Learn more at Dr. Hyman’s Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@drmarkhyman/videos
Learn more at Dr. Hyman’s Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@drmarkhyman/videos
The founding fathers should have included extra text in the First Amendment: “Congress shall not make any law, Executive shall not make any rule or order, Judiciary shall make no ruling” abridging freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to peaceable assembly and right to protest the government for redress of our grievances.There is indisputable evidence that our own government is the driving vehicle to completely obliterate free speech in America. The Congress can rein in the Administration but unfortunately, many in Congress are complicit and even encouraging Biden and staff to intensify the attack.
The current trajectory of this war on the First Amendment will result in criminalizing speech, imposing penalties like fines, court cases and imprisonment. ⁃ TN Editor
Our government is preparing to monitor every word Americans say on the internet—the speech of journalists, politicians, religious organizations, advocacy groups, and even private citizens. Should those conversations conflict with the government’s viewpoint about what is in the best interests of our country and her citizens, that speech will be silenced.
While the “Twitter Files” offer a glimpse into the government’s efforts to censor disfavored viewpoints, what we have seen is nothing compared to what is planned, as the details of hundreds of federal awards lay bare. Research by The Federalist reveals our tax dollars are funding the development of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine-learning (ML) technology that will allow the government to easily discover “problematic” speech and track Americans reading or partaking in such conversations.
Then, in partnership with Big Tech, Big Business, and media outlets, the government will ensure the speech is censored, under the guise of combatting “misinformation” and “disinformation.”
The federal government has awarded more than 500-plus contracts or grants related to “misinformation” or “disinformation” since 2020. One predominant area of research pushed by the Department of Defense involves the use of AI and ML technology to monitor or listen to internet “conversations.”
Originally used as a marketing tool for businesses to track discussions about their brands and products and to track competitors, the DOD and other federal agencies are now paying for-profit public relations and communications firms to convert their technology into tools for the government to monitor speech on the internet.
The areas of the internet the companies monitor differ somewhat, and each business offers its own unique AI and ML proprietary technology, but the underlying approach and goals remain identical: The technology under development will “mine” large portions of the internet and identify conversations deemed indicative of an emerging harmful narrative, to allow the government to track those “threats” and adopt countermeasures before the messages go viral.
First, the AI and ML technology under development will mine every conceivable mode of conversation for the government. Consider, for example, the databases monitored by just a few of the companies the government is paying to develop this AI and ML technology.
Omelas Inc., which received more than $1 million in taxpayer money, culls data from “the most influential newspapers, TV channels, government offices, militant groups, and more across a dozen social networks and messaging apps, thousands of websites, and thousands of RSS feeds.”
Alethea Group, which received a Phase I award of nearly $50,000 to develop a “machine learning tool for proactive disinformation/misinformation detection, assessment, and mitigation,” boasts it covers data sources including mainstream and “fringe” social media platforms, peer-to-peer messaging platforms, blogs and forums, state-affiliated media sites, “gray” propaganda sites, and the dark web.
Newsguard, awarded $750,000 by the DOD, offers two databases, including its unreliable reliability ratings database of thousands of news and information websites and a second database of purported hoaxes.
Primer, which scored a $3 million award to develop its technology, offers a database that looks to news and media data sources, publicly captured images, the dark web, cyberattacks shared by the general public, and classified—presumably for government clients—and unclassified data sources. Primer also partners with Flashpoint, which adds “Telegram, Reddit, Discord, and “the deep and dark web” to the databases mined.
It is also important to recognize that the AI and ML technology under development will not just mine foreign or state-connected actors, but will monitor everyone’s speech. Both the government grants and the web pages of the monitoring companies confirm this reality.
We also know from the “Twitter Files” that the government and its fellow residents in the Censorship-Industrial Complex view the speech of Americans as related to foreign influence operations merely because the viewpoint matches what they claim is an adversary’s perspective. And we know the government pushed for the censorship of ordinary Americans.
By its nature, AI and ML technology has unlimited potential to flag problematic speech on any imaginable subject. Here, the past is prologue: Speech need not involve terrorism, acts of war, or even our electoral process for our government to consider it within its purview to fact-check. (It also need not be false; see point 4).
The “Twitter Files” and recent events provide Americans a glimpse into the breadth of the topics the government may deem harmful narratives worthy of censor—from elections, to vaccines, to runs on grocery stores. Underlying the government’s obsession with silencing misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information is the “Great Power Competition” perspective of foreign relations, under which China and Russia represent a constant threat to America’s power, influences, and interests.
With the government viewing foreign relations through the Great Power Competition paradigm, speech on any topic, touching even tangentially on America’s “power, influences, and interests,” will be fair game for censorship efforts.
While to convincingly prove this reality requires a deeper exposé—coming soon—on the Great Power Competition’s connection to the government’s focus on misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information, last week Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Arizona, showcased the current thinking inspiring our leaders. During a conference call with the Federal Deposit and Insurance Corporation about the Silicon Valley Bank bailout, Kelly asked whether there was “a way to censor information on social media to prevent a run on the banks.”
Kelly’s question was “couched” “in a concern that foreign actors would be doing this,” Rep. Thomas Massie told Public, but, according to Massie, Kelly “didn’t suggest the censorship should be limited to foreigners or to things that were untrue.”
