’d have to file a compensation claim with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP),6 which is funded by U.S. taxpayers via Congressional appropriation to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

While similar to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), which applies to nonpandemic vaccines, the CICP is even less generous when it comes to compensation. For example, while the NVICP pays some of the costs associated with any given claim, the CICP does not. This means you’ll also be responsible for attorney fees and expert witness fees.

A significant problem with the CICP is that it’s administered within the DHHS, which is also sponsoring the COVID-19 vaccination program. This conflict of interest makes the CICP less than likely to find fault with the vaccine.

Your only route of appeal is within the DHHS, where your case would simply be reviewed by another employee. The DHHS is also responsible for making the payment, so the DHHS effectively acts as judge, jury and defendant. As reported by Dr. Meryl Nass,7 the maximum payout you can receive — even in cases of permanent disability or death — is $250,000 per person; however, you’d have to exhaust your private insurance policy before the CICP gives you a dime.

CICP will only pay the difference between what your insurance covers and the total payout amount established for your case. For permanent disability, even $250,000 won’t go far. The CICP also has a one year statute of limitations, so you have to act quickly.

This too is a significant problem, as no one really knows what injuries might arise from the COVID-19 vaccine, or when, and this makes tying the injury to the vaccination a difficult prospect. Employers that mandate the COVID-19 vaccine will also be indemnified from liability for side effects. Instead, claims will be routed through worker’s compensation programs.

If the COVID-19 vaccines are as safe as the manufacturers claim, why do they insist on so much indemnification? Do they suspect or know something they’re refusing to admit publicly?

Side Effects Are Inevitable

Of course, those of us who have been looking at the science behind the mRNA technology used to create these novel “vaccines” have long since realized there are tremendous risks involved. For starters, mRNA vaccines are most accurately referred to as gene therapies, as this is what they are.

They effectively turn your cells into bioreactors that churn out viral proteins to incite an immune response, and there’s no off-switch.8 Based on historical and preliminary evidence, significant short- and long-term side effects are, quite frankly, inevitable.

For starters, your body sees the synthetic mRNA as “non-self,” which can cause autoantibodies to attack your own tissues. Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., explained this in her interview, featured in “How COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ May Destroy the Lives of Millions.”

Free mRNA also drive inflammatory diseases, which is why making synthetic mRNA thermostable — i.e., slowing the breakdown of the RNA by encasing it in lipid nanoparticles — is likely to be problematic. The nanoparticles themselves also pose a risk. COVID-19 vaccines use PEGylated lipid nanoparticles, which is known to cause allergic reactions and anaphylaxis.9,10

What’s more, previous attempts to develop an mRNA-based drug using lipid nanoparticles failed and had to be abandoned because when the dose was too low, the drug had no effect, and when dosed too high, the drug became too toxic.11 An obvious question is: What has changed that now makes this technology safe enough for mass use?

As detailed in my interview with Mikovits, the synthetic RNA influences the gene syncytin, which can result in:

  • Brain inflammation
  • Dysregulated communication between the microglia in your brain, which are critical for clearing toxins and pathogens
  • Dysregulated immune system
  • Dysregulated endocannabinoid system (which calms inflammation)

Pathogenic Priming and Antibody-Dependent Enhancement

Another significant problem is that we don’t know whether antibody production is protective or pathogenic in coronavirus infections. If pathogenic, vaccinated individuals may be at increased risk of severe illness if they’re exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in the future. As reported in a December 11, 2020, Vaccine: X paper:12

“The first SARS-CoV-2 vaccine(s) will likely be licensed based on neutralizing antibodies in Phase 2 trials, but there are significant concerns about using antibody response in coronavirus infections as a sole metric of protective immunity. 

Antibody response is often a poor marker of prior coronavirus infection, particularly in mild infections, and is shorter-lived than virus-reactive T-cells … Strong antibody response correlates with more severe clinical disease while T-cell response is correlated with less severe disease; and antibody-dependent enhancement of pathology and clinical severity has been described.

Indeed, it is unclear whether antibody production is protective or pathogenic in coronavirus infections. Early data with SARS-CoV-2 support these findings. Data from coronavirus infections in animals and humans emphasize the generation of a high-quality T cell response in protective immunity.”

A number of reports in the medical literature have indeed highlighted the risk of pathogenic priming and antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). As explained in “Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire? Due Diligence Warranted for ADE in COVID-19”:13

“ADE is an immunological phenomenon whereby a previous immune response to a virus can render an individual more susceptible to a subsequent analogous infection. 

Rather than viral recognition and clearance, the prior development of virus-specific antibodies at a non-neutralizing level can facilitate viral uptake, enhancing replication; a possible immune evasion strategy avoiding intracellular innate immune sensors, or pattern recognition receptors …

ADE of SARS-CoV has also been described14 through a novel FcγRII-dependent and ACE2-independent cell entry mechanism. The authors state15 that this warrants concern in the safety evaluation of any candidate human vaccines against SARS-CoV.” 

Similarly, “Pathogenic Priming Likely Contributes to Serious and Critical Illness and Mortality in COVID-19 Via Autoimmunity,” published in the Journal of Translational Autoimmunity, warns that:16

“Failure of SARS and MERS vaccines in animal trials involved pathogenesis consistent with an immunological priming that could involve autoimmunity in lung tissues due to previous exposure to the SARS and MERS spike protein. Exposure pathogenesis to SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 likely will lead to similar outcomes.”

So, to be clear, what all of this means is that if you get vaccinated, you may actually be at increased risk for serious illness if/when you’re exposed to any number of mutated SARS-CoV-2 strains in the future.

This is why the recommendation to vaccinate individuals who have previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2, or who have an active SARS-CoV-2 infection, may actually be quite dangerous. Dr. Hooman Noorchashm recently sent a public letter17 to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner detailing these risks.

How mRNA Injections May Trigger Prion Disease

What’s more, in a paper18 titled, “COVID-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease,” published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, Dr. Bart Classen warns there are also troubling evidences suggesting some of the mRNA shots may cause prion diseases such as Alzheimer’s and ALS. He writes:

“In the current paper, the concern is raised that the RNA based COVID vaccines have the potential to cause more disease than the epidemic of COVID-19. This paper focuses on a novel potential adverse event mechanism causing prion disease which could be even more common and debilitating than the viral infection the vaccine is designed to prevent …

Analysis of the Pfizer vaccine against COVID-19 identified two potential risk factors for inducing prion disease is humans. The RNA sequence in the vaccine contains sequences believed to induce TDP-43 and FUS to aggregate in their prion based conformation leading to the development of common neurodegerative diseases. 

In particular it has been shown that RNA sequences GGUA, UG rich sequences, UG tandem repeats, and G Quadruplex sequences, have increased affinity to bind TDP-43 and or FUS and may cause TDP-43 or FUS to take their pathologic configurations in the cytoplasm. 

In the current analysis a total of sixteen UG tandem repeats were identified and additional UG rich sequences were identified. Two GGΨA sequences were found. G Quadruplex sequences are possibly present but sophisticated computer programs are needed to verify these. 

The spike protein encoded by the vaccine binds angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), an enzyme which contains zinc molecules. The binding of spike protein to ACE2 has the potential to release the zinc molecule, an ion that causes TDP-43 to assume its pathologic prion transformation.” 

mRNA Technology Has Potential to Cause Microvascular Injury

Additionally, Dr. J. Patrick Whelan, a pediatric rheumatologist specializing in multisystem inflammatory syndrome, submitted a public comment19 to the FDA back in December 2020, in which he expressed concern that mRNA vaccines have “the potential to cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in ways that were not assessed in safety trials.”

He cited research showing that “the spike protein in brain endothelial cells is associated with formation of microthrombi (clots),” and that since no viral RNA has been found in brain endothelium, “viral proteins appear to cause tissue damage without actively replicating virus.”

“Is it possible the spike protein itself causes the tissue damage associated with Covid-19?”he asks. “In 13/13 brains from patients with fatal COVID-19, pseudovirions (spike, envelope, and membrane proteins) without viral RNA are present in the endothelia of cerebral microvessels … 

It appears that the viral spike protein that is the target of the major SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is also one of the key agents causing the damage to distant organs that may include the brain, heart, lung, and kidney. 

Before any of these vaccines are approved for widespread use in humans, it is important to assess in vaccinated subjects the effects of vaccination on the heart … Vaccinated patients could also be tested for distant tissue damage in deltoid area skin biopsies …”

Reports of Side Effects Are Rapidly Mounting

Around the world, reports are now pouring in of people dying shortly after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. In many cases, they die suddenly within hours of getting the shot. In others, death occurs within the span of a couple of weeks.

In the wake of 29 senior citizen deaths,20 Norway is reportedly considering excluding the very old and terminally ill from getting the AstraZeneca vaccine. According to the Norwegian Medicines Agency:21

“Most people have experienced the expected side effects of the vaccine, such as nausea and vomiting, fever, local reactions at the injection site, and worsening of their underlying condition.” 

The Norwegian Institute of Public Health further noted that “for those with the most severe frailty, even relatively mild vaccine side effects can have serious consequences,” and that “For those who have a very short remaining life span anyway, the benefit of the vaccine may be marginal or irrelevant.”22

In Sweden, hospitals in Sörmland and Gävleborg suspended the AstraZeneca vaccine in mid-February 2021 after a full quarter of the vaccinated hospital staff reported side effects. To prevent staff shortages and conduct an investigation, the vaccination push was temporarily paused.23Examples of side effects reported after vaccination with Pfizer’s, Moderna’s and AstraZeneca’s vaccines from around the world include:

  • Persistent malaise24,25
  • Bell’s Palsy26,27,28
  • Extreme exhaustion29
  • Swollen, painful lymph nodes
  • Severe allergic, including anaphylactic reactions30,31,32
  • Thrombocytopenia (a rare, often lethal blood disorder)33,34
  • Multisystem inflammatory syndrome35
  • Miscarriages36,37
  • Chronic seizures and convulsions38,39
  • Severe headache/migraine that does not respond to medication
  • Paralysis40
  • Sleep disturbances
  • Psychological effects such as mood changes, anxiety, depression, brain fog, confusion, dissociation and temporary inability to form words
  • Cardiac problems, including myocardial and tachycardia disorders41
  • Blindness, impaired vision and eye disorders42,43
  • Stroke44,45

In the U.K., there were 49,472 reported side effects to the Pfizer vaccine and 21,032 reactions to the AstraZeneca vaccine as of January 24, 2021. As reported by Principia Scientific International,46“For both vaccines this equates to 1 in every 333 people suffering an adverse reaction. This rate could actually be higher as some cases may have not been reported …”Greatest Risk of All: Sudden Death

Perhaps most concerning of all are rapidly mounting reports of sudden death,47,48,49,50,51,52 mostly in the elderly but also in much younger, healthy individuals. In the U.S., COVID-19 vaccines accounted for 70% of vaccine-related deaths between January 2020 and January 2021.

vaers results

As of February 12, 2021, the number of side effects reported to VAERS totaled 15,923, including 929 deaths.53 Of the 799 deaths reported within the U.S., one-third occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 21% of them were cardiac-related.

Pfizer’s vaccine was the most dangerous in terms of death, being responsible for 58% of deaths while Moderna’s vaccine accounted for 41% of deaths. Pfizer’s vaccine was also responsible for 75% of Bell’s Palsy cases, compared to Moderna’s at 25%.54

Curiously, based on the data submitted to the FDA, Moderna’s vaccine has a death rate 5.41 times higher than Pfizer’s, yet both are dramatically lower than the national average. As noted by The Defender, the dramatic discrepancy in death rates “deserves notice and requires explanation,” adding:55

“If Moderna’s on-vaccine death rate is so far below the national death rate and also simultaneously more than five times greater than Pfizer’s on-vaccine death rate, then Pfizer’s study sample appears even less representative of the entire population …

Moderna’s screening process and exclusion criteria in the trial led to evidence that the general population is dying at a rate 6.3 times greater than the death rate in the Moderna trial — which means the Moderna study, including its estimated efficacy rate and the vaccine’s alleged safety profile — cannot possibly be relevant to most of the U.S. population.

The super-healthy cohorts studied by Moderna are in no way representative of the U.S. population. Most deaths from COVID-19 involve pre-existing health conditions of the types excluded from both Pfizer and Moderna trials …

Those enrolling in the post-market surveillance studies deserve to know the abject absence of any relevant information on efficacy and risk for them. In their zeal to help humanity, or to help themselves, these people may very well be walking into a situation that will cause autoimmunity due to pathogenic priming, potentially leading to disease enhancement should they become infected following vaccination.”

Do a Risk-Benefit Analysis Before Making Up Your Mind

To avoid becoming a sad statistic, I urge you to review the science very carefully before making up your mind about this experimental gene therapy. Also remember that the lethality of COVID-19 is actually surprisingly low. It’s lower than the flu for those under the age of 60.56

If you’re under the age of 40, your risk of dying from COVID-19 is just 0.01%, meaning you have a 99.99% chance of surviving the infection. And you could improve that to 99.999% if you’re metabolically flexible, insulin sensitive, and vitamin D replete.

So, really, what are we protecting against with a COVID-19 vaccine? These mRNA vaccines aren’t even designed to prevent infection, only to reduce the severity of symptoms. Meanwhile, they could potentially make you sicker once you’re exposed to the virus, and/or cause persistent serious side effects such as those reviewed above.

While I won’t tell anyone what to do, I would urge you to take the time to review the science and weigh the potential risks and benefits based on your individual situation before you make a decision that you may regret for the rest of your life, which can actually be shortened with this vaccine. Undoubtedly, Pfizer and other vaccine makers suspect this as well, which is why Pfizer is bullying nations into covering for any and all of its mistakes.

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) recently posted more than 50 video presentations from the pay-for-view Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination held online October 16 to 18, 2020, and made them available to everyone for free.

The conference’s theme was “Protecting Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century” and it featured physicians, scientists and other health professionals, human rights activists, faith community leaders, constitutional and civil rights attorneys, authors and parents of vaccine injured children talking about vaccine science, policy, law and ethics and infectious diseases, including coronavirus and COVID-19 vaccines.

In December 2020, a U.K. company published false and misleading information about NVIC and its conference, which prompted NVIC to open up the whole conference for free viewing. The conference has everything you need to educate yourself and protect your personal freedoms and liberties with respect to your health.

Don’t miss out on this incredible opportunity. I was a speaker at this empowering conference and urge you to watch these video presentations before they’re censored and taken away by the technocratic elite.

COVID-19 Vaccine Risks and Research

By Nina Beety (via Global Research)

COVID-19 and related policy steps are causing great suffering, devastation, and economic harm. Below is the letter I sent to my county’s health officer with my research on COVID-19 vaccine risks, treatment options, and prevalence statistics, and asking him to take action. 

The current vaccines — Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, the J&J vaccine (using a human adenovirus vector), and the AstraZenica/Oxford vaccine (using a modified chimpanzee adenovirus) — instruct a person’s cells to produce COVID19 spike proteins.

Recent research has found that the COVID19 spike protein by itself may be causing much of the damage in COVID19 patients in endothelium and organs, without the virus itself present.

If this is the case, deliberately causing a person’s body to make these spike proteins, and for an unknown period of time, could subject healthy people as well as the most vulnerable (including those with pre-existing conditions most at risk according to the scientific literature) to grave public health risks — extensive damage in the endothelium and in many organs including the brain, heart, kidneys, and liver, thrombosis/blood clotting, severe illness, heart attacks, and death.

Further, the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA is encapsulated in a lipid envelope to protect the mRNA from destruction. It will send its message to a person’s cells to produce spike proteins for an unknown period of time, perhaps permanently.

Some medical experts also report that people of Hispanic/Native American and African genetic background degrade mRNA more slowly, making them particularly at risk for long-lasting spike protein production and its related effects. These people may also have lower Vitamin D due to genetics, putting them at greater overall immune risk. And they often have a higher immune response – another risk factor. In their recent white paper “COVID-19 experimental vaccine candidates”, the organization America’s Frontline Doctors warns:

A too strong immune reaction to a vaccine can result in inflammatory disease like transverse myelitis (inflammation and paralysis of the spinal cord). This raises grave concern about prioritizing African Americans to receive an experimental vaccine when so much available science shows that this demographic is already at a higher risk for adverse reactions to vaccines. (p. 23)

Patrick Whelan MD, UCLA, alerted the FDA in December prior to Pfizer vaccine emergency use authorization (EUA) that the COVID19 spike protein might be causing tissue damage associated with COVID19, — “microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver, and kidneys in a way that does not currently appear to be assessed in safety trials of these potential drugs.”

In a September 2020 article, Forbes writer Dr. William Hasseltine said that vaccine protocols had minor symptom mitigation as a first priority, not immunity or major symptom or death reduction. This makes sense because how can immunity or protection from the virus happen when only spike proteins are the target? Immunity happens when the virus itself is the target of the body’s response. In October, Associate Editor Peter Doshi wrote in the British Medical Journal:

“None of the trials currently underway [J&J was not in this group] are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or death. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.”

Doshi’s chart in his article drives home his point. He cites Moderna Chief Medical Officer Tal Zaks who said, “Our trial will not demonstrate prevention of transmission”. This isn’t being disclosed to the public. These vaccines are being sold to all of us on the basis of immunity, but they likely won’t affect immunity or transmissibility at all.

Nor is it being disclosed that past SARS vaccines have failed, severely sickening or killing many of the animal and human subjects when they encountered the wild virus, with some scientists warning that new SARS vaccine development should not be attempted again.

Vaccination could dramatically exacerbate what you and the county are trying to stop. If that happened, the financial and economic costs to the county could be staggering and not repairable. Every business sector would be affected but Monterey County’s agriculture industry, already negatively impacted by fewer ag workers, would be disabled if significant numbers of workers have vaccine-related health problems. And the tourism industry would plummet if there are vaccination-related health effects on the overall state, national, and international population, and on local workers.

Suspend mass vaccinations and county vaccinations immediately and investigate this public health risk. Raise these urgent issue with state health officials.

On December 1, former Pfizer head of respiratory research Dr. Michael Yeadon and German epidemiologist and pulmonary specialist Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg petitioned the European Medicine Agency to suspend immediately all SARS COV2 vaccine studies over adverse effects.

“Governments are planning to expose millions of healthy people to unacceptable risks…”

There are other vaccine risks. Spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins. Syncytin-1 is necessary for placental attachment in pregnancy. Antibodies against the spike protein could trigger an immune response against syncytin-1, causing an auto-immune rejection of the placenta. and permanently interfere with a woman’s ability to maintain a pregnancy. A syncytin-homologous protein in the brain could cause multiple sclerosis.

Other autoimmune reactions could result. Immune thrombocytopenia purpura (ITP) where the immune system attacks the platelets or the cells that make them, is being investigated in connection with the vaccines. Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) causes a vaccinated person to get a worse case of the disease when exposed to the wild virus. In addition, a reported 70% of people develop antibodies to polyethylene glycol (PEG) which is in the mRNA vaccines and can experience anaphylactic reactions or shock. Polysorbate-80 in the J&J vaccine can also cause anaphylactic reactions, has caused cancer in animal studies, and can cross the blood-brain barrier. PEG and polysorbates may cause cross-reactive hypersensitivity.

There is an already high rate of deaths and adverse reactions reported from December 14 through March 5 on the CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following vaccine administration – 1,524 deaths, 5,507 serious injuries, 390 incidents of Bell’s palsy – a 31% spike from the previous week, 85 reports of miscarriage or premature birth, and a total of 31,079 cases of adverse reactions in this short span of time. The VAERS system is entirely voluntary, and a government study found that fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse reactions were reported there. High rates of death following vaccination have been reported in some nursing homes. J&J had to pause its trial due an adverse event it refused to disclose. The AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine has now been suspended in over 20 countries including Germany, Austria, and France, due to many adverse events following vaccination. AZ trials were paused when transverse myelitis, multiple sclerosis, acute neuro encephalopathy and one death occurred. Since rollout, adverse events include severe cases of brain hemorrhage or blood clots, reduced blood platelets and deaths, affecting even healthy young people with no medical problems.

It is estimated to take 6 weeks for the body to begin producing spike proteins. Who is monitoring mid-term or long-term effects once that happens and the body produces antibodies to the proteins, especially adverse events in migrant farmworker and homeless populations?

Since it is unknown how long the mRNA signal will continue to tell the cells to produce spike proteins, how long can the body continue to manufacture antibodies to the spike protein? At what point will the body’s immune response be exhausted and fail, leaving the person unprotected and biological homeostasis at risk?

Moderna chief medical officer Tal Zaks said in a 2017 TED talk, “We are actually hacking the software of life.”

“Imagine if instead of giving [the patient] the protein of a virus, we gave them the instructions on how to make the protein, how the body can make its own vaccine,” he said. , “we’ve been living this phenomenal digital scientific revolution, and I’m here today to tell you, that we are actually hacking the software of life, and that it’s changing the way we think about prevention and treatment of disease.”

“In every cell there’s this thing called messenger RNA or mRNA for short, that transmits the critical information from the DNA in our genes to the protein, which is really the stuff we’re all made out of. This is the critical information that determines what the cell will do. So we think about it as an operating system.

So if you could change that, if you could introduce a line of code, or change a line of code, it turns out, that has profound implications for everything, from the flu to cancer.”

These new vaccines are gene therapy, which may permanently alter people’s DNA.

In December, the FDA acted “to permit the emergency use of the unapproved product [Pfizer], for active immunization…”(emphasis added). The vaccines will remain in trials through 2023. They are experimental vaccines that are being tested on the public. COVID19 vaccine manufacturers were given legal immunity from adverse effects in the U.S. In countries where they are not given immunity, companies are demanding sovereign country assets as collateral against lawsuits.

Accurate testing and statistics are essential to make sure that Monterey County and California are not mis-categorized and put in the wrong tiers due to false positives. Many medical experts warn that PCR testing is a research tool, not a diagnostic one, and that it can’t be used as an indicator of disease. It may only detect viral DNA and artifacts, not the virus itself. They also warn that the number of PCR amplifications encouraged by the WHO, especially last year (which then revised its guidance downward in January 2021) caused a high number of false positives – as high as 97%.. “Falling” COVID19 numbers may be due to fewer false positives. What percentage are still false positives is unknown. WHO shows no 2020-2021 flu season. Are flu cases being re-characterized or mis-characterized as COVID19 numbers, inflating the totals?


A shift in focus to treatment with safe and well-studied therapeutics and tools, especially early on, is recommended by medical professionals as essential. The public should be equipped with this information.

Magro et al. (2020) suggested that Lectin Affinity plasmapheresis, used to treat Ebola virus and MERS, might be a therapeutic tool to filter and remove circulating virus and pseudovirions including the spike protein. Other literature suggests UV blood irradiation could be a useful tool for killing viruses.

The independent literature on HCQ (including Dr. Vladimir Zelenko’s work – see below), CQ, Ivermectin (Dr. Pierre Kory testified to the U.S. Senate on his results), and other inexpensive and long-tested interventions indicate they are safe and provide relief and even preventative value to stop the deaths and treat severe illness. The NIH’s Virology Journal published research in 2005 by scientists at the CDC and the Clinical Research Institute of Montreal entitled “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread”.

“Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is caused by a newly discovered coronavirus (SARS-CoV). No effective prophylactic or post-exposure therapy is currently available.

Results: We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. In addition to the wellknown functions of chloroquine such as elevations of endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensinconverting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virusreceptor binding and abrogate the infection, with further ramifications by the elevation of vesicular pH, resulting in the inhibition of infection and spread of SARS CoV at clinically admissible concentrations.

Conclusion: Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection. (emphasis added)

Vitamin D and L-Cysteine has been suggested to boost immunity especially for African Americans.

There are additional important COVID19, vaccine, and policy issues, and I hope that these key issues have gotten your attention.

I urge you: listen to the independent physicians and researchers that are risking their careers to act as whistleblowers and join them. Lead on this critical, far-reaching public health crisis for the public’s sake. And stop COVID19 vaccinations in Monterey County.

Very sincerely,

Nina Beety, Monterey, California


Patrick Whelan MD, Letter to the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee related to consideration of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, 8 December 2020
Petition of Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg and Dr. Michael Yeadon to EMA to stay the Phase III clinical trial(s) of BNT162b (EudraCT Number 2020-002641-42) and other clinical trials. 1 December 2020
Urgent Open Letter from Doctors and Scientists to the European Medicines Agency regarding COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Concerns, February 28, 2021, made public on March 10, 2021
Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us, Peter Doshi, Associate Editor, BMJ 2020;371:m4037, 21 October 2020
Complement associated microvascular injury and thrombosis in the pathogenesis of severe COVID-19 infection: A report of five cases, Magro et al., Transl Res. 2020 Jun; 220: 1–13. April 2020
Endothelial Dysfunction in COVID-19: Lessons Learned from Coronaviruses, Gavriilaki et al., Current Hypertension Reports (2020) 22:63. August 2020
Severe COVID-19: A multifaceted viral vasculopathy syndrome, Magro et al. Annals of Diagnostic Pathology 50 (2021) 151645. October 2020
Endothelial cell damage is the central part of COVID-19 and a mouse model induced by injection of the S1 subunit of the spike protein, Nuovo et al. Annals of Diagnostic Pathology 51 (2021) 151682. December 2020
The S1 protein of SARS-CoV-2 crosses the blood–brain barrier in mice, Rhea et al., Nature Neuroscience Vol 24, March 2021. 368–378
Covid-19 Vaccine Protocols Reveal That Trials Are Designed To Succeed
William Hasseltine MD, Forbes, September 23, 2021
Note: Dr. Hasseltine was a professor at Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health, and founded two academic research departments, the Division of Biochemical Pharmacology and the Division of Human Retrovirology. Doctorʼs Death After Covid Vaccine Is Being Investigated, NY Times, 2-8-21

Dr. Jerry L. Spivak, an expert on blood disorders at Johns Hopkins University, who was not involved in Dr. Michael’s care, said that based on Ms. Neckelmann’s description, “I think it is a medical certainty that the vaccine was related.”

Electronic Support for Public Health–Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System
(ESP:VAERS). 12/01/07 – 09/30/10. Principal Investigator: Lazarus, Ross, MBBS, MPH, MMed, GDCompSci. Submitted to Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

“Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of “problem” drugs and vaccines that endanger public health. New surveillance methods for drug and vaccine adverse effects are needed. Barriers to reporting include a lack of clinician awareness, uncertainty about when and what to report, as well as the burdens of reporting: reporting is not part of clinicians’ usual workflow, takes time, and is duplicative.” TED talk with Moderna chief medical officer Tal Zaks
How COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ May Destroy the Lives of Millions, Dr. Joseph Mercola, January 31, 2021

Example of PCR testimony:

False Positives: Evidence Based Fact, What is the Reliability of the PCR Test?
Dr. Gary G. Kohls, Prof. Stefan Homburg and A. Castellitto, January 11, 2021 

Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread, Martin Vincent et al., Virology Journal 2005, 2:69
Hypothesis paper: The potential link between inherited G6PD deficiency, oxidative stress, and vitamin D deficiency and the racial inequities in mortality associated with COVID-19, Jain et al., Free Radical Biology and Medicine 161 (2020) 84–91

Compared with whites, the incidences of inherited [glucose-6-phosphatedehydrogenase (G6PD)] deficiency and 25(OH)VD deficiency are markedly higher in the [African American] population… We believe that combined supplementation using vitamin D along with the GSH precursor L-cysteine could potentially correct the status of GSH, vitamin D metabolism genes, and the biologic action of vitamin D [56,57]. Recent studies have shown that vitamin D deficiency is linked to the hospitalization length of COVID-19 infected subjects [3,107–111]…The available literature suggests the potential benefits of enhancing immunity and reducing inflammation can help prevent or reduce the adverse effects of COVID-19 infection in the AA population by increasing circulating levels of 25(OH)VD using oral supplementation with vitamin D and a GSH precursor, L-cysteine.
Website of Dr. Vladimir Zelenko: treatment and prophylaxis protocols, peer-reviewed research on HCQ, CQ, zinc, Vitamin C, Vitamin D
Pierre Kory MD: Doctor pleads for review of data on ivermectin as COVID-19 treatment during Senate hearing, December 8, 2020
Use of Ultraviolet Blood Irradiation Against Viral Infections, Boretti et al. Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology, 7 October 2020
America’s FrontLine Doctors
AFLDS White Paper: Covid-19 Experimental Vaccine Candidates
FLCCC Alliance Response to the NIH Guideline Committee Recommendation on Ivermectin use in COVID-19 dated January 14th, 2021

Pfizer – CDC Weekly / December 18, 2020 / 69(50);1922-1924

“On December 11, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfzer-BioNTech COVID-19 (BNT162b2) vaccine (Pfzer, Inc; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modifed mRNA vaccine encoding the prefusion spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).” p. 1

Moderna — Clinical Study Protocol, August 20, 2020 

“The mRNA-1273 IP is an LNP dispersion of an mRNA encoding the prefusion stabilized S protein of SARS-CoV-2…” p. 12
Johnson and Johnson — Fact Sheet For Healthcare Providers Administering Vaccine

“The vaccine consists of a replication-incompetent recombinant adenovirus type 26 (Ad26) vector expressing the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus- 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike (S) protein in a stabilized conformation.” p. 16

AstraZenica/Oxford – Recommendation for an Emergency Use Listing of AZD1222

“AZD1222, previously known as ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, is a novel recombinant replication-deficient chimpanzee adenovirus carrying a gene encoding the S protein antigen of SARS-CoV-2.

The genetic material in the vaccine, once injected into a person, enables the synthesis of Spike protein…”

Former FDA Commissioner: “Costly” Social Distancing Mandate “Wasn’t Based On Clear Science”

By Tyler Durden (via Zero Hedge)

Amid the always-fearmongering, always-pessimistic, always-more-control-demanded, (and almost always wrong) daily headlines from Dr. Fauci, Former FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb dared to speak optimistically about the way forward on Friday:

We now know that the vaccines dramatically reduce your chance of both contracting COVID and becoming symptomatic to the point where you are going to have a bad outcome; we also know it reduces asymptomatic disease and reduces transmission… we are seeing that in the data.

The Pfizer board member does hedge a little by suggesting those who are high risk should still take precautions.nullRecommended Videos

By many measures, March was supposed to be a “difficult month” but as the vaccine campaign continues uninterrupted, April and May will “look much more clear.”

“…people can be more liberal… people will be taking off their masks because we are going to see prevalence decline around the country and people who’ve been vaccinated can go out with more confidence.”

Then Gottlieb dropped some serious truth bombs (which were mysteriously edited out of CNBC’s clip above) saying that within a few weeks, it could be “obvious” that masks may be safely removed, and even more significantly, following CDC’s flip-flopping and confusing rules this week on distancing in schools:

This six-foot distancing requirement has probably been the single costliest mitigation tactic that we’ve employed in response to COVID… and it really wasn’t based on clear science… we should have readjucated this much earlier.

Watch this 70 seconds and consider the source – this is not some ‘white supremacist, disinformation-spreading, alt-right blogger’, this is the former FDA Commissioner who many mainstream media outlets have listened to verbatim through the crisis.

But, but, but, what about Fauci’s “science”?

This shocking revelation comes just days after Senator Rand Paul destroyed Dr. Fauci’s so-called “science”-based reasons for various restrictions – from mask-wearing to social-distancing – as ‘useless political theater’.

Interestingly, Gottlieb said “both [Paul and Fauci] made valid points,” but specifically said that “Senator Paul was right, we need to see light at the end of the tunnel and have guidance that prescribes an environment where people can start doing things again.”

Amid the now-politicized divide between nanny-state-obeyers and science-denying-extremists (there is no middle ground anymore), it would appear the entirely opposite-think statements, declarations, and proclamations made by officials one year ago have been almost entirely ‘memory-holed’.

As Sharyl Attkisson points out in an extensively researched note, around this time last year:

  • Vaccine propagandist Dr. Peter Hotez made the case against travel bans
  • Dr. Anthony Fauci said there was no reason to walk around wearing masks
  • New York City’s Health Commissioner urged people to go to crowded places and busy restaurants
  • Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) encouraged people to get out and be around others in San Francisco’s Chinatown

And one year ago, the World Health Organization gave what many scientist called confusing guidance on wearing masks for Covid-19. 

World Health Organization, March 19, 2020: “Wearing medical masks when not indicated may result in unnecessary costs and procurement burdens and create a false sense of security that can lead to the neglect of other essential measures, such as hand hygiene practices. Further, using a mask incorrectly may hamper its effectiveness in reducing the risk of transmission.”

It was just ten days after Dr. Anthony Fauci stated, on March 8, “there’s no reason to be walking around with a mask.”

Dr. Fauci also, notoriously, testified to Congress that coronavirus was ten times deadlier than flu about the same time he published a scientific paper that said something quite different: Covid’s lethality was akin to a bad flu season. 

President Trump’s ban on travel from China had been installed January 31 when there had only been a few confirmed cases of Covid-19 in the U.S. 

Here’s a look back at some of the most notable statements made by public officials from January through March 31, 2020. 

Some of the comments, guidance, and reflections proved accurate in the long run; some did not. Some seem to have long been forgotten or deposited down the selective memory hole.

Nothing to fear, It’s a ‘bad flu’, ‘masks, schmasks’…

Dr. Anthony Fauci, White House Coronavirus Task Force, Jan. 21, 2020: This is not a major threat to the people in the United States and it is not something that the citizens of the United States right now should be worried about.”

Dr. Fauci, in sworn testimony to Congress, March 11, 2020: ’Coronavirus ten times more lethal than flu.’ but Dr. Fauci in the New England Journal of Medicine, March 26, 2020: “…the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%)…”

Dr. Oxiris Barbot, New York City health commissioner, Jan. 27, 2020: People who had recently traveled from Wuhan were not being urged to self-quarantine or avoid large public gatherings.” “There is no reason not to take the subway, not to take the bus, not to go out to your favorite restaurant, and certainly not to miss the parade next Sunday.” 


“As we gear up to celebrate the #LunarNewYear [Chinatown parade] in NYC, I want to assure New Yorkers that there is no reason for anyone to change their holiday plans, avoid the subway, or certain parts of the city because of #coronavirus…We are here today to urge all New Yorkers to continue to live their lives as usual.” 


“…theres no risk at this point in time…about having it be transmitted in casual contact, right?” “The risk to New Yorkers for Coronavirus is low, and our preparedness as a city is very high.”

LA Times, Soumya Karlamangla, Jan. 31, 2020: For Americans, flu remains a bigger threat than coronavirus.“…unlike the coronavirus, which so far hasnt led to any deaths in the U.S., influenza has killed approximately 10,000 Americans since October, according to federal data released Friday.” “…a much deadlier killer already stalking the United States has been largely overshadowed: the flu.”

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, House Speaker, Feb. 24, 2020: Urged people to visit San Franciscos Chinatown. “Thats what were trying to do today is to say everything is fine here. Come because precautions have been taken. The city is on top of the situation.”

New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio, March 2, 2020: “…Im encouraging New Yorkers to go on with your lives + get out on the town despite Coronavirus…” 

Cuomo, March 23, 2020: Many people will get the virus, but few will be truly endangered. Hold both of those facts in your hands: Many will get it, up to 80 percent may get it, but few are truly endangered and we know who they are.”

Dr. Anthony Fauci, National Institutes of Health and White House Task Force, March 8, 2020: “there’s no reason to be walking around with a mask.”

Read more hypocritical insanity here…

So what changed? Why did all these officials suddenly flip to fearmongering the deadliest of deadly things imaginable (that leaves 99.7% of those ‘infected’ unharmed)?

It couldn’t be politics, surely?

Digital Trails: How the FBI Identifies, Tracks and Rounds Up Dissidents

By The Free Thought Project (via The Free Thought Project)

(The Rutherford Institute)

“Americans deserve the freedom to choose a life without surveillance and the government regulation that would make that possible. While we continue to believe the sentiment, we fear it may soon be obsolete or irrelevant. We deserve that freedom, but the window to achieve it narrows a little more each day. If we don’t act now, with great urgency, it may very well close for good.”—Charlie Warzel and Stuart A. Thompson, New York Times

Databit by databit, we are building our own electronic concentration camps.

With every new smart piece of smart technology we acquire, every new app we download, every new photo or post we share online, we are making it that much easier for the government and its corporate partners to identify, track and eventually round us up.

Saint or sinner, it doesn’t matter because we’re all being swept up into a massive digital data dragnet that does not distinguish between those who are innocent of wrongdoing, suspects, or criminals.

This is what it means to live in a suspect society.

The government’s efforts to round up those who took part in the Capitol riots shows exactly how vulnerable we all are to the menace of a surveillance state that aspires to a God-like awareness of our lives.

Relying on selfies, social media posts, location data, geotagged photos, facial recognition, surveillance cameras and crowdsourcing, government agents are compiling a massive data trove on anyone and everyone who may have been anywhere in the vicinity of the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

The amount of digital information is staggering: 15,000 hours of surveillance and body-worn camera footage; 1,600 electronic devices; 270,000 digital media tips; at least 140,000 photos and videos; and about 100,000 location pings for thousands of smartphones.

And that’s just what we know.

More than 300 individuals from 40 states have already been charged and another 280 arrested in connection with the events of January 6. As many as 500 others are still being hunted by government agents.

Also included in this data roundup are individuals who may have had nothing to do with the riots but whose cell phone location data identified them as being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Forget about being innocent until proven guilty.

In a suspect society such as ours, the burden of proof has been flipped: now, you start off guilty and have to prove your innocence.

For instance, you didn’t even have to be involved in the Capitol riots to qualify for a visit from the FBI: investigators have reportedly been tracking—and questioning—anyone whose cell phones connected to wi-fi or pinged cell phone towers near the Capitol. One man, who had gone out for a walk with his daughters only to end up stranded near the Capitol crowds, actually had FBI agents show up at his door days later. Using Google Maps, agents were able to pinpoint exactly where they were standing and for how long.

All of the many creepy, calculating, invasive investigative and surveillance tools the government has acquired over the years are on full display right now in the FBI’s ongoing efforts to bring the rioters to “justice.”

FBI agents are matching photos with drivers’ license pictures; tracking movements by way of license plate toll readers; and zooming in on physical identifying marks such as moles, scars and tattoos, as well as brands, logos and symbols on clothing and backpacks. They’re poring over hours of security and body camera footage; scouring social media posts; triangulating data from cellphone towers and WiFi signals; layering facial recognition software on top of that; and then cross-referencing footage with public social media posts.

It’s not just the FBI on the hunt, however.

They’ve enlisted the help of volunteer posses of private citizens, such as Deep State Dogs, to collaborate on the grunt work. As Dinah Voyles Pulver reports, once Deep State Dogs locates a person and confirms their identity, they put a package together with the person’s name, address, phone number and several images and send it to the FBI.

According to USA Todaythe FBI is relying on the American public and volunteer cybersleuths to help bolster its cases.

This takes See Something, Say Something snitching programs to a whole new level.

The lesson to be learned: Big Brother, Big Sister and all of their friends are watching you.

They see your every move: what you read, how much you spend, where you go, with whom you interact, when you wake up in the morning, what you’re watching on television and reading on the internet.

Every move you make is being monitored, mined for data, crunched, and tabulated in order to form a picture of who you are, what makes you tick, and how best to control you when and if it becomes necessary to bring you in line.

Simply liking or sharing this article on Facebook, retweeting it on Twitter, or merely reading it or any other articles related to government wrongdoing, surveillance, police misconduct or civil liberties might be enough to get you categorized as a particular kind of person with particular kinds of interests that reflect a particular kind of mindset that might just lead you to engage in a particular kinds of activities and, therefore, puts you in the crosshairs of a government investigation as a potential troublemaker a.k.a. domestic extremist.