The move from the censorship of terrorism to the silencing of supposed interference in elections to censoring posts about “bank runs” follows naturally from the shift in foreign relations paradigms from the War on Terror to the Great Powers Competition. The latter views anything affecting American power or influence as fair game. We also saw this shift with the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) proposal to consider “financial misinformation” within its purview.
The government’s censorship efforts won’t stop at supposed “financial misinformation,” however, because anything and everything journalists report and citizens discuss affects America’s “power, influence, and interest.” So, the government’s development of technology to monitor the entirety of the internet foretells a much more dangerous threat than apparent on the surface.
The threat to free speech stemming from the government’s monitoring of the internet is further increased by our overlords’ willingness to brand true speech “misinformation, disinformation, or mal-information” and then seek to censor it. The “Twitter Files” also exposed this reality, with our government and its lackeys seeking the censorship of true facts that might lead to “vaccine hesitancy” or reveal runs on grocery stores.
That our government would seek to silence true speech on such matters gives Americans reason to fear further censorship of true information.
The “Twitter Files” also revealed that censorship demands by the government, think tanks, and academic institutions relied on faulty misinformation analyses, including ones that identified innocent Americans as foreign actors. Also, many of those involved in the disinformation industry maintain left-leaning bias and a penchant for targeting conservatives.
In furthering its plans to monitor the internet for supposedly harmful narratives to silence, the government is continuing to work with biased groups, including ones that pushed faulty analyses, adding to the threat to free speech.
The government’s push to develop AI and ML technology to mine the internet is even more terrifying knowing that a Censorship Complex has already been built. The “Twitter Files” revealed the breadth and depth of the complex, with every alphabet-soup federal agency working with the social media giants and an array of think tanks and academic institutions, and with the legacy media providing an assist when censorship requests went ignored.
While Elon Musk may have exited Twitter from the group, the Censorship Complex still stands tall and ready to silence the speech of those who dare dissent. This public-private collaboration makes the government’s move to monitor the internet even more threatening to free speech.
The threat is further heightened because those with the power to warn the public and demand the government stop silencing Americans’ speech are complicit. The corrupt media’s coverage, or lack thereof, of Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger’s congressional testimony on the Censorship Complex proves this point. So too does the Democrats’ pathetic performance during the hearings, when they exposed themselves as enemies of free speech.
With Democrats, the legacy media, and many Republicans all in on the government’s efforts to censor misinformation and disinformation, it will be extremely difficult for the public to recognize the risks free speech faces—especially since those trying to sound the alarm have already been falsely branded purveyors of disinformation.
A chance remains, though, that enough ordinary Americans will hear the message before it is too late and demand Congress close the Censorship-Industrial Complex.
As detailed in “Propaganda and Censorship Dominate the Information War,” we now have proof, courtesy of the Twitter Files, that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) partnered with a censorship consortium called the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) to censor Americans.1
In an Atlantic Council interview, EIP head Alex Stamos also admitted that the partnership between the EIP and the DHS was set up to outsource censorship that the government could not do due to “lack of legal authorization.”2
Stamos, a former chief of security at Facebook, is also director of the Stanford Internet Observatory — one of the four organizations that make up the EIP — and is a partner in the cyber consulting firm Krebs Stamos Group together with former CISA director Chris Krebs.
During the 2020 election cycle, the EIP and CISA worked with the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC) and the DHS-backed Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC) to police political wrongthink on social media. The EIP coordinated the take-down of undesirable content using a real-time chat app that the DHS, EIP and social media companies all share.3
In February 2021, the EIP rebranded itself as the Virality Project, and went on to censor COVID-19 narratives on behalf of the government in the same way the EIP censored election narratives on behalf of the political Left.4
According to independent journalist Matt Taibbi, the Virality Project was essentially a dry run for President Biden’s federal Disinformation Governance Board.5 In fact, the Virality Project proposed a federal “Misinformation and Disinformation Center of Excellence” just one day before President Biden announced the plan for this Orwellian outfit.
Public backlash forced Biden to reconsider, but all that means is that the government chose not to make its unconstitutional censoring of Americans official policy. They’re still doing it through partnerships with the EIP/Virality Project and other third parties.
In a March 20, 2023, report (video above), The Hill host Robby Soave detailed the goals of the Virality Project, which “above all else were to protect the perceived integrity of the federal health bureaucracy, vaccine manufacturers and government vaccine policymakers, and to advance mainstream establishment narratives and interests in general.”
As noted by Soave, the Virality Project frequently pressured social media companies to censor COVID-19-related information and/or label it as “misinformation” — even if the information was true.
“This coalition, which was working with government agencies, NGO’s and the social media companies themselves, took the position that even true information could count as dangerous misinformation if its effect was to encourage a policy that clashed with the expert consensus …
If we still value the First Amendment, we must resist these pernicious calls for censorship. A call that is coming from a sordid coalition of ‘truth czars’ and ideological activists masquerading as fact checkers,” Soave says.
The mere possibility of causing “vaccine skepticism” or “vaccine hesitancy” was enough of a justification to censor information about the deadly COVID shots, for example, even though the information was truthful and required in order to make an informed decision.
This even included true first-hand accounts of serious COVID jab injuries, which could have saved lives had they been allowed to be shared. As noted by Andrew Lowenthal, co-founder of EngageMedia and author at Brownstone Institute:6
“Rather than listening out for safety signals to protect the public, leaders in the ‘anti-disinformation’ field ran cover to protect Big Pharma, smearing and censoring critics.
The moral depravity is astounding and quite possibly criminal … [In] suppressing ‘stories of true vaccine side effects’ the Virality Project put people in danger. Rather than keeping people safe they exposed us to the depredations of Big Pharma.”
Best-selling author John Leake7 also commented on the Virality Project’s censoring of truthful information, saying:8
“This reminded me of our recent trip to Australia in which we learned the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) led by Dr. John Skerritt, MD, PhD, made the decision to suppress accurate reports of vaccine-induced myocarditis in young people because such reports could cause ‘vaccine hesitancy.’
As these policymakers and regulators see it, the incidence of grave and fatal side effects are sufficiently rare to warrant censoring ANY reporting of them, as such reporting could cause the greater harm of ‘vaccine hesitancy.’
By their calculus, severe injuries and deaths caused by COVID-19 vaccines are the price we as a society must pay for the purportedly greater number of lives saved by the vaccines.
Never in the history of medicine has this calculus been used to evaluate the benefit of a medical product. Only in a military context — that is, commanders in the field must accept a certain number of casualties in order to achieve the greater benefit of vanquishing the enemy — has this logic been applied.”
The Virality Project also targeted posts that expressed fears about vaccine passports — because being against vaccine passports was a “gateway to being anti-vax” — and censored jokes and satirical memes on the basis that they might “exacerbate distrust” in those targeted as the butt of the joke.
Dr. Anthony Fauci is one example of a public health official whose reputation was protected in this way. They even made asking questions a punishable event, because asking questions is a tactic “commonly used by spreaders of misinformation.”9
The Virality Project also invented “pre-bunking” strategies to “warn” the public about purported misinformation before it had time to spread.
For example, when the Johnson & Johnson COVID jab was temporarily suspended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in April 2021, the Virality Project issued a rapid response statement10 saying the number of incidents of rare and severe types of blood clots was “very small,” especially considering the millions of doses given.
They also analyzed the narratives put forth “concerning the J&J suspension within anti-vaccine groups across social media platforms” and in foreign and international media, and how these narratives might affect “vaccine hesitancy,” and proposed strategies to counter efforts to use the suspension as support for anti-COVID jab arguments.
As predicted, the Twitter files also contain correspondence with social media companies relating to yours truly. Taibbi points out the Twitter files “repeatedly show media acting as proxy”11 for the NGOs in the censoring network.
As an example, he posted the email below,12 in which the Financial Times used the shady NGO Center for Countering Digital Hate’s fabricated “Misinformation Dozen” report to pressure Twitter into banning me, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and the rest on its list.
As noted by Taibbi in a March 9, 2023, Twitter thread:13
“Well, you say, so what? Why shouldn’t civil society organizations and reporters work together to boycott ‘misinformation’? Isn’t that not just an exercise of free speech, but a particularly enlightened form of it?
The difference is, these campaigns are taxpayer-funded. Though the state is supposed to stay out domestic propaganda, the Aspen Institute, Graphika, the Atlantic Council’s DFRLab, New America, and other ‘anti-disinformation’ labs are receiving huge public awards.
Some NGOs, like the GEC-funded Global Disinformation Index or the DOD-funded NewsGuard, not only seek content moderation but apply subjective ‘risk’ or ‘reliability’ scores to media outlets, which can result in reduction in revenue. Do we want government in this role? …
This is the Censorship-Industrial Complex at its essence: a bureaucracy willing to sacrifice factual truth in service of broader narrative objectives. It’s the opposite of what a free press does …
This, ultimately, is the most serious problem with the Censorship-Industrial Complex. Packaged as a bulwark against lies and falsehood, it is itself often a major source of disinformation, with American taxpayers funding their own estrangement from reality.”
You can learn more about Taibbi’s work on the Twitter files in the video above. In his Twitter Files No. 19 thread, Taibbi also highlights some of the shadier characters within this censorship-industrial complex, such as Renée DiResta, technical research manager at Stanford Internet Observatory (which, again, is part of the EIP and Virality Project):14
“Profiles portray DiResta as a warrior against Russian bots and misinformation, but reporters never inquire about work with DARPA, GEC and other agencies. In the video below … Stamos introduces her as having ‘worked for the CIA.'”
“DiResta has become the public face of the Censorship-Industrial Complex, a name promoted everywhere as an unquestioned authority on truth, fact, and Internet hygiene, even though her former firm, New Knowledge, has been embroiled in two major disinformation scandals …
DiResta’s New Knowledge helped design the Hamilton 68 project exposed in the Twitter files. Although it claimed to track ‘Russian influence,’ Hamilton really followed [Conservative] Americans … Hamilton 68 was funded by the Alliance for Securing Democracy, which in turn was funded by the German Marshall Fund, which in turn is funded in part by — the Department of State.
The far worse scandal was Project Birmingham, in which thousands of fake Russian Twitter accounts were created to follow Alabama Republican Roy Moore in his 2017 race for US Senate. Newspapers reported Russia seemed to take an interest in the race, favoring Moore.