Chances are, as the Washington Post reports, you have already been assigned a color-coded threat score—green, yellow or red—so police are forewarned about your potential inclination to be a troublemaker depending on whether you’ve had a career in the military, posted a comment perceived as threatening on Facebook, suffer from a particular medical condition, or know someone who knows someone who might have committed a crime.

In other words, you might already be flagged as potentially anti-government in a government database somewhere—Main Core, for example—that identifies and tracks individuals who aren’t inclined to march in lockstep to the police state’s dictates.

The government has the know-how.

It took days, if not hours or minutes, for the FBI to begin the process of identifying, tracking and rounding up those suspected of being part of the Capitol riots.

Imagine how quickly government agents could target and round up any segment of society they wanted to based on the digital trails and digital footprints we leave behind.

Of course, the government has been hard at work for years acquiring these totalitarian powers.

Long before the January 6 riots, the FBI was busily amassing the surveillance tools necessary to monitor social media posts, track and identify individuals using cell phone signals and facial recognition technology, and round up “suspects” who may be of interest to the government for one reason or another.

As The Intercept reported, the FBI, CIA, NSA and other government agencies have increasingly invested in corporate surveillance technologies that can mine constitutionally protected speech on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram in order to identify potential extremists and predict who might engage in future acts of anti-government behavior.

All it needs is the data, which more than 90% of young adults and 65% of American adults are happy to provide.

When the government sees all and knows all and has an abundance of laws to render even the most seemingly upstanding citizen a criminal and lawbreaker, then the old adage that you’ve got nothing to worry about if you’ve got nothing to hide no longer applies.

As for the Fourth Amendment and its prohibitions on warrantless searches and invasions of privacy without probable cause, those safeguards have been rendered all but useless by legislative end-runs, judicial justifications, and corporate collusions.

We now find ourselves in the unenviable position of being monitored, managed and controlled by our technology, which answers not to us but to our government and corporate rulers.

Consider that on any given day, the average American going about his daily business will be monitored, surveilled, spied on and tracked in more than 20 different ways, by both government and corporate eyes and ears. A byproduct of this new age in which we live, whether you’re walking through a store, driving your car, checking email, or talking to friends and family on the phone, you can be sure that some government agency, whether the NSA or some other entity, is listening in and tracking your behavior.

This doesn’t even begin to touch on the corporate trackers that monitor your purchases, web browsing, social media posts and other activities taking place in the cyber sphere.

For example, police have been using Stingray devices mounted on their cruisers to intercept cell phone calls and text messages without court-issued search warrants. Doppler radar devices, which can detect human breathing and movement within a home, are already being employed by the police to deliver arrest warrants.

License plate readers, yet another law enforcement spying device made possible through funding by the Department of Homeland Security, can record up to 1800 license plates per minute. Moreover, these surveillance cameras can also photograph those inside a moving car. Reports indicate that the Drug Enforcement Administration has been using the cameras in conjunction with facial recognition software to build a “vehicle surveillance database” of the nation’s cars, drivers and passengers.

Sidewalk and “public space” cameras, sold to gullible communities as a sure-fire means of fighting crime, is yet another DHS program that is blanketing small and large towns alike with government-funded and monitored surveillance cameras. It’s all part of a public-private partnership that gives government officials access to all manner of surveillance cameras, on sidewalks, on buildings, on buses, even those installed on private property.

Couple these surveillance cameras with facial recognition and behavior-sensing technology and you have the makings of “pre-crime” cameras, which scan your mannerisms, compare you to pre-set parameters for “normal” behavior, and alert the police if you trigger any computerized alarms as being “suspicious.”

State and federal law enforcement agencies are pushing to expand their biometric and DNA databases by requiring that anyone accused of a misdemeanor have their DNA collected and catalogued. However, technology is already available that allows the government to collect biometrics such as fingerprints from a distance, without a person’s cooperation or knowledge. One system can actually scan and identify a fingerprint from nearly 20 feet away.

Developers are hard at work on a radar gun that can actually show if you or someone in your car is texting. Another technology being developed, dubbed a “textalyzer” device, would allow police to determine whether someone was driving while distracted. Refusing to submit one’s phone to testing could result in a suspended or revoked driver’s license.

It’s a sure bet that anything the government welcomes (and funds) too enthusiastically is bound to be a Trojan horse full of nasty, invasive surprises.

Case in point: police body cameras. Hailed as the easy fix solution to police abuses, these body cameras—made possible by funding from the Department of Justice—turn police officers into roving surveillance cameras. Of course, if you try to request access to that footage, you’ll find yourself being led a merry and costly chase through miles of red tape, bureaucratic footmen and unhelpful courts.

The “internet of things” refers to the growing number of “smart” appliances and electronic devices now connected to the internet and capable of interacting with each other and being controlled remotely. These range from thermostats and coffee makers to cars and TVs. Of course, there’s a price to pay for such easy control and access. That price amounts to relinquishing ultimate control of and access to your home to the government and its corporate partners. For example, while Samsung’s Smart TVs are capable of “listening” to what you say, thereby allowing users to control the TV using voice commands, it also records everything you say and relays it to a third party, e.g., the government.

Then again, the government doesn’t really need to spy on you using your smart TV when the FBI can remotely activate the microphone on your cellphone and record your conversations. The FBI can also do the same thing to laptop computers without the owner knowing any better.

Drones, which are taking to the skies en masse, are the converging point for all of the weapons and technology already available to law enforcement agencies. In fact, drones can listen in on your phone calls, see through the walls of your home, scan your biometrics, photograph you and track your movements, and even corral you with sophisticated weaponry.

All of these technologies add up to a society in which there’s little room for indiscretions, imperfections, or acts of independence, especially not when the government can listen in on your phone calls, monitor your driving habits, track your movements, scrutinize your purchases and peer through the walls of your home.

These digital trails are everywhere.

As investigative journalists Charlie Warzel and Stuart A. Thompson explain, “This data—collected by smartphone apps and then fed into a dizzyingly complex digital advertising ecosystem … provided an intimate record of people whether they were visiting drug treatment centers, strip clubs, casinos, abortion clinics or places of worship.

In such a surveillance ecosystem, we’re all suspects and databits to be tracked, catalogued and targeted.

As Warzel and Thompson warn:

“To think that the information will be used against individuals only if they’ve broken the law is naïve; such data is collected and remains vulnerable to use and abuse whether people gather in support of an insurrection or they justly protest police violence… This collection will only grow more sophisticated… It gets easier by the day… it does not discriminate. It harvests from the phones of MAGA rioters, police officers, lawmakers and passers-by. There is no evidence, from the past or current day, that the power this data collection offers will be used only to good ends. There is no evidence that if we allow it to continue to happen, the country will be safer or fairer.”

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, this is the creepy, calculating yet diabolical genius of the American police state: the very technology we hailed as revolutionary and liberating has become our prison, jailer, probation officer, Big Brother and Father Knows Best all rolled into one.

There is no gray area any longer.

Elon’s In-Tweet Romance With Doge: How Does It Impact Crypto?

By CoinJoy (via PublishOx)

Elon Musk loves letting his inner doge out — anyone following him on Twitter can confirm that. Over the last few years, he has also seemingly become a huge proponent of cryptocurrencies. So when his two passions for dogs and crypto collide — as of late, this has been happening quite often — Musk shows a tendency to tweet playful memes referring to a certain dog-branded cryptocurrency. To him, that’s an amusing distraction. To potential investors all around the world, that’s a call to action

While certain billionaire’s tweets regarding Dogecoin and Bitcoin have been noted to correlate with surges in the value of the respective currencies, his de-facto influence on the cryptomarket remains subject to speculation. Moreover, the nature of this influence has recently become controversial enough to capture the attention of SEC — apparently, much to Elon’s amusement.

So is there a way to determine the extent to which Musk’s memeful tweets affect crypto? And does he really have enough market clout to propel the value of currencies by posting a meme?

The Musk Factor

It’s not just SEC paying close attention to Elon’s tweets — scientists do that too. Lennart Arte, a blockchain researcher from the University of Hamburg, has recently conducted an event study that provides some insight into the actual impact of Musk’s social media activity on crypto. 

Attempting to estimate the scope of Elon’s influence of on the market, Arte selected six of his recent tweets (dubbed in the paper as events) referring to Bitcoin and Dogecoin and analyzed the corresponding shifts in trading volume and prices of both currencies before and after each event. 

Using the event study methodology, Ante then calculated cumulative abnormal return (CAR) and cumulative abnormal trading volume (ATV) – two indicators that help to establish a casual link between Musk’s tweets and subsequent cryptocurrency fluctuations as well as determine the share of cryptocurrency returns and trading volume that can be attributed to Elon’s Twitter activity. 

Ante identified significant abnormal returns in four out of six events selected for the study. In other words, at least four tweets about crypto posted by Musk had a direct connection to subsequent price and trade volume fluctuations of the corresponding currencies. For instance, here’s what happened to Bitcoin after Elon changed his Twitter bio to #bitcoin this January:

BTC chart

Within an hour after the event, Bitcoin trading volume increased from 5,000 to around 20,000 trades per hour, while its price jumped from about $32,000 to about $38,000, increasing the market capitalization of Bitcoin by $111 billion. If these numbers don’t look impressive enough, here’s a graph illustrating how DOGE/USDT trading volume skyrocketed from $1,942 with an average of 9 trades per minute to about $299,330 with 775 trades per minute right after Musk came up with this brilliant tweet on December 20:

Price change

While not all of the analyzed tweets led to significant surges in currency value (in fact, one of the tweets referring to Bitcoin was followed by a 1.7% decline in its price), Ante concludes that two of the Musk’s activities with especially high CAR — namely the change of his Twitter bio to #bitcoin and the one-word tweet about Dogecoin — have indeed resulted in huge increases in trading volumes and large positive abnormal returns for both currencies. 

To the moon?

Alright, so now there is scientific evidence that Elon Musk can indeed move cryptomarket with his tweets. What does this mean for the market and its participants? 

For one, if a playful tweet by a billionaire with a certain appreciation for dogs — even if he is one of the most influential people in the world — can make currency prices skyrocket, a less amusing tweet could also make the market crumble. This is something all cryptocurrency investors should keep in mind.

Another thing investors should probably consider is that the next time funny billionaire Elon is in the mood to post another soon-to-become viral meme, there’s a good chance they could capitalize on that. Or they could lose. Who knows? The way things are now, predicting the virality of Musk’s memes could totally become Twitter’s next favourite sport. 

Jokes aside, moving entire markets by virtue of posting a tweet seems like too much power even for a person like Elon. Whether Musk’s current affinity for crypto will prove its blessing or its curse, remains to be seen. 



Pope Francis Calls For A Post-COVID ‘New World Order’

via Humans Are Free

We can heal injustice “by building a new world order based on solidarity, studying innovative methods to eradicate bullying, poverty and corruption,” he adds, “all working together, each for their own part, without delegating and passing the buck.”

Just in case you thought that the COVID-19 virus has anything to do with the COVID-19 virus, Pope Francis wants you to know that it does not.

pope francis calls for a post covid ‘new world order’

But what it has to do with is resetting the entire planet and bringing in the New World Order we find in Revelation 13, 17 and 18.

“And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

“And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.” Revelation 17:4-6 (KJB)

In the pope’s vision, humans worship the earth, and all people live in perfect harmony under the banner of ‘human fraternity; as found in the One World Religion of Chrislam he has been so busy building since launching it in February of 2019.

FUN FACT: the Nazis were also obsessed with ‘brotherhood’, the ‘green agenda’ and the environment and a universal leader who could bring in a New World Order. Hitler was the last type, the next one will be the real thing. Is Pope Francis the biblical False Prophet? Wait and see…

Pope Francis Calls For ‘New World Order’ After The Pandemic

From Breitbart News: Pope Francis insists in a new book things will never be the same in a post-pandemic world, calling instead for the establishment of a “new world order.”

In a book-length interview with journalist Domenico Agasso titled God and the World to Come, scheduled for release in Italian on Tuesday, the pontiff reiterates his case for the Great Reset with a shift away from financial speculation, fossil fuels, and military build-up toward a green economy based on inclusiveness.

After the coronavirus pandemic, “no one today can afford to rest easy,” the pope declares in a lengthy extract from the book published by Vatican News.

“The world will never be the same again. But it is precisely within this calamity that we must grasp those signs which may prove to be the cornerstones of reconstruction.”

“Let us all keep in mind that there is something worse than this crisis: the drama of wasting it,” he states.

“We cannot emerge from a crisis the same as before: we either come out better or we come out worse.”

We can heal injustice “by building a new world order based on solidarity, studying innovative methods to eradicate bullying, poverty and corruption,” he adds, “all working together, each for their own part, without delegating and passing the buck.”

This new world order will be based on eradicating inequalities and attending to the environment, the pope affirms.

“We can no longer blithely accept inequalities and disruptions to the environment,” he declares.

“The path to humanity’s salvation passes through the creation of a new model of development, which unquestionably focuses on coexistence among peoples in harmony with Creation.”

As a path toward a solution, Francis points toward young people involved in “ecological movements.”

“If we don’t roll up our sleeves and immediately take care of the Earth, with radical personal and political choices, with an economic ‘green’ turn by directing technological developments in this direction, sooner or later our common home will throw us out the window,” he insists.

The pope also asserts his conviction the world needs to be healed from “the dominant speculative mentality” to be re-established “with a ‘soul’” in order to reduce the gap between those who have access to credit and those who do not.

Christians and people of good will should choose which enterprises to support based on four criteria, Francis proposes, namely: “inclusion of the excluded, promotion of the least, the common good, and care of Creation.”

“Right now, it is a matter of rebuilding from the rubble,” the pope suggests, a task that involves those in government as well as the rest of the population.

“It is time to remove social injustice and marginalization,” he states.

“If we seize the current trial as an opportunity, we can prepare for tomorrow under the banner of human fraternity, to which there is no alternative, because without an overall vision there will be no future for anyone.”

Part of the Great Reset also entails an end to the arms race, he adds.

“It is no longer tolerable to continue to manufacture and traffic in arms, expending huge amounts of capital which should be used to treat people and save lives.”

“Against this planetary discord that is nipping the future of humanity in the bud, we need political action that is the fruit of international harmony,” he declares, urging for an end to “short-sighted nationalism” and other forms of “political selfishness” in favor of multilateral solutions.


CDC Adds Another 200+ Recorded Deaths This Week Following COVID Experimental ‘Vaccines’, Brining The Total To 1,739 DEAD

By HAF (Humans Are Free)

Recorded deaths following the experimental COVID “vaccines” continued to soar this week as the CDC added more data today into the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a U.S. Government funded database that tracks injuries and deaths caused by vaccines.

While the information contained in VAERS is publicly available information, the corporate media continues to censor it, and anyone who dares to publish publicly available information from the U.S. Government is labeled as “fake news” by the “fact checkers.”

The data released by the CDC today goes through March 11, 2021, with 38,444 recorded adverse events, including 1,739 deaths following injections of the experimental COVID “vaccines.”

Besides the recorded 1,739 deaths, there were 6,716 visits to Emergency Room doctors, 734 permanent disabilities, and 3,976 hospitalizations:

vaers covid vaccine events 3.19.21

Johnson And Johnson Experimental COVID “Vaccine”

Adverse reactions recorded after the third experimental COVID vaccine to be granted emergency use authorization (EUA) by the FDA, the Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccine, are starting to show now in the VAERS reporting system.

The data released today included 305 adverse reactions for the experimental Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccine.

There are no recorded deaths yet, but there are two “life threatening” events recorded.

VAERS ID: 1083232 – A 49-year-old female from Connecticut

High Blood Pressure, Jaw Pain !0/10, headache, nausea, involuntary leg movement We are deeply concerned about getting patient the care she needs.

There is a lack of urgency on the part of the hospital staff in acknowledging a connection to her receipt of vaccine and onset of adverse symptoms.

VAERS ID: 1085536 – A 45-year-old male from Florida

Initially Fever, Fatigue, Joint Pain. 2 days later pain in right abdomen, diagnosed with Appendicitis and had emergency appendectomy performed.

32 of these cases required a visit to the Emergency Room or Emergency Doctor, including anaphylactic reactions, Guillain-Barre syndrome, arrhythmias, cardiomyopathy, hypertension, pancreatitis, seizures and fainting, among others.

It has now been 20 days since the FDA issued an EUA for the Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccine, but the CDC has yet to publish any reviews on the doses that have been administered.

As to the deaths that have been recorded following the experimental COVID injections, the CDC has changed their language slightly this week, from what was published in previous weeks:

A review of available clinical information including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records revealed no evidence that vaccination contributed to patient deaths.


To date, VAERS has not detected patterns in cause of death that would indicate a safety problem with COVID-19 vaccines. (Source)

Please be aware that because the CDC’s position is that the experimental COVID “vaccines,” which are NOT FDA approved, are safe and effective, that if you do suffer an injury due to one of these injections, that you are pretty much on your own to try and find any relief, as these are experimental products that have never before been tested on humans, and there are no health care professionals, either in the medical system or in alternative health, that have any knowledge about how to treat injuries from these injections.

There is no going back and undoing the damage they may cause. And there is no hope for financial compensation because the pharmaceutical companies basically have legal immunity due to the “pandemic.”

The CDC is not concerned with your health or the health of your family. They are concerned with protecting Big Pharma and their experimental products.

Doctors Warn Child Suicide Becoming ‘International Epidemic’ Thanks to Gov’t Restrictions

via The Free Thought Project

Billions of people across the globe continue to live under COVID-19 lockdowns or heavily-restricted life. And for almost all of us, life amid the pandemic in 2020 was an isolating and difficult year. Yet doctors are warning that children in particular are experiencing grave mental health consequences as a result of the lockdowns—leading to an “international epidemic” of child suicide.

The Associated Press interviewed Dr. David Greenhorn on the subject, who works in the emergency department at England’s Bradford Royal Infirmary. The number of mental health crises he has seen, such as suicide attempts, has gone from a couple per week pre-pandemic to now several per day.

“This is an international epidemic, and we are not recognizing it,” Greenhorn said. “In an 8-year-old’s life, a year is a really, really, really long time. They are fed up. They can’t see an end to it.”

Dr. Richard Delorme heads the psychiatric department at one of the largest children’s hospitals in France, and he offered a similar warning to the AP.

Delorme pointed out that it is clearly COVID restrictions and lockdowns taking this toll on children that end up in his hospital: “What they tell you about is a chaotic world, of ‘Yes, I’m not doing my activities any more,’ ‘I’m no longer doing my music,’ ‘Going to school is hard in the mornings,’ ‘I am having difficulty waking up,’ ‘I am fed up with the mask.’”

Delorme’s hospital went from seeing roughly 20 suicide attempts per month involving patients 15 or younger, the AP reports, to more than double that—and, disturbingly, more determination than ever before in the attempts.

“We are very surprised by the intensity of the desire to die among children who may be 12 or 13 years old,” Delorme said. “We sometimes have children of 9 who already want to die. And it’s not simply a provocation or a blackmail via suicide. It is a genuine wish to end their lives.”

This is one of the most painful paragraphs I’ve ever read, let alone had to write about. Merely typing out this story flooded my eyes with tears. But the life-threatening unintended consequences of drastic pandemic measures are too important to overlook.

Government restrictions that would’ve been unthinkable two years ago have been forced through amid the fear and uncertainty that the pandemic’s outbreak understandably wrought. Advocates undoubtedly hoped to save lives. Yet government restrictions have proven dubious in their effectiveness, with both studies and real-world examples demonstrating little clear relationship between lockdown stringency and COVID deaths.

In the meantime, lockdowns and other restrictions have harshly curtailed social interaction and, tragically, catalyzing the aforementioned youth mental health crisis. Here in the US, the Centers for Disease Control reported that 25 percent of young adults considered suicide during the lockdowns, while overall mental health and suicide rates appear to have spiked as well.

The child suicide is only the latest mortifying revelation showing just how big a toll these policies have taken on us. We must factor this human damage into our analysis when it comes to ending pandemic restrictions; not just COVID case counts.

Like any policy, public health orders must be evaluated on their outcomes. As Nobel-prize-winning economist Milton Friedman said, “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” Pandemic lockdowns may have stemmed from an earnest desire to protect the public; but their consequences have done the opposite.

Why? Well, any government action, particularly sweeping mandates, has not just its intended effect, but its second- and third-order unintended consequences.

“Every human action has both intended and unintended consequences,” economist Antony Davies and political scientist James Harrigan explained for “Human beings react to every rule, regulation, and order governments impose, and their reactions result in outcomes that can be quite different than the outcomes lawmakers intended.”

When it comes to lockdowns, we’ve extensively documented the unintended consequences at FEE, including isolationdepressionsuicidalityunemploymentdrug abusedomestic violence, and more. Such severe second-order effects offer a painful reminder of why policymakers should be humble in the scope of their actions. Sweeping lockdowns are anything but humble: They presume that bureaucrats in an office somewhere can save society with top-down orders and nothing will go wrong.

Governments the world over must consider more than mere COVID case counts when evaluating current and future lockdown policies. The damage we’re inflicting on children is too devastating to be waved away in the name of public health—it’s an emergency in its own right.

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and Opinion Editor at the Foundation for Economic Education.

Coroner Calls for Audit As People Who Recovered 9 Months Ago Counted as COVID Deaths

By Matt Agorist (via The Free Thought Project)

Chicago, IL — Monroe County Coroner Bob Hill is making waves in his home state of Illinois this week after he examined a portion of the list of possible COVID-19 deaths. What he found was utterly shocking and has led to calls for an audit of COVID-19 deaths in his state.

According to the Center Square, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention listed 19,893 deaths through the end of February in Illinois where COVID-19 was listed among multiple causes. Of those deaths, about 1,830, or 9.2%, had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death.

That percentage is higher than it was in September 2020 when the rate was about 6%.

However, Hill calls these numbers into question after reviewing many of the cases, finding that people who died from clearly non-COVID-19 issues are being counted as dying from COVID-19.

“My concern is, I’ve reviewed several cases, (of 100 cases) about ten of them here in Monroe County, that the state has deemed COVID-related deaths and none of them have had underlying conditions or contributing factors to COVID,” Hill said. “So my concern is no matter when the person was tested positive, the state is automatically giving them a death classification as related to COVID.”

One glaring case the coroner found during his review was a man who died from an accidental drug overdose. The man died in January from the overdose but tested positive three months prior in October for COVID-19. His death was recorded as a COVID-19 death, according to Hill.

“As soon as that death came across to the state they went ahead and classified and put a statistic as a COVID death,” Hill said.

After Hill made his concerns public, the Illinois Department of Public Health and the governor responded with the health department admitting the data may change.

“Once IDPH has a chance to further investigate the data, connect with local health departments about specific cases, review death records, and conduct other quality assurance measures, the data may change,” a department spokesperson said.

“A confirmed or probable COVID-19 case will be considered if: Death is within 30 days of symptom onset,” among other factors, the department said.

But Hill found cases that don’t even come close to fitting this criteria.

“We’re seeing people on the list that they’ve put as a COVID death that have tested positive 9 months ago that have since recovered that have died from other issues unrelated to COVID,” Hill said.

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker wrote off Hill’s claims, saying that the state is “doing the best they can” during this emergency to count the deaths. But is counting someone who clearly died from an overdose as a COVID-19 death, really “doing your best”?

“All these numbers, look, we’ve been in an emergency, we’ve been in a pandemic,” Pritzker said Wednesday at a stop in Lincoln, according to the Center Square. “Everybody is trying to do the best they can. There’s no desire on anybody’s part to record more or less deaths, there’s just a need to record what’s being given to us as data from the counties.”

But Hill says this is happening all the time and that’s why he is calling for an audit.

“Don’t automatically put a statistic out there of a (COVID) death when it hasn’t been confirmed what the cause is,” Hill said.

When asked for a reason why Hill thinks these deaths are being counted so erroneously, he says we should probably follow the money.

“The only assumption I can make is the hope the state is seeking some federal money coming down the system for all the numbers of deaths we’ve had due to COVID-19,” Hill said. “That’s the only thing that I can assume. Why else would you want to inflate numbers especially related to COVID.”

This sketchy death count is not isolated to Illinois either. There are cases like this from coast to coast. One insanely glaring case comes from New York in which a man was shot 7 times by police.

Ricardo Cardona, 55, was shot 7 times by New York police officers and died five days later in the hospital. His cause of death was not listed as gun shots, however. According to reports, he died of COVID-19 despite the seven bullet holes in his body. You cannot make this up.

Italy Launches Manslaughter Investigation As Teacher Dies Hours After Getting AstraZeneca Jab

via The Free Thought Project

After law-enforcement authorities in Sicily and Piedmont seized batches of the AstraZeneca COVID jab, prosecutors in the EU’s third-largest economy have launched a manslaughter investigation after a music teacher died just hours after receiving the jab.

According to Italian-language media outlets, 57-year-old Sandro Tognatti died after receiving the jab in his hometown of Biella on Saturday afternoon. He soon developed a high fever, but went to bed anyway, he his wife, Simona Riussi, told the Italian press.

The next morning, Riussi awoke to find Tognatti dead. She called an ambulance, but Tognatti was already dead. Prosecutors in Piedmont officially launched the investigation later in the day. As we mentioned above, prosecutors also seized a batch with nearly 400K jabs in it.

Sandro Tognatti

So far, health authorities have insisted that there’s no link between the jab and Tognatti’s death. Officials said a criminal investigation was launched to be “completely sure” that the man’s death “cannot be attributed to the above-mentioned inoculation”.

Italy, France, Germany and a handful of other nations temporarily suspended the AstraZeneca vaccine after reports of patients developing deadly blood clots surfaced. Deaths were reported in Austria and elsewhere, which prompted Denmark, Iceland and other nations (as far away as Thailand) to halt the jabs to allow for a brief investigation. AstraZeneca and the EMA (Europe’s top regulatory authority) have insisted that there’s nothing to suggest a link between the jabs and heightened risk for blood clots, but in a press conference Tuesday morning, the agency promised to investigate.

Among the more than 11M Italians who have already been vaccinated, Italian authorities have documented at least 15 cases of blood clots and 22 cases of pulmonary embolis among those who have received the jabs.

Reddit Forms First Blockchain Partnership With Ethereum Foundation

By Abhimanyu Krishnan (via PublishOx)

On Jan. 28, Reddit formally announced a partnership with the Ethereum Foundation, with the goal of bringing Reddit closer to being decentralized. 

  • The collaboration, which is Reddit’s first-ever blockchain partnership, will see the two parties work closely to create scaling solutions, following the initial groundwork of using Ethereum for Reddit’s Community Points program
  • The first challenge that will be tackled is “bringing Ethereum to Reddit-scale production” i.e. the creation of an open-source scaling solution that can be used to support large-scale applications
  • The effort will be led by Reddit’s crypto team, which is currently on the hunt for more backend engineers
  • Reddit, a major hub of cryptocurrency discussions, has already worked with the Ethereum Foundation to trial solutions
  • Two tokens, MOONS, and BRICKS are being tested on the r/cryptocurrency and r/FortniteBR subreddits, with MOONS, in particular, seeing heavy usage among Redditors, already being traded on the market
  • The Reddit crypto team also has more developments lined up, which will be announced in the months to come

Is Reddit Using Ethereum Blockchain for a New Points System?

By Abhimanyu Krishnan (via PublishOx)

On April 8, a Reddit user, MagoCrypto, has unearthed what appears to be a new crypto-related feature on the platform’s Android app. The Redditor posted a video that showed a “wallet” function with an Ethereum address linked to it, as suggested by the address. 

Those that do have this feature will notice a ‘wallet’ tab. This wallet section includes a recovery phrase, introduction and FAQ section. The latter itself includes several interesting resources on the subject, including tipping, memberships and an ‘On the blockchain’ section.

Redditors, who are no strangers to cryptocurrencies (in fact, it is already possible to tip them with BAT, a feature that the Brave team implemented last year), seem quite happy with the development, though some have stated that this may be a marketing gimmick that in reality requires no blockchain. Others have countered by saying there is a lot of possibility with the implementation of smart contracts – including being able to swap points for ERC-20 tokens, which could introduce a giant swathe of Redditors to cryptocurrencies.

This seems to be something that’s very much in development, so users will have to wait for the official confirmation to get all the details. While it’s too early to form a conclusion either way, if Reddit were to implement such a feature, it could lead to a sizable win for adoption, as the “front page of the internet” has many hundred millions of active users.

Four Big Things Cheaper Than America’s COVID Spending

By Anders Koskinen (via Intellectual Takeout)

President Joe Biden and congressional Democrats have successfully passed the American Rescue Plan, with its $1,400 stimulus checks and its $1.9 trillion price tag. In total the federal government has now spent enough on COVID stimulus and relief to fund key moments in American history, such as world wars and moon landings, many times over.

USA Today has compiled an intriguing visualization of exactly how much money has been spent on COVID-19 stimulus programs in the past year. The amounts are astounding.

First came the CARES Act in March 2020, at a cost of $2.2 trillion. This bill and Biden’s latest Contribution account for the majority of federal COVID spending, though the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 tacked on a combined $1.4 trillion in related expenditures.

These four bills saw the federal government shell out a total of more than $5.5 trillion on fighting COVID-19, with much of it going to various stimulus programs ostensibly designed to prop up the American economy even as the country’s various levels of governments continue to keep it shut down in varying degrees.

One can buy quite a lot for $5.5 trillion, as the following events in our nation’s history show. This article passes no judgments on the value of the projects described below, it merely uses them to illustrate the otherwise unimaginable scope of the COVID spending spree.

The New Deal

In the 1930s, the United States was mired in the Great Depression. The country’s GDP fell by more than 45 percent in just four years, not recovering to pre-depression levels until 1941. Unemployment hit 25 percent, housing prices fell by 67 percent, and one third of all banks closed. This years-long collapse, notably not imposed by government shutdowns of the economy, devastated America and the world.

Into this reality, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt inserted the New Deal, a six-year series of programs, public works projects, financial reforms, and regulations designed to stimulate and ostensibly fix the American economy. As an example, the Agricultural Adjustment Act actually saw the federal government pay farmers to reduce their crop yields, thereby raising food prices.

The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis estimated that the New Deal cost $653 billion in 2009 dollars. When aged up to 2021, the total cost is still just over $800 billion, slightly more than one-seventh the cost of COVID stimulus.

The Apollo Program

President John F. Kennedy’s promise to have a man on the moon before the end of the 1960s was indeed realized, and with Neil Armstrong’s “one small step” the United States defeated the Soviet Union in the space race. Yet the entry fee to this race wasn’t exactly cheap.

An analysis conducted by The Planetary Society found the 2020 inflation adjusted cost of the 13-year run of the Apollo Program and associated programs to clock in at $283 billion.

That’s a pittance compared to the rash of COVID spending in the last 12 months. The federal government could have funded the entire Apollo program roughly 19 times over with the stimulus money.

Both World Wars

American involvement in World War I only lasted for two years, so one might expect it to come in cheaper than the COVID response, and at $334 billion in 2020 inflation adjusted dollars, the “War to End All Wars” is only two-thirds the cost of the cheapest bill mentioned above.

World War II comes in much higher with $4.1 trillion spent in 2020 dollars over the course of 1941-1945 in a truly globe-spanning conflict. But even both wars combined total more than $1 trillion less in spending than the Trump and Biden administrations have spent on fighting COVID-19 and its economic impacts.

Every Other Major Pre-21st Century American War

In June 2010, Stephen Daggett compiled a report estimating the costs of major U.S. wars in inflation adjusted numbers. Using his numbers, in 2010 dollars, the combined cost of the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Mexican American War, both sides of the Civil War, the Spanish American War, Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf War add up to just under $1.28 trillion.

Bringing that up to 2021 dollars results in a total of $1.54 trillion. With the exception of the two World Wars mentioned separately above, 12 months of federal spending on COVID-19 and its associated stimulus would have funded the first 225 years of American warfare.

Regardless of what one thinks of merits of the spending described above, everyone should now be able to appreciate how truly gargantuan the checks the Trump and Biden administrations have been writing truly are. As Jeff Minick wrote recently, there will be a stimulus reckoning ahead for America. All past costly projects amounted to less than our present spending spree, and typically involved far less borrowing against America’s future assets than do the numerous COVID stimulus bills.

Try and remember that when you’re deciding how, or if, to spend that $1,400 from Uncle Joe.

Upland Update (March 2021)

By LouP77 (via PublishOx)

Upland SF

So here we are in mid-March 2021. Hopefully nearing the end of the pandemic.

Many thanks to the organizers of the Upland writing contest. I enjoyed reading what others had to say about the game and being able to share my own viewpoint. It’s entertaining to play.

They’ve tightened the rules a bit in Upland where new players at Uplander status can buy at most two properties classified as FSA (Fair Start Act) per week.

I believe there are similar rules for FSA sales as well, though I have several pre-rule change FSA properties that seem to have been grandfathered in as far as the per-week limit goes.

This ultimately is a good thing as otherwise Uplanders would remain highly motivated to target only FSA territory. In turn, that means a slower market for flipped property, particularly combined with new locations (and thus plenty of new FSA lots) being opened up as demand for the game has grown.

Upland properties San Francisco

The adjustment has led me to target San Francisco territory for the relatively few FSA properties that cycle onto the market there in Upland. The website remains an invaluable resource for anyone playing, in part because of its ability to quickly show you FSA territory in a given city/area.

I’m nearing the cap for Uplander status (86,000+ out of the max 100,000), and soon FSA territory will be outside of my reach altogether.

But until then, I’ll be keeping a sharp eye on the Upland FSA market for my two-per-week limit. Looking to buy/hold in San Fran, as I see strong long-term value there if you can purchase at mint price.

I’d suggest you do the same — if you can. Have fun!

DIY Collecting of Upland Property in Manhattan Owned by the Famous

By Disophy (via PublishOx)

As we head into the a week of scheduled collection releases in Manhattan this week perhaps you’re doing a little scouting of properties to add to your real estate portfolio. One can certainly approach these by the official collections which provide boosted earnings for the properties included in your collection but another approach to a city such as Manhattan might be to look at the residents of the famous be they famous fictional characters from the movies, television, or novels or famous living folks, Manhattan is full of them. As Trent Davis noted in is own search for hidden gems in San Francisco there’s a market for folks interested in Janis Joplin’s home, Joe Dimaggio’s childhood home, and the home from Full House. Manhattan is full of such properties. So rather you’re a fan of Seinfield, Sex and the City, or Sinclair Lewis read on for a tour of properties in Manhattan of the famous be they fictional or real celebrities. I’ll share some properties I bought in the West Village, some owned or for sale by other players, as well as some that as of this writing are freely available on the market. In addition this post is full of links for sites to get started on building your own portfolio of Upland property of the famous.

Standard disclaimer: none of this is investment advice. Do your own research. I make no claim that the information provided which relies on third party websites, is 100% accurate. The links provided should be considered a starting point. Will star value translate into UPX? Only time will tell in Upland. And also a warning: unless you’re just completely immune to the culture and history of Manhattan combing through these properties and researching these links will likely result in you finding some property that you find cool to own just because of the association.  

Jerry Seinfield's Upland Address

According to Jerry Seinfeld’s fictional apartment was located at 129 West 81st street. Currently this address is owned by the player Dallas but perhaps Dallas will entertain the right offer.     

Er, OK, not exactly. Exteriors of the Seinfeld apartment were actually filmed at 757 S. New Hampshire Avenue in Los Angeles. So why use the 129 West 81st Street address? This was the actual building where Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David lived in Manhattan during their early stand-up days.

  We’re talking a fictional place so I think 129 West 81st street gives the owner bragging rights in Upland. Seinfield fans take note though because as of this writing George Costanza’s apartment at 321 West 90th Street can be yours for 57,510 UPX.  

George Costanza's Upland Address

  As notes, arguably the most famous TV townhouse in New York is Carrie Bradshaw’s apartment from Sex and the City, located at 64 Perry Street. So here we come to an example of how to potentially profit from some DIY collection building through your own research because


Upland Address for Carrie Bradshaw's place in Sex in the City

…MJC3337 knows the value of this 20 UP2 West Village townhome. For me the thing was that I knew that Sarah Jessica Parker and her husband Matthew Broderick live in the West Village IRL so with a bit of Googling I found that just last month they sold their townhome of 20 plus years at 57 Charles St and for much less than 3,000,000 UPX I picked that townhouse up from the market.

Sarah Jessica Parker's Recently Sold Address in Upland

Which I thought made a good neighbor for Nobel Prize winning author Sinclair Lewis who lived at 69 Charles Street which is also the current address for the West View News, a good source of West Village News today.  

Sinclair Lewis Upland Address

The West Village is full of history and famous people. One can find whole articles devoted to specific streets or sometimes single blocks such as this one on Charles Street.  Celebrities at the 167 Perry Street condo building are said to include Jim Carrey, Nicole Kidman, and Calvin Klein. As perhaps Metabeast knows.  

167 Perry St Upland

If you’re a fan of fashion designer Marc Jacobs, actress Hilary Swank or Kings of Leon then perhaps you would be interested in the Superior Ink Condos address of 400 West 12th Street which is on the market for a mere 422,120 UPX.  

400 W 12 St Upland

Another celebrity magnet condo building is located at 150 Charles street home of rocker Jon Bon Jovi and this can be yours if you’ve got 611,220 UPX ready to jump on before a competing Director or Executive does. Properties like this tend to have a rotating number of celebrities in them so when the time comes to sell perhaps you’ll have just the name to drop as you promote it on Discord.    


Condo buildings take up a lot of UP2 and you pay for it but sometimes with a little digging you can find an undiscovered townhome gem such as…  

Lady Gaga has reportedly been renting a five-bedroom, 5.5-bathroom townhome at 53 Downing Street while she finishes recording her new album, according to the New York Post. The 8,260-square-foot pad recently received a complete gut renovation, and has been on the sales market for $23 million since at least January. -The Observer, July 20, 2018


Lady Gaga Upland Property

Here’s a list of 24 celebrities who live in NYC

Leonardo DiCaprio bought a place in these health-centric condos at 66 East 11th Street which can be yours for only 47,250 UPX. 

Maybe this NYC Celebrity map by will help you in your search for that famous property. 

NYC Celebrity Map

Researching this map and as a fan of the movie Lost in Translation I ended up with Sofia Coppola’s place in the West Village


Maybe literature is more your thing, if so, the New York Public Library, as a list of the Best New York City Novels by Neighborhood that might serve as a starting point for research.    Jane Street in the West Village of Manhattan, between Greenwich Avenue and Eighth Avenue (or Hudson Street), is sometimes called “Author’s Row” because of the many famous writers who have lived there.    Here are the Top neighborhoods for bookworms in NYC.    Take a look at Jack Kerouac’s NYC. Although the place where he wrote On the Road at 454 W 20th Street is taken as is the place where William Burrough’s lived at 360 W.108th St  

Jack Kerouac Upland On the Road

But Philosopher Hannah Arendt’s place is available at 370 Riverside Drive.   


Here’s Lou Reed’s New York

And Lou Reed’s home office

And 17 legendary musicians who call Greenwich Village home.   John Lennon and Yoko Ono once resided at 105 Bank St.   

John Lennon 105 Bank Street Upland

A list of iconic New York City music venues.   


Digging around I found Jackson Pollock’s apartment and snagged that. Which interestingly is in a building where Aaron Burr, as in the guy who killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel, lived

Jackson Pollock 46 Carmine St Upland

Okay, fine Charlicrypto but what we really want to know is Where Did Andy Warhol Live in NYC? And Where Was The Factory Located?Clearly Uplanddood knows the answer to the last two places Andy Warhol lived in NYC.  

Here’s Edward Hopper’s residence.  

More artist’s addresses from New York magazine.   

The point is that there are a cornucopia of famous properties in New York City, particularly in Manhattan, and densely concentrated in neighborhoods such as my beloved West Village. So have fun exploring the above links and perhaps you’ll land a famous property of your own to brag about or to sell at a fabulous markup to a fan. Have fun building your own collection of famous properties!

I attained a citizenship status in Upland. Now what?

By MermaidChaser (via PublishOx)

Finally it happened – Upland citizenship achieved. I collected everyday UPX bonuses, completed 3 collections after having bought some FSA-labeled properties (there are not many of them left, if at all) in Fresno and boosted my monthly revenue on most of them and even had a lucky chance to “roll” a Pinata. Now my in-game status is secured as permanent (no need to update a visa any more) and buying and selling property also became an option. 

All of which, nevertheless, left me with some questions.

One of which being – what to do next as there seems not (too) much left to do, aside from ordinary buy-sell activity? Ah, there’s also that hunting for treasures, of course, but it is not just my thing. I think there could be much more to the game than just that.

And, secondly, if my Upland transactions are now reflected in the EOS blockchain, how do I access the above-mentioned chain (through any private keys or something)? Should I install a wallet?

And for those yet not familiar with the game, check out Upland, a virtual property trading game. If you use this link, Upland will award you with a bonus for your first purchase.

Let’s have a discussion on what is lacking in the game and, of course, stay tuned.

PS. Names hidden for some crazy on-the-spot unaccountable reason. Maybe, it’s the political situation down here

Enforcing cryptocurrency: The Nigerian perspective

By duyox (via PublishOx)

Africa remains the most emerging cryptocurrency market and has performed well over the last decade.

However, there have been forces that are mitigating against the growth of cryptocurrency in the black continent. 

For example, Nigeria, despite being the second-largest BTC market in the world, had a recent embargo placed on its crypto market. Prohibiting the trading of BTC and other cryptos via bank transactions. Hence, treading the same path as countries like China.

The Central Bank’s reasons for the ban in Nigeria were money laundering and depletion of foreign exchange reserves. The first reason was touted to aid banditry and terrorism.

The restrictive action of the policy has not completely deleted crypto exchanges in Nigeria since buyers and sellers have resolved to trade via the P2P system offered by some exchanges in Africa. This momentary difficulty has increased the resolve of the Nigerian market to trade crypto. 

Nigeria’s cryptocurrency future

The prominent unemployment and poverty level in Nigeria has made most people in this country to look beyond their immediate surroundings and massively delve into cryptocurrency. Humongous ROI on cryptocurrency investments has already made thousands of Nigerians millionaires in a shorter period of time than five governments put together. The sweetness can only allow more Nigerians to become more elusive to the restrictive policy and venture more into the P2P system of trade.

How to trade P2P in Nigeria

Platforms like Binance offer a secure process in P2P crypto exchanges. All you need is to register there and get your documents ready for verification. 

You can buy small quantities of coins and also sell at your preferred rates if you are a seller. 

Go check out the site and register:

It seems in the meantime, no policy can stop us from being part of the journey. 

To the MOON!

Politics and Corruption at the World Health Organization (WHO)

By Dr. Pascal Sacré (via Global Research)

This article, translated from French, was written prior to the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic outbreak.

The WHO [OMS in French] is the World Health Organisation. ‘WHO’ in English – and that’s much more appropriate. WHO: who is it really?

Would the world be getting along any better without this outfit, which is in theory such a good idea? Would we be in better health?

The question is as serious as it is relevant.

Though even one death is one too many, compared with the alarmist forecasts from this professional organisation that were foisted on all the ministries of health the world over, one could say that the H1N1 viral pandemic, version 2009, has so far produced not much more than a mouse.

But what a fabulous show for the media!

What a brilliantly organized panic!

How many millions of euros spent, and best of all, what worrying rumours, about the health risks linked this time to the vaccination, which might not even work!

Thus arose a psychosis that might have stolen the headlines even from a much more palpable threat, much more deadly and with effects that have already been felt to the bone by a large part of the world’s population: the climatic effects of pollution and of the way of life engendered by the currently prevailing ideology, that of extreme and unfair capitalism, “deregulated” as it is called in the sober phraseology of its well-heeled master thieves.

Meanwhile the media, ignoring for a moment its celebrities and football matches, chose to focus the limelight – and thus the gaze of the spectator sheep – on the representatives, experts and spokespersons of this organization, the WHO. Until this year its existence may have been news to some people, but now its importance is plain to see.

We have been shown people with serious faces and a professional air, the sort to whom ordinary mortals tend to ascribe genuine competence and evident integrity.

Their herald, elevated by some to hero, is called Margaret Chan. If her manner does not excite much sympathy, her curriculum vitae speaks for itself.

WHO: the Facts

Like other world organisations born from the ashes of the war of 1940-45 (the WTO, successor to GATT, the IMF, the UN, successor to the League of Nations), the WHO is a sort of transnational superministry, in this case for health.

Its power overrides that of its national equivalents. It is not subjected to genuinely democratic electoral procedures, in the sense of representing the choice expressed by the populations of its member countries. This is true of all these organisations that in fact control our daily lives in their respective fields. Its constitution came into force on 7 April 1948.

All these organisations are in a way like the arms, the tentacles of an enormous octopus whose purpose is to coordinate, improve and reinforce significant action on a planetary scale.

To clarify a crucial point: it would be misleading to think that these organisations undertake anything at all independently of each other. One could as well imagine that the liver can go on doing its own thing without being at all involved with the heart or the kidneys.

All of them work towards the same goals, each in their own specialist sphere, and all of them answer to the UN and to those who provide their funding.

The WHO has nothing to blame itself for

If you go to the official WHO site, you will of course get the impression that this organisation has a spotless record, and deserves to be praised for its humanitarian deeds.

It’s a bit like Monsanto, this multinational that dominates the market in agribusiness and wants to impose on the whole world its GM seeds complete with the Terminator gene (1), yet which tries to make you believe that the well-being and development of poor countries is its main concern.

Anyway, as in any court of law, it’s democratic, enlightened, modern, to give the “accused” party the chance to put its case.

As for the accusations of corruption and collusion with the pharmaceutical companies in the context of the worldwide vaccination campaign of 2009, it is Margaret Chan in person who has stepped up to the plate to defend the reputation of the WHO.

It’s important to realise that the accusations are weighty, well argued, and made by institutions that are well established, and pronounced by scientists and investigative journalists who are credible and trustworthy. It is difficult to dismiss all of them as a handful of conspiracy theorists, as regularly happens nowadays as soon as an interesting and well-argued debate is launched on a sensitive issue (the official version of the 9/11 attacks, the GIEC’s theory of global warming, Iran’s nuclear intentions, and so on).

It’s true that there is a certain logic in having a measure of collaboration between the WHO and the pharmaceutical companies that produce the medications.

However it is legitimate to ask questions about the exact part played by these firms in the decisions finally taken by the WHO, and on their real influence.

According to the WHO, there are many guarantees in place for managing potential conflicts of interest, as well as how they are perceived by public opinion.

The external experts who advise the WHO are […] obliged to provide a declaration of absence of conflict of interest as well as full professional and financial details that might compromise the impartiality of their opinions. Procedures are in place to identify, research and evaluate any potential conflicts of interest, to divulge them and take appropriate measures, such as excluding an expert from a consultative body, an expert study group or a meeting.

Still according to the WHO, the members of the Emergency Committee have to swear to the absence of any conflict of interest. The members of the Committee are chosen from a list of about 160 experts covering a range of areas of public health. The international health regulations (IHR) that came into force in 2007 envisage also a ruling that aims to coordinate the response to public health emergencies on an international scale, such as the H1N1virus pandemic. But the IHR also includes provisions for setting up, if a pandemic arises, an Emergency Committee that advises the Director General on such questions as the need to raise the level of alert, to recommend temporary measures, and so on. All the members of the Emergency Committee will have signed a confidentiality agreement, provided a declaration of no conflict of interest, and agreed to devote time as a consultant to fulfil their duty, without compensation.

Admirable principles, but without any basis in fact!

More details regarding France:

Who are the French experts? On behalf of France, we find among the consultants for the WHO and the Group SAGE, several members of the Agence de Médecine Préventive (AMP), an agency that lists its industrial partner as Sanofi Pasteur, Sanofi Aventis. We also find Prof. Daniel Floret, President of the Comité Technique de Vaccination, who lists numerous collaborations with the pharmaceutical industry; several members of the Sanofi Pasteurlaboratory, declared as such; a member of the Sanofi Pasteur MSD laboratory; and some other members from the pharmaceutical industry who are based in France.

Thanks to the site Santé log for providing the extracts (in italic, above) of a document from the WHO.

The WHO must give an account of itself

If, unlike most people who only stop to admire the window display, we actually go into the shop, we’ll discover two things:

While the fine words are there to soothe our feelings of distrust, it is still true that the close ties between the WHO experts and the pharmaceutical industry are very dangerous, very obscure and difficult to unravel.

Without being a conspiracy theorist for the fun of it, as if it was a sport or a pastime – as the crusaders backing the official versions and the window-dressing of the official sites seem to think – one thing is clear to my mind, that being obscure does not sit well with being truthful.

If the complexity that characterizes all modern institutions bewilders the outsider and puts major hurdles in the way of ordinary people like me pursuing their interests, it is an unintended consequence of modernity and of the ever-multiplying range of tasks and objectives.

Being deliberately obscure is something else. It is intended to hide something, to conceal intentionally.

The financing of the WHO

Have you ever heard anything about public-private partnerships?

In the beginning, the WHO was supposed to receive funds only from the governments of United Nations members, but a few years ago, in order to swell its coffers WHO set up what it calls a “private partnership” that allows it to receive financial support from private industries. But which industries?

Since that time its credibility, seriously tarnished, has not improved very much, and its independence is seriously questioned because of its total lack of transparency with regard to the scientific proof that supports its recommendations, and its collusion with the multinationals. It is obvious that on the world stage, business and politics have a powerful influence on health. (2)

The spotless reputation of the WHO was already besmirched by a book that came out in 1997, Le OMS : Bateau ivre de la santé publique [The WHO, the drunken sailor of public health], ed. L’Harmattan, by Bertrand Deveaud, a journalist, and Bertrand Lemennicier, professor of economics, who had spent two years making enquiries throughout the world and consulting numerous official and confidential reports. Two medical journals well-respected by the profession had already sown doubts as to the integrity and the infallibility of the WHO, The British Medical Journal (BMJ) in regard to the management of the bird flu in 2005, and The Lancet (3), which described the WHO as an institution that was corrupt and on its last legs.

I leave you to ponder awhile these phrases, reported by the journalist Sylvie Simon in one of her articles (4), particularly the passages in bold (my emphasis):

Doctors Andrew Oxman and Atle Fretheim, from the Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services and Dr John Lavis, from McMaster University in Canada, interviewed the management of the WHO and analysed its various recommendations. Andrew Oxman concluded that “it is difficult to evaluate the confidence thatone can have in the recommendations of the WHO without knowing how they were prepared.”* (*Obscurity).

“We know that our credibility is at stake,” admitted Dr Tikki Pang, director of research for the WHO. “The lack of time and the shortage of information and of money can sometimes compromise the work of the WHO.” Some senior officials of the organisation have also admitted that in many cases the proof that was supposed to be the basis of a recommendation did not exist.

Many testimonies have revealed that when the results don’t match those that the industries and companies are hoping for in order to validate their products, standards are altered and the results manipulated.

Contrary to any procedure that is genuinely scientific and independent, which should base its conclusions on the verified results of its experiments, it seems that the tendency is to do just the opposite, and that results are adapted to produce the desired conclusions; desired that is by the firms producing the medicines, vaccines, and other products concerned.

To cite one example:

Dr Oxman criticized the WHO for having its own quality control methods. In 1999 when its views on the treatment of hypertension were criticised, mainly because of the high price of the medicines recommended without any proof that they were more effective than cheaper ones, the Organisation published some “recommendations for preparing recommendations” which led to a revision of the advice on treating hypertension. (5)

Other murky issues have been brought to the surface by courageous researchers: cholesterol and statins (6), mobile telephony, with manipulation of the data on the harmfulness of electromagnetic radiation (7)…and of course, serious doubts are being expressed on the real danger of the 2009 viral H1N1 pandemic, which has enabled the pharmaceutical companies to rake in millions of dollars of profit.

The bank JP Morgan on Wall Street estimated that, thanks mainly to the pandemic alert issued by the WHO, the pharmaceutical giants, who also finance the work of the ESWI run by Albert Osterhaus, were set to make $7.5-$10 billion profit. (8)

The ESWI, European Scientific Working group on Influenza, describes itself as “a multidisciplinary group of leaders of opinion on the flu, whose purpose is to fight against the repercussions of a flu epidemic or pandemic”. As its members themselves explain, the ESWI, directed by Osterhaus, is the central pivot “between the WHO in Geneva, the Institut Robert Koch in Berlin and the University of Connecticut in the United States”.

The most significant thing about the ESWI is that its work is entirely financed by the same pharmaceutical laboratories that are making millions thanks to the pandemic emergency, while it is the pronouncements made by the WHO that compel the governments of the whole world to buy and to stock the vaccines. The ESWI receives funding from the manufacturers and distributors of the H1N1 vaccines, such as Baxter Vaccines, MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur and others, including

Novartis, who produces the vaccine, and the distributor of Tamiflu, Hofmann-La Roche.(9)

Who is Albert Osterhaus?

Nicknamed “Dr Flu”, Albert Osterhaus, the best known virologist in the world, official consultant on the H1N1 virus to the British and Dutch governments and head of the Department of Virology in the Medical Centre of Erasmus University, has a seat among the élite of the WHO gathered together in the SAGE Group, and is president of the ESWI, which is supported by the pharmaceutical industry.

In its turn the ESWI recommended extraordinary measures to vaccinate the whole world, considering that there was a high risk of a new pandemic which, they insisted, could be comparable to the terrifying pandemic of “Spanish” flu in 1918. (10)

Albert Osterhaus is not the only senior consultant to the WHO whose name is implicated in the dossiers on corruption and possible collusion between the WHO and the pharmaceutical firms, and an industry that wants to sell its products whatever it costs: others are David Salisbury (3)(9), Frederick Hayden (9), Arnold Monto (9), Henry L. Niman, Klaus Stöhr (11).

Professor David Salisbury, who is attached to the British Ministry of Health, is the head of SAGE at the WHO. At the same time he directs the Consultative Group on H1N1 at the WHO. Salisbury is a fervent defender of the pharmaceutical industry. In Britain the health action group One Click (10) accused him of concealing the proven correlation between vaccine use and the steep increase in autism in children, as well as the correlation between the vaccine Gardasil and cases of paralysis and even death.

Dr Frederick Hayden is at the same time member of SAGE at the WHO and of the Wellcome Trust in London; in fact he is one of the close friends of Osterhaus. In exchange for “consultative” services, Hayden receives money from Roche and from GlaxoSmithKline as well as from other pharmaceutical giants engaged in producing goods connected with the H1N1 crisis. (12)

There is yet another member of the WHO enjoying close relations with the vaccine manufacturers who profit from SAGE’s recommendations, in the person of Dr Arnold Monto, a consultant paid by the vaccine manufacturers MedImmune, Glaxo and ViroPharma. (13)

[interview with Wolfgang Wodarg]…Without going so far as outright corruption, which I’m sure exists, there are a hundred and one ways in which the labs can bring their influence to bear on decisions. I noticed specifically, for example, how Klaus Stöhr, who was the head of the epidemiology department at the WHO during the time of the bird flu, and who had therefore prepared the plans for dealing with a pandemic that I referred to earlier, had meanwhile become part of the senior management at Novartis. And similar links exist between Glaxo, Baxter, etc. and influential WHO members. These big firms have “their people” in the system and somehow manage things so that good political decisions are taken – that’s to say, decisions that enable them to pump the maximum amount of money out of the taxpayers. (14)

As for “Dr Flu” Osterhaus, it’s so bad that the Dutch Parliament (15) has serious doubts about him and has opened an enquiry into conflict of interest and bribery.

Outside the Netherlands and the Dutch media, only a few lines in the well-respected British journal Science(16) have made mention of the sensational investigation into the affairs of Osterhaus, who still has the confidence of his Minister of Health.

What all these experts have in common is the concealment of their connections with the pharmaceutical companies while they hold a senior and influential position in the decision-making hierarchy at the WHO, and the fact that they are never challenged. The conflict of interest is obvious, yet systematically minimized.

It is not their expertise or their intrinsic competence that is being questioned, but their independence and their integrity.

The whole matter is sufficiently serious, given the topic in question – our health, to sow doubt and to justify pursuing every investigation, every question, with means that match the urgency of the issue, and by organizations of irreproachable reputation that are truly independent.

It is not the WHO that should investigate the WHO

It’s as if the accused was allowed to lead the enquiry into the crimes imputed to them. If I were an impartial prosecutor, not aiming for scandal or publicity but only for the truth, whatever it may be, even if it is worse than the worst of the lies, I would call to the bar:

Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, president of the Health Commission of the Council of Europe. This member of the German parliament, an epidemiologist, has just requested the Council for a commission of enquiry. In his interview with the paper Der Spiegel, Dr. Wodarg did not hesitate to talk about “one of the greatest medical scandals of the century”. (17)

Next, Alison Katz,

A researcher who spent 17 years at the WHO, and who on 22 January 2007 sent an open letter to the new director of the agency, the Chinese Margaret Chan, accusing the organisation of “corruption, nepotism, violation of its statutes and ineffectiveness in its internal control system”, and concluding that “the WHO has become a victim of neo-liberal globalisation”. She denounced “the commercialisation of science and the close ties between the industry and academic institutions” and “corporatist” private science, and considered that “the WHO ought to be the leader of a movement to transform the way in which scientific research is done, including its sources of funding, as well as the acquisition and use of knowledge” and that the officials of an international organization do not have the right “not to know”. (18)

Lastly, Tom Jefferson, a renowned epidemiologist, member of the Cochrane Collaboration, an organisation of independent scientists including a commission that evaluates all the studies carried out on influenza. In an interview given to the German magazine Der Spiegel, he revealed the consequences of the privatisation of the WHO and the way in which health has been turned into a money-making machine. (19)

Tom Jefferson: “[…] one of the most bizarre characteristics of this flu, and of all the saga that has played out, is that year after year people make more and more pessimistic forecasts. So far none of them has come true, but these people are still there repeating their predictions. For instance, what happened to the bird flu that was supposed to kill us all off? Nothing. But that doesn’t stop these people from making their predictions. Sometimes you get the feeling that the whole industry is starting to hope for a pandemic.”

Der Spiegel: “Who are you referring to? The WHO?”

  1. J: “The WHO and those in charge of public health, the virologists and the pharmaceutical laboratories. They’ve created a whole system around the imminence of a pandemic. There is a lot of money at stake, as well as networks of influence, careers and whole institutions! And the minute one of the flu viruses mutates we’d see the whole machine roll into action.” (20)

When he was asked if the WHO had deliberately declared a pandemic emergency in order to create a huge market for the H1N1 vaccines and medications, Jefferson replied:

“Don’t you find it remarkable that the WHO had changed its definition of a pandemic? The old one specified a new virus, one that spread rapidly, for which there was no immunity and that caused a high rate of illness and of death. Now these last two points on the levels of infection have been deleted, and that’s how the A flu became classed in the pandemic category.” (21)

Very conveniently, the WHO published the new definition of a pandemic in April 2009, just in time to enable them, on the advice coming from, among others, SAGE, “Dr Flu” (alias Albert Osterhaus), and David Salisbury, to declare that mild cases of the flu, renamed A H1N1, signalled a pandemic emergency. (22)

Yes, Tom Jefferson, Alison Katz, Wolfgang Wodarg, among others, and investigative journalists who are neither conspiracy fanatics nor yes-men, would be on my list of witnesses to call.


Strangely enough, while the media were so agitated at the peak of the virus panic during 2009, as soon as a few rumours started spreading about strange goings-on at the WHO involving some scarcely known names, they switched off the spotlights, preferring to redirect the docile spectators to more amusing topics such as the antics of Johnny Hallyday, the comeback in Belgian women’s tennis, the escapades of Michel Daerden or of Nicolas Sarkozy (politicians Belgian and French respectively), and the hopeful proclamations of Barack PeaceObama – at the same time hinting that, while that was all well and good, we should still, as our obedient ministers were saying, be sure to go and get vaccinated while the wicked flu was offering a brief respite.

The dirty conspiracy rumours of corruption, the names so well-known in the business but so unknown to the general public – let’s forget them! Above all, let’s not rock the boat!

The vaccines have been bought, the recommendations given and millions of doses of poison already injected.

Does the truth frighten us so much that we prefer lies, and more and more of them, in our controlled lives, even when it is our health that is at stake?

It may all look very complicated but actually it is very easy.

For each new item of information, a “lite” sweetened version is made up, relayed by the bought-and-paid-for media and sold to us, the viewers, who swallow it without question.

The main drivers of this globalisation are fear and ignorance, the result of this insipid simplification of everything, which takes away any depth, any questioning that is necessary, in fact indispensable, if one wants to understand what is really happening.

It’s the same again with terrorism, where any unexplained event is always blamed on the same scary monster: Al Qaeda – without raising the slightest query about this attribution.(23) An explosion? Al Qaeda. A hijacking? Al Qaeda. An attack on civilians? Al Qaeda. An earthquake? Al Qaeda.

It’s the same again with the dogmatic statements about manmade global warming. This no longer brooks any discussion, any further research, any questioning: it’s a heresy to even think of it. Human CO2 is the Al Qaeda equivalent of the uncertainty factor in global warming.

It’s the same again with pandemics and other health cataclysms of the future. As the GIEC tells us about CO2, the WHO simplifies the problem for us and we thank them: “Get vaccinated. Don’t ask any questions. We have the most trustworthy and competent experts. The pharmaceutical firms, overflowing with philanthropy, are working day and night to save us.” And we believe it.

Humanity of the 21st century is in grave danger, a deadly danger that lurks within each of us.

It’s not Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (24), this Nigerian student of 23, the Christmas present from Al Qaeda to the war strategy of Peace Obama.

It’s not a virus, the St Valentine’s present to Baxter, GSK, Novartis and the rest.

It’s not our CO2, Nature’s present to our bankrupt politicians. It’s not even Al Gore, that serial sweet talker, condemned by the courts in Great Britain for no less than 11 flagrant lies and misrepresentations noted in his film, which inconveniences only the truth. (25) It’s not Al Qaeda, or any other extremist Islamic organisation.

All those are nothing but scary monsters that press the fear button, that’s to say, they are enemies but relatively minor ones.

It’s our abdication. That’s our enemy number one.

We are living in a time when globalisation has not, as it was expected to in the beginning, brought about a world that is better governed, more just, more transparent, but on the contrary, has created a system that is harder to decipher and understand, and is all-powerful.

This brew of omnipotence and dense secrecy, of being all-powerful and totally resistant to democratic investigation, is deadly. That’s the greatest threat to mankind today.

We have surrendered, preferring to go on deluding ourselves, when so many signs that something is going wrong should have impelled us to regain control.

Instead of which we put ourselves in the hands of these great authorities who are suspected of bribery and corruption, endowed with bad faith and a cynicism that balks at nothing.

Guided by the media and looking only at the things they turn their spotlight on, held by the hand, we choose to believe them instead of asking questions.

Given the present situation, I’ll answer my own question without hesitating:

The world would be getting along much better without these international organisations whose original mission has been hijacked for the sake of financial profits for the few.

As far as the WHO is concerned, we would be in much better health.


Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.


WTO: World Trade Organisation, succeeded GATT in 1994.

GATT: General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, created in 1947.

IMF: international Monetary Fund, created in 1944.

LON: League of Nations, created in 1919, in the aftermath of the First World War.

UN: United Nations Organisation, continuation of the LON, created in 1945.

SAGE: Strategic Advisory Group of Experts.


1. Monsanto Terminator:

2. Article by Sylvie Simon, well-known journalist on health topics:

3. The Lancet,

4. Sylvie Simon, op. cit.

5. Ibid.

6. Cholesterol, lies and propaganda,

7. The worrying connections between Margaret Chan, Michael Repacholi, Bernard Veyret and the mobile phone manufacturers:

Mobile phones: falsified data

8. Quoted in the Dutch article by Louise Voller & Kristian Villesen, “Stærk lobbyisme bag WHO-beslutningom massevaccination“, Information, Copenhagen, 15 November 2009.

9., article by F. William Engdahl, an American journalistwho has published many works devoted to questions of energy and geopolitics.

Most recent books in French: Pétrole, une guerre d’un siècle : L’ordre mondial anglo-américain (Jean-

Cyrille Godefroy éd., 2007) et OGM : semences de destruction: L’arme de la faim (Jean-Cyrille Godefroy éd., 2008).

10. Ibid.

12. Jane Bryant et al., “The One Click Group Response: Prof. David Salisbury Threatens Legal Action”, 4 March 2009. Download

13. William Engdahl, op.cit.

14. L’Humanité:

 15. Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal (Lower Chamber of the Dutch Parliament.)

16. Martin Enserink, in “Holland, the Public Face of Flu Takes a Hit”, Science, 16 October 2009, Vol. 326, n° 5951, pp. 350–351 ; DOI : 10.1126/science.326_350b.

17. L’Humanité, op.cit., TheEuropean Parliament will investigate the WHO and the “pandemic” scandal:éputé-européen-w.-wodarg-dénonce-«-une-fausse-pandemie-»_2483.htm

18. Sylvie Simon, op. cit.

19. William Engdahl, op. cit.

20. Conversation with Tom Jefferson: C’est toute une industrie qui espère une pandémie de grippe, Der Spiegel, 21 July 2009.

21. Ibid.

22. Article in Dutch, Louise Voller & Kristian Villesen, “Mystisk ændring af WHO’s definition af enpandemi“, Copenhagen Information, 15 November 2009.




The Coronavirus Vaccine: The Real Danger is “Agenda ID2020”. Vaccination as a Platform for “Digital Identity”

What is the infamous ID2020? It is an alliance of public-private partners, including UN agencies and civil society. It’s an electronic ID program that uses generalized vaccination as a platform for digital identity.

By Peter Koenig (via Global Research)

With foresight, this article by Peter Koenig was first written on March 12, 2020, the day following the March 11, lockdown. It was among the most popular GR articles in 2020.

It reveals the hidden agenda behind the Covid-19 vaccination initiative, which is now being applied.

Author’s Note and UpdateOn January 29, 2021, The Bundestag, Germany’s parliament  ratified the implementation of Agenda ID 2020. It still needs to go through the German Federal Council, The Bundesrat: little chance they will reject it. .In Switzerland the same – Agenda ID2020 – all electronic ID – linking everything to everything of each individual will come to a vote on 7 March  .And that’s not all, the Swiss  government wants to outsource the management of Agenda ID 2020 to the private sector — unbelievable!!!  .Can you imagine a bank or insurance company dealing (and selling) your data!! — just imagine what will happen  with our data – unthinkable.  .But living in a country of sheep, it is very possible if not likely that the Swiss government’s proposal will be accepted.Then, some of us, can only dream of fleeing — but where to?.Peter Koenig, February 2, 2021

It seems, the more there is written about the causes of the Coronavirus – the more the written analyses are overshadowed by a propaganda and fear-mongering hype. Questions for the truth and arguments for where to look for the origins and how the virus may have spread and how to combat it, are lost in the noise of wanton chaos. But isn’t that what the “Powerful financial elites” behind this intended pandemic want – chaos, panic, hopelessness, leading to human vulnerability – a people becoming easy prey for manipulation?

Today WHO declared the coronavirus COVID-19 a “pandemic” – when there is not the slightest trace of a pandemic. A pandemic might be the condition, when the death to infection rate reaches more than 12%. In Europe, the death rate is about 0.4%, or less. Except for Italy which is a special case, where the peak of the death rate was 6% (see below for further analysis).

China, where the death rate peaked only a few weeks ago at about 3%, is back to 0.7% – and rapidly declining, while China is taking full control of the disease – and that with the help of a not-spoken-about medication developed 39 years ago by Cuba, called “Interferon Alpha 2B (IFNrec)”, very effective for fighting viruses and other diseases, but is not known and used in the world, because the US under the illegal embargo of Cuba does not allow the medication to be marketed internationally.

WHO has most likely received orders from “above”, from those people who also manage Trump and the “leaders” (sic) of the European Union and her member countries, those who aim to control the world with force – the One World Order.

This has been on the drawing board for years. The final decision to go ahead NOW, was taken in January 2020 at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos – behind very much closed doors, of course. The Gates, GAVI (an association of vaccination-promoting pharmaceuticals), Rockefellers, Rothschilds et al, they are all behind this decision – the implementation of Agenda ID2020 – see below.

After the pandemic has been officially declared, the next step may be – also at the recommendation either by WHO, or individual countries, “force vaccination”, under police and/or military surveillance. Those who refuse may be penalized (fines and / or jail – and force-vaccinated all the same).

If indeed force-vaccination will happen, another bonanza for Big Pharma, people really don’t know what type of cocktail will be put into the vaccine, maybe a slow killer, that acts-up only in a few years – or a disease that hits only the next generation – or a brain debilitating agent, or a gene that renders women infertile …. all is possible – always with the aim of full population control and population reduction. In a few years’ time, one doesn’t know, of course, where the disease comes from. That’s the level of technology our bio-war labs have reached (US, UK, Israel, Canada, Australia…).

Another hypothesis, at this point only a hypothesis, but a realistic one, is that along with the vaccination – if not with this one, then possibly with a later one, a nano-chip may be injected, unknown to the person being vaccinated. The chip may be remotely charged with all your personal data, including bank accounts – digital money. Yes, digital money that’s what “they” are aiming at, so you really have no control any more over your health and other intimate data, but also over your earnings and spending. Your money could be blocked, or taken away – as a ‘sanction’ for misbehavior, for swimming against the stream. You may become a mere slave of the masters. Comparatively, feudalism may appear like a walk in the park.

It’s not for nothing that Dr. Tedros, DG of WHO, said a few days ago, we must move towards digital money, because physical paper and coin money can spread diseases, especially endemic diseases, like the coronavirus. A precursor for things to come? – Or for things already here? – In many Scandinavian countries cash is largely banned and even a bar of chocalate can be paid only electronically.

We are moving towards a totalitarian state of the world. This is part of Agenda ID2020 – and these steps to be implemented now – prepared since long, including by the coronavirus computer simulation at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore on 18 October 2019, sponsored by the WEF and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Bill Gates, one of the chief advocates of vaccinations for everybody, especially in Africa – is also a huge advocate of population reduction. Population reduction is among the goals of the elite within the WEF, the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Morgens – and a few more. The objective: fewer people (a small elite) can live longer and better with the reduced and limited resources Mother Earth is generously offering.

This had openly been propagated already in the 1960s and 70s by Henry Kissinger, Foreign Secretary in de Nixon Administration, a co-engineer of the Vietnam war, and main responsible for the semi-clandestine bombing of Cambodia, a genocide of millions of unarmed Cambodian civilians. Along with the CIA-Kissinger engineered coup on 9/11, 1973, in Chile, killing the democratically elected Salvador Allende and putting the military dictator Pinochet in power, Kissinger has committed war crimes. Today, he is a spokesman (so to speak) for Rockefeller and their  “Bilderberger Society”.

Two weeks after the computer simulation at Johns Hopkins Medical Center in Baltimore, Maryland, that “produced” (aka simulated) 65 million deaths (!), the COVID-19 virus first appeared in Wuhan. By now it is almost certain that the virus was brought to Wuhan from outside, most likely from a bio-war lab in the US. See also this and this.


What is the infamous ID2020? It is an alliance of public-private partners, including UN agencies and civil society. It’s an electronic ID program that uses generalized vaccination as a platform for digital identity. The program harnesses existing birth registration and vaccination operations to provide newborns with a portable and persistent biometrically-linked digital identity. GAVI, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, identifies itself on its website as a global health partnership of public and private sector organizations dedicated to “immunization for all”. GAVI is supported by WHO, and needless to say, its main partners and sponsors are the pharma-industry.

The ID2020 Alliance at their 2019 Summit, entitled “Rising to the Good ID Challenge”, in September 2019 in New York, decided to roll out their program in 2020, a decision confirmed by the WEF in January 2020 in Davos. Their digital identity program will be tested with the government of Bangladesh. GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, and “partners from academia and humanitarian relief” (as they call it), are part of the pioneer party.

Is it just a coincidence that ID2020 is being rolled out at the onset of what WHO calls a Pandemic? – Or is a pandemic needed to ‘roll out’ the multiple devastating programs of ID2020?

Here is what Anir Chowdhury, policy advisor of the Bangladesh government program, has to say:

“We are implementing a forward-looking approach to digital identity that gives individuals control over their own personal information, while still building off existing systems and programs. The Government of Bangladesh recognizes that the design of digital identity systems carries far-reaching implications for individuals’ access to services and livelihoods, and we are eager to pioneer this approach.” 

Wow! Does Mr. Anir Chowdhury know what he is getting into?

Back to the Pandemic and the panic. Geneva, the European seat of the United Nations, including the headquarters of WHO, is basically shot down. Not unlike the lock-down that started in Venice and later expanded to northern Italy until a few days ago – and now the lock-down covers all of Italy. Similar lock-down may soon also be adopted by France – and other European vassal states to the Anglo-Zionist empire.

Numerous memoranda with similar panic-mongering contents from different UN agencies in Geneva are circulating. Their key message is – cancel all mission travel, all events in Geneva, visits to the Palais des Nations, the Geneva Cathedral, other monuments and museums. The latest directives, many agencies instruct their staff to work from home, not to risk contamination from public transportation.

This ambiance of panic and fear – outstrips any sense of reality, when the truth doesn’t matter. People can’t even think any more about the causes and what may be behind it. Nobody believes you (anymore), when you refer to Event 201, the coronavirus simulation, the Wuhan Military Games, the closing last August 7, of the high-security biological war lab at Fort Detrick, Maryland…. what could have at one point been an eye opener for many, today is sheer conspiracy theory. The power of propaganda. A destabilizing power – destabilizing countries and people, destroying economies, creating hardship for people who may lose their jobs, usually the ones who can least afford it.

Also, at this time it becomes increasingly important to remind people that the outbreak in China was targeting the Chinese genome. Did it later mutate to transgress the ‘borders’ of Chinese DNA? When did that happen, if it happened? Because at the beginning it was clear that even the infected victims in other parts of the world, were to 99.9% of Chinese descent.

What happened later, when the virus spread to Italy and Iran, is another issue, and opens the way to a number of speculations.

(i) There were various strains of the virus circulated in sequence – so as to destabilize countries around the world and to confound the populace and media, so that especially nobody of the mainstream may come to the conclusion that the first strain was targeting China in a bio-war.

(ii) In Iran, I have a strong suspicion that the virus was an enhanced form of MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, man-made, broke out first in Saudi Arabia in 2012 , directed to the Arabic genome) – which was somehow introduced into government circles (by aerosol spray?) – with the goal of “Regime Change” by COVID19-caused death. Its Washington’s wishful thinking for at least the last 30 years.

(iii) In Italy – why Italy? – Maybe because Washington / Brussels wanted to hit Italy hard for having been officially the first country to sign a Belt and Road (BRI) accord with China (actually the first was Greece, but nobody is supposed to know that China came to the rescue of Greece, destroyed by Greece’s brothers, the EU members, mainly Germany and France).

(iv) The hype about the high death to infection rate in Italy, as of the time of this writing: 10,149 infections vs. 631 deaths = death rate of 6.2 (comparatively Iran: 8042 infections vs. 291 deaths = 3.6 death rate). The death rate of Italy is almost double that of Iran and almost ten-fold that of average Europe. (Are these discrepancies the result of failures in the establishing reliable data pertaining to “infections”, see our observations pertaining to Italy below).

Why? – Was is Italy being affected with virus panic? Was there a much stronger strain introduced to Italy?

The common flu in Europe in the 2019 / 2020 season, has apparently so far killed about 16,000 (in the US the death toll is, according to CDC between 14,000 and 32,000, depending on which CDC website you look at).

Could it be that among the Italian coronavirus deaths there were also common flu victims, as the affected victims are mostly elderly with respiratory preconditions? Also, symptoms are very similar between coronavirus and the common flu, and nobody questions and checks the official authorities’ narrative?

Maybe not all the coronavirus strains come from the same laboratory. A journalist from Berlin of Ukrainian origin, told me this morning that Ukraine is host to some 5 high security US bio-war labs. They test regularly new viruses on the population – yet, when strange diseases break out in the surroundings of the labs, nobody is allowed to talk about it. Something similar, she says, is happening in Georgia, where there are even more Pentagon / CIA bio-war labs – and where also new and strange diseases break out.

All of this makes the composite picture even more complicated. Overarching all is this super hype is profit driven, the quest for instant profit, instant benefits from the suffering of the people. This panic making is a hundred-fold of what it’s worth. What these kingpins of the underworld, who pretend to run the upper world, perhaps miscalculated, is that in today’s globalized and vastly outsourced world the west depends massively on China’s supply chain, for consumer goods, and for intermediary merchandise – and, foremost for medication and medical equipment. At least 80% of medication or ingredients for medication, as well as for medical equipment comes from China. The western China dependence for antibiotics is even higher, some 90%.  The potential impacts on health are devastating.

During the height of the COVID-19 epidemic China’s production apparatus for everything was almost shut-down. For deliveries that were still made, merchandise vessels were regularly and categorically turned back from many harbors all around the world. So, the west has tricked itself into a shortage-of-everything mode by waging a  de facto “economic war” on China. How long will it last? – Nobody knows, but China’s economy which was down by about half, has rapidly recovered to above 80% of what it was before the coronavirus hit. How long will it last to catch up with the backlog?

What is behind it all? – A total crackdown with artificially induced panic to the point where people are screaming “help, give us vaccinations, display police and military for our security” – or even if the public despair doesn’t go that far, it would be easy for the EU and US authorities to impose a military stage of siege for “health protection of the people”. In fact, CDC (Center for Disease Control in Atlanta), has already designed harshly dictatorial directives for a “health emergency”.

Along with forced vaccination, who knows what would be contained in the cocktail of ‘’mini-diseases” injected, and what their long-term effects might be. Similar to those of GMOs, where all sorts of germs could be inserted without us, the commons, knowing?

We may indeed be just at the beginning of the implementation of ID2020 – which includes, forced vaccination, population reduction and total digital control of everybody – on the way to One World Order – and global financial hegemony – Full Spectrum Dominance, as the PNAC (Plan for a New American Century) likes to call it.

A windfall for China. China has been purposely targeted for “economic destruction”, because of her rapidly advancing economy, an economy soon to overtake that of the now hegemon, the US of A, and because of China’s strong currency, the Yuan, also potentially overtaking the dollar as the world’s main reserve currency.

Both occurrences would mean the end of US dominance over the world. The coronavirus disease, now in more than 80 countries, has crashed the stock markets, a decline of at least 20% over the last few weeks – and rising; the feared consequences from the virus of an economic slow-down, if not recession, has slashed petrol prices within about two weeks almost in half. However, without China’s central bank interference, the Yuan’s value vis-à-vis the dollar has been rather stable, at around 7 Yuan to the dollar. That means, the Chinese economy, despite COVID-19, is receiving still much trust around the globe.

Advice to China – buy all the US and European corporate shares you can at current rock-bottom prices from the stock markets that collapsed by a fifth or more, plus buy lots of oil futures. When the prices recover, you have not only made billions, probably trillions from the west, but you also may own or hold significant and influence-yielding amounts of shares in most of the largest US and European corporations – and will be able to help call the shots of their future endeavors.