Though at least one reporter for a major American paper was at a meeting in September 2018 when New Knowledge planned the bizarre bot-and-smear campaign, the story didn’t break until December, two days after DiResta gave a report on Russian interference to the Senate …
The incident underscored the extreme danger of the Censorship-Industrial Complex. Without real oversight mechanisms, there is nothing to prevent these super-empowered information vanguards from bending the truth for their own ends.
By way of proof, no major press organization has re-examined the bold claims DiResta/New Knowledge made to the Senate — e.g. that Russian ads ‘reached 126 million people’ in 2016 — while covering up the Hamilton and Alabama frauds.”
As bad as things already are, they’re about to get a whole lot worse unless Congress puts a stop to it. In a March 21, 2023, article,15 The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent Margot Cleveland details grants showing the U.S. government is “building a vast surveillance and speech suppression web around every American.”
“Our government is preparing to monitor every word Americans say on the internet — the speech of journalists, politicians, religious organizations, advocacy groups, and even private citizens. Should those conversations conflict with the government’s viewpoint about what is in the best interests of our country and her citizens, that speech will be silenced,” she writes.16
“While the ‘Twitter Files’ offer a glimpse into the government’s efforts to censor disfavored viewpoints, what we have seen is nothing compared to what is planned, as the details of hundreds of federal awards lay bare.
Research by The Federalist reveals our tax dollars are funding the development of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine-learning (ML) technology that will allow the government to easily discover ‘problematic’ speech and track Americans reading or partaking in such conversations.
Then, in partnership with Big Tech, Big Business, and media outlets, the government will ensure the speech is censored, under the guise of combatting ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation.'”
In the last three years alone, the federal government has granted more than 500 contracts and/or grants aimed at tackling “misinformation” and “disinformation.” The Department of Defense itself is also focused on research involving AI and ML tech that can monitor internet conversations for objectionable viewpoints and deploy countermeasures before they go viral.
Unfortunately, many of those who have the greatest power to inform the public about what’s happening, and those with the power to protect us by putting an end to this dystopian nightmare, don’t want to because they have something to gain from it, or believe they do. As noted by Cleveland:17
“The threat is further heightened because those with the power to warn the public and demand the government stop silencing Americans’ speech are complicit.
With Democrats, the legacy media, and many Republicans all in on the government’s efforts to censor misinformation and disinformation, it will be extremely difficult for the public to recognize the risks free speech faces — especially since those trying to sound the alarm have already been falsely branded purveyors of disinformation.
A chance remains, though, that enough ordinary Americans will hear the message before it is too late and demand Congress close the Censorship-Industrial Complex.”
Taibbi, in the video above, says the revelations about the Virality Project tell us two things:18
“One, as Orwellian proof-of-concept, the Virality Project was a smash success. Government, academia, and an oligopoly of would-be corporate competitors organized quickly behind a secret, unified effort to control political messaging.
Two, it accelerated the evolution of digital censorship, moving it from judging truth/untruth to a new, scarier model, openly focused on political narrative at the expense of fact.”
This is deeply problematic and will strangle democracy and end the republic that is the United States if allowed to continue. To quote Lowenthal:19
“Free speech and expression protect us from the most powerful actors on the planet, corporations, the State, and a growing plethora of international bodies. Ultimately, we need radically decentralized social media that is more immune to their capture. Our safety depends on it.”
Decentralizing social media is just one necessary defense tactic though. We must also demand Congress take swift action to defund and dismantle the “censorship-industrial complex” that is using our tax dollars to deceive us and withhold truth. Nothing less will suffice. We can’t invent enough privacy laws to protect us from what’s coming.
For a time, many of us suspected that this massive surveillance and control system was primarily funded and built by private interests, but now we’re finding that government funding is behind much, and perhaps most, of it.
Congress has, for many years, if not decades, approved funding for programs intended to destroy our constitutional rights. Now, they must defund all of them. They must also defund all government agency departments or teams involved in the federal censorship network, and that includes the FBI, CIA and DHS.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the author of two books. “American Values: Lessons I Learned from My Family,” published in 2018, describes the Kennedys’ 60-year-long fight with the CIA.
His 2021 book, “The Real Anthony Fauci,” became a runaway best seller, selling over a million copies, despite unprecedented censorship. In this interview, Kennedy, an attorney, reviews some of the lawsuits filed by Children’s Health Defense (CHD), founded by Kennedy in 2018 (was World Mercury Project in 2016), and why he believes he can “drain the swamp” and clean up our federal agencies if elected president of the United States.
One of the most recent lawsuits is the antitrust lawsuit against the Trusted News Initiative (TNI). I and several other journalists and news organizations that have been censored during the pandemic are also plaintiffs in this lawsuit. As explained by Kennedy:
“The Trusted News Initiative lawsuit applies antitrust laws against this really shocking agreement made at the onset of the pandemic, initiated by the BBC.
The BBC … is not officially a government agency. It’s a government-supported network that is supposed to have walls between itself and the government, but recent scandals in Britain have exposed how closely the BBC works with the British Intelligence Agency, MI5, particularly in censoring information on certain subjects, including public health.
This is now well-established. We don’t know how much the British Intelligence Agency had to do with kicking off the TNI, but the BBC approached a dozen top news organizations in the United States, including The New York Times and The Washington Post … and the social media networks … proposing they all censor information that did not comport with government proclamations during the pandemic.”
Importantly, a memorandum by the BBC states that independent news sites are “existential competitors” and a threat to the mainstream media business model and must be crushed.