There is however, one little silver lining oscillating at the horizon full of dark clouds. It could miraculously be an awakening of consciousness of a critical mass that could put an end to it all. Although, we seem to be far from such a miracle, somewhere in a hidden corner of our brain, we all have a spark of consciousness left. We have the spiritual capacity to abandon the disaster path of western neoliberal capitalism, and instead espouse solidarity, compassion and love for each other and for our society. That may be the only way to break the gridlock and doom of western egocentric greed.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world, including in Palestine, in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21st Century; Greanville Post; Defend Democracy Press, TeleSUR; The Saker Blog, the New Eastern Outlook (NEO); and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

The Future Vision of Free Citizens: Leading Humanity to Freedom. Towards a New Social Order

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel (via Global Research)

Free citizens who stand up against tyranny have nothing against those in power. They do nothing to them. They fight for a more just order, for their right to life, to freedom, peace and security. When nothing else helps, that is the message of Thomas More’s novel “Utopia”, then it helps to do things radically differently. (1) For the humanist scholar, the small island state was a counter-model to the decaying society of England at the time.

For the author, a liberal social order with free people is the counter-model to the present totalitarian form of rule of unfreedom, violence and exploitation. This vision of the future, for which every full-minded and unblinded citizen should fight, was already held by some mature people like Peter Kropotkin and other liberal socialists more than 100 years ago. However, since they had only anticipated and not yet recognised the emotional reactions of human beings and were also vehemently opposed by authoritarian-minded contemporaries, they were unable to put their progressive ideas into practice. Thus, man is still not free today.

Gottfried Keller: Step outside the front door yourself and see what is available!

Every individual is called upon to make his or her contribution to solving the pressing problems of our time. And of course we are able to do so if we are aware that it depends on each and every one of us. Why not muster the courage to use our own minds and not repress the monstrosities of today, but to see them and stand up against them – intellectually, emotionally, politically.  Overcome the inertia of the heart and act! Against all odds, muster the determination to seek the truth and thereby preserve our dignity as human beings and create a future worth living for ourselves and our children.

The Swiss poet and novelist Gottfried Keller (1819-1890) put it this way:

“No government and no battalions (…) are able to protect law and freedom where the citizen is unable to step outside the front door himself and see what is available.” (Zurich Novellen)

Albert Camus: Every human being has a more or less large sphere of influence

Shortly after the outbreak of the Second World War, the Nobel Prize winner for literature Albert Camus (1913-1960), one of the most important intellectuals of the 20th century, commented in a “Letter to a Desperate Man” on the role of the individual in a situation perceived as hopeless. (2) These are thoughts that document and deeply touch Camus’s relevance to our own day.

The useful task that, in Camus’ view, the person seeking advice still has to fulfil after the outbreak of the Great War is also a task for every individual in our present time, the worldwide war of the ruling clique against us citizens:

“You write to me that this war depresses you, that you would be ready to die, but that you cannot bear this worldwide stupidity, this bloodthirsty cowardice and this criminal naivety that still believes human problems can be solved with blood. I read your lines and I understand you. I understand you, but I can no longer follow you when you make a rule of life out of this despair and want to retreat behind your disgust because everything is useless. For despair is a feeling and not a state. You cannot remain in it. And the feeling must give way to a clear realisation of things.” (3)

“(…) First of all, you must ask yourself whether you have really done everything to prevent this war. (…) But I am sure that you did not do everything that was necessary, any more than any of us. You were not able to prevent it? No, that’s not true. This war was not inevitable, you know that. (…) There is still a useful task to be done.” (4)

“You have a task, do not doubt it. Every person has a more or less large sphere of influence. He owes it to his shortcomings as well as to his advantages. But be that as it may, it is there and it can be used immediately. Do not drive anyone to riot. You have to be sparing with the blood and freedom of others. But you can convince ten, twenty, thirty people that this war was neither inevitable nor is it, that all means have not yet been tried to stop it, that it must be said, written if possible, shouted out if necessary! These ten or thirty people will spread the word to ten others, who will in turn spread it. If inertia holds you back, well then, start all over again with others.”

In conclusion, Camus encourages the advice-seeker not to despair of history, in which the individual is capable of everything:

“Individuals are what send us to our deaths today. Why should other individuals not succeed in giving peace to the world? Only one must begin without thinking of such great goals. Remember that war is waged as much with the enthusiasm of those who want it as with the despair of those who reject it with all the strength of their souls.” (5)

“The International”: To the final battle!

“The Internationale” is the world-famous struggle song of the socialist workers’ movement, whose call to the last stand was issued to the international workers’ movement after the violent suppression of the Paris Commune in May 1871. (6) The German version of the original French text by Emil Luckhard (1910) reads:

“Wake up, damned of this earth, who are still forced to starve! (…) Army of slaves, wake up! (…) Peoples, hear the signals! To the final battle! (…) No higher being, no god, no emperor, no tribune can save us! To deliver us from misery, that we can only do ourselves!”

After the revolt, let the people go free!

Karl Marx (1818-1883) – drawing on Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872) – argued that man’s consciousness is shaped by social conditions and thus brought man back to earth. His materialist conception of history was a tremendous intrusion into the emotional world of man. Marx and some liberal socialists began to see man correctly – and this man began to deal with himself. Before that, the tendency prevailed in schools and universities that man’s soul merely undergoes a trial here in this world and that eternal life only begins in heaven.

Since religion is associated with fear and terror, man believes as long as he is afraid. In the materialistic view of history, belief in gods and supernatural beings ceases. When man has more knowledge about nature and more certainty, he becomes calmer and no longer has this emotional reaction. He is a different person: he is not afraid of life, of starvation or of exploitation; he has time to develop, to read, to learn scientific knowledge and to think about the world.

The Russian anarchist, geographer and writer Prince Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921) observed both nature and natural beings and related his findings to human beings. In his book “Mutual Aid in the Animal and Human World”, Kropotkin writes that in nature and society there is by no means only a struggle of all against all (social Darwinism), but that the principle of “mutual aid” also prevails. Those living beings that implement this principle would survive more successfully.

Scientific depth psychology is based on these findings. According to this, man is a naturally social being, oriented towards the community of his fellow human beings. He also has a natural inclination towards good, towards the knowledge of truth and towards community life. We do not have to be afraid of this human being. He wants to live in freedom and peace, without violence and war – just like all of us.

Leading man to freedom!

The freedom that is to be (re)given to man, because it is his by nature, is of course not the freedom to exploit the other man and to plunder his hard-earned savings. This is the “freedom” that the ruling clique in capitalism means and that makes man involuntarily corrupt. To give man freedom is to give him the right to a decent life, to justice, security and tranquillity.

This principle of freedom means that every working person knows, should he no longer be able to work for reasons of old age or illness, that he will not then be dismissed, but can continue to live just as before: he will continue to receive his last wage, keep his flat and not have to beg for soup in the communal kitchen or at the church. If he should die unexpectedly because of an accident, his family will continue to be provided for and his children can attend a good school.

In a free society, he not only has security but also peace of mind. No so-called authority will rise to rule over him; there will be no violence, no war, no military service, no hardship, no lunatic asylum, no prisons. External freedom will also lead to internal freedom: Man will have a different consciousness, a different thinking, a different relationship with his fellow man, a different feeling towards the dear God.

How do we set up the new social order?

Will we again establish a dictatorship and force the human being? Or will we believe in man, associate ourselves with him, empathise with him, appeal to him? He wants to live well with his children and have a roof over his head. This human being will cooperate in a free society because this corresponds to his nature. We do not have to be afraid of him. We do not have to see any danger in freedom either. If someone is not willing or able to live in a community, then he will be taken along by the others. The sick will be dealt with in the same way; they will not be a nuisance. On the contrary, in a free society they will get well.

Let us leave man free and demand nothing of him! He will gladly accept this and behave differently because he finds a different social situation. Man can change, Marx said – and depth psychology confirms this. He should also be given the same freedom. The churches will not be closed like the Bolsheviks did in Russia, because that hurts people deep inside, in their faith, in their dependence, in their fear. They then feel attacked in their minds, in their souls, and are called upon to fight against it. One must not take religion away from people, but leave them free to pray. It is not the state that decides, but the individual and the community. In the present principle of violence and authority, man cannot develop.

Some mature people who have had a laid table have guessed that the prevailing capitalist system is not right. How many beneficiaries there are in this system who do not contribute to the maintenance of the community. It was Peter Kropotkin, Mikhail Bakunin and a few more rich people who have had the opportunity to educate and research. But they would not allow the liberal socialists to strive for a community in which free association prevailed, in which each person decided which path to choose, with whom to associate and how to live. That is why they were bitterly opposed.

In a free society, the consciousness of man changes 

Karl Marx was right: when man has the security of his life, he thinks differently. He has different thoughts, different feelings and a different relationship to his fellow man.

Man becomes different when he has the table laid. He has different feelings than the one who lives in insecurity, is exploited, is poor, is afraid of hail and lightning that God will send him if he does not pray enough. Afraid that the good Lord will set his house on fire or send hail and smash the grain so that he starves. In his whole emotional life and thinking he is taken up by this.

If we establish a society where man has his right to life, then man has a different consciousness.

Fear in capitalism shapes the human being. Exploiters and exploited are equally poor. The church maintains this system with miracle men who are in relationship with the dear God and order everything.If we give up the capitalist system and form a community where this is not an issue, then there are no exploiters, no capitalists, no wars, no fear. Then a different human being develops.

Then there is no fear of God’s punishment and hell and therefore no religion. The person has a different consciousness, thinks for himself, trusts in his own powers, checks by experience, has different thoughts and feelings.

The sick person becomes healthy through a different social system and has a fear-free relationship with his fellow human being. He can show solidarity with him, join him and put himself on an equal footing with him. Man can develop and changes his behaviour, he no longer becomes corrupt as in the capitalist system. He educates himself and learns to read and write. He no longer waits for paradise in heaven, but wants it on earth; he decides for himself which way he will go.

In Russia, in Cuba and in the former Yugoslavia with a once very high illiteracy rate, the old people have learned to read and write. They did not have paper yet, so they practised the letters in the snow or sand.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dr. paed. Rudolf Hänsel is an educationalist and qualified psychologist.



(2) Marin, L. (ed.) (2013). Albert Camus – Libertarian Writings (1948-1960). Hamburg

(3) op. cit., p. 271

(4) op. cit., p. 272

(5) op. cit., p. 273


“Man Has Not Recognized Himself”. The Ideology of Power Threatens Humanity. Renouncing the Use of Violence

On the importance of psychology in our lives

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel (via Global Research)

The political, economic and social turmoil in the world is causing people great concern. Independent scientists are shedding more and more light on the cabal’s sinister plans with profound analyses, but the guild of psychologists, which could provide people with orientation and support, is failing for the most part. 

This is not by design. The young people who turn to the study of psychology are religious and believers in the state: they stand on the old standpoint that this system should be preserved. Therefore, nothing can be expected from them and they cannot be trusted. Yet the findings of scientific psychology would be beneficial for human coexistence. But without deep psychological knowledge of human nature, we cannot join forces with our fellow citizens to stand up against the criminal rulers of this world and their accomplices.

Until today, “man has not recognised himself” – not himself and not the other. It would be a matter of using the tools of psychology to recognise man and lead him to freedom. Since a large part of psychoanalysis, psychology and depth psychology has been lost, the author – a graduate psychologist and educationalist – would like to contribute a small piece of the mosaic to knowledge. At the same time, it is a thank you to his teacher, the Zurich psychotherapist Friedrich Liebling, a student of the individual psychologist Alfred Adler. Over decades, he introduced the author to the field of depth psychology with great insight into human nature, in a sensitive, tolerant and understanding manner. His progressive psychological and ideological insights form the foundation of the following explanations.

Psychology – Queen of the Sciences

Psychology is the queen of the sciences. Its favourites are knowledge of human nature and human welfare, its clothing is truth and verifiability. Its palace is surrounded by thorny bushes of prejudice, medieval superstition and religious-philosophical-ethical heresies. Whoever wants to reach it must fight his way through this thicket. A casual traveller with a firmly established view of man and the world will find nothing attractive in the palace. Its beauty and richness only open up to a person with a healthy, empirically working mind and an open spirit. By overcoming fearfulness, he will become spiritually free and courageous, gain knowledge of human nature and learn to understand his own emotional life and that of his fellow human beings. He is thus a witness to man’s astonishing inclination towards hidden but inexhaustible and sublime spiritual and mental pleasures (1).

With the provocatively intended statement that psychology is the queen of the sciences, Friedrich Liebling wanted to explain the scope and importance of psychology and make students of psychology aware of how important psychology is in our lives.

Psychology is the science about man, about human nature: how man becomes, how he grows up, how he finds his way in life. This comes into being as a result of the experiences he has, which are imparted to him by parents and teachers. Thus he is the product of his experiences, his impressions in childhood. Already in the first years of life, the child collects these experiences. At the age of five or six, when it enters kindergarten, it already has its compass, it already knows how it should behave. The young person then already has an opinion about the other child, about the father, the mother and the siblings. He has his character, his traits and an opinion about his position in the world.

Unfortunately, the science of psychology is still underestimated or misjudged in our latitudes. This is partly because many German psychologists of Jewish faith had to go into exile in the USA during the fascist era. But also because most psychologists failed miserably during German fascism (2) and allowed themselves to be used for the war: The soldiers were not supposed to leave the battlefield and, if their minds became ill, were picked up by psychologists during home leave and prepared again to continue defending the fatherland at the risk of their lives.

Nowadays, psychologists in turn give dubious advice to young and old: They help them to get through their fears, fits of despair and suicidal thoughts due to the illegal state repression. The political system is not questioned. The desperate people are supposed to submit to the repressions and not exercise their individual and collective right to resist. This betrayal of professional ethics pushes people deeper and deeper into misery.

The time of reason 

In the past, we had the time of faith. We believed what was written in the Bible and what the priest told us. For some centuries now, we have had the time of reason: man has begun to think and to ascribe to himself the responsibility for what happens here on earth. He has even denied heaven: “There is no power up there in heaven that directs everything, but I am responsible!” But there is one thing he did not understand: himself. He did not approach himself, that is, his emotional world. He has made revolutions, written books, put forward theories on how to make life better; but he has not recognised himself.

So we live in a world in which man has not recognised himself. He has recognised everything, he has researched everything, but he has not recognised himself, his nature, his mental constitution, his modes of reaction. We live in the time of reason, but when it comes down to it, we are not reasonable.

Who instigates wars, for example? People like us – or is it others?

Again and again, the striving for power in economics and politics drives us into catastrophes in which the wealth of our culture is squandered and the harvests of our civilisation are destroyed. This ideology of power is a terrible error of the human race. While these pernicious effects touch our vital nerve, we are lethargic enough not to be shaken up by them. The problem of violence has not been solved by humanity.

Who instigates wars? Is it people like us, or is it others?

Whether it is the First or Second World War, the war currently raging in Syria and Yemen, or even the one against the world’s civilian population. We need to understand what is going on with us – with ourselves and with others. We need to acquire so much knowledge of human nature that we understand why human beings behave the way they do. Man, our human nature and our mental make-up are still unknown to us. When we explore and recognise our ways of reacting, we learn to correctly assess our disposition and our opinion and that of the other.

If we live in a world where war and crime are the order of the day, then we too are murderers and criminals. For the world is the way we have set it up or – in relation to pre-existing conditions – tolerated it. No one can escape responsibility. We are always complicit, even when we are victims.

Am I my brother’s keeper?

Mankind has not yet found an answer to the Cain question from the biblical prehistory “Am I my brother’s keeper?”. It is frightening to see how the lack of sympathy, compassion and fellow humanity today leads to countless people being left alone in their suffering through no fault of their own, because fellow citizens are only interested in their own concerns and take less and less interest in the fate of their fellow human beings, their brothers and sisters. A glance at the Syrian or Yemeni war zones makes any compassionate heart shudder. The scale of the atrocities can hardly be appreciated. “That’s none of my business!” is then an often-heard expression of displeasure – even from professing Christians.

Yet in the human world, social feelings and communal bonds certainly play just as great a role as the will to power and self-interest: human beings are also capable of devotion and self-sacrifice. “Compassion for all creatures is what really makes human beings human”, said the German-French physician, philosopher and pacifist Albert Schweitzer (1875 to 1965).

Why is one part of humanity very capable of showing compassionate feelings and acting accordingly, while another – far smaller – part is consumed by a murderous lust for power? The insights of depth psychology provide an answer.

Making public spirit the guiding idea (3)

Global peace and global humanity must be anchored in people’s thoughts and moral principles of action as well as in their solidarity, brotherhood and sense of community. The teachings of the moral leaders of humanity, the wisdom of Lao Tse and the commandment of love for one’s neighbour grew out of the realisation of the togetherness of all who bear humanity’s face. Cultural development essentially consists of the voice of humanity’s conscience becoming more and more heard and the spirit of responsibility taking the place of violence.

For Alfred Adler, the founder of individual psychology, the “deepest idea of all culture (…) consisted in the final rejection of the striving for power and in the final elevation of public spirit to the leading idea.” He said this 100 years ago. All our endeavours in the world and in science should have the guiding principle of producing a type of human being in the future for whom – as Adler put it – a sense of community and interpersonal solidarity are as natural as breathing.

Enlightenment and education (4)

Since all human action is prepared in the minds and hearts, and since people will behave tomorrow as they think today, what is needed above all is enlightenment. The purpose of enlightenment efforts is to purify human consciousness of individual and collective prejudices. The future of our culture will essentially depend on whether there will be enough “enlighteners” who will be able to remove from the broad masses of people those prejudices that are the ideological background of the catastrophes of humanity. At the present time, when the destruction of humanity seems possible, we need more than ever the “free spirits” who teach us what is truth and what is a lie. Intellectuals should face up to this responsibility.

Even more important than enlightenment is the problem of education. Deep psychological insight has made it clear to us what a tremendous scope education has. Today we know that the human being is to such an extent the product of his or her upbringing that we may cherish the hope of being able, through psychological methods of education, to train people who will be immune to the entanglements of power madness and develop a sense of community.

Renunciation of the authoritarian principle and the use of violence

Thus, pedagogy in the parental home and school must renounce the authoritarian principle – which for centuries was regarded as the unquestionably valid basis of educational behaviour – and the use of violence. Educators must adapt themselves with true understanding to the child’s soul life, must respect the child’s personality and turn to him or her with friendship. Such an education will produce a type of human being that does not have a “subject mentality” and will therefore no longer be a docile tool for those in power in our world.

In today’s violent culture, however, the path of the individual inevitably comes under the influence of the desire for power and domination. All role models and ideals under which the child of our cultural circles grows up are coloured by the will to power. The human urge for self-improvement thus involuntarily takes on the guiding line of the lust for power: being great, being powerful becomes the goal that the weak set for themselves in order to become strong. The dazzling work of violence already takes possession of the soul of the individual at a time when he has neither conscious insight nor a developed sense of justice.

The reduction of the lust for power and the desire for violence is therefore not a postulate of moral preachers: it is the simple necessity of community life. It is possible to suppress the admonishing cries of the human sense of community; they can never be completely eradicated, for the gift of evolution consists in the moral consciousness of the individual, in the insight into the responsibility of all towards all. This must be conveyed to the growing generation in education.

Our task for the future is therefore above all the cultivation and strengthening of community feelings. No means must be too small, no effort too arduous for us to better integrate the youth into the social structure, to teach them that violence and greed for power can only lead to disaster.

No intimidation of intellect and reason through religious education! 

Man is born neither religious nor believing in God. The mentally healthy and uncrippled child, however, gets into a society where delusional ideas and illusions prevail. In order to better understand the behaviour of the adult believer, it is essential to fathom how this magical worldview affects the soul life and reason of a child and adolescent.

No sooner does a small child show its first mental stirrings and learn to speak than it is “taken into care” by society, i.e. by the parents and the church. It is made clear to him that his nature is not allowed to develop freely with regard to his feeling for nature and his world view. If it wants to avoid being punished with general contempt and hellish chastisements, it must press its being into a certain ecclesiastical form.

If the consciousness of the “I” then forms in the third year of life, the god and devil of the religion in question already intervene and teach the child not to trust in itself, but to allow itself to be guided and controlled by supernatural powers and to pray diligently so as not to fall prey to their vengeance. The child learns about the fear of demons.

The “virtues” of submissiveness, obedience and humility are imprinted. The child is taught things that are foreign to its nature and do not require its reason. No one asks the child whether it has any “religious needs” at all. The child’s belief in demons is crystallised in the ideas of the devil and hell. Psychiatrists sometimes diagnose anxiety neuroses and severe mental disorders as a result.

Fear produces emotional reactions in the child that turn against the human being: it is afraid of the human being. The young person grows up and as an adult is unable to interact and live together. That is why he cannot set up his own life. The years of man’s strongest suggestibility are exploited to inculcate him with mystical ideas, to make him immune to the use of reason in religious and ideological matters and to bind him to a certain religious institution – faithfully until death.

The child is not allowed to develop naturally and freely until it asks itself in adulthood about the nature of nature and the meaning of life. In the Catholic Church, confession, communion and confirmation follow one after the other in short periods of time at a tender age; acts that are connected with the eternal profession of fidelity to the teachings of the Church and entail terrible consequences in case of non-compliance.

This procedure exerts very strong and crippling pressure on children’s souls. No political organisation, no matter how dictatorial and totalitarian, is capable of acting on children’s souls in this repressive way. This mental rape is worse and more lasting than any physical rape. The same applies to the rape of the mind.

The abuse of the child’s mind results in the adult also reacting in worldly matters like the child and the primitive primitive man: in the form of a “magical belief in authority”. The adult is then often inhibited in the development of the ego, but is in bondage to the priests and suggestible. So many adults not only lack “common sense”, but they also have to constantly fight down the remnants of their intellect in ideological discussions and be dishonest with themselves. And this is because not the slightest proof has been produced for the existence of an otherworldly being that participates in the fate of man.

All those involved in the education of children and youths should therefore refrain from making the growing generation obedient and docile on their way to adulthood with authoritarian methods of education. Nor should they burden them with the mind-paralysing “ballast” of religion. Only in this way can the young, as free-thinking, courageous and compassionate citizens, one day steer the world on a different course.

The Future Vision of Free Citizens: A Libertarian Society with Free People (5)

With the insights of depth psychology, a libertarian social order with free people could be realised – a future vision of free citizens. For the author, it would be a counter-model to the present totalitarian form of rule of unfreedom, violence and exploitation. This vision of the future was already held by some mature people like Peter Kropotkin and other free socialists more than 100 years ago.

The Russian anarchist, geographer and writer Prince Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921) observed both nature and natural beings and related his findings to human beings. In the book “Mutual Aid in the Animal and Human World”, Kropotkin writes that in nature and society there is by no means only a struggle of all against all (social Darwinism), but that the principle of “mutual aid” also prevails. Those living beings that implement this principle would survive more successfully.

Scientific depth psychology is based on these findings. According to this, man is a naturally social being, oriented towards the community of his fellow human beings. He also has a natural inclination towards good, towards the knowledge of truth and towards community life. We do not have to be afraid of this human being. He wants to live in freedom and peace, without violence and war – just like all of us.

This freedom, which is to be given to man (again) because it is his by nature, is of course not the freedom to exploit the other man and to plunder his hard-earned savings. This is the “freedom” that the ruling clique in capitalism means and that makes man involuntarily corrupt. To give man freedom is to give him the right to a decent life, to justice, security and tranquillity.

This means that every working person knows, should he no longer be able to work for reasons of old age or illness, that he will not then be dismissed, but can continue to live just as before: he will continue to receive his last wage, keep his flat and not have to beg for soup in the communal kitchen or at the church. If he should die unexpectedly because of an accident, his family will continue to be provided for and his children can attend a good school.

In a free society, he not only has security but also peace of mind. No authority will rise to rule over him; there will be no violence, no war, no military service, no hardship, no lunatic asylum, no prisons. External freedom will also lead to internal freedom: Man will have a different consciousness, a different thinking, a different relationship with his fellow man, a different feeling towards the dear God.

Nor will a dictatorship be established and man forced. People believe in man, associate themselves with him, empathise with him, appeal to him. He wants to live well and have a roof over his head with his brood. This human being will cooperate in a free society because this corresponds to his nature. There is no need to be afraid of him. There is no need to see any danger in freedom either. If someone is not willing or able to live in a community, then he will be taken along by the others. The sick will be dealt with in the same way; they will not be a nuisance. On the contrary, in a free society they will get well.

Let us leave man free and demand nothing of him! He will gladly accept this and behave differently because he finds a different social situation. Man can change, Marx said – and depth psychology confirms this. He should also be given freedom right away. Churches are not locked and religion is not banned; people are left free and let them pray. It is not the state that decides, but the individual and the community.

Karl Marx was right: when man has the security of his life, he thinks differently. He has different thoughts, different feelings and a different relationship to his fellow man. Man becomes different when he has the table laid. He has different feelings than the one who lives in insecurity, is exploited, is poor, is afraid of hail and lightning that God will send him if he does not pray enough. Afraid that the good Lord will set his house on fire or send hail and smash the grain so that he starves. In his whole emotional life and thinking he is taken up by this.

When a society is established in which man has his right to life, he has a different consciousness. Fear in capitalism shapes man. Exploiters and exploited are equally poor. The church maintains this system with miracle men who are in relationship with the dear God and order everything. If we give up the capitalist system and form a community where this is not an issue, then there are no exploiters, no capitalists, no wars, no fear. Then a different human being develops. In the present principle of violence and authority, man cannot develop.

Then there is no fear of God’s punishment and hell and therefore no religion. Man has a different consciousness, thinks for himself, trusts in his own powers, checks by experience, has different thoughts and feelings. The sick person becomes healthy through a different social system and has a fear-free relationship with his fellow human being. He can show solidarity with him, join him and put himself on an equal footing with him. Man can develop and changes his behaviour, he no longer becomes corrupt as in the capitalist system. He educates himself and learns to read and write. He no longer waits for paradise in heaven, but wants it on earth; he decides for himself which path to take.


Since each person has a more or less large sphere of influence, he or she can pass on the psychological and ideological insights presented here to ten, twenty, thirty other people. These ten or thirty people will pass it on to ten others, who in turn will pass it on.

If inertia holds him back, well, then he starts all over again with others!

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel is a graduate psychologist and educationalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.


(1) Following Jan Sniadecki (1756-1830) and Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855): “Mathematics is the queen of all sciences. Her darling is truth, her clothing simplicity and clarity. Her palace is surrounded by thorny bushes; whoever wants to reach it must fight his way through this thicket. A chance traveller will find nothing attractive in the palace. Its beauty opens itself only to the mind that loves truth, that has grown hard in overcoming difficulties, and that is witness to man’s astonishing propensity for tangled but inexhaustible and sublime spiritual pleasures.”

(2) Baumgarten, Franziska (1949). The German Psychologists and the Events of the Times. Published by DER AUFBAU Zurich. Swiss Social Archives.

(3) Cf.

(4) Op. cit.

(5) Vgl.;;;

The WHO Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR Test is Flawed: Estimates of “Positive Cases” are Meaningless. The Lockdown Has No Scientific Basis

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky (via Global Research)

The Real Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) test was adopted by the WHO on January 23, 2020 as a means to detecting the  SARS-COV-2 virus, following the recommendations of  a Virology research group (based at Charité University Hospital, Berlin), supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (For Further details see the Drosten Study)

Exactly one year later on January 20th, 2021, the WHO retracts. They don’t say “We Made a Mistake”. The retraction is carefully formulated. 

While the WHO does not deny the validity of their misleading January 2020 guidelines, they nonetheless recommend “Re-testing” (which everybody knows is an impossibility).

The contentious issue pertains to the number of amplification threshold cycles (Ct). According to Pieter Borger, et al

The number of amplification cycles [should be] less than 35; preferably 25-30 cycles. In case of virus detection, >35 cycles only detects signals which do not correlate with infectious virus as determined by isolation in cell culture…(Critique of Drosten Study)

The World Health Organization (WHO) tacitly admits one year later that ALL PCR tests conducted at a 35 cycle amplification threshold (Ct) or higher are INVALID. But that is what they recommended in January 2020, in consultation with the virology team at Charité Hospital in Berlin.

If the test is conducted at a 35 Ct threshold or above (which was recommended by the WHO), segments of the SARS-CoV-2 virus cannot be detected, which means that ALL the so-called confirmed “positive cases” tabulated in the course of the last 14 months are invalid. 

According toPieter Borger, Bobby Rajesh Malhotra, Michael Yeadon, et al, the Ct > 35 has been the norm “in most laboratories in Europe & the US”.

Below is the WHO’s carefully formulated “Retraction”. The full text with link to the original document is in annex:

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology. (emphasis added)

WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

“Invalid Positives” is the Underlying Concept 

This is not an issue of  “Weak Positives” and “Risk of False Positive Increases”. What is at stake is a “Flawed Methodology” which leads to invalid estimates.

What this admission of the WHO confirms is that the estimate of covid positive from a PCR test (with an amplification threshold of 35 cycles or higher) is invalid. In which case, the WHO recommends retesting:  “a new specimen should be taken and retested…”.

That recommendation is pro-forma. It won’t happen. Millions of people Worldwide have already been tested, starting in early February 2020. Nonetheless,we must conclude that unless retested, those estimates (according to the WHO) are invalid.  

I should mention that there several other flaws regarding the PCR test which are not addressed in this article. (See Michel Chossudovsky’s E-book:  The 2020 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”  (Chapter II)

From the outset, the PCR test has routinely been applied at a Ct amplification threshold of 35 or higher, following the January 2020 recommendations of the WHO. What this means is that the PCR methodology as applied Worldwide has in the course of  the last 12-14 months led to the compilation of faulty and misleading Covid statistics.

And these are the statistics which are used to measure the progression of the so-called “pandemic”. Above an amplification cycle of 35 or higher, the test will not detect the virus. Therefore,  the numbers are meaningless.

It follows that there is no scientific basis for confirming the existence of a pandemic.

Which in turn means that the lockdown / economic measures which have resulted in social panic, mass poverty and unemployment (allegedly to curtail the spread of the virus) have no justification whatsoever.

According to scientific opinion:

“if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%  (Pieter Borger, Bobby Rajesh Malhotra, Michael Yeadon, Clare Craig, Kevin McKernan, et al, Critique of Drosten Study)

As outlined above, “the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%”: It follows that using  the >35 cycles detection will indelibly  contribute to “hiking up” the number of “fake positives”.

At the time of writing (mid-March 2021), despite the WHO retraction, the PCT test is being used extensively to hike up the numbers with a view to sustaining the fear campaign, justifying the ongoing lockdown policies as well as the implementation of the Covid vaccine.

Ironically, the flawed numbers based on “invalid positives” are in turn being manipulated to ensure an upward trend in Covid positives.

Moreover, those PCR tests are not routinely accompanied by a medical diagnosis of the patients who are being tested.

And now, national health authorities have issued (fake) warnings of a “Third Wave” as part of their propaganda campaign in support of the Covid-19 Vaccine.

The WHO confirms that the Covid PCR test procedure as applied is invalid. There is absolutely no scientific basis for implementing the Covid Vaccine.

Both the WHO and the scientific assessment of Pieter Borger, et al (quoted above) confirm unequivocally that the tests adopted by governments to justify the lockdown and the destabilization of national economies are INVALID.

It should be understood that these “invalid estimates” are the numbers quoted relentlessly 24/7 by the media in the course of the First and Second Waves, which have been used to feed the fear campaign and “justify” ALL the policies put forth by the governments: lockdown, closure of economic activity, social distancing, face mask, curfew, as well as the vaccine. 

Invalid Data. Think Twice Before Getting Vaccinated

And Now we have entered a so-called “Third Wave”. (where’s the data??)

It’s a complex “pack of lies”.

It’s a crime against humanity.

The Puppet Masters: Is There Really a Deep State?

The danger posed by the Deep State is that it wields immense power but is unelected and unaccountable, Phil Giraldi writes.

By Philip Giraldi (via Global Research)

As a former intelligence officer, I find it amusing to read articles in the mainstream media that blithely report how the latest international outrages are undoubtedly the work of CIA and the rest of the U.S. government’s national security alphabet soup. The recurring claim that the CIA is somehow running the world by virtue of a vast conspiracy that includes the secret intelligence agencies of a number of countries, using blackmail and other inducements to corrupt vulnerable politicians and opinion makers, has entered into the DNA of journalists worldwide, frequently without any evidence that the current crop of spies is capable to doing anything more complicated than getting out of bed in the morning.

One problem with the theory about total global dominance through espionage is the sheer logistics of it all. Directing political and economic developments in two hundred nations simultaneously must require a lot of space and a large staff. Is there a huge office hidden in Langley? Or the Pentagon? Or in the White House West Wing itself? Or is it in one of the secure facilities that have been popping up like mushrooms just off of the Dulles Toll Road in Herndon Virginia?

To provide evidence that intelligence agencies extend their tentacles just about everywhere, the other claim that is nearly always made is that all former spooks are part of the conspiracy, as once you learn the secret handshake to join CIA, NSA or the FBI you never stop being “one of them.” Well, that might be true in some cases but the majority of former spooks are quite happy to be “former,” and one might also observe that many voices in the anti-war movement, such as it is, come from intelligence, law enforcement or military backgrounds. Of course, the conspiracy theorists will explain that away by claiming that it is a conspiracy within a conspiracy, making the dissidents little better than double agents or gatekeepers who are put in place to make sure that the opposition doesn’t become too effective.

Given the fact that how the so-called American “Deep State” actually gets together and plots is unknown, one would have to concede that it is an organization without much structure, unlike the original Turkish Deep State (Derin Devlet), which coined the phrase, that actually met and had centralized planning. I would suggest that the problem is one of definitions and it also helps to know how the national security state is structured and what its legitimate mission is. The CIA, for example, employs about 20,000 people, nearly all of whom work in various divisions that collect information (spying), analysis, technology and also are divided into staffs that work transnationally on issues like terrorism, narcotics, and nuclear proliferation. The overwhelming majority of those employees have political views and vote but there is a consensus that what their work entails is apolitical. The actual politics of how policy comes out the other end is confined to a very small group at the top, some of whom are themselves political appointees.

To be sure, one can and probably should oppose the policies of regime change that the Agency is engaged in worldwide but there is one important consideration that has to be understood. Those policies are set by the country’s civilian leadership (president, secretary of state and national security council) and they are imposed on CIA by its own political leadership. The Agency does not hold referenda among its employees to determine which foreign policy option is preferable any more than soldiers in the 101st Airborne are consulted when they receive orders to deploy.

Nearly all current and former intelligence officers that I know are, in fact, opposed to the politics of U.S. global dominance that have been pretty much in place since 9/11, most particularly as evidenced by the continued conflict with Russia, the ramping up of aggression with China, and the regime change policies relating to Syria, Iran and Venezuela. Those officers often consider the invasions and exercise of “maximum pressure” to have been failures. Those policies were supported by truculent language, sanctions and displays of military readiness by the Trump Administration but it now appears clear that they will all be continued in one form or another under President Joe Biden, likely to include even more aggression against Russia through proxies in Ukraine and Georgia.

The officers engaged in such operations also observe that regime change has basically come out of the closet since 2001. George W. Bush announced that there was a “new sheriff in town” and the gloves would be coming off. Things that the intelligence agencies used to do are now done right out in the open, using military resources against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria while the biggest change of all, in Ukraine in 2014, was largely engineered by Victoria Nuland at the State Department. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was also active in Russia supporting opposition parties until the Kremlin forced them to leave the country.

So, it is fair to say that the Deep State is not a function of either the CIA or the FBI, but at the same time the involvement of John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey in the plot to destroy Donald Trump is disturbing, as the three men headed the Agency, the Office of National Intelligence and Bureau. They appear to have played critical leadership roles in carrying out this conspiracy and they may not have operated on their own. Almost certainly what they may have done would have been either explicitly or implicitly authorized by the former President of the United States, Barack Obama, and others in his national security team.

It is now known that President Barack Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan created a secret interagency Trump Task Force in early 2016. Rather than working against genuine foreign threats, this Task Force played a critical role in creating and feeding the meme that Donald Trump was a tool of the Russians and a puppet of President Vladimir Putin, a claim that still surfaces regularly to this day. Working with Clapper, Brennan fabricated the narrative that “Russia had interfered in the 2016 election.” Brennan and Clapper promoted that tale even though they knew very well that Russia and the United States have carried out a broad array of covert actions against each other, including information operations, for the past seventy years, but they pretended that what happened in 2016 was qualitatively and substantively different even though the “evidence” produced to support that claim is weak to nonexistent.

I would, nevertheless, argue that their behavior, though it exploited intelligence resources, was not intrinsic to the organizations that they led, that the three of them were part and parcel of the real Deep State, which consists of a consensus view on running the country that is held by nearly all of the elements that together make up the American Establishment, with its political power focused in Washington and its financial center in New York City. It should come as no surprise that those government officials who are complicit in the process are often personally rewarded with highly paid sinecure jobs in financial services, which they know nothing about, when they “retire.”

The danger posed by the Deep State, or, if you choose, the Establishment, is that it wields immense power but is unelected and unaccountable. Even though it does not actually meet in secret, it does operate through relationships that are not transparent and as the media is part of it, there is little chance that its activity will be exposed. One notes that while the Deep State is mentioned frequently in the national media there has been little effort to identify its components and how it operates.

Viewed in that fashion, the argument that there exists a cohesive group of power brokers who really run the country and are even able to coopt those who are ostensibly dedicated to keeping the country safe becomes much more plausible without denigrating the many honest people who are employed by the national security agencies. The Deep State conspirators don’t have to meet to plot as they all understand very well what has to be done to maintain their supremacy. That is the real danger. The Biden Administration will surely demonstrate over the next several months that the Deep State is still with us and more powerful than ever as it operates both inside and outside the government itself. And the real danger comes from the Democrats now in charge, who are if anything more given to playing with consensus politics that involve phony threats than were the Republicans.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.orgaddress is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is

Get ready for the merging of BETFURY Casino

By Makingdigital (via PublishOx)

I have already spoken on previous occasions about Betfury, one of the best cryptocurrency online casinos to make money. An application that works within the Tron blockchain and that last month they introduced the BNB coin both in the Faucet and in the boxes.

Betfury represents what every self-respecting casino should have. Security, trust, continuous improvements, support, faucet, possibility of obtaining passive income, staking service and tokenized bets. This invites us to continue playing every day.

Yesterday the Merging was definitively concluded. Betfury has unified its BFG (BTC) and BFT (TRX) tokens into one. Now we only have the BFG token and all supported cryptocurrencies will be used to mine these tokens when we bet.

In the next two weeks we will have 15% more mining bonuses, each bet, regardless of the asset you are betting, will give you 15% more fractions of the BFG token.

The tokens are the epicenter of the page, since having them in possession will bring us dividends daily without the need to do anything else. Every 24 hours we can go to the Staking section and claim our winnings. The more tokens you have, the more dividends you will generate.

The rewards obtained through staking diminish with the passage of time since part of the tokens that are distributed undergo a burning process so that the ecosystem remains healthy and users with large capitals do not remain leveraged for a long time receiving large amounts of dividends . Thus, Betfury ensures that players continue to bet to maintain their dividends.

Let’s not forget that in the last few weeks, they have been offering several boxes of BNB with more than a 30% return. A real pass.

As I say, one of the best online casinos, without a doubt. By the way, 48 hours ago, I requested a withdrawal of 1650 BTT and they arrived in a matter of minutes. Pay, promise and surprise.

Hopefully Betfury will stay with us for a long time.

BetFury! Free BNB And More…

By benjamo89 (via PublishOx)

Betfury is a crypto currency gambling website.

You can claim from the Both of the faucets every 20 minutes that is 1.25 Satoshi and 0.000022 BNB. (BNB faucet is paying double for the next 40 hours of writing this post so be fast if you want to get the extra rewards.

Boxes have been updated to only BNB, Limited to one at a time

Digital Box: Costs 0.005 BNB for 7 days you earn 20% (monthly rate) interest and for 30 days you earn 100% (monthly rate) interest.

Chain Box: Costs 0.05 BNB for 7 days your earn 5% (monthly rate) interest and for 30 days you earn 10% interest.

If you want to find out more about BetFury have a look at my other posts:

Bet fury! Invest and earn without gambling!

Bet fury! gamble for free and earn?

BetFury! Earn BTC Daily Without Betting?

BetFury! Curacao’s Gaming Licence.

if you you like to join ——->BetFury CLICK HERE<——-

Is BetFury Burying Tron?

By PopPopPrego (via PublishOx)

The internet gambling/cryptofaucet/cryptostaking/raccoon-enthusiast site BetFury announced this week that they are proposing fusing their two house tokens into a single token, BFG. At the time I joined the site, BetFury had two tokens, one pegged to Bitcoin, BFG(BTC) and the other pegged to Tron BFG (TRX). You “mine” these tokens by betting with their underlying crypto. For example, when you bet Bitcoin satoshi, win or lose, you mine a little bit of the BFG(BTC) token.

Because BetFury has a Bitcoin faucet, it was time-consuming but very possible to keep growing your Bitcoin stake while also gambling just enough to mine 10 BFG(BTC), which means you can make daily staking claims on their set of crypto, which currently is BTC, ETH, BNB, BTT, USDT, TRX. They also have SUN, but the Bitcoin stake doesn’t pay out to that coin. I didn’t have any Tron (TRX) to deposit, and I am more interested in free-for-free-sake plays anyway, so mining BFG(TRX) was essentially impossible.

So, I was quite interested to read through BetFury’s proposal to merge the tokens. They laid out their rationale, which mostly sounded like an effort to solidify their BFG token, asked for my vote, and more or less said “sorry Tron fans.” The voting is HEAVILY in favor of the fusion, which itself heavily favors the value of the BTC token over the TRX token. For me, this is good news because it means that my little pile of BFG will now pay out in all the tokens they offer (again except for SUN).

But does this backing away from Tron on a site that seemed enthusiastic about the coin portend weakness and escalating votes of non-confidence in TRX? I have not read a single bit of encouraging news about Tron lately and a lot of the writers I follow seem to view it as a scam. It seems to me that the BFG fusion is likely a preview of BetFury eliminating their TRX-backed tokens altogether. As I mentioned above, they already have cut off all paths to earning SUN on the site, and relative to BTC, ETH, and BNB, the other Tron tokens are pretty worthless.

In my curiosity, I wanted to know if there were any other indications of weakening in support for Tron. This is actually my first shared splashing about in the financial data for a cryptocurrency, so I hope I don’t make a mess of it!

Tron makes its case, in a sense, as a smart contracts for gaming and entertainment. I honestly don’t know if there are other coins that are as important to betting and gambling, but there are a lot of emerging competitors for entertainment and regular gaming, including the WAX ecosystem and it’s bigger enabler EOS, what Theta and Hive seem to be trying to do, and additional niche players like Library. Please note that I did not do much of a search for competitors to Tron in these spaces. Cointelegraph names its competitors as a blend of what to my mind are huge smart contract and finance rivals like Ethereum, Cardano, and Tezos, as well as EOS.

I just think that it is a little odd that this coin that seemed designed to have partnerships with companies like BetFury is losing that partnership at the same time that BetFury has amped up its relationship with ETH and BNB. Might be a one-off. How about Tron’s currency performance?

Tron’s token, TRX, has a market cap of $3.5 Billion, and a 24 hour trading volume of $1.48 Billion, according to for 5 March, 2021. lists TRX as its 19th largest coin by market cap and 15th largest by trading volume. How does that compare historically for TRX? 


This chart comes from and shows more than 2 years of market cap data on TRX. The blue line represents market cap in US Dollars, the yellow line, which is very cool for those considering altcoin investments, is market cap in Bitcoin. You can see that the market cap of TRX was pretty steady through the last couple of rough years and has climbed a bit in USD terms in this 2021 bull run. However, it is actually a smaller market player in Bitcoin terms than in nearly any time since its launch. 

Is that a bad thing? I don’t really know, tbh. I am out of my element here, but given the flood of innovative players in the gambling, gaming, entertainment, and smart contract spaces, AND given the occasionally spotty track record of Tron leadership (Hi! Helpful tip…don’t plagiarize your whitepaper!), and the fact that BetFury seems to be giving TRX the “it’s not you, it’s me” talk, I am not bullish. 

But, but, is it really a big deal that BetFury is fusing TRX into oblivion? Well, according to, BetFury holds a balance of 3,000,000 TRX. This is out of the total estimated pool of 71,659,657,369 TRX in circulation. Yeah, just change that middle 9 to a 6 and you have the total impact that BetFury could exert. Not very much at all.

With that being said, I will be keeping my eyes open for news of new projects and adoptions of Tron. It has some major partners like Samsung, has the BitTorrent partnership, and is still a Top 20 currency, after all.

What do you think?

Is BetFury burying TRX altogether? They have been quite savvy at adding ETH and BNB with nearly perfect timing considering all the planning and marketing setup they need to do for a successful launch. Are they equally savvy at calling the end to Tron?


You can sign up for BetFury and start building your stake with my referral link:

Remember, though, it is a gambling site, and a successful one at that! They know how to get our money, and there is a lot of encouragement for you to bet away all your hard earned faucet drips. Be restrained and you can build little piles of BTC, BNB, ETH, USDT, and more!

If you like more of a sure thing, you can check out my tried and true Cointiply (referral link)!

🔥 Binance X Ocean || Learn & Earn Program 🔥 Earn up to 20$

By FreedomBuilder (via Publish Ox)

📈 OCEAN is Already Listed on Binance Exchange.

🎁 Total Reward: Pool of $20,000

🏦 Go to Binance and get your UID “User ID”.

✈️ OCEAN Learn & Earn Quiz Google Form.

📌 Visit OCEAN Learn & Earn Quiz Google Form.
📌 Get your your UID “User ID” in Binance.
📌 Complete the quiz on the Form.

🛠 Quiz Answers are below 🛠

Q.1) How can individuals benefit from a Web3 enabled data economy?
Ans: D: All of the above

Q.2) What is the main advantage of Ocean Protocol?
Ans: D: All of the above

Q.3) Which of the following statements are true?
Ans: B: Data DeFi leverages datatokens to open up new opportunities in the DeFi space

Q.4) What can you do on the Ocean Market?
Ans: E: All but C

🔴 Please remember that all airdrops should be free, and you don’t need to pay any penny. Just submit and wait patiently.

👀 Check My Telegram Channel To Avoid MISSING HOT AIRDROPS & UPDATES here 👉

BAT joins the Binance Smart Chain (BSC)

By zev (via Publish Ox)

Brave has just announced integration with Binance Smart Chain (BSC) in form of wrapped BAT. This is huge news!

Integration with BSC blockchain will give BAT holders:

1. opportunity to participate in it’s projects (PancakeSwap, Beefy Finance, and so on)
2. browser wallet with preconfigured support for BSC
3. low transactions fees and scalability

It’s a huge step in Brave’s mission to make DeFi user-friendly for the mass market. As of today, the third point is probably the most interesting given the current problems with ridiculous fees in the Ethereum blockchain.

Just to be clear: BAT doesn’t migrate from Ethereum blockchain to BSC. It’s just that BAT expands beyond Ethereum ecosystem and explores new terrains.

In case you don’t already know what “wrapped token” means: it’s cryptocurrency token (in this case: BAT built on Ethereum’s blockchain) pegged to the value of another crypto (BSC’s wrapped BAT). Different blockchains can’t communicate between each other, but wrapped tokens can. For more details please visit the link below:


By Hakuna Matata (via Publish Ox)

Cointiply is, I think, one of the most undervalued websites to earn Bitcoin. There are many high paying surveys you can take and earn up to 20.000 coins for each survey. That’s why today I am going to write a short review about it.

Earn more Coins with Cointiply than every other Bitcoin faucet or rewards site combined.

Cointiply - This faucet can make you earn 50k satoshi every week

It’s a site that pays out cryptocurrency whenever you make a claim, i.e. a free random roll. And if you roll a prime number, you’ll get a bonus, and you can earn another bonus for logging in and spinning the faucet every day. You can refer your friends and get 25% of what they earn from the faucet for life.

You can go to faucet section and click the “Roll & Win” button to get free coins based on the random number that you roll. Make this site your start screen on your browser (use Brave browser to earn free BAT) to claim every hour. Here is the payout schedule: ( Coins + Cointiplier Bonus)


DeFI TVL Soars to $55B

By Abhimanyu Krishnan (via Publish Ox)

The total value locked into the DeFi market has skyrocketed so far this month, reaching an all-time high of $54.75 billion as of Feb. 11.

  • DeFi market data tracker DeFi Llama shows that the TVL has soared to new ATHs of over $54 billion amid the rallying market
  • MakerDAO is the market’s most dominant protocol, with over $6.3 billion locked in; Aave follows with $5.94 billion locked in
  • The market has nearly triple in TVL since Jan. 1, when it was at $20 billion
  • Further growth is likely to occur as firms like Grayscale begin to offer DeFi assets in its products
  • In all likeliness, the TVL is probably higher — platforms like DeFiPulse do not always accurately reflect market activity and sometimes omits major protocols
  • For example, the 1inch team states that its TVL has crossed $2 billion, making it a relevant addition to DeFiPulse, but the latter has not added 1inch to its data platform

What crypto will look like with Bitcoin at $100,000.

By Dzoelx (via Publish Ox)

It’s no news that you can now buy a bar of gold with 1BTC and still have a good balance left. Personally, I can’t think of a good reason to buy gold with bitcoin currently. The ‘precious metal’ has been around for a long as man can remember and as long as luxury climbed the scale of human societal needs. But in essence, it hasn’t contributed more than this to the overall fate of the society.

In a space of months, bitcoin has tumbled over its value to exceed the $60,000 mark and record a price we only dreamt of few years ago. The rise to prominence of bitcoin and cryptocurrency has been dramatic. Filled with optimistic and pessimistic events, this space has lived through bullish and bearish waves. Each time, it has created new believers, many have freaked out too. These periods are also characterized by relatively different human behaviors. The free market is actually an interplay between events and human behavior.

Bearish periods breed true believers and optimists. Most crypto enthusiasts are here ‘for the money’, but only few are ready to play the long game. Bearish periods breed this set of enthusiasts. Pessimists are quick to jump the boat, especially if they already made any profit at all. Optimists ride the waves, pessimists jump the ship, the bear market reveals who stayed and who freaked out…lol.



As things get better and the market looks more rewarding, there is an influx of people who hope to tap from the flowing market. New enthusiasts who got really impressed by the good news from the formerly ‘less-profitable’ market, pessimists who left the space when the storm rocked the sea; these two set of people make up majority of the new believers.

Bitcoin at $5,000 didn’t look as attractive as bitcoin at $25,000. You’d expect more investors to hit the market at the former price, but the later price actually attracts more investors, a very surprising phenomenon! Well, humans are weird. At $30,000, the number of institutions and individual investors seeking to invest in cryptocurrency grew tangibly. Tesla bought about $1.5 billion worth of bitcoin at about $35,000 each. For a firm as brilliant as Tesla, you’d expect them to invest earlier than when they did, but just as said earlier, a very surprising phenomenon.

With more growth comes even more craving, the bull market is unarguably shaping the crypto space. As the value rises, so does the interest and also emerging human reaction. $58, 000 was a dramatic one as bitcoin drew levels with gold. Early gold investors who never believed in bitcoin will have to sell a complete bar of gold (and more) for a full bitcoin. Should be infuriating, for them.

Continuing on its run, bitcoin grew past this point and is poised to go even further. Influencers teased the $100,000 per bitcoin price over the years. More than ever, we are close to reaching this dream point. But what comes after we get there? Only few have actually given this a reasonable amount of thought. How will the crypto space react to $100,000 per bitcoin?


If the $100,000 dream actualizes, then it’s high time we gave up the thought of bitcoin dominance going below 50%. Bitcoin controls over 60% of the total cryptocurrency market capitalization. With over $1 trillion invested in bitcoin, it is the ‘alpha cryptocurrency’, nothing comes even close. Even ethereum is about eight times lesser than bitcoin in total market capitalization. The $100,000 price will even widen this more and push bitcoin higher in the peak position which it already occupies. It will probably remain at this top as long as cryptocurrency stays relevant.

We once hoped for $100,000, influencers predicted when this will come. Once this is attained, next move will be to hope for even more. Influencers will have to switch to an even bigger figure. $1 million per bitcoin, or $200,000 per bitcoin. One is ‘aggressive’ the other is ‘conservative’, it is up to you to decide which one. If the $100,000 target is hit, then we’d have to expect more ‘MacAfee-like’ predictions.

When bitcoin hikes in price, a usual trend is altcoins losing their values for a while and picking up when bitcoin settles down. This have been the usual dynamics for a while. However, if bitcoin should hit the $100,000 dollar mark, this trend could see some changes. Altcoins might join the party in an unusual fashion. The probability of altcoins blazing through alongside bitcoin is high. This is due to the influx of buyers who would flock the market to buy ‘the new bitcoin’ and not bitcoin itself. Altcoins will rally due to the quest for a project poised to bring more gains.

Square capital bought bitcoin below $20,000, Tesla bought bitcoin below $40, 000 but way above $20,000. Bitcoin’s success as regards price draws the attention of institutions more than a price crash. When bitcoin sells around $100,000; we’ll unarguably see an explosion in institutional interests. Private and public offices will want to get a bite. “if $100,000 was possible, then $1 million isn’t far-fetched”…lol


Greed, fear of missing out and propaganda; the crypto space is poised to welcome each of these in full force if bitcoin hits $100,000. While they have always been normal attitudes in the crypto space, such growth will fuel this even more.

It is uncertain how the cryptocurrency communities will react to bitcoin at $100,000 and other events which will follow them, but the above prediction won’t be far from correct. Over to you, what will crypto look like with bitcoin at $100,000?

The Top Four Tips for Cryptocurrency Investing

By Austin Reihl (via Publish Ox)

Trading or investing in any financial market can be a profitable but also dangerous endeavor. It requires knowledge, skills, and experience no matter the market traders are employing.

Of course, gaining experience often comes with taking (sometimes) significant losses. However, it is an advantageous position to be in where one can learn from the experience of a trader with a long history in the field to avoid making these same mistakes themselves.

1. Diversification Is Key

The topic of diversification – otherwise known as the not putting all of your eggs in one basket strategy is a tried-and-tested method to minimize risk when it comes down to any investment strategy method.

Putting all of your funds into one (or very few) assets might be devastating in case the price takes a critical hit. In an event like this, the entire portfolio will suffer, and many traders find themselves in a position where they are unable to recover from such a blow.

Diversification means spreading the risk between numerous assets. It can be dangerous if you neglect to diversify. Even if you believe in Bitcoin (BTC) and crypto as a whole, it is perceived to be a generally unnecessary risk to put all of your wealth only in one asset class.

Diversify your finances accordingly and make sure not to spread yourself too thin, either.

2. DYOR = Do Your Own Research

DYOR is short for do your own research.

The cryptocurrency field is considerably young. While the stock market has existed for over a century, digital assets emerged with BTC’s creation in 2009 and are yet to see mass adoption, despite the 2017 initial coin offering (ICO) boom.

As such, many experienced professionals and casual speculators in the field will experience significant growth in the upcoming years, and investors should do comprehensive research to find the most profitable projects.

These are projects run by companies likely to become the next Amazon or Google 20 years from now – investors have to be more patient now than ever and selective to make sure they are getting involved in the projects with staying power.

3. Buy The Dips (Or Buy When Everyone Else Is Selling)

There is a famous saying in the investment field that advises people to buy low and sell high. To buy an asset low (a cryptocurrency, in this context) means to purchase it while the price is depreciating and not the other way around, which is typically what the majority does.

Yet, it is not as simple as it sounds. Human nature and emotions are susceptible to panic – this urges investors to sell their assets when prices are plunging before they buy back in due to FOMO (fear of missing out) when the prices are once again skyrocketing.

Accumulating Bitcoin, Ethereum (ETH), or any other asset class that you as an investor believe in while the prices are dropping is vital for long-term success.

Finally, after a bubble pops in the cryptocurrency markets (like in 2018, for example, or the Coronavirus crash last March) and prices are severely below the trending average – I accumulate as many of my favorite coins and tokens as I can for staking and cold storage.

Tuck it away, and forget about the price.

4. Risk Management – Almost No One Gets Rich Quickly

Risk management is the most important thing. Many traders get caught up, and most of them lose money because they do not think about the risk – they only think about ways to get rich quickly.

Thus, to accomplish better risk management, investors should also employ a famous narrative – to invest using funds they can afford to lose. Consequently, if the price plunges, it would not disrupt your investment plans or trading strategy and cause you to panic sell while taking a massive loss.

And finally, you might ask yourself:

Which cryptocurrencies have a greater chance of breaking their prior all-time-highs or setting the greatest new one?

The DNI’s Russian Meddling Report Denigrates Dissident Americans

By Andrew Korybko (via One World)

The Director of National Intelligence published a report on Tuesday claiming that the American Intelligence Community has “high confidence” in its provocative assessment that President Putin “was aware of and probably directed Russia’s influence operations” aimed at meddling in the US’ 2020 elections, including by relying on a proxy network of supposedly foreign intelligence-linked US contacts who “denigrat[ed] President Biden and the Democratic Party” in parallel with supporting former President Trump’s suspicions of mail-in ballots and social media censorship among other topics, which in essence amounts to US spies unprecedentedly attempting to intimidate dissident Americans.

The Dystopian American Hellhole

Biden’s America is descending into the dystopian hellhole that the author accurately predicted it would become last November, but at a much faster pace than even he thought was possible as evidenced by the conclusions reached in the Director of National Intelligence’s latest report about alleged Russian meddling in the US’ 2020 elections. The 15-page document provocatively assesses with “high confidence” that President Putin “was aware of and probably directed Russia’s influence operations” aimed at shaping the outcome of America’s democratic process, including by relying on a proxy network of supposedly foreign intelligence-linked US contacts who “denigrat[ed] President Biden and the Democratic Party” in parallel with supporting former President Trump’s suspicions of mail-in ballots and social media censorship among other topics. This shockingly amounts to US spies unprecedentedly attempting to intimidate dissident Americans. 

In The Words Of America’s Own Spies

So as not to be accused of sharing so-called “fake news”, what follows are pertinent excerpts from the report:

We have high confidence in our assessment; Russian state and proxy actors who all serve the Kremlin’s interests worked to affect US public perceptions in a consistent manner…We assess that President Putin and other senior Russian officials were aware of and probably directed Russia’s influence operations against the 2020 US Presidential election…The primary effort the IC uncovered revolved around a narrative-that Russian actors began spreading as early as 2014-alleging corrupt ties between President Biden, his family, and other US officials and Ukraine. Russian intelligence services relied on Ukraine-linked proxies and these proxies’ networks-including their US contacts-to spread this narrative to give Moscow plausible deniability of their involvement.

Throughout the election, Russia’s online influence actors sought to amplify mistrust in the electoral process by denigrating mail-in ballots, highlighting alleged irregularities, and accusing the Democratic Party of voter fraud…Russian state media, trolls, and online proxies, including those directed by Russian intelligence, published disparaging content about President Biden, his family, and the Democratic Party, and heavily amplified related content circulating in US media, including stories centered on his son. These influence actors frequently sought out US contributors to increase their reach into US audiences. In addition to election-related content, these online influence actors also promoted conspiratorial narratives about the COVID-19 pandemic, made allegations of social media censorship, and highlighted US divisions surrounding protests about racial justice. 

Russian online influence actors generally promoted former President Trump and his commentary, including repeating his political messaging on the election results; the presidential campaign; debates; the impeachment inquiry; and, as the election neared, US domestic crises…Moscow’s range of influence actors uniformly worked to denigrate President Biden after his entrance into the race. Throughout the primaries and general election campaign, Russian influence agents repeatedly spread unsubstantiated or misleading claims about President Biden and his family’s alleged wrongdoing related to Ukraine…Even after the election, Russian online influence actors continued to promote narratives questioning the election results and disparaging President Biden and the Democratic Party.”

21st-Century McCarthyism

As can be clearly concluded from the above excerpts, America’s own spies openly accused dissident Americans of being Russian intelligence assets – if not outright agents – actively participating in a foreign influence operation aimed at meddling in their country’s elections. This determination was reached solely as a result of their public criticisms of Biden, the Democrat Party, mail-in ballots, the politicization of the COVID-19 pandemic (described by the author as World War C), objectively existing social media censorship policies (including the undeniable example of former President Trump’s deplatforming), Antifa and “Black Lives Matter’s” Hybrid War of Terror onAmerica, and the self-professed regime change “conspiracy” by a “well-connected cabal of powerful people” that Time Magazine proudly bragged about the Democrats successfully executing against Trump. 

In other words, dissident Americans’ peaceful and responsible exercise of their constitutionally enshrined freedom of speech – including by repeating what their own president at the time was saying – is being held against them as supposed proof that they were secretly meddling in their elections on behalf of Russia. This can only be described as 21st-century McCarthyism since the spy faction of America’s permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) is once again actively denigrating the country’s dissidents and therefore quite literally meddling in their own country’s democratic process despite ironically accusing Moscow of doing the exact same thing. Not only is this meant to intimidate all those who dare to publicly voice their opposition to the ruling Democrat Party and its proxies (including the RINOs), but it’s also intended to revive the debunked conspiracy theory that Trump was actually a “Russian agent/asset”. 

Concluding Thoughts

America is in for dark days ahead as Biden’s dystopian hellhole becomes a reality even quicker than some of the most critical voices such as the author himself could have predicted. The US’ spy agencies are sending the clearest signal yet that they’ll politically repress all those who dare to publicly oppose the ruling Democrat Party and its proxies. This could predictably take the form of first harassing them with their taxes and then perhaps calling them into local FBI field offices to be interrogated, after which they might even have false espionage or other related charges filed against them in order to send a chilling message to all others. This unprecedented attack against American dissidents is arguably much worse than anything that the country ever experienced during the era of traditional McCarthyism, and it won’t improve anytime soon since the Democrats are solidly in control of the “deep state” and eager to snuff out all dissent whenever and wherever it arises.

Biden’s ‘Greater Middle East’ Peace Push Lacks Any Meaningful Progress

By Andrew Korybko (via One World)

The reason for this is that the US refuses to learn from its mistakes contrary to its post-Trump rhetoric, which has resulted in scant progress being made in Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya. 

The Biden Administration isn’t serious about bringing peace to the four countries in the so-called “Greater Middle East” whose suffering the US is responsible for. Whether it’s his over-hyped policy pivot in Yemen, the stalled peace processes in Afghanistan and Syria, or the seemingly forgotten war in Libya, the new American leader appears to be all talk and no real action, at least for the time being. The reason for this is that the US refuses to learn from its mistakes contrary to its post-Trump rhetoric, which has resulted in scant progress being made on any of those four fronts. What follows is a brief review of the current situation in each of those countries, after which some policy suggestions will be shared for jump-starting those peace processes. 


Biden’s decision to suspend all US military support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen was a positive move, but his subsequent ceasefire proposal failed to live up to expectations. It doesn’t fully lift the blockade that’s responsible for what the United Nations previously described as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. This suggests that his administration is playing a Machiavellian game with the Ansarullah (“Houthi”) rebels whereby the threat of famine is being weaponized as a means of politically pressuring them into unilateral concessions. Instead of being treated as an equally legitimate party to the peace process like the Biden Administration officially regards them as after lifting their prior terrorist designation, they’re treated as a junior one. 


US Special Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad appeared to follow in the diplomatic footsteps of his Russian counterpart, Zamir Kabulov, by recently suggesting the creation of an interim government that includes the Taliban. Despite being officially designated as a terrorist organization, world powers have pragmatically engaged with the group over the years in an effort to support the country’s fledgling peace process. No political solution is possible without the Taliban’s participation. The problem, however, is that the Biden Administration is under internal pressure not to complete former President Trump’s previously promised military withdrawal by this May, which risks undermining last year’s peace accord with the Taliban and thus prolonging the war. 


Out of the four examined conflicts, the US is the least serious about bringing peace to Syria, which it no longer even tries to hide. It bombed the country last month on the pretext of targeting allegedly Iranian-affiliated militias that it blamed for attacking American forces in Iraq. The US also continues to tighten its brutal sanctions regime against Syria with the intent of forcing its democratically elected and legitimate leadership into submission. There are also credible reports from official Syrian, Russian, and Iranian sources that the US’ illegal occupation forces support terrorists. The US hasn’t learned anything despite the disastrous war that it’s waged there through hybrid means over the past decade. Its present policy is therefore doomed to fail. 


Most of the world seems to have forgotten about this conflict, but a ceasefire was surprisingly agreed to late last year between its main warring sides: the UN-recognized government in Tripoli and the rebellious Tobruk-based administration in the east most prominently represented by General Khalifa Haftar of the Libyan National Army. This in turn led to the creation of an interim government that’ll preside over the country until elections this December. All of this sounds good on paper, but the problem is that Libya has already been down a similar path before but with no success. That’s because its internal divisions are exacerbated through the involvement of foreign forces, but such external actors aren’t negotiating between themselves to pursuit of peace. 

Policy Suggestions

In the order that they were mentioned, here’s what the Biden Administration must do in order to jump-start the peace processes in Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya:

* Demand the full and immediate lifting of the Saudi-led blockade on Yemen without any preconditions in order to satisfy the Yemeni people’s humanitarian needs and influence the Ansarullah to agree to a ceasefire;

* Respect last year’s peace agreement by withdrawing all US forces from Afghanistan by this May in parallel with accelerating the creation of an interim government with the Taliban to facilitate a forthcoming ceasefire;

* Respect the outcome of this spring’s presidential elections that will likely lead to President Assad’s re-election and use that as the long-overdue pretext for entering into talks with Damascus without preconditions;

* and convene international talks between the US, France, Russia, Turkey, Egypt, and the UAE with the intent of coordinating each major external party’s post-war vision ahead of meaningful intra-Libyan peace talks.

Tom Cotton’s Anti-Chinese Containment Strategy Is Really Cunning

By Andrew Korybko (via One World)

The office of Republican Senator Tom Cotton published a comprehensive containment strategy against China last month that cunningly proposes a series of complementary coalitions aimed towards this end, including in the technological and institutional spheres, which essentially amounts to the creation of a modern-day Iron Curtain if successfully implemented.

Biden’s “Deep State” Balancing Act

President Biden’s strategy towards China increasingly appears to be predicated on expanding his predecessor’s containment policy, albeit in a more multilateral fashion than former President Trump’s mostly unilateral one. This is evidenced by his keynote speech at the State Department last month which led to my conclusion that “Alliances, Democracy, And Values Will Disguise American Aggression”. This was entirely foreseeable too since I earlier predicted that “An ‘Alliance Of Democracies’ Might Be America’s Next Grand Strategic Move”. The behind-the-scenes decision-making basis for this is that Biden must “balance” between competing “deep state” factions in his country’s permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies that are split between those who embrace Trump’s “America First” international outlook and the liberal-globalists who are more closely connected to former President Obama. I elaborated on the dynamic between them and their possible compromise with respect to more cleverly “containing” China in exchange for cautiously re-engaging with Iran in my related analysis late last year about “Deep State Wars: Trump vs. Biden on China & Iran”. 

Targeted Decoupling And The Long Economic War”

Republican Senator Tom Cotton, a notorious anti-China hawk, published a comprehensive containment strategy against China last month that was written by members of his office. It cunningly proposes a series of complementary coalitions aimed towards this end, including in the technological and institutional spheres, which essentially amounts to the creation of a modern-day Iron Curtain if successfully implemented. This might possibly happen considering that it largely aligns with the Biden Administration’s multilateral plans in this respect. The 84-page document is titled “Beat China: Targeted Decoupling And The Long Economic War”, and a summary of it can be read at Breitbart here. To be sure, it’s not all bad, since many of his proposals about diversifying the US’ economic partners and reshoring its businesses are sound in principle, as are his suggestions for stockpiling rare earth minerals, semiconductor chips, and other materials of national security importance. So too are his ideas about modernizing regulations and the tax code, investing more in research and development, and improving the federal government’s efficiency. They all make logical sense. 

Cotton’s Anti-Chinese Containment Coalition

The problem, however, is that he also basically wants to wage a global Hybrid War on China. His rationale is that this is the only possible recourse for America after its prior policy of attempting to influence domestic political changes there through decades of economic engagement failed to achieve any tangible dividends. In his own words, “this generational effort at engagement was an experiment to see whether greater economic integration would generate political change in China”, which he rightly argues has been unsuccessful. Instead of abandoning that consistently failed policy of meddling in China’s internal affairs, he wants to double down on it but in a craftier way through the establishment of semiconductor, 5G, and data-sharing blocs as crucial pillars of the larger “American-led, China-excluded trading order with trusted nations in the Indo-Pacific” that he proposes. In parallel with that, he advises that “The United States should launch a similar effort with respect to the United Kingdom and the European Union, America’s top export market.” The grand strategic outcome is therefore the creation of a massive anti-Chinese containment coalition along the Eurasian Rimland. 

Color Revolution Catalysts

This isn’t just for prestige’s sake, but is predicated on his expectation that “Chinese citizens willing to accept an increasingly heavy-handed authoritarian state in exchange for a higher standard of living may think twice if growth slows or stagnates. As a result, the CCP fears that declines in exports, growth, and employment could pose political liabilities.” In other words, the interconnected semiconductor, 5G, and data-sharing blocs that he wants to create within his envisioned anti-Chinese Eurasian Rimland containment coalition are supposed to eventually harm China’s economic growth when paired with a more aggression sanctions and tariff policy, which he hopes will in turn create fertile ground for a series of Color Revolutionsthere that could ultimately make the infamous Tiananmen Square Color Revolution attempt look like child’s play in hindsight. The proposed containment coalition would also prospectively expand worldwide all across the Global South according to his vision of the US “leveraging development finance and foreign aid”. Ironically, this is exactly what the US accuses China of doing against its own interests, so it’s curious that Cotton is embracing this same strategy. 

Economic Warfare

According to him, “Mobilizing these powerful institutions can support a U.S. strategy for targeted decoupling by incentivizing foreign countries to resist Chinese entreaties, such as participation in the Belt and Road Initiative, and supporting American companies in strategic sectors.” These efforts will be made all the more effective if US spy agencies follow his advice to expand operations against the People’s Republic. His report importantly suggests that “the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) should expand its collection efforts relating to China’s economy, including IP theft, the corporate and capital structures of Chinese firms, the shareholders of China’s strategic companies, and technological developments within Chinese companies.” Although he claims that this proposal is being made defensively in order to identify possible targets to sanction in response to alleged intellectual property theft, the insight obtained through these operations could very easily be abused for offensive purposes to undercut China’s economic competitiveness and meddle in its many Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) partnerships. 

Institutional Intrigue

The aggressive activities of this global anti-Chinese containment coalition are intended to be upheld by the international institutions that Cotton says that the US should either reclaim or replace if the former isn’t possible. According to his proposal, “America must fight to reverse China’s gains in these institutions and build new, separate organizations of willing and like-minded partners when these organizations cannot be reclaimed. With these organizations out of Beijing’s hands, the United States can ensure that international rules and standards are written to support emerging technologies where America is naturally suited to prevail.” Once again, this is the exact same form of Hybrid Warfare that the US accuses China of waging, making one wonder whether it was ever really guilty as charged or if the US invented those accusations in order to justify itself doing the same thing later. Altogether, Cotton’s grand strategy is one where the US leads a Eurasian Rimland coalition that brings together several China-excluding technology blocs, expands through the strategic leveraging of development finance and foreign aid, and is “legitimized” through reclaimed or replaced international institutions. 

Concluding Thoughts

Skeptics might immediately dismiss Cotton’s global anti-Chinese containment proposal as politically unrealistic to implement under Biden’s Democrat presidency, but such a stance ignores the fact that the incumbent president convincingly intends to build upon his predecessor’s policy in this respect, albeit in a much more multilateral manner. This insight very strongly suggests that Cotton’s proposal might actually be well received by the Biden Administration since its multilateral vision of a series of complementary coalitions closely aligns with the ruling party’s stated policy of relying more on international alliances to advance American interests abroad. For this reason, it would be a major mistake for observers to dismiss Cotton’s suggestions out of hand since there’s a real chance that at least some of them might be implemented by the US across the next four years. Everything is already moving in that direction without any credible evidence that this trajectory will seriously change in the future. With this in mind, China would do well to consider the most effective strategies for responding to this scenario, ideally in a multilateral manner after closely consulting with its partners.

Keith Olbermann Is Wrong: There’s No Such Thing As A ‘Stain’ Of Ethnic Heritage

By Andrew Korybko (via One World)

Popular liberal commentator Keith Olbermann dangerously risked lending credibility to the toxic ideology of Neo-Nazi racists after tweeting on Monday that “I’ve lived my entire life with the stain of Russian heritage in my family”.

Olbermann’s Odious Tweet Pushes Neo-Nazi Racist Theories

American liberals began embracing Russophobia, which is unquestionably a form of racism, during the 2016 election after Hillary Clinton ridiculously claimed that the Eurasian Great Power was secretly helping her opponent. This disgusting trend continues in the present day but got much worse than ever before after popular liberal commentator Keith Olbermann told his over one million Twitter followers on Monday that “I’ve lived my entire life with the stain of Russian heritage in my family”. This surprised many observers not only because they had hitherto thought that he was of German ancestry, but also because it dangerously risked lending credibility to the toxic ideology of Neo-Nazi racists who claim that there’s such a thing as a “stain of ethnic heritage”. After all, it was none other than Adolf Hitler himself who notoriously spread such sentiments through his infamous Mein Kampf and subsequent speeches, ultimately going as far as carrying out a genocide against millions of Slavs including Russians due to his belief that they were “subhumans”. 

I’m An American-Pole Who’s Occasionally Abused Because Of My Roots

RT’s Nebojsa Malic wrote an insightful response to this scandal highlighting the liberal media’s double standards towards racism, but some further commentary of a more personal nature is needed in order for readers to better understand just how irresponsible Olbermann’s racist comment is. Those of us who aren’t White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs) have most likely been victimized by bigotry at least once in our lives. I’m An American of Polish-Slovenian descent and am occasionally targeted by online trolls because of my ancestry. The most common attack is to claim that it’s supposedly impossible for me to have any friendly feelings towards Russia because of my Polish roots, which very strongly insinuates the racist theory that all members of a given ethnicity share the exact same political and other views by virtue of their blood. In other words, I’m made to feel as though my Polish heritage is a “stain” which somehow forever prevents me from loving Russia, thus supposedly predisposing me to be its eternal enemy like those trolls think that all Poles are.

Was Olbermann Bullied For His Russian Roots While Growing Up?

It’s not yet clear at this point, but it might have been the case that Olbermann was also victimized by bullies all throughout his life who could have claimed something similar, perhaps telling him that it’s impossible for him to love America because of his Russian roots that he hadn’t previously disclosed in public until now (provided that he told others about them in his personal life or they somehow found out through other means). I very strongly disagree with practically everything that Olbermann supports, but that doesn’t give me nor anyone else the right to abuse him with bigoted language just because of his ethnic roots, the same as it doesn’t give anyone else the right to do the same to me if they disagree with my analyses. Nevertheless, having experienced this quite frequently (more so over the past few years than nowadays thankfully), I understand why he might have been made to feel “guilty” for the way that he was born, but he’s weak and wrong for submitting to that idea. Instead of being ashamed of his heritage and describing it as a “stain”, he should be proud of it. 

Religious And Secular Arguments Against Racist Theories

Nobody should ever feel guilty for their ethnic heritage. If you’re religious, then it’s common to believe that God made you that way for a reason in line with His will, which most faithful folks believe is perfect in its own way even if we humans are incapable of fully understanding it. To believe that the inheritance of a cultural legacy is somehow a “stain” implies the fallibility of God and is arguably blasphemous according to many interpretations. For those of you who aren’t religious, then you probably attribute it to a cosmic coincidence or something along those lines for having you inherit the ethnicity that you did. Even in that case, though, there’s nothing wrong with that. All cultures are unique and precious, and there shouldn’t ever be a so-called “hierarchy” among them. Moreover, being of a certain ethnicity doesn’t mean that someone shares the same political views as their co-ethnics, whether nowadays or all throughout history. After all, political views are formed by one’s own free will and aren’t passed along through genes no matter what some racist theorists claim. 

Political Views ≠ Ethnic Heritage

Olbermann is clearly opposed to the policies of the present Russian government and especially its leader, President Putin, but he must understand that those feelings should be separate from his views about the rich heritage that he shares. It’s entirely possible to criticize some political aspect about Russia today while still being proud of being Russian. The same holds true for me: I constructively criticize Polish foreign policy at times but am immensely proud of my Polish heritage and will never apologize for it or dare to disrespect my co-ethnics by calling it a “stain” no matter how much that would please my racist trolls. All human beings have free will, and it’s impossible for every person of a specific demographic to share the exact same political views as their peers. Claiming otherwise is dangerous because it provokes discriminatory actions and even violence against members of that group out of the mistaken basis that attacking them somehow equates to attacking by proxy the state that they allegedly all support. 

Why Are Racist Ideologies Still So Popular Today?

Russians, Poles, and all others throughout history have at one point or another been victimized by this racist ideology which regrettably continues to survive into the present day. Political radicals sometimes feel powerless to effect the change that they desire so they instead lash out at people who they believe superficially represent the object of their hatred. Those who hate Russia attack Russians, just like those who hate Poland attack Poles, and so on and so forth. In their warped minds, they’ve truly convinced themselves that members of those groups embody everything that they detest about their political representatives. Therefore, they think that they’re justified to do whatever they want against them since “the ends justify the means”, especially if harming innocent people of an ethnic group is expected to somehow harm their government by proxy or at least express “dissent” against it. It can’t be overstated just how dangerous of an ideology this is, and it’s terrible that Olbermann risked granting it legitimacy by talking about the self-described “stain” of his Russian heritage. 

Olbermann’s Wrong, But It’s Equally Wrong To “Cancel” Him

I don’t know Olbermann so I’d like to assume that he was also at one time a victim of bigoted abuse but was too weak to resist the bullies unlike me. Over time, he might have embraced their racism and became a self-hating Russian in order to appease them, just like I could have easily become a self-hating Pole. Either way, while that might explain his racist comment, it certainly doesn’t excuse it. There’s no such thing as a “stain” of ethnic heritage. His political dislike of the current Russian government and perhaps some or even all of its prior ones has nothing to do with the culture that he inherited which is intimately a part of him. Anyone of Russian heritage who feels guilty for being Russian hates themselves, the same as can be said about anyone of any other heritage feeling the same about their own, let alone calling it a “stain”. Having explained all of this, I don’t believe that Olbermann should be “canceled”. I actually support spreading his racist comment far and wide for educational purposes in order to discredit the hateful ideology that he consciously or unwittingly represents. 