Eliminating “competition” (which we’re not) was the entire purpose behind TNI, so the basis for the lawsuit is that TNI is violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. As explained by Kennedy, the BBC is using its market power and illegal collaboration with other leading market actors to crush smaller competitors.
The CHD has also filed a number of First Amendment cases, including one against Facebook, which censored the CHD and many other sites. Now, Facebook, as a private company, has the right to censor anyone it wants, for any reason.
However, they CANNOT do it at the behest of the government. If they become government surrogates for censorship — which is what they’ve become — then the First Amendment, the right to free speech, is implicated.
“What we’ve said is that they were taking orders from government officials,” Kennedy says. “When we filed the lawsuit, we knew that was happening, but we did not have the positive proof. Now we do. We have internal memos that show Anthony Fauci collaborating on the censorship with Mark Zuckerberg.
And we now know that Twitter had offered a portal to the FBI and CIA to censor people who did not go along with the government narrative, and that they were aggressively using it. We found emails where the White House specifically asks Twitter to censor Robert Kennedy. So, we have a number of those lawsuits out there.”
The censorship has caused many of us in independent, alternative media to lose huge amounts of money as we can no longer reach our audiences. And while Kennedy hopes to be able to recover some of these lost revenues, that alone will not effect change.
While the U.S. government and mainstream media are clearly engaged in illegal activity, there’s really no penalty for it unless you sue them, and even if you win, the punitive damages are not going to be severe enough to force a change in behavior. At best, lawsuits bring public attention to the problem and cause embarrassment, which might curtail it somewhat.
On the upside, we now know a lot about how they operate because of the Twitter files, released by Elon Musk. As noted by Kennedy, it’s far worse than any of us initially suspected. For example, the FBI has a portal into social media that allows it to remove posts and accounts it doesn’t like.
“That is scary. That is against everything our country was founded on,” Kennedy says. “The single most important premise was that citizens ought to be able to criticize government, which was not true for the American revolutionary generation. You could be punished for criticizing the king.
And they said, we don’t want that anymore. We’re going to have free speech for all. We’re going to make sure that there’s a ferment, that there is a million different ideas bouncing around. And ‘misinformation,’ for better or worse, is constitutionally protected speech.
There are forms of speech that are not constitutionally protected. Inciting violence is not constitutionally protected. Child pornography is not constitutionally protected … But telling a lie to somebody is. It has to be that way because once you appoint an arbiter to tell what’s true and what’s not true, you’ll end up getting one version of truth, and it ultimately will not be the true one.”
Indeed, if the last three years have taught us anything, it’s that self-appointed “arbiters of truth” get it wrong most, if not all, of the time. And, as noted by Kennedy, the crime is not being wrong. The crime is censoring anybody who disagrees, so people never even have the opportunity to discover the error, including themselves (if ignorance is in fact the case).
“In May 2020, I published a post that said the vaccines are going to be DOA, they’re dead on arrival, because the monkey studies just came out and they don’t prevent transmission,” Kennedy says. “This was before the rollout.
I was like, ‘We were looking at their own monkey studies and the concentrations of COVID-19 viruses or SARS-CoV-2 viral loading in the nasopharynxes of the macaque monkeys that they had vaccinated was identical to the loading in the unvaccinated monkeys once they were exposed to the disease.’
So, they knew at that time that this vaccine could not prevent transmission. Everybody knew that. And yet they were saying out loud, ‘It can prevent transmission.’ They had no right, no reason, to say that other than to fool the public.
And then they were censoring people like me who were saying, ‘Wait a minute, how’s this possible? How can you possibly make this claim? Of course it’s not going to prevent transmission.’ So, the crime is not being wrong. Anybody can be wrong. The crime is censoring people who were right or who had alternative viewpoints that prevented them from ever getting anything right.
Listen, if I had to predict what’s going to happen now, it’s very clear, this isn’t a speculation. The Biden administration is trying to give the WHO [World Health Organization] these preemptive powers to declare future pandemics based upon no evidence. So, all they have to say is there’s a pandemic …
And when you declare a pandemic, not only does it give the government extraordinary powers, it gives the pharmaceutical industry immunity from liability. It gives doctors immunity from liability, which is accompanied, of course, by impunity and bad judgment. It also loosens up billions of dollars in subsidies and cash to promote the business models of those pharmaceutical companies.
At least now, we have an independent power to say, ‘We don’t believe WHO and we’re not going to go along with this global emergency.’ Right now we’re about to sign a treaty that will give that power to the WHO. So Jeremy Farrar, who was one of the masterminds of this PSYOP — he was the guy who hid the COVID coverup. He manipulated the Lancet studies. He directed all these virologists who believed that it came from a lab… to say that it didn’t.
Because of the control he has over the funding of virology and infectious disease, and biomedical research globally, he was able to marshal these core groups of virologists who just lied to us openly. And then they all got payoffs from Fauci.
Kristian Andersen, Ph.D., got $9 million after he lied to us. Eddie Holmes got $9 million to lie. All the guys who participated in the Lancet paper and the Nature Medicine papers — the ones that were then cited by all of the journalists in the world to say it’s been proven there’s no such thing as a lab leak — we now have their emails.
And all those guys believed it was a lab leak, secretly, privately … but they were telling the public it wasn’t. And they all got payoffs of millions and millions of dollars.”