An Impassioned Appeal To The Alt-Media Community

All subsequent reporting about his tweet must debunk the implied claim that political views are universally shared by all members of a certain ethnicity and passed down through their genes. I know what it’s like to be on the receiving end of such abuse and therefore very passionately believe that it has to stop. Anyone who ever sees someone else embracing this ideology must publicly confront them, especially if they disagree with the victim’s politics. We need to show that we’re in this together and won’t accept the normalization of false racist theories in the Alt-Media Community. Everyone has the right to respectfully express their dissent about whatever it might be, but they mustn’t abuse others who they disagree with, especially not on the basis of their ethnic heritage. Every person is unique, and while there are indeed political trends that some groups tend to embrace (e.g. most Russians are fiercely patriotic and proudly anti-fascist), that’s due to social and other factors, not ethnic ones. Olbermann is dead wrong, but hopefully others can learn from his racist fallacy.

The US’ 2020 Elections: From Conspiracy Theory To Conspiracy Fact

By Andrew Korybko (via One World)

Time magazine admitted in a report last week that a self-described “conspiracy” run by a “well-connected cabal of powerful people” “got states to change voting systems and laws” and “successfully pressured social media companies” among other achievements aimed at “democratically” toppling Trump, the revelation of which represents an attempt by the Democrats to flex their newfound post-election narrative power over their opponents as well as possibly provoke the most unstable at-risk ones among them to overreact in a violent way that could then be exploited for justifying the next phase of their “conspiracy”. 

The Cat’s Out Of The Bag

The Democrats and their supporters previously defamed everyone speculating about secretly concerted efforts against former President Trump in the run-up to and after last year’s elections as “conspiracy theorists”, and such individuals even risked being deplatformed from social media for exercising their constitutionally enshrined freedom of speech depending on how they articulated their personal views in this respect. They were told that publicly expressing such an interpretation of events is equivalent to spreading “disinformation” and attempting to “delegitimize” the “democratic” outcome of the US’ electoral process. That makes it all the more surprising then that Time magazine admitted in a report last week that a self-described “conspiracy” run by a “well-connected cabal of powerful people” “got states to change voting systems and laws” and “successfully pressured social media companies” among other achievements aimed at “democratically” toppling Trump. In other words, “conspiracy theory” became “conspiracy fact”. 

Politically Inconvenient Questions

This naturally begs the question of why that pro-Democrat media outlet would so proudly brag about “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election”, as its piece is titled. Time can’t be “discredited” by the Democrats otherwise they’d inflict the same such damage against the dozens of individuals named in their report who voluntarily cooperated with journalist Molly Ball in order to show, as one of them phrased it, that “the system didn’t work magically” and that “democracy isn’t self-executing”. Whether they intended to or not, they confirmed this hitherto so-called “conspiracy theory” as a “conspiracy fact”, thereby vindicating every Trump supporter who earlier expressed such sentiments. Not only that, but they also tacitly acknowledged that those who were deplatformed were victims of the same self-described “conspiracy” run by a “well-connected cabal of powerful people”. It’s seemingly inexplicable why they’d do this, but deeply reflecting on the deliberate decision to reveal all of this provides some plausible explanations.

The Democrats’ Post-Election Narrative Power Flex

The first is that, since “Every Democrat Is A Wannabe Dictator”, the party wanted to flex its newfound post-election narrative power to humiliate its opponents. The message being sent is simple enough, and it’s that they’re able to not only get away with literal “conspiracies” such as this one, but are powerful enough to weaponize the institutions under their control (Big Tech, government, mass media, etc.) in order to politically suppress those who dare to call them out on it. As predicted in the author’s analysis late last year about how “Biden’s America Would Be A Dystopian Hellhole”, the Democrats want to rapidly impose a de facto one-party dictatorship onto the rest of the country in collaboration with their “Republican In Name Only” (RINO) allies. They’re drunk enough on power after having successfully pulled off what RT’s Nebojsa Malic rightly described as a Color Revolution and thus winning what the author of the present piece earlier called the Hybrid War of Terror on America that they’re excited to move full speed ahead towards this goal without any hesitation. 

Maximum Demoralization Motives

The Trump-inspired “Make America Great Again” movement is mired in a political war with the RINOs while simultaneously struggling to purge itself of subversive QAnon elements. This makes it weaker than it ever was at any moment since its inception and thus unable to adequately organize any meaningful political resistance to this scheme. There’s never been a better moment for the Democrats to strike in dealing what they hope will be the death blow to their most important opponents’ morale, especially since their revelation was disclosed at the time that swamp-captured Trump decided to ally with the GOP Establishment in the likely misplaced hope that the party can regain control of Congress during the 2022 midterm elections. The intense frustration that some of the Democrats’ opponents might understandably feel about all of these overwhelming developments happening at once might even incite some of the most unstable and at-risk ones such as the QAnon cultists to overreact in a violent way that could then be exploited for justifying the next phase of this “conspiracy”.

Dictatorship Through “Democratic” Motions

After all, there’s little doubt among the Democrats’ opponents that the party is now going all out in its attempt to impose a de facto one-party dictatorship onto the rest of the country, especially after Time proudly bragged about how they pulled off the first phase of their self-described “conspiracy” to “democratically” topple Trump due to the “secret” efforts of a “well-connected cabal of powerful people”. Even though they’ve made it clear that they’ll weaponize their control over institutions to politically suppress others through defamatory attacks, deplatforming, and perhaps worse on the basis of indisputable narrative double standards, they still want to complete their full seize of power by going through superficially “democratic” motions. It would therefore greatly advance their grand strategic goal if an unstable, at-risk, and uncontrollably distressed Trump supporter was triggered by this revelation to plot or even God forbid carry out a domestic terrorist attack. In fact, that doesn’t even have to happen in reality since the context is already set to invent that allegation if needed. 

Confusion Reigns

One of the implied supplementary objectives of admitting to the “conspiracy” against Trump by a “well-connected cabal of powerful people” is to make it impossible for anyone to really know what to believe anymore. For this reason, any reports about domestic terrorist attacks or plans by Trump supporters in response to Time’s surprising disclosure can’t be taken at face value since there will always be the lingering but nevertheless plausible doubt that such allegations are also part of the larger “conspiracy” that was recently confirmed. As such, it wouldn’t be surprising if many people suspected that such an attack was a false flag or that those implicated in planning something of the sort were entrapped by the secret police (FBI), if the latter even happened at all that is. The intent in so directly addressing this isn’t to automatically extend credibility to those interpretations, but just to draw attention to how likely they are to emerge in the aftermath of Time’s scandalous report. 

American Solidarity” Is The Only Realistic Solution

The domestic political impact would nevertheless be the same whether they really happened as might be reported or not since those incidents would certainly be exploited to advance the Democrats’ grand strategic goal of imposing a de facto one-party state onto the rest of the country. Admittedly, there doesn’t seem to be anything that dissidents can do to stop this, except perhaps immediately organizing an “American Solidarity” movement modeled off of its historic Polish counterpart, even if it too might take years to have any noticeable effect, if any at all considering the drastically different domestic political conditions in which it would peacefully operate. Not only would any attempt to organize violent resistance be illegal and arguably immoral, but it would simply facilitate the Democrats’ plans by providing real evidence of what they’d describe as a domestic terrorist plot for justifying the accelerated implementation of the next phase of their “conspiracy”. For these reasons, “American Solidarity” is the only realistic (albeit possibly long-term) solution to this predicament. 

Concluding Thoughts

The Democrats made a deliberate decision to have one of their most prominent mouthpieces so proudly brag about the self-described “conspiracy” that a “well-connected cabal of powerful people” pulled off against Trump. This was done to humiliate and demoralize their political opponents, as well as likely provoke the most unstable and at-risk ones such as the most radical QAnon cultists into overreacting by committing acts of violence that could then be exploited as the justification for next phase of their “conspiracy”. The messages being sent are several: the Democrats have successfully captured control of all institutions and are now weaponizing them to politically suppress their opponents on the basis of double standards; this revelation was widely known long ago by all sides but only publicly acknowledged by the culprits at this point due to its strategic timing; and nobody can ever take the Democrats’ and their proxies’ (including institutions’) statements at face value any more. In truth, while one Hybrid War on America just ended, another has only begun.

Examining The Ethics & Implications Of Twitter’s Censorship Policy In India

By Andrew Korybko (via One World)

Twitter caused a stir by complying with the Indian government’s request to temporarily “withhold” access to dozens of accounts for users within the country in response to claims that they were “inciting violence” during the ongoing farmers’ protests, which prompts some very important ethical questions that have a few disturbing implications for the freedoms of speech and assembly in Western-style democracies across the world.

Everyone across the world is talking about social media censorship after former US President Trump was deplatformed last month by the world’s largest companies in this sphere following the storming of his country’s Capitol on 6 January, but another recent incident is similarly alarming but hasn’t received the amount of global attention that it deserves. Twitter caused a stir by complying with the Indian government’s request to temporarily “withhold” access to dozens of accounts for users within the country in response to claims that they were “inciting violence” during the ongoing farmers’ protests. To its credit, Reuters reported on this controversial decision when it happened, and the BBC just followed up to inform its readers that access has been restored to many of the affected accounts. Nevertheless, the ethical questions related to this course of events and the disturbing implications that they pose for the freedoms of speech and assembly in Western-style democracies haven’t been adequately addressed. 

Strictly speaking, “India’s information technology laws empower the government to seek to block online content deemed as inciting disruption to public order”, according to Reuters. In this sense, Twitter was just abiding by the legal request of one of the many countries in which it operates. Be that as it may, there are concerns that the affected accounts weren’t objectively “inciting disruption to public order” simply for posting with the hashtag #modiplanningfarmersgenocide. The politics of genocide are very emotive and the issue is oftentimes exploited for ulterior motives. Even so, it’s questionable whether provocative claims such as that one amount to “Genocide incitement (which) is a public offence and a great threat to public order”, according to one of the unnamed Indian officials that spoke to Reuters. Rather, as some observers suspect, India might have exploited its pertinent legislation in order to suppress the largest and most sustained anti-government protests in recent memory. 

It’s up to the reader themselves to investigate this issue more thoroughly in order to draw their own conclusions about that particular example, but the takeaway is that governments across the world could at least in theory take advantage of the law in order to censor their political opponents. At the same time, however, there are plenty of examples that one can think of where it would be necessary for governments to request the immediate “withholding” of access to certain accounts that are genuinely “inciting disruption to public order”, such as during the midst of an ongoing Color Revolution attempt. It’s unclear, though, whether Twitter would dutifully comply in those scenarios since the company is regarded as having a very strict liberal-globalist worldview which is thought to generally align with the goals of Color Revolution participants in Belarus, Venezuela, and elsewhere. One can easily imagine the company denying such requests for political reasons, unlike in India where it fears being shut out of its enormous market if it goes against the government. 

These points raise two serioius questions. The first is whether Twitter will follow an apolitical approach of complying with all governments’ relevant requests without discrimination, even if there are grounds like in the Indian case to legitimately wonder whether the law is being exploited for domestic partisan purposes. The second question is whether exceptions will be made on a case-by-case basis due to ideological and/or economic considerations, the first of which is relevant to the Belarusian and Venezuelan scenarios as mentioned and the latter in regards to retaining access to India’s enormous market. The answers to these questions will directly affect the lives of countless people living in Western-style democracies, especially those in the US and Western Europe. As it stands, it’s unclear whether Twitter would temporarily withhold access to accounts within America and France for instance if Washington and Paris claim that some participants in certain rallies (e.g. anti-Biden and Yellow Vests, respectively) are “inciting disruption to public order”. 

Of course, it would help those governments’ cases if they could at least point to some law or another that’s officially on the books in order to “justify” what could in reality just be their exploitation of the legal process for the purpose of censoring their political opponents, but even if they can’t, Twitter has both ideological and economic reasons to comply with their requests. It’s for this reason why lawmakers in those countries and others should raise this scenario within their legislatures in order to hold decision makers to account in the event that they attempt to exploit the law to that end. Every Western-style democracy must have a serious discussion about the ethical questions and implications posed by the Indian precedent. Failure to do so will actually put their citizens’ freedoms of speech and assembly at risk of being undermined through potential collusion between corrupt government officials and Big Tech. It also risks empowering Big Tech into thinking that it can carry out its own widespread censorship sprees for ideological reasons with impunity. 

To be clear, Twitter itself is a complex entity. It can be used as a tool for good in the hands of responsible decision makers who understand the need to temporarily “withhold” access to accounts that are genuinely “inciting disruption to public order”. Peaceful members of the population also use its free services to organize protests in accordance with the law. On the other hand, Twitter can also be exploited as a weapon by corrupt bureaucrats to censor their political opponents on false “security” pretexts. The company can also “go rogue” and impose its own censorship scheme on targeted populations using the same pretext (albeit arguing that the affected accounts’ posts “violated its terms of service” instead of “the law”) in order to meddle in the domestic political affairs of sovereign states. With these risks in mind, countries should urgently initiate conversations between the state and civil society over the contentious issue of Big Tech’s growing role over nearly every facet of people’s lives, and credible steps should be undertaken to preemptively thwart these dark scenarios.

Father Denied Custody of Children Over COVID-19 ‘Anti-Lockdown’ Beliefs

By Matt Agorist (via The Free Thought Project)

A terrifying ruling has been made in a child custody case which used the father’s beliefs over the COVID-19 pandemic to remove his children from his custody. The father used to have his children from Friday to Sunday in split custody. However, the court ruled the father’s beliefs about the pandemic are a danger to his children and he will now only be able to see them at a supervised government access center where he is required to abide by all the conditions imposed by the facility “as a precondition to access.”

Ontario Superior Court Justice George W. King said the man’s anti-masking beliefs, along with his participation in anti-lockdown protests were cause to remove the children from his custody.

“The health and welfare of the children (and by extension their principal caregiver) should not be jeopardized because of [his]  public behaviour in promotion of his opinions,” he wrote, according to CBC. The outlet did not name the father involved in the case to protect the identity of the children.

In some Orwellian act of doublethink, the court ruled that the father is free to have whatever beliefs he wishes and to lawfully express them, but just not as a father.

“I have concluded that the respondent’s behaviour is dictated by his world view. Everything else is subordinate to that view, including, but not limited to, his love for his children,” the decision by Justice King read.

Even human rights attorneys are agreeing with the court. According to CBC, Yavar Hameed, an Ottawa based human rights lawyer, said that people do have the right to express themselves but that expression is limited at the point where harm can come to another person.

“So it’s not just a matter of freedom of conscience, freedom of expression protected by the charter of rights and freedoms, it’s expressions that simply might relate because of the underlying actions on the safety of another person,” he said.

To be clear, this man did not believe the pandemic was real despite the toll it took on the health care system at its peak. But was this grounds to take his children away?

“The long-term effects of the pandemic and of delayed treatments to persons with other health conditions is currently unmeasurable,” justice King wrote.

“All of this has occurred while a percentage of our population, including [the father], continue to deny the existence, significance and/or impact of COVID-19.”

This ruling sets a rather ominous precedent over parents’ beliefs and the court deciding whether or not they are allowed custody of their children. In the future this precedent could be used deem other beliefs held by parents as a reason to take their children away. “Disagree with the government? We can now take your kids to keep them safe.” See how that works?

What’s more, many of the government’s lockdown measures have been proven ineffective and harmful to children. Should someone lose custody of their children because they factually state statistics about increases in childhood suicides amid the school closures?

Since the beginning of the pandemic, a phrase has been thrown around by blowhards in the mainstream media and politicians alike. That phrase is “we follow the science.” However, many of the folks who constantly repeat this phrase don’t seemed too excessively concerned with actually following any science at all.

The World Health Organization and others have come out for months saying that schools are safe and that school closures are leading to a slew of horrifying childhood problems.

“Schools can reopen safely,” said Dr Ruediger Krech, WHO Director of Health Promotion, back in December.

Yet those who claim to “follow the science” continue to keep children locked down and out of school — leading to an epidemic of childhood suicide. This is just one of many examples.

Despite brutal lockdowns, mandates, the complete destruction of the economy, and putting the police state on steroids across the planet, cases still shot to record levels through December and early January. Every time they rise, the politicians take to their podiums and blame the citizens for not following their arbitrary and often entirely unscientific dictates close enough. More force is threatened and more arbitrary rules rolled out. Despite the utterly horrifying effects of the lockdowns, politicians across the world keep forcing them on the citizens.

Now, at least in Canada, those who speak out against them, could be deemed a danger to their own children.

Politicians and MSM Compare Those Who Question Vaccine Safety to “Domestic Terrorists”

By Matt Agorist (via The Free Thought Project)

In December, Assemblymember Linda Rosenthal — who is not a doctor, nor a scientist and holds only a bachelor’s degree in history — proposed a massively controversial bill that would mandate the COVID-19 vaccination for New Yorkers. Naturally, this was met with massive resistance from those who advocate for informed consent.

As TFTP has reported, the COVID-19 vaccine itself is controversial given its rush to market. Never before in history has a vaccine been developed and approved in under 9 months. By the very definition, this vaccine’s long term results are entirely unknown making it experimental.

Since the FDA has fast tracked these vaccines, those who don’t blindly trust in them are being labelled as kooks and anti-vaxxers. However, the reality is that these vaccine manufacturers and their government enablers have given us every reason in the world not to trust them.

The resistance to the vaccine is also growing by the day, up to and including health care workers. Are these trained doctors and nurses working the front lines of the pandemic, “science deniers”? We think not.

Nevertheless, the push to silence those who advocate for vaccine safety continues.

As TFTP has reported, Sen. Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, who has sponsored a slew of mandatory vaccine laws throughout his career came out in 2019 to threaten the speech of those who question forced vaccination.

In a letter to the Attorney General of the United States, Pan wrote that the “deliberate spread of vaccine information discouraging vaccination” requires the surgeon general to “stop this attack on our nation’s health by addressing the spread of vaccine misinformation.”

He literally advocated for people to be jailed for questioning vaccines — and now he’s gone even further. In an oped for the Washington Post, this totalitarian likened “antivaxxers” to terrorists.

“This campaign to deny potentially life-saving vaccines to those seeking them, and to poison public opinion against vaccinations, could result in countless American deaths. That is akin to domestic terrorism,” Pan wrote.

Pan has also criticized Facebook and other social media groups for allowing vaccine skeptics to post their views.

“This movement not only puts out mis- or disinformation about vaccines or lies about vaccines, which in itself can be harmful, but they are also aggressively bullying, threatening and intimidating people who are trying to share accurate information about vaccines,” Pan told the New York Times.

Given the recent paranoia by the federal government following the Trump supporters marching on the Capitol, throwing around the term domestic terrorist is as dangerous as it is tyrannical. Whether or not you agree with “antivaxxers” or pro-vaccine safety groups, it is their right to say whatever they want, up to and including holding protests. It’s called freedom of speech and it shall not be infringed.

Whether or not you agree with a parent’s decision to vaccinate their child or themselves is irrelevant. While there will likely be many folks cheering on the state in these situations of forced medication and the silencing of critics, how you feel personally about vaccines should never lead to a loss of freedom — for anyone. No person should be forced by government regulation or societal pressure to receive any medication or treatment, including vaccines, against his or her will.

As long as we focus on forcing people to vaccinate, instead of on the reasons people are scared of vaccines, nothing will ever change.

If we went back to a model where vaccine manufacturers had an incentive to create safe vaccines, this would be a good place to start. For those who may be unaware, pharmaceutical companies have no incentive to create safe vaccines because federal law removed their liability for damages caused by these vaccines—and passed it on to the taxpayers.

In 1988, largely due to vaccine makers lobbying the government to alleviate their responsibility and liability for damages caused by their vaccines, The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) was established. It has cost the U.S. taxpayers over four billion since its inception.

Now, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, it’s gotten even more corrupt.

As CNBC reported, in February of 2020, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar invoked the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP). The 2005 law empowers the HHS secretary to provide legal protection to companies making or distributing critical medical supplies, such as vaccines and treatments, unless there’s “willful misconduct” by the company. The protection lasts until 2024.

That means that for the next four years, these companies “cannot be sued for money damages in court” over injuries related to the administration or use of products to treat or protect against Covid.

“When the government said, ‘We want you to develop this four or five times faster than you normally do,’ most likely the manufacturers said to the government, ‘We want you, the government, to protect us from multimillion-dollar lawsuits,’” said Rogge Dunn, a Dallas labor and employment attorney.

And that’s exactly what the government did. So, in instances of harm from the COVID-19 vaccine, no one is held liable because it’s the FDA who approved the vaccine and you can’t sue them.

“You can’t sue the FDA for approving or disapproving a drug,” said Dorit Reiss, a professor at the University of California Hastings College of Law. “That’s part of its sovereign immunity.”

There are limited exceptions, but Dunn said he doesn’t think they provide a viable legal path to hold the federal government responsible for a Covid vaccine injury.

Those limited exceptions are for people who experience extreme adverse reactions.

Within the PREP Act, government established the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), which provides benefits to eligible individuals who suffer serious injury from the uncovered vaccines. However, the coverages are weak. If you are injured so badly from the vaccine that you can’t even leave your home, the maximum amount of money you will get it $50,000 per year as long as you are injured.

Even if you literally drop dead after getting the shot, the program’s death payout is capped at $370,376.

“This government compensation program is very hard to use,” said Reiss. “The bar for compensation is very high.”

As the push continues to silence and criminalize those who advocate for vaccine safety, the outlook is bleak. We are moving toward a situation in which we can watch Big Pharma injure people and not only be granted immunity for it, but those who speak out about it could face legal persecution. A scary situation indeed.

US ‘COVID Relief’ Was Enough to Give Every Taxpayer $41,870 But We Got Peanuts Instead

By The Free Thought Project

President Biden just signed his sweeping $1.9 trillion spending package into law. Once this bill hits the books, total taxpayer expenditure on (ostensibly) COVID relief will hit $6 trillion—which, roughly estimated, comes out to $41,870 in spending per federal taxpayer.

Did you see anywhere near that much in benefit?

The sheer immensity of this spending is hard to grasp. For context, $6 trillion is more than one-fourth of what the US economy produces in an entire year, according to Fox Business. The COVID spending blowout is at least eight times bigger than the (inflation-adjusted) price tag of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “New Deal.”

Moreover, the COVID spending bills have all lost huge sums of money to unrelated carve-outs, politician pet projects, corporate bailouts, fraud, waste, and worse.

In the latest $1.9 trillion package, more than 90 percent of the spending is not directly related to containing COVID-19. Only 1 percent of the money, about $15 to $20 billion, is spent on vaccines. Meanwhile, hundreds of billions go to bailing out poorly managed state governments’ budget holes that predate the pandemic and $86 billion rescues failing pension plans. Meanwhile, billions more go to Obamacare expansion and subsidizing public schools long after the pandemic.

And that’s just scratching the surface.

The numbers here really are quite damning.

For the same $6 trillion in expenditure, the government could have given every federal taxpayer a $41,870 check. Or, to think about it a bit differently, it could have written every American roughly an $18,181 check.

Let’s compare this to what most Americans actually received.

Only someone who fully collected expanded unemployment benefits throughout the pandemic and received all $3,200 in total of the stimulus payments likely received more than $18,181 in direct benefit from this spending package. And that’s a relatively small fraction of the public.

Because of the way the government used outdated (and arbitrary) income data to determine eligibility, many more taxpayers saw nothing or little in exchange for their $41,870 share of the cost, perhaps just the initial $1,200 stimulus or none at all. (Meanwhile, billions in checks went to dead people).

So, for almost all Americans, the actual benefits of the multiple pieces of lengthy stimulus legislation come in far, far below the figure that they would have received if the entire pile of money was just even split up and sent out.

How can that possibly be considered a success? In fact, it’s actually a net negative.

Too often, the stimulus conversation is simply framed around whether we should give money to a certain group of people or program—rather than also including the trade-offs and costs.

The question isn’t just: Should we send people $1,400 “stimulus” checks? It is, instead: Should we send people $1,400 stimulus checks at the cost of taking the equivalent amount (or more if you factor in waste) from other people? It’s not just whether we should send $350 billion to state and local governments—but should we do so at the cost of taking an average of $2,442 per federal taxpayer?

Money doesn’t grow on trees. Or, as the great economist Ludwig von Mises put it, the government “does not have the powers of the mythical Santa Claus.”

“The truth is the government cannot give if it does not take from somebody,” Mises wrote in Bureaucracy. “They cannot spend except by taking out of the pockets of some people for the benefit of others.”

The government cannot create wealth out of thin air. It can only give anyone anything via three ways:

  • Directly increasing taxes, which discourages economic growth and directly takes money away from people
  • Running up debt, which means much higher taxes in the future plus interest, creating a drag on economic growth
  • Printing money, which “stealth taxes” the public via inflation

There’s no such thing as a free lunch, and, much to the chagrin of spend-happy politicians’, Santa Claus is not real. Government spending doesn’t create wealth; it only transfers wealth, generally destroying a lot of it in the process.

So, unless Americans are actually seeing equal or greater benefit from spending compared to its cost, it’s a raw deal for taxpayers. And for the federal government’s “COVID” spending binge, it’s not even close.

Don’t believe me? Well, did you see $41,870 in benefit from these programs? Or even $18,181?

For almost everyone, the honest answer is no.

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and Opinion Editor at the Foundation for Economic Education.

Contrary to What the Media is Telling You, Freedom Does Not Come from a Vaccine

By Matt Agorist (via The Free Thought Project)

There is a belief forming and currently being pushed by the mainstream media and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control that Americans can have their freedom back if they just roll up their sleeves and take the vaccine. This push is being backed by multiple experts who are literally comparing it to the “carrot on a string” in order to get more people to be vaccinated.

“It’s science based. It’s sensible. You can hug your grandkids again. If you’ve been waiting to get a haircut, see the dentist, you can do that,” former CDC Director Tom Frieden told CNN.

The idea that people have refused to hug their children and grandchildren over the fear of contracting the COVID-19 virus is heartbreaking. But even more worrisome is the fact that the CDC thinks it can grant or revoke that “freedom” to folks based on whether or not they take the shot.

“We know that people want to get vaccinated so they can get back to doing the things they enjoy with the people they love,” said CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, in a statement last week. “There are some activities that fully vaccinated people can begin to resume now in the privacy of their own homes.”

Aside from the obvious problems of people thinking the government can tell them when and where they can see and hug their children and grandchildren, there is the underlying principle of freedom. Requiring a vaccine for “freedom” is exactly the opposite of “freedom.”

Whether or not you agree with an individual’s choice to vaccinate themselves is irrelevant. While there will likely be many folks cheering on the state in these situations of forced medication and the silencing of critics, how you feel personally about vaccines should never lead to a loss of freedom — for anyone. No person should be forced by government regulation or societal pressure to receive any medication or treatment, including vaccines, against his or her will. This is the very foundation of freedom.

Real freedom is the choice to either take the vaccine or refuse to take it. It is that simple. Many people could benefit from receiving it and that should be their choice and their choice alone, just like some people may choose not to take it.

Our individual freedoms are not granted to us by government or vaccine manufacturers. They are inalienable. This is the very foundation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights which states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Nowhere in the constitution does it state that our freedoms can be taken away if we choose not to take a vaccine. However, this is now becoming a common idea being pushed in the mainstream and by the government.

Leana Wen, an emergency physician and visiting professor at George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, and the previous health commissioner for Baltimore is leading that charge. In an interview with Chris Cuomo on CNN, Wen expressed her discontent with states going back to normal without touting the vaccine as the reason for doing so.

“We need to make it clear to them (Americans) that the vaccine is the ticket back to pre-pandemic life,” Wen said, adding that states opening back up is not allowing for government to tout the vaccine as that ticket back to normal.

She then went on to insinuate that government needs to make sure that vaccination is required in order for states to reopen.

“We have a very a very narrow window to tie reopening policy to vaccination status,” she said.

Wen then went on to say that freedoms must be limited or otherwise people won’t line up to get the shot. She literally compared the population to a donkey following a carrot on the stick, that is dangling their freedoms in front of them.

“Otherwise, if everything is reopened, what’s the carrot going to be? How are we going to incentivize people to get the vaccine?” she asked.

She then called on the CDC and Biden to “come out a lot bolder” and tell people that “if you’re vaccinated, you can do all these things…. Otherwise, people are going to go out and enjoy these freedoms anyway.”

Imagine people wanting freedom without being forced to take a vaccine…..the horror.

Aside from the insanely tyrannical notion of requiring vaccination for freedom, there is the fact that adverse reactions are being reported by tens of thousands of people.

As TFTP has reported at length over the last several months, though many scientists and medical professionals are reassuring everyone that this vaccine is entirely safe, because the vaccine was approved under emergency measures, it has — by definition — not undergone any long term studies. Anyone making the claim that they know what happens a year or more after receiving this vaccine is purely hypothesizing.

What’s more, over a thousand deaths have been reported after the vaccination, up to and including entirely healthy young people. However, every time someone dies after getting the shot, we are told days later that their deaths had nothing to do with the vaccine. While this could certainly be the case, the sheer number of post-vaccination deaths should warrant a closer look.

In an article from the Epoch Times, which was subsequently “Fact-checked” as “True” by Newsweek, the number of post-vaccination deaths is approaching 2,000.

The CDC told The Epoch Times in an e-mail that as of Mar. 8, 2021 over 92 million doses of mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 have been injected, with 1,637 deaths occurring following the injections.

Between Dec. 14 and Feb. 26, 25,072 reports were made to the VAERS system of immunizations with either the Moderna or Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccines (the only two vaccines given during the time period assessed).

Currently, on the VAERS website, only 1,136 deaths are shown, however, those numbers, according to the CDC representative who contacted the Epoch Times, are higher.

The 1136 deaths represent 4.5 percent of the total number of adverse events reports. Of those who died, 94, or 8.3 percent, died on the same day they got the shot. An additional 150 (13.2 percent) died the day after. Another 105 died two days after, and 68 died three days after.

A total of 587 (51.7 percent) died within a week, 215 died within 7 to 13 days, and 124 within 14 to 20 days.

85.8 percent of deaths occurred in people over 60. There were five deaths among those aged 20–29; 10 in those aged 30–39; 23 in those aged 40–49; and 69 aged 50–59.

When tens of thousands of adverse events, along with nearly 2,000 deaths are reported after receiving the vaccine, this is significantly statistic data to at least raise a red flag and to proceed with caution. However, the mainstream media, Big Tech, and the government alike, have chosen to double down on pushing the notion that the vaccine is 100% safe and we need it for freedom. Dangerous times, indeed.

In Denmark, Activist Mother Against Covid Restrictions Sentenced to 2 Years in Jail for Saying “Let’s Go Smash this Town Up in a Non-violent Way“

By Peter Retson (via Global Research)

Accused of violence for expressing her frustration and indignancy in relation to the tyrannical corona laws

Nanna Skov Høpfner, or as she is known by her friends Nanna Fri (Nanna Freedom), talked at a rally against the Danish Government and their corona restrictions. In her speech she made many good points, but also ended with “lets go smash this town up in a non-violent way. Lets make some noise, so they can hear, we are here”. 

For this she was sentenced 2 years in jail, because they used an option to double the sentence, when it’s corona related. The law was never meant to be used against activists, but to punish people committing coronary crimes like fraud. Nanna is 30 years old and the mother of 2 small children and has no background of activism or violent behavior.

Activist Per Brændgaard comments on Nannas case. Per is a Cand. Scient. in Human Nutrition, works as a nutrition consultant, author and lecturer on life quality and natural health. He is also one of the strongest public voices against corona restrictions in Denmark, also started a new party to fight political corruption. Per and other important groups in Denmark, such as The People’s Freedom Movement, the JFK21 Party, More Freedom Less Control – have helped to uncover the many incoherencies in the corona pandemic narrative, as well as the frightening tyrannical development in Danish politics during thi period.

Per comments on Nannas case:

It is my impression from here that the police have absolutely no evidence that Nanna Fri has done anything criminal. The police, on the other hand, are trying to set up Nanna Fri on a conspiracy theory that the police themselves have prepared. It is a theory about a conspiracy among protesters to commit violence against the police, which Nanna Fri was supposed to lead.

March 12, 2021 will go down in history as one of the darkest days in Denmark. Nanna Fri was today sentenced by the Copenhagen City Court to 2 years unconditional imprisonment for having said these words from a scene at a demonstration: “let’s smash the city – in a non-violent way”. Nanna was convicted of an undocumented conspiracy theory drawn up by police. I hope the three district court judges are well and truly ashamed now, but unfortunately they probably are not. I especially hope that many more Danes are now starting to wake up and realize what a system corona fascism has introduced in Denmark.

The Nanna Fri case is tragic in many ways. It is also tragic for the Danish police, which many Danes have probably now lost the last remnant of respect for. If the police think, and they obviously do, that a young mother must be punished so severely for uttering those words, yes it’s just WORDS, then it is very difficult to take the police seriously in other areas in the future. It is detrimental to the work of the police against real crime and to the protection of the population. I would urge every single police officer to look at the Nanna Fri verdict and decide for themselves whether it is such a fascist system one wants to work for or whether it is time to move on. If the police can not hire people to carry out the fascist tasks, then the fascists in suits behind the scenes will have to go on the streets themselves, and they probably will not dare, after all. We must have the police on our side, the people’s, by peaceful, lawful means. Let’s hug them over here – over here on Lyste’s page!

Here is a critical review of Per Brændgaard’s opinion of the city court against Nanna Fri.

Per BrændgaardNanna Skov Høpfner, who is also known as Nanna Fri, was sentenced by the Copenhagen City Court yesterday, 12 March 2021, to 2 years unconditional imprisonment.

The legal judge in the case was Uffe Habekost Sørensen. In addition, two lay judges participated in the verdict against Nanna. Judge Uffe Habekost Sørensen writes about himself on LinkedIn that he has previously worked for the Ministry of Justice as resp. clerk in 2016 and student in 2005-2007. He thus has a past in the executive branch before switching to the judiciary.

The Copenhagen City Court has published this justification for the verdict, which I assume was written by judge Habekost. Here is a list of points that I wonder about when reviewing the text.

I quote from the text of the judgment:

“It is thus proven that the accused approx. at 18.30 from a podium in front of about 400 demonstrators in the Town Hall Square over a loudspeaker, among other things, stated “Okay, are you ready to walk around and smash the city in a non-violent way? Just to make Copenhagen aware that we are here? ”,“ We ??are here.

We are angry and we are tired and we are going insane ”,

“ Is no one listening to us? There is no one listening to us friends. So what do we do? We get them to listen and how do we do it. Time will tell ”and“ Are you in? Are we done accepting that shit? So let’s smash it, friends! Democracy okay? ” and

“The people into the Folketing. Smash that system. Thank you. Fuck the system. Fuck Mette. Fuck Poli. Fuck it all man. Thank you ”, whereby she helped to light Roman candles, cannon shots and fired fireworks at Copenhagen City Hall during and after her speech.

Per Brændgaard’s comment: I simply do not see where there should be any incitement to violence or other forms of crime. It is a speech given in youth language in the context of a demonstration to mainly other younger people who, in my opinion, feel a completely just resentment over the corona-fascist abuses of national freedom and public health. It may be stupidly worded, but if it is to give two years in prison to make a stupid statement, then half the population should be behind bars now.

How can the judges misunderstand “smashing the city in a non-violent way”?

They can only do so when they choose to judge in favor of the executive, of which they themselves, unfortunately, are a part. How has the communication been between judge Habekost and the police / prosecution in the period up to the trial? Is it possible to gain insight into this with a view to investigating any crime committed by Judge Habekost?

The verdict further states:

“Furthermore, it is proven that shortly after the speech, the defendant participated in a serious disturbance of public order in, among other places, Rådhuspladsen, H.C. Andersens Boulevard and Blegdamsvej, as she repeatedly took the lead in the demonstration and by her presence, shouting, including using a megaphone, and behavior, in conjunction with her previous speech, participated in and encouraged others to attack by throwing objects, including cannon shots, fireworks, cans and stones, against the police officers present, injuring several of them and not less than 16 police officers were hit by objects.

Per Brændgaard’s comment: It is simply too vague! What did Nanna say? What has Nanna done? What is the documentation for this? And what about the video documentation that Nanna Fri was actually trying to calm the agitated protesters? Have the judges chosen to override this in order to instead believe in the police’s undocumented conspiracy theory about Nanna as the great mastermind in a coordinated attack on the police?

I have no doubt that there were police officers who were injured. But what about the evidence that the police themselves contributed to the escalation of the situation? And what about the many protesters who were beaten to death half by the police?

If this judgment sets a precedent, then one will e.g. could also be convicted of speeding if driving on a road where other cars are driving too fast. It is absurd that you can be convicted of the crime that others in a group may commit simply because you join the group yourself. We do not find ourselves being treated inhumanly like sheep that way!

Judge Habekost further writes:

It is also proven that the defendant failed to comply with the authority’s lawfully served order to the crowd to divorce and encouraged others to new gross disturbance of public order and violent behavior of the above-mentioned nature, while playing the police uplift form on HC Andersens Boulevard ca. at 19.35 in a megaphone stated “freedom for Denmark, we have had enough”, “up the ass with the queen” and “get some time in the drum there man”, just as the defendant participated in the run, including at the intersection Blegdamsvej / Tagensvej approx. at 20.50, where objects were also thrown at the police, until the riot was dissolved approx. at 21.00.

Per Brændgaard’s comment: So the police’s evidence is that Nanna has stated “freedom for Denmark, we have had enough” and “up the ass with the queen”, and that she has encouraged a drummer to play her instrument?

Judge Habekost continues to excel:

“The court finds in general that the defendants in the above statements and actions have contributed to gross disturbance of public order as well as the use of violence against the police officers present, including aggravated violence and attacks with objects. In this connection, the accused is found to have acted in association and by prior agreement or by common understanding with a larger group of identified and unidentified accomplices.

Here it is so black and white that the Copenhagen City Court chooses to believe the conspiracy theory that the Copenhagen Police has developed about Nanna Fri.

What is the evidence that Nanna Fri has entered into a “prior agreement” to commit criminal acts? It does not appear that there is any documentation whatsoever. It’s all based on presumptions, and that’s not how a district court should judge in a civilized legal society, in my opinion.

The madness of the city court ruling is further apparent from the text of the judgment in this continuing section: The court notes that the two police commissioners who have given explanations in the case have explained, among other things, that prior to the demonstration on January 9, 2021, organized by Men In Black , were concerns about violence against police. The background for this was, among other things, Men In Black’s previous activities and the storm at the US Congress on January 6, 2021.

So Nanna Fri has been convicted based on not only what other people have done at that demonstration but also what others have done on completely different occasions and in the US?

Judge Habekost continues:

The court finds it proven that the defendant at least had probable intent, as the defendant must have realized that it was overwhelmingly probable that she with her statements and actions contributed to the mentioned offenses. Emphasis has been placed on the information about the circumstances of the defendant’s speech at Rådhuspladsen, including that the defendant knew that arrests had been made and that she perceived that fireworks were being fired. It is also emphasized that it appears from the video recording of a speech that the defendant gave on 11 November 2020 that she was careful to avoid encouraging clashes with the police. Furthermore, it is emphasized that the defendant’s actions and statements took place over a longer period of time and continued after she had seen fellow demonstrators commit the offenses in question.

Per Brændgaard’s comment: In other words: The documentation that Nanna Fri actually tried to put a damper on the tempers is used by the Copenhagen City Court as proof that she is guilty of provoking violence against the police. If we had a Minister of Justice who was interested in people’s freedom, then he would fire Judge Habekost immediately and send him for a mental examination before he is given new tasks as a judge.

The text of the judgment from the Copenhagen City Court contains a large number of other nonsense that confirm to me that Denmark has become an idiocy and not a democracy.