As noted by Kennedy, the entire field of virology is basically operating as a criminal enterprise. They never have to prove anything and they’re never accountable. For example, they don’t have to prove that vaccines actually work, or that it’s safe to take multiple vaccines at the same time.
“By ‘work,’ I mean five years from now, you’re more likely to be healthier if you got the vaccine than if you didn’t. If you show me that, I’ll take all the vaccines in the world,” Kennedy says. “But there are no studies that support that, and they’re able to escape the standard safety testing, placebo-controlled trials, prelicensure trials that are de rigueur for every other medicine except for vaccines.”
Seventy-two doses of 16 vaccines are now recommended for American children by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. States have the right to mandate them as they see fit, and in California and New York, all 16 vaccines are mandated. But whether they’re mandated or not, there’s tremendous pressure to take them all.
In California and New York, you can’t even get a medical exemption. Technically, both states allow medical exemptions, but no doctor will write you one because they risk losing their medical license if they do.
“They’re mandating these 72 doses of 16 vaccines, and they’ve never tested a single one … in a placebo-controlled study. They have no idea what the risk profile is for these medicines and they’re mandating them to healthy people …
You’re taking healthy people with functioning immune systems and you’re forcing them to take something that you don’t know what the outcomes of are. It is criminal,” Kennedy says.
Kennedy recently announced he’s considering entering the presidential race if he can garner enough support. Considering two members of the Kennedy family have already been murdered, this requires quite a bit of courage. Clearly, there are risks involved anytime you try to change a corrupt system from within. Kennedy comments:
“I haven’t made the decision yet, but I’m leaning towards doing it. It’s going to give me an opportunity, as it makes it much more difficult for them to censor me, [to] talk about all these issues for the first time without censorship and connect them.
I’ve been an environmental attorney and advocate for 40 years, and I saw the impact of agency capture. That’s why I was able to recognize it so easily when I saw it in the pharmaceutical industry. All these agencies are captured. The pharmaceutical industry owns the National Institutes of Health … CDC, FDA. The coal and oil industry and the pesticide industry own the Environmental Protection Agency.
I was on the trial team in the Monsanto case, which ended up with a $13 billion settlement. We had three trials in a row … [and] we did a lot of discovery. We were able to find secret EPA papers that showed the head of the EPA pesticide division for a decade was a man who was secretly working for Monsanto.
So Monsanto was actually directing his movements. In one of the emails we found, Monsanto instructed him to kill a study that was being done by another agency, the Agency for Toxic Substance Control, ATSDR. It’s a smaller agency that focuses just on toxins that’s separate from EPA.
He’d always been able to control the EPA studies and to fix them. But now here’s another agency that Monsanto has no control over that’s actually going to do an independent study on the carcinogenicity of Roundup and glyphosate.
They were desperate to kill that study and he said, ‘I’m going to kill that study for you, but you need to give me a gold medal when I do that.’ So, these were the kind of correspondence he had with his true boss, Monsanto. And this, unfortunately, is true in all the federal agencies.”
As noted by Kennedy, most government agencies have been captured by the industries they’re supposed to regulate, and as a result, democracy has been subverted, as they’re no longer working for the American people. They’re working for big corporations that are constantly putting profit above safety.
“There’s now a perfect merger of state and corporate power in this country,” Kennedy says, “and the system is rigged against the middle class and the poor. And by the way, among the captured agencies are the CIA and the Pentagon, which have been captured by military contractors, and they don’t care how much the Ukraine war costs us.
Nobody cares because they’re killing Ukrainians, not American kids. So it’s the perfect war for them. And we ship over $112 billion and who gets that? It bounces. A lot of it goes into Zelenskyy’s pocket and then it’s bounced back to General Dynamics and all the military contractors. They then hire all the generals when they leave the Pentagon.
Those are the generals you see on CNN every night, gravely saying we need to defend the people of Ukraine. But they’re working for General Dynamic, stuffing their pockets with the money we’re sending over there. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be helping the Ukrainian people or that Vladimir Putin isn’t a thug and a gangster …
But we need to understand that we have intelligence agencies and military agencies whose job it is … to destroy American democracy from within. And that those agencies, their job is to provide a constant pipeline of new wars that are going to feed the military industrial complex which owns them.
Look, we gave a $112 billion to Ukraine already. The entire budget of CDC is $12 billion. The entire budget of EPA I think is around $11 billion. And we have a crisis in this country. We have a child health crisis — 54% of our children have chronic disease and we don’t know what’s causing it.
We have kids going to dilapidated schools. Our infrastructure is falling apart. We have a middle class in this country has been hollowed out and destroyed and we need to start paying attention to these problems here at home and solving them.”
The toxic train wreck in East Palestine, Ohio, is another example of what happens when regulatory agencies are captured. According to Kennedy, Norfolk Southern Railway has a weekly revenue of $1.5 billion, and its cap for safety violations is $225,000. So, there’s no incentive for the railway to make sure safety regulations are followed.
Its lackadaisical approach to safety has now contaminated an entire region and destroyed the lives of several hundred residents, yet the penalty is barely a drop in their revenue bucket. And again, the reason they’re getting away with this is because the Department of Transportation (DOT) is wholly captured by the big railroad companies.