Now this should not be seen as a call for criminal acts against the clearly incompetent judge Habekost. After all, he cannot pretend to be incompetent, or perhaps he has been subjected to pressure or bait, which he has not been able to resist. He is also only a human being. The Folketing, on the other hand, should make a proposal to the Minister of Justice that Habekost be dismissed immediately and that Nanna Fris’ city court ruling be overturned under the leadership of a competent and competent judge. At the same time, Nanna Fri should be set free now so she can go home to her children while she waits for the case to come before a new judge who will judge fairly and not politically.

All of this is merely an expression of my opinion as a politically committed non-lawyer. If the police should decide to arrest me for this, then I remind you of sections 71, 72 and especially 77 of the Constitution.

The Social Democrats and the Danish People’s Party report fascist suit

Per Brændgaard’s comment: S, DF and DR participate in advanced propaganda for continued corona fascism. In a new propaganda article from the state media DR with the headline Corona double punishment against 30-year-old woman arouses tremors at Christiansborg, S and DF state that they believe that double punishment for Nanna Fri is completely in place, as the case was connected to covid- 19.

It does not get behind me with S, who should immediately go to a numerologist and change his name from the Social Democrats to the Social Fascists, but DF you never quite know where you are, unless the case is about Muslims. Now the DF has also shown their true fascist suit with this announcement, and we know that the DF will in future stand for Danish Fascists. The more advanced propaganda in the DR article comes from statements from the Radicals and SF as well as from DR’s organization of the propaganda itself, which is disguised as a journalistic article by Nicolai S. Nielsen and Caroline Clante. The latter I return to at the end of this article.

Both the Socialist People’s Party and the Radicals disagree that the special corona clause should have been used in the Nanna Fri case, but with their statements they are interfering in a pending lawsuit. The Radicals’ legal spokesman Kristian Hegaard says: “- She has done something illegal.” SF’s legal spokesperson Karina Lorentzen-Denhardt says to DR: “- There is no doubt that some very serious things have been committed here. I will not defend that. This woman must also take her judgment for that. ” I assume that none of these politicians have read the reasoning for the verdict, which at least in my and many others’ point of view suggests that it is city court judge Habekost and not Nanna Fri who has done something illegal. She is convicted on a very extremely thin basis, which is not worthy of a society governed by the rule of law.

DR emphasizes this propaganda trick by taking something for granted – “Nanna is guilty” – even though it is definitely not a matter of course!

And then they use another propaganda trick to shift focus from Nanna’s guilt to the corona clause on double punishment, thereby derailing the debate. The case is about a judge in the Copenhagen City Court having made a political and not a legal judgment against a citizen who has had big enough balls (or ovaries) to stand up on a lectern and speak against the occupying power and its followers. Nanna Fri is a freedom fighter, a folk hero who should be praised instead of being subjected to this abuse in a system that gradually reminds a lot more of China than of Denmark.

DR starts the propaganda article as follows:

“It is a most sensational verdict that has been handed down by the Copenhagen City Court this afternoon. Not so much because a 30-year-old woman has been convicted of inciting violence against police during a demonstration against coronary restrictions. But because the punishment is double the normal. ” It is in this way that they make the readers accept that Nanna is guilty, even though that is exactly what the debate should be about now. The case is the worst judicial murder in recent times. Even committed against a young mother of two small children.

May the culprits of the police, the prosecution and the district court be ashamed and punished by the negative karma that their intentions and actions in this case must inevitably have brought!

Trump and Biden Playing Politics: The COVID-19 “Experimental Vaccines” which are “Killing and Injuring People”

By Timothy Alexander Guzman (via Global Research)

Trump Said “If I wasn’t President, You wouldn’t be getting that beautiful ‘shot’ for 5 years”

So which American president is going to take full credit for supporting the rapid development of Big Pharma’s Covid-19 vaccines that are already killing and injuring people?  

Both Trump and Biden are claiming that it was their efforts that deserves global recognition for fighting a devastating pandemic by rolling out life-saving experimental vaccines.  Fox News was one of the first networks to report on how former President, Donald Trump bragged about his success when he pre-maturely pushed the untested experimental Covid-19 vaccine by “arguing that without him, Americans wouldn’t receive a vaccine for years.”

In a statement, Trump said that

“I hope everyone remembers when they’re getting the COVID-19 (often referred to as the China Virus) Vaccine, that if I wasn’t President, you wouldn’t be getting that beautiful ‘shot’ for 5 years, at best, and probably wouldn’t be getting it at all,” read a statement from the former president.

“I hope everyone remembers!”  Yes Donald, eventually everybody will remember how you pushed an experimental vaccine under Operation Warp Speedin fact, they will also remember how you even bragged about it!

“Trump’s Wednesday comments came after an event earlier in the day when President Biden announced he would order 100 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine from Johnson & Johnson (J&J)” the report said “after meeting with CEO’s from J&J and Merck, Biden celebrated their partnership to produce the former’s vaccine.”

The Covid-19 vaccine was produced in less than one year.  The actual time frame to produce a safe and effective vaccine takes anywhere from 10-15 years and sometimes even longer because of the complex nature of testing along with various rules and regulations led by government agencies in collaboration with multi-national pharmaceutical companies and they still in many cases, are untrustworthy.

Scientific American published an interesting article in early June titled ‘Genetic Engineering Could Make a COVID-19 Vaccine in Months Rather Than Years’ on how fast can genetic engineering produce a so-called effective vaccine:

By early April almost 80 companies and institutes in 19 countries were working on vaccines, most gene-based instead of using traditional approaches, such as those that have been employed in influenza vaccines for more than 70 years. The labs predicted that a commercial vaccine could be available for emergency or compassionate use by early 2021—incredibly fast, given that vaccines to brand-new pathogens have taken a decade to be perfected and deployed

The article explains how the Ebola vaccine took at least 5 years before any trials, “even the Ebola vaccine, which was fast-tracked, took five years to reach widespread trials. If Barouch and his counterparts can offer a safe, effective concoction in a year, “it will be the fastest vaccine development in history,” he says.  What is interesting is that the article itself admits that there has been several labs who created gene-based vaccines for other viruses in the past, but none have been “commercialized for a human illness.”  Instead of using the traditional way of creating a vaccine, (although most vaccines still have many problems regardless of how safe Big Pharma claims they are) they went along with the new gene-based approach of creating a different kind of vaccine as they explain:

Scientists use information from the genome of the virus to create a blueprint of select antigens. The blueprint is made of DNA or RNA—molecules that hold genetic instructions. The researchers then inject the DNA or RNA into human cells. The cell’s machinery uses the instructions to make virus antigens that the immune system reacts to. Cells respond to the instructions as a normal part of their daily existence.  This is the same trait infectious viruses exploit; they cannot reproduce on their own, so they use a cell’s machinery to make copies of themselves. They burst out of the cell and infect more cells, widening the infection

Labs were using three ways to deliver the artificial spike protein:

Virtually all the labs want to find a way to train human cells to make an antigen called the spike protein. It juts out from SARS-CoV-2 like a stud on a tire, allowing the virus to bind to a human cell and sneak inside. Almost all the labs are using one of three approaches to deliver the spike blueprint. The first is a DNA plasmid, typically a small, hoop-shaped molecule. A plasmid is a handy tool because if a virus mutates, researchers can readily swap in a new blueprint. DNA-plasmid vaccines have been made for veterinary uses in fishes, dogs, swine and horses, but human applications have lagged, mostly because the vaccines have had difficulty passing through a cell’s protective outer membrane to reach the machinery inside. One recent improvement is to inject the vaccine with an instrument that administers brief electrical charges to cells near the injection site, which open pores in the cell membranes so the vaccine can enter

The scientists use DNA-plasmid vaccines which are programmed to infuse the RNA with the genetic blueprint code within the cell machinery that produces what is called the spike antigens “but scientists can skip the plasmid step by embedding a blueprint in a strand of RNA—a second approach known as RNA vaccines.”

The next step is to “mobilize” the immune system to create antibodies.

“The RNA is carried in lipids that are injected into the body; lipids are fatty molecules that can pass easily into cells.”

Scientific American also mentioned Johnson and Johnson’s (J&J) approach by

“inserting the DNA blueprint into a common cold virus. When injected, this adenoviral vector, as it is called, infects human cells and delivers the blueprint it is carrying.”

 The Children’s Health Defense commented on J&J’s rollout with their own experimental vaccine:

Rather than use the messenger RNA (mRNA) technology being deployed for the first time in the Pfizer and Moderna injections, J&J’s vaccine (made by the company’s Janssen Pharmaceuticals subsidiary) features a genetically engineered “viral vector” design reliant on a weakened common-cold virus called adenovirus 26.

Adenovirus vaccines have a lengthy history of use in the U.S. military, but the FDA’s emergency green light for J&J’s COVID injection represents the first time the agency has authorized an adenovirus-vectored vaccine for civilian use.

Despite the fact that the latest data provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s(CDC) under the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) which does record deaths and injuries shows how dangerous these vaccines are.

It has been reported that since the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines between December 14th, 2020 and February 8th, 2021 there were approximately 19,907 incidents that have been reported in terms of adverse events’ that includes 1,095 deaths and more than 3,767 serious injuries.

Right at the start of the vaccine rollout, there was already a handful of cases caused by Trump’s beautiful shot.  In as early as December 10th, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine already had caused injuries, one of the injuries is called ‘Bell’s Palsy’which is a case of temporary facial paralysis. 

RT News published ‘4 volunteers develop FACIAL PARALYSIS after taking Pfizer Covid-19 jab, prompting FDA to recommend ‘surveillance for cases’ said that “Four trial participants who received the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine experienced facial paralysis, according to the Food and Drug Administration.

The FDA said the issue should be monitored as the jab becomes more widely available.”  The report FDA Briefing Document titled ‘Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting’ on the outcome of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine:

Among non-serious unsolicited adverse events, there was a numerical imbalance of four cases of Bell’s palsy in the vaccine group compared with no cases in the placebo group, though the four cases in the vaccine group do not represent a frequency above that expected in the general population. Otherwise, there were no notable patterns or numerical imbalances between treatment groups for specific categories of non-serious adverse events (including other neurologic, neuroinflammatory, and thrombotic events) that would suggest a causal relationship to BNT162b2 vaccine

Shortly after, a registered nurse from Nashville, Tennessee by the name of Khalilah Mitchell got Bell’s Palsy after taking the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine:

The Associated Press (AP) Fact-Checking site published a rebuttal of Khalilah Mitchell’s claim but admitted several other people developed Bell’s palsy:

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The Tennessee Department of Health confirmed to The Associated Press that there is no record of a registered nurse under that name. Though four people in the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine trial and three people in the Moderna trial who received vaccines reported Bell’s palsy, a disorder that causes paralysis on one side of the face and is temporary for most people, at this time, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not established a link between the vaccines and the condition

At the start of the new year, a tragedy occurred in South Florida with the death of a beloved obstetrician, Dr. Gregory Michael.  The Sun-Sentinel of South Florida reported on the death of Dr. Gregory Michael, a Miami-Beach obstetrician ‘A ‘healthy’ doctor died two weeks after getting a COVID-19 vaccine; CDC is investigating why’ said that “two weeks after getting a first dose of a Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, a 56-year-old doctor in South Florida died this week, possibly the nation’s first death linked to the vaccine.” the report said that health officials from Florida and the CDC are investigating if the vaccine had anything to do with his death although his family said that Dr. Michael was in good health.

On December 18th he received a Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and a few days later

“small spots began to appear on his feet and hands and he went to the emergency room at Mount Sinai where he has worked in private practice for 15 years.”  

One of the after-effects was a low blood count.  The report said that “experts from all over the country were involved in his care” according to his wife Heidi Neckelmann.  Dr. Michael had a stroke and died before he was to undergo “a last resort surgery.”

On January 15TH more than 10 people had died in Germany due to the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine according to the Paul Ehrlich Institute who was investigating the incident.  Yahoo Newsoriginally published the report from Asia News International (ANI) and Sputnik:

Specialists from Germany’s Paul Ehrlich Institute are looking into the deaths of 10 people who passed away soon after having been inoculated against the novel coronavirus disease, Brigitte Keller-Stanislawski, the head of the institute’s department of the safety of medicinal products and medical devices, said on Thursday. According to the medical expert, the deceased were aged from 79 to 93, all with antecedent diseases. The time between vaccination and death ranged from several hours to four days.

“Until yesterday we had nine cases; we have to wait for the data from Lower Saxony [about another alleged case], then there will be 10. We are talking about patients in extremely grave condition, with multiple diseases, who were receiving palliative treatment. I have already said that we are studying these cases … Based on our current data we assume they died from their main diseases, coinciding in time with the vaccination,” Keller-Stanislawski said at a press conference

It was reported that Pfizer (US) and BioNTech (Germany) had 842,000 people in line for the vaccine with the elderly and the staff at nursing homes being the first people to be vaccinated.  However, it came with a heavy price with the rushed vaccine:

The institute also reported six anaphylaxis cases. So far, there have been 325 cases of side-effects allegedly related to the vaccine, including 51 severe ones. Keller-Stanislawski stated that those results are within expectations and correspond to the US vaccination statistics

On January 16THThe Jerusalem Post ’13 Israelis suffer facial paralysis after corona virus vaccine – report’ originally from a Ynet News source based in Israel reported the following:

Some 13 people have experienced mild facial paralysis as a side effect after taking the COVID-19 vaccine, the Health Ministry reported, and estimates are that the number of cases could be higher. Health officials have raised questions about whether or not to administer the second dose to these individuals, but the Health Ministry is recommending that the second dose be given

One person described his ordeal after the vaccine “For at least 28 hours I walked around with it [facial paralysis],” one person who had the side effect told Ynet. “I can’t say it was completely gone afterwards, but other than that I had no other pains, except a minor pain where the injection was, but there was nothing beyond that.” Another reaction was described by a medical director who met someone that was vaccinated and ended up with paralysis:

I recently came across, for example, someone vaccinated who was dealing with paralysis, and decided not to give her a second dose,” Prof. Galia Rahav, director of the Infectious Diseases Unit at Sheba Medical Center told Ynet. “It is true that it can be given according to the Health Ministry, but I did not feel comfortable with it

The following day, Dr. Erica S. Pan who is based in Sacramento, California said that“a higher-than-usual number of possible allergic reactions were reported with a specific lot of Moderna vaccine administered at one community vaccination clinic.  Fewer than 10 individuals required medical attention over the span of 24 hours.”

On January 18th, following the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination campaign in Norway, 33 people who were over the age of 75 years-old had died.  According to Bloomberg News “In Norway, 33 people aged 75 and over died following immunization, according to the agency’s latest figures. All were already seriously ill, it said.”

Norway has  vaccinated more than 48,000 people in nursing homes.  “The reported fatalities are well under 1 out of 1,000 nursing-home patients to be vaccinated, he said. The side effects of immunization can, in some cases, “tip the patients into a more serious course of the underlying disease,” Madsen said. “We can’t rule that out.” In a January 15th report from Bloomberg News ‘Norway Warns of Vaccination Risks for Sick Patients Over 80′ said the following:

Norway said Covid-19 vaccines may be too risky for the very old and terminally ill, the most cautious statement yet from a European health authority as countries assess the real-world side effects of the first shots to gain approval.

Norwegian officials said 23 people had died in the country a short time after receiving their first dose of the vaccine. Of those deaths, 13 have been autopsied, with the results suggesting that common side effects may have contributed to severe reactions in frail, elderly people, according to the Norwegian Medicines Agency

These are just a few examples of what happened with the release of various Covid-19 vaccines right from the start.  This is just the beginning.

No one knows what the long-term effects will be but from what the early reports are showing, the Covid-19 experimental vaccines will unfortunately kill or injure many more people in the foreseeable future. Trump’s “beautiful shot” will be part of his legacy, one that will remember him as the propagandist who sold himself to Big Pharma and the deep state, the same entities he supposedly tried to remove from power.

AstraZeneca Covid-19 Vaccine Suspended across Europe. “Possible Autoimmune Reactions, Blood Clotting, Stroke and Internal bleeding”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky (via Global Research)

Several European countries have now suspended the mRNA AstraZeneka Vaccine including Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Austria, Bulgaria. And more recently: Germany, Netherlands, Ireland, France, Italy, Estonia, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Romania. Thailand and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) have also suspended the AstraZeneka vaccine. 

On March 10, 2021, an open letter was submitted by a Collective of prominent medical doctors and scientists to the European Medicines Agency (EME):

Urgent Open Letter from Doctors and Scientists to the European Medicines Agency regarding COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Concerns By Doctors for COVID Ethics, March 10, 2021

The letter (posted on Global Research) describes:

“serious potential consequences of COVID-19 vaccine technology, warning of possible autoimmune reactions, blood clotting abnormalities, stroke and internal bleeding, “including in the brain, spinal cord and heart”.

See also the Press Release issued by the Doctors for COVID Ethics

In recent developments (March 15, 2021), Germany’s Ministry of Health has confirmed the “temporary suspension” of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine: ,

“The European Medicines Agency is to  decide “whether and how the new information will affect the authorization of the vaccine” pending an investigation.  (Deutsche Welle).

The mRNA Vaccine in the US. Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna Inc.

Sofar the suspensions apply only to AstraZeneca which is being marketed in Europe and several other countries. 

Two other major pharmaceutical conglomerates, namely Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna Inc. are involved in marketing the mRNA vaccine technology, which is categorized in the US as an “experimental” drug.

In the US, the “Green Light” to market the experimental Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine was granted back in December 2020, despite the fact that according to the FDA, the vaccine is an “unapproved product”.

The FDA in an ambiguous statement  (see below) has provided a so-called Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, namely “to permit the emergency use of theunapproved product, … for active immunization…” (see below)

Injuries and Deaths Attributed to Pfizer and Moderna mRNA Vaccine

CDC data on “adverse reactions” to the two major Covid mRNA vaccines marketed in the US (Pfizer and Moderna), confirm the incidence of “pulmonary embolism, which is an “acute lung disease caused by a dislodged blood clot.” (Brian Shilhalvy, Vaccine Impact News).

“The CDC is reporting 120 cases of pulmonary embolisms, including 12 DEATHS following injections of the two experimental COVID mRNA injections currently in the U.S.

Seven of the deaths followed the Moderna mRNA COVID shot, while five deaths followed the Pfizer mRNA COVID shot. (Ibid)

Based on the CDC data on deaths and the”adverse reactions”, the suspension of the Pfizer-Moderna mRNA vaccine should be implemented in the United States without delay.

Women Who Build the Future: Towards a Non Violent Culture. Vandana Shiva

By Dr. Vandana Shiva (via Global Research)

We open the series “Women who Build the Future: Towards a Nonviolent Culture“, with Vandana Shiva‘s interview.

This is the first of a number of interviews with women from all continents who are committed to life. A project that has led us to a collective process that is allowing us to grow as individuals and as a whole.

The renowned physicist, thinker and activist Vandana Shiva proposes ecofeminism as a response to the current moment, in which the capitalist patriarchy is leading us to destruction and death, after having colonized nature, women and the future.

What do all the causes she defends have in common? She confesses,

Everything comes out of me, like the love of life and freedom, whether it is the defense of seeds or being with my peasant sisters defending the land… [everything I do] has to do with the defense of life and freedom, from a place of love and resistance also in the face of the lack of freedom.

Dr. Shiva proposes to take advantage of the ten-year window we still have to decolonize ourselves and change the direction we are taking, relying on feminist movements and young environmental defenders, thus saving the planet and, therefore, humanity and life.

Don’t miss the strength of her expression and listen to the words of a woman who is convinced and convincing about the fight for the future and life. Enjoy it!

Attached is the link to the Earth University courses, including the Ecofeminism course:

Why You Can’t Trust the FDA, the WHO, the CDC, the AAP, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi or Pfizer

By Dr. Gary G. Kohls (via Global Research)

This article which is of relevance to the ongoing debate on the Covid-19 vaccine, was first published on the Duluth Reader in December 2019.

“The FDA receives 45% of its annual budget from the pharmaceutical industry. The World Health Organization (WHO) gets roughly 50% of its budget from private sources, including Big Pharma and its allied foundations. And the CDC, frankly, is a vaccine company; it owns 56 vaccine patents and buys and (very profitably) distributes $4.6 billion in vaccines annually through the Vaccines for Children program, which represents over 40% of its total budget.” — Robert F. Kennedy, Jr  

“The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) derives a majority of its outside contributions – estimated at more than $25 million per year – from pharmaceutical companies that make vaccines. The pediatricians that the AAP represents derive the majority of their annual revenues from the administration of vaccines to their pediatric patients.) — J.B. Handley  

“Perhaps the most infamous example of corruption at the CDC is how the head of the CDC from 2002 to 2009, Julie Gerberding, left her government job to become president of Merck’s $5 billion dollar/year Vaccine Division. Merck’s CEO understandably described Gerberding as an “ideal choice”. She held that position until 2014 and currently holds the Merck job title of “Executive Vice President & Chief Patent Officer, Strategic Communications, Global Public Policy and Population Health”. That is to say, the former CDC director is now in charge of Merck’s propaganda efforts. One might say she’s basically doing the same job now that she did for the CDC, but even more lucratively. Apart from her salary, in 2015, Gerberding sold shares of Merck worth over $2.3 million. While at the CDC Gerberding shepherded Merck’s highly controversial and highly profitable Gardasil vaccine through the regulatory maize” — From  

“The majority of studies that authorities point to as (contrived) proof that vaccines do not cause autism have been published in a journal called Pediatrics, the official journal of the AAP. As we know, the AAP is a trade union for pediatricians.” – J.B. Handley   “Since vaccines are liability-free – and effectively compulsory to a captive market of 76 million children – there is meager market incentive for companies to make them safe. The public must rely on the moral scruples of Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, and Pfizer. But these companies have a long history of operating recklessly and dishonestly, even with (the many drug) products for which they can be sued for injuries. The four companies that make virtually all of the recommended vaccines are all convicted felons.  Collectively they have paid over $35 billion since 2009 for defrauding regulators, lying to and bribing government officials and physicians, falsifying science, and leaving a trail of (incurable chronic illnesses) injuries and deaths from products they knew to be dangerous and still sold under pretense of safety and efficacy.” – Robert F. Kennedy, Jr  

“I ate breakfast last week with the president of a network news division at CBS, and he told me that during non-election years, 70% of the advertising revenues for his news division come from pharmaceutical ads.  And if you go on TV any night and watch the network news, you’ll see they become just a vehicle for selling pharmaceuticals. He also told me that he would fire a host who brought onto his station a guest who lost him a pharmaceutical account.” — Robert F. Kennedy Jr  “Fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. The CDC’s entire vaccination propaganda campaign rests on their claim that side effects from vaccination are exceedingly rare, but according to the blatantly pro-over-vaccination, and Big Pharma-funded CDC, in 2016 alone, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) received 59,117 vaccine adverse event reports. Among those reports were 432 vaccine-related deaths, 1,091 permanent vaccine-related disabilities, 4,132 vaccine-related hospitalizations, and 10,274 vaccine-related emergency room visits. What if these numbers actually represent less than 1% of the total as this report asserts? You multiply those numbers by 100.” – William Christenson  

Please study immediately below the following quotes about the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV)vaccine Gardasil, which Merck’s propaganda/lobbying department has very successfully marketed, even acquiring fast-track status from the FDA that eliminated the need for long-term safety or efficacy studies.

Gardasil has been heavily marketed even prior to its FDA-approval in 2006 (for the Gardasil-4 vaccine – and again in 2014 for the Gardasil-9 vaccine) for the theoretical prevention of cancer of the cervix for young healthy adolescent females 30 – 40 years into the future that will require periodic vaccination booster shots that contain aluminum adjuvants for life – the exact frequency of which has yet to be determined, since the long-term efficacy and safety studies haven’t been performed!!

Incidentally, the following vaccines contain aluminum: 

“Anthrax, DT, DTaP (Infanrix), DTaP-IPV, DTaP-HepB-IPV (Pediarix), DTaP –IPV/Hib, Hep A, Hep B, HepA/Hep B (Twinrix), HIB (PedvaxHIB), HPV (Gardasil and Cervarix), Japanese encephalitis, MenB (Bexsero), Pneumococcal (Prevnar 13), Td, TDaP.”

The following few quotes about the unacknowledged dangers of any aluminum-saturated vaccine (which applies to both HPV vaccines, including GlaxoSmithKline’s (Cervarix, approved by the FDA in 2009) come from Canadian research physician Dr Lucija Tomljenovic.   These important quotes were excerpted from Dr Tomljenovic’s alarming medical journal article that revealed the histologic findings of the cerebral vasculitis (toxic inflammation of the blood vessels in the brain) from two previously healthy young women following their deaths after their routine Gardasil vaccinations, see this

Here are more important quotes:

“Gardasil is a recombinant vaccine and contains virus-like particles (VLPs) of HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18 as active substances…The VLPs are adsorbed on amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate (AAHP) adjuvant nanoparticles. Animal models show that aluminum adjuvant nanoparticles are taken up by monocytes after injection, translocate to lymph nodes, then travel across the blood-brain barrier and eventually accumulate in the brain where they can cause significant immune-inflammatory adverse reactions. Thus, the presence of VLP particles in cerebral vasculature in the brain tissue specimens from young women who have died following vaccination with Gardasil may be explained by a “Trojan horse” mechanism that is dependent on circulating macrophages by which these particles adsorbed to aluminum adjuvant to gain access to brain tissue.” 

“Circulating immune complexes can result from either 

1) normal responses to infection, 

2) tissue injury or 

3) artificial responses to vaccination. 

The fact that vaccines are designed to hyper-stimulate antibody production (thus producing much higher antibody levels than what occurs following natural infection), suggests that vaccination may carry a much higher risk for immune vasculopathies (and other autoimmune disorders). Gardasil injections induce sustained antibody titers (for HPV-16) that are more than 10-fold higher than natural HPV infection titers.”

“Vaccine-induced cerebral vasculitis is a serious disease which typically results in fatal outcomes when undiagnosed and left untreated. The fact that many of the symptoms reported to vaccine safety surveillance databases following HPV vaccination are indicative of cerebral vasculitis, but are unrecognized as such (i.e., intense persistent migraines, syncope, seizures, tremors, tingling, myalgia, locomotor abnormalities, psychotic symptoms and cognitive deficits, etc), is a serious concern…It thus appears that in some cases vaccination may be the triggering factor of fatal autoimmune/neurological events. Physicians should be aware of this association.” – Dr Lucija Tomljenovic  

And here is what widely-published Canadian researcher Dr Christopher Shaw has to say about aluminum adjuvants in vaccines: 

“…our current results are consistent with the existing evidence on the toxicology and pharmacokinetics of Aluminum adjuvants which altogether strongly implicate these compounds as contributors to the rising prevalence of neurobehavioral disorders in children. Given that autism has devastating consequences in a life of a child, and that currently in the developed world over 1% of children suffer from some form of Autism Spectrum Disorder, it would seem wise to make efforts towards reducing infant exposure to aluminum from vaccines.“ — C A Shaw, PhD

“There is a serious problem with vaccine safety. Vaccine aluminum adjuvant has adverse neurological effects, at dosages that are recommended by the US CDC. Vaccine critics are supported by the science. Parents refusing to vaccinate according to the recommended CDC schedule are supported by the science. Use aluminum-containing vaccines with great caution, or not at all.” – Chris Shaw, PhD

See this.

And here is what Dr Christopher Exeley, the world-renowned British aluminum toxicologist reported recently about Alzheimers Disease (widely reported to be of “unknown origin”) which seems to affect mostly fully-vaccinated, fully-drugged older people: 

“We have made the first ever measurements of aluminium in brain tissue from 12 donors diagnosed with…Alzheimer’s disease. The concentrations of aluminium were extremely high, for example, there were values in excess of 10 μg/g tissue dry wt. in 5 of the 12 individuals. Overall, the concentrations were higher than all previous measurements of brain aluminium except cases of known aluminium-induced encephalopathy.” – Dr Christopher Exeley

Scandalously, for the volunteer patients that were included in the seven separate pre-clinical studies that Merck researchers performed, the researchers did NOT do any questioning of any of the study participants beyond 15 days after each of the series of 3 intramuscular vaccinations had been completed!! Therefore no safety studies beyond the exceedingly short-term were done and thus the “vaccine/industrial complex” has no justification in insisting that Gardasil is safe!!

Scandalously, the study participants were actually not questioned, but were simply told to fill out Vaccine Report Cards (VRCs) and send them in at 15 days following the most recent of the 3 injections!!

Scandalously, 5 of the 7 clinical trials used an aluminum adjuvant – instead of a saline control – as a “placebo”!!

Scandalously, only one of the 7 studies was properly controlled with a true saline placebo.

Scandalously, the seventh trial was totally uncontrolled!!

Scandalously, the seven groups of active vs. “placebo” were lumped together in the study’s conclusions, which made adequate interpretation of efficacy essentially impossible!!

Scandalously, the so-called “placebo” that was used in the vast majority of the trials was the known neurotoxin, Amorphous Aluminum Hydroxyphosphate Sulfate (AAHS), which was the very same adjuvant that was – and still is – in the active Gardasil shot!!

Scandalously, aluminum-containing AAHS, the highly neurotoxic and autoimmunity-inducing adjuvant, is in many other childhood and adult vaccines and is known to accumulate in the body with each injection!!

Scandalously, no mention was made by Merck that aluminum was in the so-called “placebo” shots until page 12 of the 28-page product information insert – and the amount of aluminum was only mentioned once!!

Scandalously, the participants that did not complete the entire series of 3 vaccinations were dropped from the final tabulations, meaning that those who died or had any of the most serious adverse outcomes (the reason for dropping out) were not included in the final statistics, deceptively minimizing negative outcomes!!

Scandalously, any trial drop-outs that died, had a stroke, developed seizure disorders, had a heart attack or had other serious adverse outcomes such as one of the many autoimmune disorders were not listed in the literature or product inserts if the victim did not receive all three shots!!

The following information is taken directly from Merck’s Gardasil product insert that accompanies each vial of vaccine and is to be made available to prospective patients before they give their consent:

The High Incidence of Headaches Following the Gardasil Vaccine Experiment is Likely Due to the Aluminum Adjuvant

The incidence of new-onset headaches in this healthy, previously headache-free population, for example, was the most commonly-reported systemic adverse reaction – with an incidence of 28% in both active and “placebo” treatment groups!!

(Note that Gardasil recipients experienced an incidence of > 28.2% and the aluminum-adjuvanted [AAHS] “placebo controls” had a headache incidence of > 28.4%!!)

This high incidence of serious headaches was highly likely a sign of cerebral vasculitis, which could then cause many of the other adverse effects commonly seen in these previously well patients including chronic fatigue syndrome, seizure disorders, narcolepsy, psychological illnesses or death!!

Among the causes of death listed in the product insert from 2010, there was printed the following Gardasil-associated deaths among the scrupulously-screened, exceptionally healthy study participants that completed the series of 3 shots:

  • 2 deaths from sepsis,
  • 1 death from pancreatic cancer,
  • fatal arrhythmia,
  • 1 death from pulmonary tuberculosis, 1 death from hyperthyroidism,
  • 1 death from post-operative pulmonary embolism and acute renal failure,
  • 1 death from cardiac arrest and resultant traumatic brain injury, 1 death from systemic lupus erythematosus,
  • 1 death because of a stroke,
  • 1 death from breast cancer, and 1 death from nasopharyngeal cancer.

In the AAHS/aluminum adjuvant-containing, alleged “placebo” group there was reported:

  • 1 death from “asphyxia”,
  • 1 death from acute lymphocytic leukemia,
  • 1 death from “chemical poisoning” and
  • 1 death from myocardial infarction.
  • Significantly, zero deaths occurred in the true saline placebo group.

Fully-informed Consent to Potentially-Risky Medical Treatments Used to be a Part of Medical Ethics

The following Patient Counseling Information comes from the FDA-approved, Merck-generated 2010 Product Information Insert that licensed health practitioners (or the individuals delegated by them to inject the Gardasil) were advised to inform prospective vaccinees (or their parents or guardians) prior to proceeding with the potentially-dangerous, possibly even less-than-useless Gardasil vaccination protocol. (No Gardasil recipient has yet lived long enough to know if the vaccine will have actually prevented cervical cancer!)

It is highly likely that Merck’s legal advice below is not being followed by the vast majority of America’s medical professionals, whose clinics are profiting heavily by promoting Gardasil vaccinations (HPV vaccines are the most expensive vaccines in the history of the world) for their previously healthy adolescent female patients, who won’t know if it was worth all the shots and costs and risks of chronic illnesses until their reach their mid-40s – the peak age at which the diagnosis of cancer of the uterine cervix is made.

No matter, for patients harmed or killed by ANY vaccine – whether or not they were warned about adverse effects – cannot sue vaccine manufacturers, marketers or the vaccine-injecting medical profession for injuries or deaths. Scandalous!!

Most of the following excerpts are verbatim quotes from the product insert:

Patient counseling information for Gardasil vaccinations

  1. Vaccination does not eliminate the necessity for women to continue to undergo recommended cervical cancer screening. 
  2. Women who receive GARDASIL should continue to undergo cervical cancer screening per standard of care. 
  3. Recipients of GARDASIL should not discontinue anal cancer screening if it has been recommended by a health care provider.
  4. GARDASIL has NOT been demonstrated to provide protection against disease from vaccine and non-vaccine HPV types to which a person has previously been exposed through sexual activity.
  5. Since syncope (fainting) has been reported following vaccination sometimes resulting in falling with injury, observation for 15 minutes after administration is recommended.
  6. Vaccine information is required to be given with each vaccination to the patient, parent, or guardian. 
  7. Information regarding benefits and risks associated with vaccination.
  8. GARDASIL is not recommended for use in pregnant women.
  9. Importance of completing the immunization series unless contraindicated.
  10. Report any adverse reactions to their health care provider

The remainder of this article contains information that was obtained directly from the Gardasil package insert (and sometimes paraphrased from what was printed there). I have also bolded, enlarged and/or italicized some of the words or phrases to point out and/or emphasize the not-so-subtle, frequent obfuscation of data that the FDA allowed Merck to publish, data which likely was designed to distort (or at least put a positive spin on) the information – for both patients and physicians:   5.1 Syncope Because vaccinees may develop syncope (fainting shortly after a Gardasil shot), sometimes resulting in injury, observation for 15 minutes after administration is recommended. Syncope, sometimes associated with tonic-clonic movements and other seizure-like activity, has been reported following vaccination with GARDASIL   When syncope is associated with tonic-clonic movements (tonic/clonic movements ARE SEIZURES!!), the activity is usually transient and typically responds to restoring cerebral perfusion by maintaining a supine or Trendelenburg position.

Some vaccine victims died, some had strokes, some had heart attacks, some developed chronic epilepsy, some developed chronic fatigue syndrome, etc.  

Table 5: Common Systemic Adverse Reactions in Girls and Women 9 Through 26 Years of Age 

(GARDASIL ≥ Control) Adverse Reactions (1 to 15 Days Postvaccination) GARDASIL (N = 5088) AAHS/aluminum adjuvant “placebo” (N = 3790)

Fever 13% with Gardasil; 11.2% with AAHS/Aluminum adjuvant “placebo”, Nausea 6.7% Gardasil; 6.5% Aluminum, Dizziness 4.0% Gardasil; 3.6% Aluminum Diarrhea 3.6% Gardasil; 3.5% Aluminum Vomiting 2.4% Gardasil; 1.9% Aluminum Cough 2.0% Gardasil; 1.5% Aluminum Toothache, Upper respiratory tract infection, Malaise, Arthralgia, Insomnia, Nasal congestion all had an incidence over 1.0%. Many other adverse effects that had an incidence of less than 1.0% were not listed.

6.1 Clinical Trials Experience Studies in Girls and Women (ages 9 Through 45) and Boys and Men (9 Through 26 Years of Age) 18,083 individuals were administered GARDASIL or aluminum/AAHS “placebo” or saline placebo on the day of enrollment, and approximately 2 and 6 months thereafter, and safety was evaluated using Vaccination Report Cards (VRC) for 14 days after each injection.   The individuals that were monitored using the Vaccination Report Cards included 10,088 individuals 9 through 45 years of age at enrollment who received GARDASIL and 7,995 individuals who received the aluminum “placebo” or the saline true placebo.

99.8% of trial participants continued to the end of the 6-month trial despite many of them suffering significant adverse effects from both the vaccine and the aluminum adjuvant.

Table 9: Summary of Girls and Women 9 Through 26 Years of Age Who Reported an Incident Condition Potentially Indicative of a Systemic Autoimmune Disorder After Enrollment in Clinical Trials   (Recall that Aluminum adjuvants have a long history of causing autoimmune disorders. It should be required for everybody to read and understand the extensive scholarly literature that had led to the identification of the ASIA Syndrome = “Autoimmune/Inflammatory Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants” here.

Note: Patients with the vaccine-induced ASIA Syndrome commonly present with post-vaccination symptoms such as chronic fatigue syndrome, cognitive impairment, arthralgias, myalgias, fevers, dry eyes and dry mouth, symptoms that are totally compatible with the ASIA Syndrome and are now found to occur following Gardasil vaccinations. Included are some of these disorders: 

  1. Arthralgia/Arthritis/Arthropathy   120 Gardasil-injected volunteers reported arthropathic signs and symptoms that were compatible with autoimmune arthropathies (and the ASIA Syndrome).  98 aluminum-adjuvanted “control group” members also reported arthropathies.
  2. There were 10 cases of Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus (a known autoimmune disorder) in the Gardasil group and there were 6 cases of IDDM among the aluminum-adjuvant group.
  3. Also occurring among these previously totally healthy groups of young women were cases of these autoimmune, ASIA disorders Autoimmune Thyroiditis, Celiac Disease, Erythema Nodosum, Hyperthyroidism, Hypothyroidism, Inflammatory Bowel Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, Nephritis, Optic Neuritis, Pigmentation Disorder, Psoriasis, Raynaud’s Phenomenon, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Scleroderma/Morphea, Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, Uveitis.

6.2 Post-marketing Experience The following adverse events have been spontaneously reported during post-approval use of GARDASIL. Because these events were reported voluntarily (unsolicited)from a population of uncertain size, it is not possible to reliably estimate their frequency or to establish a causal relationship to vaccine exposure.

Blood and lymphatic system disorders: Autoimmune hemolytic anemia, Idiopathic (autoimmune)thrombocytopenic purpura, Lymphadenopathy. Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders:Pulmonary embolus. Gastrointestinal disorders: Nausea, Pancreatitis, Vomiting.

General disorders and administration site conditions: Asthenia, Chills, Death, Fatigue, Malaise. Immune system disorders: Autoimmune diseases, Hypersensitivity reactions including anaphylactic/anaphylactoid reactions, Bronchospasm/Asthma, and Urticaria. Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders: Arthralgia, Myalgia. Nervous system disorders: Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, Dizziness, Guillain-Barré syndrome, Headache, Lower motor neuron disease, Paralysis, Seizures, Syncope (including syncope associated with tonic/clonic movements and other seizure-like activity) sometimes resulting in falling with injury, Transverse myelitis.

Infections and infestations: Cellulitis. Vascular disorders: Deep venous thrombosis   GARDASIL is not indicated for women 27 years of age or older.  However, safety data in women 16 through 45 years of age was collected, and 3819 women (GARDASIL N = 1894 vs. AAHS control (aluminum adjuvant) or saline placebo N = 1925) reported at least 1 pregnancy each.   The overall proportions of pregnancies that resulted in an adverse outcome, defined as the combined numbers of: Spontaneous abortion, Late fetal death, and Congenital anomalies (45 cases in Gardasil vaccinees and 34 cases in aluminum-adjuvanted “placebo cases)out of the total number of pregnancy outcomes for which an outcome was known (and excluding elective terminations), were 22.6% (446/1973) in women who received GARDASIL and 23.1% (460/1994) in women who received AAHS control or saline placebo. Overall, 55 and 65 women in the group that received GARDASIL or AAHS control or saline placebo, respectively (2.9% and 3.4% of all women who reported a pregnancy in the respective vaccination groups), experienced a serious adverse reaction during pregnancy.

There were 45 cases of congenital anomaly in pregnancies that occurred in women who received GARDASIL and 34 cases of congenital anomaly in pregnancies that occurred in women who received AAHS control or saline placebo.   Further sub-analyses were conducted to evaluate pregnancies with estimated onset within 30 days or more than 30 days from administration of a dose of GARDASIL or AAHS control or saline placebo. For pregnancies with estimated onset within 30 days of vaccination, 5 cases of congenital anomaly were observed in the group that received GARDASIL compared to 1 case of congenital anomaly in the group that received AAHS control or saline placebo.

The congenital anomalies seen in (Gardasil-affected) pregnancies with estimated onset within 30 days of vaccination included

Pyloric stenosis, Congenital megacolon, Congenital hydronephrosis, Hip dysplasia, and Club foot. 

Conversely, in pregnancies with onset more than 30 days following vaccination, 40 cases of congenital anomaly were observed in the group that received GARDASIL compared with 33 cases of congenital anomaly in the group that received AAHS (aluminum!) “control” or saline placebo.

GARDASIL or AAHS control were given to a total of 1133 (breast-feeding) women (vaccine N = 582, AAHS control N = 551) during the relevant Phase 3 clinical studies.

Overall, 27 and 13 infants of women who received GARDASIL or AAHS control, respectively (representing 4.6% and 2.4% of the total number of women who were breast-feeding during the period in which they received GARDASIL or AAHS control, respectively), experienced a serious adverse reaction.   In a post-hoc analysis of clinical studies, a higher number of breast-feeding infants (n = 7) whose mothers received GARDASIL had acute respiratory illnesses within 30 days post vaccination of the mother as compared to infants (n = 2) whose mothers received AAHS control.

11. DESCRIPTION GARDASIL, Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent (Types 6, 11, 16, and 18) Vaccine, Recombinant, is a non-infectious recombinant quadrivalent vaccine prepared from the purified virus-like particles (VLPs) of the major capsid (L1) protein of HPV Types 6, 11, 16, and 18. The L1 proteins are produced by separate fermentations in recombinant Saccharomyces cerevisiae and self-assembled into VLPs.

The fermentation process involves growth of S. cerevisiae on chemically-defined fermentation media which include vitamins, amino acids, mineral salts, and carbohydrates. The VLPs are released from the yeast cells by cell disruption and purified by a series of chemical and physical methods.

The purified Virus-Like Particles are adsorbed on pre-formed aluminum-containing adjuvant (Amorphous Aluminum Hydroxyphosphate Sulfate).

The quadrivalent HPV VLP vaccine is a sterile liquid suspension that is prepared by combining the adsorbed VLPs of each HPV type and additional amounts of the aluminum-containing adjuvant and the final purification buffer.   GARDASIL is a sterile suspension for intramuscular administration.

Each 0.5-mL dose contains approximately 20 mcg of HPV 6 L1 protein, 40 mcg of HPV 11 L1 protein, 40 mcg of HPV 16 L1 protein, and 20 mcg of HPV 18 L1 protein. 

Each 0.5-mL dose of the vaccine contains approximately 225 mcg of aluminum (as Amorphous Aluminum Hydroxyphosphate Sulfate adjuvant), 9.56 mg of sodium chloride, 0.78 mg of L-histidine, 50 mcg of polysorbate 80, 35 mcg of sodium borate.   And yet, despite the fact that there is no proof that Gardasil has prevented a single case of cervical cancer, the CDC website does not dare to discuss the details and personal stories of the thousands of young, previously health young women that experienced serious, even fatal, adverse effects both before the costly vaccine was marketed and after it was sanctioned by the CDC, the AAFP and the AAP.

Indeed, the CDC’s website ( reassuringly states, totally ignoring the warnings in the Gardasil product insert that medical ethicists say must be revealed to the patient or guardian prior to a vaccine injection or a drug prescription – per the age-old medical ethical standard of “fully informed consent”:

“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American Academy of Pediatrics strongly recommend children receive all vaccines according to the recommended schedule.”

Here is that CDC-recommended schedule that is now mandatory, no questions to be asked, in California: After studying it and trying to calculate exactly how much injected mercury, aluminum, live viruses and the various impurities that the schedule will deliver to any California child that wants to go to public school, it is important to ask any physician that orders their patients to comply with the CDC schedule (exactly as posted) any of the questions listed further below this 2018 schedule that contrasts the number of vaccinations from previous years. This totally accurate diagram is posted at:   

After being enlightened about America’s mandated, obvious over-vaccination schedule, are there any Questions?

Such as:

  1. What might happen if my baby doesn’t take ALL of the vaccines?
  2. What might happen if I delay having my baby start the vaccine schedule until he/she has reached blood-brain barrier and immunological maturity?
  3. Why are the unvaccinated people that I know also the healthiest people, the ones with the fewest chronic illnesses, the ones that aren’t on cocktails of potentially toxic drugs, the ones with no autoimmune disorders and the ones that never catch the flu anyway?
  4. What if there is a mis-match between the influenza viruses that circulated in Australia during their flu season last year and the viral antigens that were chosen to be included in the current flu shot?
  5. What if I had an adverse reaction to a previous vaccine, should I still be vaccinated with that shot? (And what is the strength of the evidence for your recommendation that my baby stick to the CDC’s mandated schedule?)
  6. What if there is a family history of vaccine adverse effects?
  7. Why should I have my baby follow the CDC schedule when my autistic first baby had his first seizure, near-SIDS event and his first autistic symptoms immediately after a cocktail of vaccinations that was given at your clinic?
  8. Did your medical school only teach you about the benefits of vaccinations and not about the actual risks?
  9. Were your medical school professors actual practicing physicians or were they mainly academically-oriented and therefore with minimal practical experience in pediatric patient care?

And here are some enlightening and very useful quotes from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, who knows more and is more articulate about vaccines and the dangers of over-vaccinating American children than 99% of US physicians and 99.9% of US politicians. 

“For American kids born in 1986, only 12.8% had chronic diseases (especially autoimmune disorders). That number has grown to 54% among the vaccine generation (those born after 1986) in lockstep with the expanding schedule.” 

“Safety testing, which typically requires months and years for other medical products, often lasts only a few days with vaccines – not nearly long enough to spot cancers or chronic conditions like autoimmune diseases (e.g., juvenile, insulin dependent diabetes mellitus, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, multiple sclerosis), allergic illnesses (e.g., food allergies, allergic rhinitis, eczema, asthma), or neurological and neurodevelopmental injuries (e.g., ADD, ADHD, narcolepsy, seizure disorders, and the spectrum of autistic disorders). The vaccine inserts that accompany every vial of mandated vaccines include warnings about these and over 400 other injuries including many serious immune, neurological, and chronic illnesses for which FDA suspects that vaccines may be the cause.”  “Many of these illnesses became epidemic in American children after 1986, coterminous with the exploding vaccine schedule. For American kids born in 1986, only 12.8% had chronic diseases. That number has grown to 54% among the vaccine generation (those born after 1986) in lockstep with the expanding schedule.” 

“The children who comprise this vaccine-injured generation are now aging out of schools that needed to build quiet rooms and autism wings, install wobble chairs, hire security guards and hike special ed spending to 25% to accommodate them. They are landing on the social safety net which they threaten to sink. As lawmakers all around the nation vote to mandate more vaccines and call for the censorship of experts (including parents of vaccine-injured or killed children) that are expressing concerns about vaccine safety, Democratic Presidential candidates argue about how to fix America’s dysfunctional and unaffordable health care system without addressing the reality of the vaccine-related chronic disease and autoimmune disorder epidemic. The good news for Big Pharma, of course, is that many of these vaccine-injured children have lifelong dependencies on blockbuster drugs like insulin, Adderall, anti-psychotic drugs, Epi-Pens, asthma inhalers, and diabetes, arthritis, and anti-seizure meds made by the same companies that made the vaccines.”

“An overwhelming majority of the FDA officials directly charged with licensing vaccines, and the CDC officials who effectively mandate them for children, have personal financial entanglements with vaccine manufacturers. These “public servants” are often shareholders in, grant recipients from, and/or paid consultants to vaccine manufacturers, and, occasionally, even patent holders of the very vaccines they vote to approve. Those conflicts of interest motivate them to recommend ever more vaccines with minimal support from evidence-based science” – Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.  

“The FDA receives 45% of its annual budget from the pharmaceutical industry. The World Health Organization (WHO) gets roughly half its budget from private sources, including Pharma and its allied foundations. And the CDC, frankly, is a vaccine company; it owns 56 vaccine patents   and buys and distributes $4.6 billion in vaccines annually through the Vaccines for Children program, which is over 40% of its total budget.” — Robert F. Kennedy, Jr  

“An overwhelming majority of the FDA officials directly charged with licensing vaccines, and the CDC officials who effectively mandate them for children, have personal financial entanglements with vaccine manufacturers. These “public servants” are often shareholders in, grant recipients from, and/or paid consultants to vaccine manufacturers, and, occasionally, even patent holders of the very vaccines they vote to approve. Those conflicts of interest motivate them to recommend ever more vaccines with minimal support from evidence-based science” – Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.  

“The FDA receives 45% of its annual budget from the pharmaceutical industry. The World Health Organization (WHO) gets roughly half its budget from private sources, including Pharma and its allied foundations. And the CDC, frankly, is a vaccine company; it owns 56 vaccine patents   and buys and distributes $4.6 billion in vaccines annually through the Vaccines for Children program, which is over 40% of its total budget.” — Robert F. Kennedy, Jr  

“The HHS (US Health and Human Services partners with vaccine makers to develop, approve, recommend, and pass mandates for new products and then shares profits from vaccine sales. HHS employees can personally collect up to $150,000 annually in royalties for products they work on. For example, key HHS officials collect money on every sale of Merck’s controversial HPV vaccine Gardasil, which also yields tens of millions annually for the agency in patent royalties.” — Robert F. Kennedy, Jr  

“In 1986, Congress—awash in Pharma money (the pharmaceutical industry is number one for both political campaign contributions and lobbying spending on legislators over the past 20 years) enacted a law granting vaccine makers blanket immunity from liability for injuries caused by vaccines. The subsequent gold rush by pharmaceutical companies boosted the number of recommended inoculations from twelve shots of five vaccines in 1986 to 54 shots of 13 vaccines today. A billion-dollar sideline grew into the $50 billion vaccine industry behemoth.” — Robert F. Kennedy, Jr  

“Since vaccines are liability-free – and effectively compulsory to a captive market of 76 million children – there is meager market incentive for companies to make them safe. The public must rely on the moral scruples of Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, and Pfizer. But these companies have a long history of operating recklessly and dishonestly, even with (the many non-vaccine) products that they must market to the public and for which they can be sued for injuries. The four companies that make virtually all of the recommended vaccines are all convicted felons.  Collectively they have paid over $35 billion since 2009 for defrauding regulators, lying to and bribing government officials and physicians, falsifying science, and leaving a trail of injuries and deaths from products they knew to be dangerous and still sold under pretense of safety and efficacy.” – Robert F. Kennedy, Jr


  1. The Health Resources Services Administration runs an under-advertised Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). Information on how to file a vaccine injury claim is available at (
  2. Scandalously, even your neighborhood pharmacy has been given approval to have poorly trained, vaccinology-ignorant sales staff, who don’t know a deltoid muscle from a triceps, to inject the full-gamut of 13 adult vaccines into anybody who asks for one or more of them at the store!! One wonders: Are risks or contraindications even inquired about? Is the concept of fully informed consent understood by the pharmacy employees when potentially toxic medical procedures are offered? Since vaccine-makers and physician clinics and hospitals are free from liability, does that hold for pharmacies as well?

Ireland: Weekly Vaccine Target Reduced by 30,000 Doses Due to Precautionary Pause in AstraZeneca Use

The NIAC is due to meet again today and a further statement is expected to follow.

By Hayley Halpin (via Global Research)

The number of doses to be administered in Ireland this week has been reduced by more than a third of the original plan due to the pause in the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine.

The National Immunisation Advisory Committee (NIAC) has recommended that the administration of the Covid-19 AstraZeneca vaccine be temporarily deferred, pending the outcome of an investigation at EU level.

In a statement this morning, Deputy Chief Medical Officer Dr Ronan Glynn said the recommendation has been made following a report from the Norwegian Medicines Agency of four new reports of serious blood clotting events in adults after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine.

“It has not been concluded that there is any link between the Covid-19 vaccine AstraZeneca and these cases,” Dr Glynn said.

“However, acting on the precautionary principal, and pending receipt of further information, the NIAC has recommended the temporary deferral of the Covid-19 vaccine AstraZeneca vaccination programme in Ireland.”

80,000 vaccines were due to be administered in Ireland this week, the HSE told

“We now expect to administer approximately 50,000,” the HSE said.

“While we are expecting to administer about 30,000 less than planned they would not all be ‘cancelled appointments’ as specific appointments would not have been made for many later in the week.”

The Health Products Regulatory Authority (HPRA) is in a continued dialogue with the EMA and national medicines regulators across Europe in respect of the ongoing European review.

Norwegian health officials yesterday reported a number of further cases of blood clots or brain haemorrhages in younger people who received the AstraZeneca Covid-19 jab, but said they could not yet say they were vaccine-related.

The Norwegian Medicines Agency said similar incidents had been reported in other European countries. While there was no proof of a link to the vaccine, anyone under 50 who felt unwell and developed large blue patches after vaccination should seek medical attention.

Yesterday, the Norwegian Medicines Agency said it had “received several adverse event reports about younger vaccinated people with bleeding under the skin (tiny dots and /or larger blue patches) after coronavirus vaccination.

“This is serious and can be a sign of reduced blood platelet counts,” it said.

“Today, we received three more reports of severe cases of blood clots or brain haemorrhages in younger people who have received the AstraZeneca vaccine. These are now receiving hospital treatment,” it added.

Geir Bukholm, director of Infection Control and Environmental Health at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, said that following the decision to suspend the jab, it was now “the Norwegian Medicines Agency’s role to follow up on these suspected side effects and take the necessary measures”.

Explaining the concern regarding the latest clotting reports from Norway, Dr Glynn told RTÉ Radio One’s This Week that there had been a number of disparate reports during the week from a number of different places, and that “the majority of those reports were to do with clots in the leg or cloths in the lung,”

However, he added that:

“The four reports that have come through from Norway are specific to clotting events involving the brain, and again they’re clotting events in younger people in their 30s and 40s, which is unusual.

To date, the HPRA has received a small number of reports associated with blood clots following vaccination with the AstraZeneca vaccine. However, it has not received any reports of the nature of those described by the Norwegian Medicines Agency.

The HRPA said it will continue to monitor national reports “very closely”.

Speaking to RTÉ Radio One’s Brendan O’Connor this morning, NIAC chairperson Professor Karina Butler said the question currently is whether the newly reported clots are “totally coincidental, random events” or if “there could be a casual relationship that the vaccine may have triggered” the symptoms.

“We, above all, want to ensure that what we’re recommending is safe and that we can maintain confidence in the vaccine programme, we felt that we had to pause, just pause, until we get the additional information that could possibly, hopefully, give us the reassurance that this is fine,” Professor Butler said.

“We did this out of abundance of caution,” she said.

She added that she hopes if the roll-out of the AstraZeneca vaccine can resume, the public will have “even greater confidence that this has been looked at absolutely rigorously, absolutely thoroughly and there was no need to worry”.

Professor Butler said that it is hoped there will be a “conclusion” to this situation by “the end of the week”.

The World Health Organization has said no causal link had been established between the vaccine and blood clotting after Denmark, Norway and Iceland on Thursday temporarily suspended the use of the vaccine over concerns about patients developing post-jab blood clots.

The HPRA said in a statement this afternoon that “there is currently no indication that the vaccine was the cause of these events and there may be alternative explanations for their occurrence that are unrelated to the vaccine”.

“However, the safety of the public is of the utmost importance, and it is essential that reports of potential safety concerns, even if very rare, are rigorously and swiftly investigated so that the public can be reassured and if required, appropriate action can be taken,” it said.

Roll-out impact

It’s currently unclear how long the AstraZeneca vaccine roll-out will be suspended for.

Speaking on RTÉ Radio One’s This Week, Dr Ronan Glynn said the EMA is due to meet again on Wednesday or Thursday to discuss data collected regarding the situation.

With regards to the roll-out of the Pfizer/Moderna vaccine, HSE’s Chief Clinical Officer Dr Colm Henry told the programme that the distribution of those will continue “without disruption”.

The people affected by the suspension of the AstraZeneca vaccine will be the remaining healthcare workers and, to some extent, the category of people aged 16-69 who have high risk conditions, according to Dr Henry.

“They are the group that for whom the vaccination appointments are suspended pending the outcome of the EMA [investigation],” Dr Henry said.

AstraZeneca response

AstraZeneca, an Anglo-Swedish company which developed the vaccine with Oxford University, has defended the safety of its product.

In a statement released this morning, a spokesperson for the company said an analysis of its safety data that covers reported cases from more than 17 million doses of vaccine administered “has shown no evidence of an increased risk of pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis or thrombocytopenia with Covid-19 vaccine AstraZeneca”.

“In fact, the reported numbers of these types of events for Covid-19 vaccine AstraZeneca are not greater than the number that would have occurred naturally in the unvaccinated population,” the spokesperson said.

“In clinical trials, no trends or patterns were observed with regard to pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, or events possibly related to thrombocytopenia,” they said.

“A careful review of all available safety data including these events is ongoing and AstraZeneca is committed to sharing information without delay. We also note that the European Medicine Agency (EMA) has asked for an assessment of events related to thrombocytopenia from other COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers (per communication 11 March).”

CDC: 1,524 Dead 31,079 Injured Following Experimental COVID mRNA “Vaccines”

By Brian Shilhavy (via Global Research)

The CDC added more data today into the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a U.S. Government funded database that tracks injuries and deaths caused by vaccines.

The data goes through March 5, 2021, with 31,079 recorded adverse events, including 1,524 deaths following injections of the experimental COVID mRNA shots by Pfizer and Moderna.

Besides the recorded 1,524 deaths, there were 5,806 visits to Emergency Room doctors, 630 permanent disabilities, and 3,477 hospitalizations.

The CDC also updated their Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccination page on March 9th this past week, and according to this report, VAERS has received 1,637 reports of death following COVID “vaccinations” – more than 100 deaths than are in the VAERS data dump released today.

The CDC continues to state that not one of these recorded deaths following experimental COVID injections are related to the shots.

A review of available clinical information including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records revealed no evidence that vaccination contributed to patient deaths. (Source.)

AstraZeneca COVID Vaccine Inoculations Halted in Many Countries Due to Fatal Blood Clots

As we reported yesterday, many countries in Europe (and now also Thailand) have halted the vaccinating of people with the AstraZeneca experimental vaccine after reports of fatal blood clots following the injections.

And while the AstraZeneca COVID shots are not yet authorized for emergency use in the U.S., some have commented that the side effects for the mRNA “vaccines” currently issued EUAs in the U.S. for Pfizer and Moderna have just as many, if not more, adverse side effects, questioning whether any of these new experimental and non-FDA-approved COVID vaccines should be continued.

So we searched today’s CDC data on adverse reactions to the two COVID “vaccines” being used in the U.S. for “pulmonary embolism,” which is an “acute lung disease caused by a dislodged blood clot,” and the reason why the AstraZeneca COVID shot is now being halted in about a dozen countries worldwide after two fatalities and others injured.

The CDC is reporting 120 cases of pulmonary embolisms, including 12 DEATHS following injections of the two experimental COVID mRNA injections currently in the U.S.

Seven of the deaths followed the Moderna mRNA COVID shot, while five deaths followed the Pfizer mRNA COVID shot.

This number is obviously far greater than the two deaths reported so far from pulmonary embolism following the AstraZeneca COVID shots being distributed around the world right now.

Can We Trust the CDC that NONE of These 1,637 Recorded Deaths are Caused by the Experimental COVID mRNA Shots?

The CDC has been caught many times since COVID-19 started elevating that death counts attributed to COVID by declaring that ALL deaths where there was a positive PCR test for COVID were assumed to be caused by COVID, even if the patient had pre-existing conditions, and even in some cases where the patient died due to an accident, such as a traffic accident.

Now it appears that they are doing the exact opposite, particularly with those over the age of 65 where the vast majority of recorded deaths have occurred following the experimental COVID injections, stating that pre-existing conditions are what caused the patient to die, and that in ZERO cases was the experimental COVID “vaccine” responsible.

However, there is probably a good reason why a majority of healthcare workers who work with seniors are refusing the experimental COVID shots, since they have a front row seat to see exactly how these patients react in the days and weeks following COVID injections.

One CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) has gone public with what he has seen with the residents he has worked with, and the video of his testimony has now been viewed over 280,000 times on our Rumble Channel, and over 88,000 times on our Bitchute Channel.

One viewer offered their own observations with their mother after she received a COVID injection in the comment section on the Rumble video:

My 90 year old mother HAD beginning stages of dementia. Nothing terribly serious. She forgot things a lot, and would often tell you the same things over again whenever you talked to her.

But her mind was still pretty good for being 90. She liked to do Sudoku puzzles and Jumbles.

She had eye issues that she was dealing with for about a year. She had gotten periodic shots in her eyes this past year to help her with her eye issues. She could still see things, but maybe not as clearly as she should.

But…then she took the vaccine, when she had told me previously that she no intention of taking the vaccine. She would further state that she had never even taken a flu vaccine.

Less than 1 month later, her health has spiraled downward since then. Now her speech is slurred (as if she had a stroke–but she has not); her vision has gone down so much this past month, such that all she sees is colors and shapes; and her dementia has spiraled to the point that she thinks it’s 1935 or 1945.

She recently fell in her home and knocked over the TV and either broke or bruised her ribs–I assume because she couldn’t see, though she may be having balance issues now, as well.

Doctors are preparing to send her to a rehab facility for 3-4 weeks.

I doubt I’ll ever see her alive again–especially if she gets the second shot.

I don’t expect to be allowed to visit her in a facility in KY, which is backwards when it comes to dealing with COVID restrictions and lockdowns.

So, when I see a reasonably healthy 90 year old exhibit stroke signs (without having had a stroke), almost totally lose their vision, and begin exhibiting signs of advanced dementia all within a month period after having taken the experimental mRNA COVID Vaccine, I don’t think I can blame this all on a brown recluse spider bite or vitamin deficiency.

I only hope that this post will give you pause if you or someone elderly you know is preparing for this shot.

My one question is if you are not elderly, and are in somewhat good health and you don’t feel that you are in any danger from taking this shot, is it possible that side effects will just show up at a later time with you, perhaps when you are already sick and your health is compromised.

I mean, it’s not like my Mom had immediate side effects. Stories I have read indicate that it has often taken 3-4 weeks.

Again, no way will I ever take this shot. But I sincerely wish those getting the shot the best of luck!

This kind of information is being censored by the corporate media and Big Tech, and now they have begun to call those of us who publish this kind of information “domestic terrorists” for even daring to say or publish anything negative about these experimental COVID shots.

Please make an effort to share your own experiences with these experimental shots. The lives of many people are now at stake, and truthful information is empowering.


Calvin Robinson, senior fellow of the Policy Exchange, joins Ezra Levant to discuss the ridiculous proposition of having a 6 p.m. curfew for men that was put forward in the United Kingdom’s Parliament.


Governments Will Impose New Lockdowns if They Think They Can Get Away with It

By Ryan McMaken (via Global Research)

This year’s stay-at-home orders and lockdowns imposed by governments on their populations represent a watershed moment in the history of the modern state.

Before March 2020, it is unlikely that many politicians—let alone many ordinary people—thought it would be feasible or likely for government officials to force hundreds of millions of human beings to “self-isolate.”

But it turns out governments were indeed able to force a sizable portion of the population to abandon jobs, religious practices, extended families, and community life in the name of “flattening the curve.”

Whether through fear manufactured by the news media or through outright threats of punishment, business owners shuttered their shops and offices, churches closed down, and schools abandoned their students.

Over time, most governments lessened their restrictions, largely out of fear that tax revenues would collapse and out of fear that the public would become unwilling to obey lockdown edicts indefinitely.

Those fears—not scientific objectivity—have been guiding the gradual loosening of lockdowns and lockdown-related restrictions in recent weeks. After all, in many jurisdictions—both in the USA and in Europe—cases and case growth are far above what they were back in March and April when we were told that high case totals absolutely required strict lockdowns. If case numbers are higher now than during the previous peak, why no new lockdowns?

Make no mistake, many politicians would love to impose lockdowns again, and indefinitely. After all, the power to micromanage the behavior of every business and household in the manner of covid lockdowns is a power undreamed of by even the most despotic emperor of old. It’s not a power a regime would abandon lightly.

But could they get away with it? This is a question every prolockdown politician is asking. For the extent to which lockdowns have been scaled back and lessened, we cannot thank any enlightenment or change of heart on the part of politicians. If lockdowns now seem to be receding, it’s because policymakers fear another round of lockdowns would be greeted with resistance rather than obedience. In short, the retreat of lockdowns is a result of an uneasy truce between the antilockdown public (which is by no means the whole public) and the prolockdown politicians. The politicians have conceded nothing in terms of their asserted authority, but they nonetheless fear greater resistance in the future.

Regimes Continue to Threaten More Lockdowns

Although they’re slowly backing off on full lockdowns for now, governments have been very careful to maintain that they retain the power to reimpose them—including full-on strict and ruthless lockdown—at any time. In some areas, this has already been done, such as in southern Australia and in New Zealand. In the state of Victoria in Australia, for instance, residents in recent weeks have been subject to strict curfews and even road closures preventing them from traveling more than a few miles form their homes. Those who dissent—such as a pregnant mother who was arrested for merely discussingan upcoming protest—are brutalized. Meanwhile, military personnel enforce martial law, dragging people from their cars and demanding they show their “papers.”

China continues to impose regional and partial lockdowns. Belgium, meanwhile, insists it may yet still impose “total lockdown.” Back in July, the UK’s Boris Johnson told the nation’s residents to follow the social distancing rules now or face harsher lockdowns in the future. Last week Johnson’s government announced strict new social distancing rules, prohibiting any gatherings of more than six people in most cases.

Nor have American politicians abandoned these newfound powers. In Utah, which did not impose a lockdown in March or April, the authorities are still threatening a possible future “complete shutdown.” Governors in states including Texas, Pennsylvania, Illinois, New York, and Michigan have all threatened new lockdowns if the residents don’t do as they’re told.

(Only two governors, to my knowledge, have said they will not impose future lockdowns. Earlier this month, Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida vowed “we will never do any of these lockdowns again,” and Governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota, which has never imposed a lockdown at all, has also said lockdowns are not on the table.)

In many cases politicians have substituted face masks and targeted lockdowns (of bars and nightclubs, etc.) in lieu of full stay-at-home orders. This limits public dissent by limiting the number of businesses and industries where people are thrown out of work and business owners are effectively robbed of their property. Fewer destitute or jobless voters likely translates into less active dissent.

This permanent embrace of emergency power is to be expected. Governments have long used crises as an excuse to expand government power, often with the glowing approval of the electorate. After the end of World War II, for example, the party platform of the British Labour Party explicitly sought to extend wartime economic planning indefinitely. The idea was that central planning had won the war and now it would “win the peace.” This meant a host of boards and commissions that would control everything from farming to housing.

But that’s just one example. As Robert Higgs has shown in his book Crisis and Leviathan, using wars and other crises to permanently expand state power is just standard operating procedure for countless regimes. It’s what governments do.

Governments Are Limited Only by the Public’s Resistance

On the other hand, governments are limited by how much the public is willing to tolerate. As Étienne de La Boétie has shown, all regimes—even authoritarian ones—are ultimately limited by public approval and obedience. Without public opinion on their side, regimes become constrained, even in a police state.

Ludwig von Mises built on this notion when he noted in his book Liberalism:

there has never been a political power that voluntarily desisted from impeding the free development and operation of the institution of private ownership of the means of production. Governments tolerate private property when they are compelled to do so, but they do not acknowledge it voluntarily in recognition of its necessity. Even liberal politicians, on gaining power, have usually relegated their liberal principles more or less to the background. The tendency to impose oppressive restraints on private property, to abuse political power, and to refuse to respect or recognize any free sphere outside or beyond the dominion of the state is too deeply ingrained in the mentality of those who control the governmental apparatus of compulsion and coercion for them ever to be able to resist it voluntarily. A liberal government is a contradictio in adjecto. Governments must be forced into adopting liberalism by the power of the unanimous opinion of the people; that they could voluntarily become liberal is not to be expected.

In other words, governments don’t refrain from exercising ever more power unless they are prevented from doing so. But what did he mean by a government being “forced into adopting liberalism by the power of the unanimous opinion of the people”? Mises was very much a man who understood how states work in the real world. So it’s a safe bet that he didn’t think the public’s “unanimous opinion” was somehow magically transformed into a government limiting itself.

Rather, Mises understood that governments are limited by pressures applied by groups external to the state apparatus itself. These could take the form of widespread noncompliance, peaceful protests, or even armed resistance. But to think that governments will limit themselves without at least the fear of some form of resistance would be fanciful, to say the least.

And this is likely what is limiting governments in their dreams of ever-harsher lockdowns right now. We’ve already seen this dynamic in action in Serbia, for example, where the regime attempted to reimpose a nationwide lockdown. This proposal was greeted with both peaceful and violent protests. The state partially retreated and opted instead for much weaker regional lockdowns. Protests alsocontinue to grow in Germany, and have even cropped up in London.

In the US, of course, protests of various types have appeared since April, and given the volume of anger over lockdowns and business closures expressed across a wide variety of media, it’s easy to see why state and local governments should expect trouble if they try another full-scale lockdown. One need only step out one’s front door in many areas to see countless examples of passive noncompliance and resistance to mask orders and social distancing decrees.

Complicating matters is the low state of public approval of police forces. It’s true that police tend to receive public support when they are seen battling rioters and thugs. But public support would likely wither quickly were the police unleashed on middle-class suburbanites who fail to follow stay-at-home orders.

If American governors and mayors try a new set of lockdowns, just how far will they willing to go to enforce them? Will they call in the national guard and open fire on middle-class dissenters? If police attempt to break into homes in the manner we have witnessed in Australia, things might turn out quite differently here. In situations like that, at least some residents will defend themselves with firearms.

Ensuring compliance will also become especially difficult as lockdowns empty the public purse. As the economy weakens, so will tax revenues, and public welfare programs can’t subsist on newly printed money forever. As local, state, and federal amenities and free money programs come up short of funds, it will become harder to buy off the voters with yet another government check.

Admittedly, governments can always double down on enforcement by imposing strict police states. This can work in the short term. But then what? Outside of places like China and Australia, it appears many regimes aren’t yet prepared to find out. But they’re not willing to concede defeat, either. The lockdown state will press the issue as far as the voters and taxpayers are willing to let it go.

Lockdowns Wrecked Democracy Around the World

By James Bovard (via Global Research)

While the number of fatalities attributed to Covid-19 is carefully tracked by governments, few people have recognized how pandemic-spurred crackdowns have devastated democracy around the world. Emergency proclamations have entitled presidents and other government officials to seize vast new powers previously forbidden to them. Government bureaucrats became a new priesthood that could sanctify unlimited sacrifices merely by invoking dubious statistical extrapolations of future perils. 

In October, Freedom House issued a report, Democracy under Lockdown – The Impact of COVID-19 on Global Freedom, which warned that since the pandemic started, “the condition of democracy and human rights has worsened in 80 countries.” Sarah Repucci, co-author of the report, warned that “governments’ responses to the pandemic are eroding the pillars of democracy around the world.” Abuses of power have been propelled by a presumption that government officials are entitled to all the power they claim to need to keep people safe.

When the pandemic arrived in America, governors in many states responded by dropping the equivalent of a Reverse Neutron Bomb – something which destroys the economy while supposedly leaving human beings unharmed. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo set the standard when he effectively declared that he was entitled to inflict any burden on his state’s residents to “save just one life.” Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer prohibited anyone from leaving their home to visit family or friends. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti banned people from walking or bicycling outside. More than ten million jobs were lost thanks to lockdowns, a major reason why life expectancy in the United States last year had its sharpest plunge since World War Two.

Australia imposed some of the most heavy-handed restrictions. In August, the state of Victoria dictated an 8 p.m. to 5 a.m. curfew for the Melbourne area and prohibited people from venturing more than three miles from their residence. Victoria Premier Daniel Andrews decreed: “Where you slept last night is where you’ll need to stay for the next six weeks.” Melbourne has been hit by repeated lockdowns since then.

Britain unleashed some of the most absurd restrictions. In June, it prohibited couples who live in different homes from having sex indoors. The Independent (U.K.) noted, “People who have sex outside can be punished under pre-existing laws on outraging public decency and indecent exposure.” Steve Watson reported in January for Summit News that British cabinet ministers “have privately debated preventing people from talking to each other in the street and in supermarkets, and even preventing people from leaving home more than once per week, and introducing curfews.” British vaccines minister Nadhim Zahawi fretted, “I’m worried about some of the pictures I’ve seen of social interactions in parks, if you have to exercise you can go out for exercise only.” Apparently, a national vow of silence is necessary to fight Covid. Summit News noted, “Police are also demanding new powers to force entry into the homes of suspected lockdown violators.” Former British Supreme Court Justice Jonathan Sumption complained last month, “Foreign travel is being prohibited, turning us into a hermit island on the basis we cannot know what mutations may be lurking out there. The logic of these policies is that we must be locked down for ever simply because the world is a dangerous place.”

New Zealand has imposed four separate lockdowns in its pursuit to banish the virus from the island, repeatedly placing residents in the capital city under house arrest. In October, the government announced it was creating “quarantine centers” for anyone who tests positive and refuses to obey government orders. One Twitter wag scoffed, “New Zealand went from gun bans to concentration camps in less than a year.”

Covid horrors have been more dramatic in some developing nations. In Uganda, as the Economist reportedFrancis Zaake, a member of parliament, delivered food to his neediest constituents during a pandemic lockdown. But “Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni has ordered that only the government may hand out food aid. Anyone else who does so can be charged with murder, Mr Museveni has threatened, since they might do it in a disorderly way, attract crowds and thereby spread the coronavirus.”

Police and soldiers forcibly entered Zaake’s house and “dragged him into a van and threw him in a cell. He says they beat, kicked and cut him, crushed his testicles, sprayed a blinding chemical into his eyes, called him a dog and told him to quit politics. He claims that one sneered: ‘We can do whatever we want to you or even kill you…No one will demonstrate for you because they are under lockdown.’”

In Kenya, police killed at least 15 people during brutal crackdowns on alleged violators of lockdown decrees. Amnesty International declared that the Covid-19 pandemic provided “the perfect storm for indiscriminate mass violence” by the police, thanks to the “pervasive culture of impunity among [police] service members who rely on systemic corruption.”

Journalists in many nations risked their hides if they violated politicians’ monopoly on fear-mongering. Almost a hundred nations have imposed new restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of the press since the pandemic began. Freedom House reported: “Governments enacted new legislation against spreading ‘fake news’ about the virus. They also limited independent questioning at press conferences, suspended the printing of newspapers, and blocked websites.” Reporters Without Borders, a nonprofit for press freedom, warned, “Most governments yielded to the temptation, using a variety of repressive measures…, of making official channels the only credible and authoritative sources of information.” Many regimes have expanded the definition of “fake news” to justify repression:

  • “In Ethiopia, the definition of misinformation is so broad that it gives the authorities the discretionary power to declare any piece of information false.”
  • “In India, Egypt, Botswana and Somalia, only government statements on the subject may be published.”
  • “In Cambodia, the government gave itself the legal power to ban the publication of “any information that could cause unrest, fear or disorder.”
  • In Rwanda, the journalist who runs the YouTube news channel Ishema TV was imprisoned for violating Covid lockdown regulations. “At the time of his arrest he was reporting on the effects of the lockdown on the population and investigating allegations of rape committed by soldiers enforcing the lockdown,” Reporters without Borders notes.
  • In Zimbabwe, anyone “who publishes or disseminates ‘false’ information about an official, or that impedes the response to the pandemic, faces up to 20 years in prison,” the Economistreported.
  • Tanzania suffered a wave of censorship after the nation’s president publicly denounced Covid-19 as a “Western plot.” “Several news outlets, including the country’s leading Swahili-language newspaper Mwananchi, were closed down after publishing stories about Covid-19. Others were forced to broadcast apologies after carrying reports on the subject which angered the authorities,” Reporters without Borders noted.
  • In Thailand, Amnesty International reported, “authorities are prosecuting social media users who criticize the government and monarchy in a systematic campaign to crush dissent which is being exacerbated by new COVID-19 restrictions. Authorities have wasted no time using existing repressive laws in order to censor ‘false’ communications related to COVID-19.” The government decreed five-year prison sentences for any Thai journalists or media outlets that published information officials decree to be “capable of causing fear in the public.”

“Government knows best” is the subtext for arbitrary decrees issued around the world. An Associated Press article in January explained why Californians were denied access to the information that determined the fate of their freedom: “State health officials said they rely on a very complex set of measurements that would confuse and potentially mislead the public if they were made public.” But many data-driven dictatorial policies relied on data that was either fraudulent, politically contrived, or laughably inaccurate. On the day that Joe Biden was inaugurated as president, the World Health Organization changed the test standard for defining Covid cases, guaranteeing that far fewer “cases” would be reported and thereby making a mockery of the previous 10 months data.

The pandemic’s precedents pose a long-term peril for liberty around the globe. Freedom House expects that “official responses to COVID-19 have laid the groundwork for government excesses that could affect democracy for years to come.” This was foreseeable from the start of the pandemic but the media in some Western nations were the biggest cheerleaders for obliterating limits on political power. The secrecy that proliferated during the pandemic will make it harder for citizens to recognize how badly they have been misgoverned.

Going forward, citizens in many nations might appreciate this old adage from American politics: “The Constitution isn’t perfect but it’s better than what we have now.” Federal judge William Stickman IVdeclared in September, “Broad population-wide lockdowns are such a dramatic inversion of the concept of liberty in a free society as to be nearly presumptively unconstitutional.” But unless there is a similar stark ruling from the Supreme Court, shutdowns could return whenever politicians can panic enough citizens with some new threat.

Lockdown victims around the globe would be wise to heed Thomas Jefferson’s 1798 warning that the doctrine “that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it [is] nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers.” The pandemic painfully illustrated how government officials can always concoct the data to justify whatever decree they itch to issue. And regardless of the needless deaths and disruptions caused by government policies, it will be the opponents of lockdowns who will be labeled grandma-killers.

The Biden administration is reviving America’s proselytizing for democracy around the globe. But Covid-19 crackdowns are a warning for people to be wary of oppressive governments regardless of their purported mandate. The world doesn’t need any more Cage Keeper Democracies where citizens’ ballots merely designate who will place them under house arrest.


Video will play after a few seconds – give it time. Refresh if necessary.

You can believe me or those who are lying to you about the Covid-19 non approved, trial vaccine.

You are the guinea pig and these are the side effects.

You need to share this video around the world and show people how they are being convinced to take this poison which is meant to kill you, not protect you.

It’s too late for those who have already taken it.

The people telling you to take this vaccine need to be more informed or jailed, whichever needs to be done.

This video will explain how the vaccine will affect you within a few short months.