“I like Pete [Buttigieg], but he’s not a guy who looks at that agency and says, ‘I know it’s a captured agency and I’m going to weed out the people who are corrupt, I’m going to make the trains run on time, I’m going to make sure they have two engineers and I’m going to make sure they’re using electronic controlled brakes and not the brakes they used in the civil war’ — which is what was on this train …
Why is that? Because [the DOT is] a captured agency. The electronic brakes would’ve cost $3 billion to put on their entire fleet. That is two weeks of revenue for that company, but they rather spent the money on lobbyists, make sure they didn’t have to do that, and then they took the cash and did a stock buyback.
So, they all are getting rich and the people in East Palestine are now drinking poisoned water, their cats are dying, their cows are dying and their children are now exposed to dioxin. A single molecule of dioxin can cause cancer. It is the most toxic molecule that we know of in the universe that’s not radioactive. It’s horrendously toxic, and it’s now spread over the landscape …”
As explained by Kennedy, politicians may start out believing their own campaign promise to end corruption but, in the end, they simply don’t know how to fix the problem. They don’t know how to clean up these agencies. Even presidents have been powerless in this regard.
“You can’t go into an agency with 30,000 or 60,000 employees and fix it overnight unless you know exactly where the problem is,” Kennedy says. “So, they appoint a guy to run that agency who’s usually from the industry … And that guy doesn’t know how to fix it either. So, he relies on the department heads and the branch heads within that agency, and they’re all corrupt and have been there 50 years, like Fauci …
Some of the politicians are even worse. They just get co-opted. They’re taking money from the industry and become slaves to the congressional committee chairs who are all on the take … I feel I can fix this problem like nobody else can, because I know how these agencies work.
I know the individuals in these agencies who need to be moved to Nome, Alaska, and the ones who have been doing favors, who are in the tank with the industry. I know the databases that we need to open and make public so that the independent scientists can do their jobs.
I know how to stop the corruption in the universities by telling the universities you’re not getting money anymore to do these phony pharmaceutical industry studies, or oil industry studies.
I know how to send my attorney general after the journals like the Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine and sue them for racketeering, saying, ‘You are not telling the truth. You’re claiming to tell the truth to people about medicine, but you guys admit it’s not the truth. It’s pharmaceutical industry propaganda.’
All these agencies have that same kind of structure, and I’ve spent 40 years suing them. I’ve spent 20 years suing the United States Department of Agriculture for doing favors for Smithfield Foods, Tyson Food, Bo Pilgrim, Cargill and Monsanto. It’s a captive agency …
I feel like I should do this, and that it will give me a chance to talk to the American people. If people want to hear the truth, I’ll win. If they want business as usual, then I won’t. But for me it’s irrelevant. I’m going to fight as hard as I can to win. But my only real concern is to leave this process with my integrity intact and my family.
If I can protect my family and have my integrity, then I’ve done what I’m supposed to do. If I didn’t do this, I would feel like it was an opportunity that I had missed. I might, if I can win, change things. And I know how to change things probably better than any politician who has run in the last 20 years …
A lot of the changes that I could make are changes that I wouldn’t need Congress for — how to restructure the agencies, including the intelligence agencies, so that they begin to work for the American people and for actual national security rather than what they’ve been doing.
My father had a plan for reorganizing the CIA that I think is still relevant today … The problem is the espionage aspect of the CIA … [It should be] information gathering and analysis to the president to make better decisions, but that’s not what the agency ended up doing …
It has nothing in its charter that it would allow it to do paramilitary operations to fix elections, assassinate leaders, kidnap, kill people, torture people. None of that was part of its initial mission.
[Allen] Dulles [the founding director of the CIA] snuck that in through generous interpretations of some of the charter provisions. And then what happened, the plans division, which is the dirty tricks division, became the tail that was wagging the espionage dog.
And the espionage function of CIA, it should be oversight of the plans division. They should be antagonistic towards each other … The problem with the CIA is it has never learned from mistakes. It never does, because there’s never any accountability … Patriotism means a faithfulness to the United States Constitution above all. Above all. And if you don’t know that, you shouldn’t be in government.”
If you want to support Kennedy in his bid for president of the United States, be sure to visit TeamKennedy.com. For updates on the litigation Kennedy is involved in, sign up for the CDH newsletter, The Defender, on Childrenshealthdefense.org.
What will the future hold for people whose exposure to COVID-19 occurs during the first years of life? That question was recently asked by Katherine J. Wu, a staff writer at The Atlantic.1
“To be a newborn in the year 2023 — and, almost certainly, every year that follows — means emerging into a world where the coronavirus is ubiquitous … Beyond a shadow of a doubt, this virus will be one of the very first serious pathogens that today’s infants — and all future infants — meet,” she writes.
“Eventually, the expectation is that the illness will reach a stable nadir, at which point it may truly be ‘another common cold,’ says Rustom Antia, an infectious-disease modeler at Emory.
The full outcome of this living experiment, though, won’t be clear for decades — well after the billions of people who encountered the coronavirus for the first time in adulthood are long gone.
The experiences that today’s youngest children have with the virus are only just beginning to shape what it will mean to have COVID throughout a lifetime, when we all coexist with it from birth to death as a matter of course.”
Wu praises the COVID jab as being part of why we can be hopeful for future generations that have to live with this new virus, but is that really realistic? Right now, everything points to the COVID shot being a disaster, and no one actually knows what the long-term effect will be on children who get it.
Wu highlights the fact that children’s immune systems have the advantage of “marshaling hordes of interferon — an immune molecule that armors cells against viruses.” This is thought to be a primary reason why COVID-19 isn’t nearly as lethal in young children as in older adults.
The problem that Wu completely misses is that the COVID jab inhibits the type-1 interferon pathway,2 so mass injecting young children may actually erase the natural herd immunity against COVID-19 that would develop if all children remained unjabbed. The shots will NOT, as Wu suggests, help us achieve herd immunity at all.
Mass injecting children with a drug that impairs their immune system may also (rather predictably) result in exploding cancer rates. Already, aggressive cancers have exploded among adults who got the shots,3 even though it’s only been a little over two years since their rollout.
For example, data from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED)4 — historically one of the most well-kept and most heavily relied-upon medical databases in the world — showed that, compared to the previous five-year averages, cancer among Department of Defense (DOD) personnel in 2021 skyrocketed.
Overall, cancers tripled among servicemen and their family members after the rollout of the COVID shots. Breast cancer went up 487%. Exploding cancer rates are also seen elsewhere. Indeed, the explosion of cases is so bad that cancer is now one of the top three leading causes of premature death among young working-age adults — a trend that in turn has driven down U.S. life expectancy by three years.
November 26, 2022, The Daily Sceptic published a letter5,6 to the editor of The BMJ, written by Dr. Angus Dalgleish, professor of oncology at St. George’s University of London, warning that COVID boosters may be causing aggressive metastatic cancers:
“COVID no longer needs a vaccine programme given the average age of death of COVID in the U.K. is 82 and from all other causes is 81 and falling,” Dalgleish wrote. “The link with clots, myocarditis, heart attacks and strokes is now well accepted, as is the link with myelitis and neuropathy …
However, there is now another reason to halt all vaccine programmes. As a practicing oncologist I am seeing people with stable disease rapidly progress after being forced to have a booster, usually so they can travel. Even within my own personal contacts I am seeing B cell-based disease after the boosters.
They describe being distinctly unwell a few days to weeks after the booster — one developing leukemia, two work colleagues Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and an old friend who has felt like he has had Long COVID since receiving his booster and who, after getting severe bone pain, has been diagnosed as having multiple metastases from a rare B cell disorder.
I am experienced enough to know that these are not coincidental anecdotes … The reports of innate immune suppression after mRNA for several weeks would fit, as all these patients to date have melanoma or B cell-based cancers, which are very susceptible to immune control — and that is before the reports of suppressor gene suppression by mRNA in laboratory experiments. This must be aired and debated immediately.”
In a December 19, 2022, article7 in Conservative Woman, Dalgleish continued discussing the phenomenon of rapidly spreading cancers in patients who were in stable remission for years before receiving their COVID boosters. He noted that after his letter to The BMJ was published, several oncologists contacted him to say they’re seeing the same thing in their own practices.
“Seeing the recurrence of these cancers after all this time naturally makes me wonder if there is a common cause?” he wrote.8 “I had previously noted that relapse in stable cancer is often associated with severe long-term stress, such as bankruptcy, divorce, etc.
However, I found that none of my patients had any such extra stress during this time, but they had all had booster vaccines and, indeed, a couple of them noted that they had a very bad reaction to the booster which they did not have to the first two injections.
I then noted that some of these patients were not having a normal pattern of relapse but rather an explosive relapse, with metastases occurring at the same time in several sites … Scientifically, I was reading reports that the booster was leading to a big excess of antibodies at the expense of the T-cell response and that this T-cell suppression could last for three weeks, if not more.
To me, this could be causal as the immune system is being asked to make an excessive response through the humoral inflammatory part of the immune response against a virus (the alpha-delta variant) which is no longer in existence in the community.
This exertion leads to immune exhaustion, which is why these patients are reporting up to a 50% greater increase in Omicron, or other variations, than the non-vaccinated.”
Swedish pathologist, researcher and senior physician at Lund’s University, Dr. Ute Krueger, has also observed an explosion in rapidly advancing cancers in the wake of the COVID shots, with the largest increase occurring among 30- to 50-year-olds.9,10 According to Krueger, tumor sizes are also dramatically larger, multiple tumors in multiple organs are becoming more common, and cancer recurrence and metastasis are both increasing.
Disturbingly, as detailed in “How Cancer Deaths From the COVID Jabs Are Being Hidden,” analysis of U.S. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) data suggests the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is filtering out and redesignating cancer deaths as COVID deaths to eliminate the cancer signal, and has been doing so since April 2021.
The signal is being hidden by swapping the underlying cause of death with main cause of death. As many as 20% of the weekly so-called COVID deaths are actually cancer deaths.
Absolutely no one knows what the long-term ramifications of giving these injections to infants and young children will be. It’s a public health experiment unlike anything we’ve ever seen before. So far, we’ve not seen cancer rates among children skyrocket, but the uptake among young children has also been low.
Since their immune systems are also more robust, children may be protected from cancer for a time even if they do get the jab. The question is how long? The U.S. childhood vaccination schedule now includes the initial series plus an annual COVID booster. How many boosters will it take before a child’s immune system breaks and cancer starts to proliferate?
We’ve also seen massive increases in excess mortality from abnormal clotting issues and heart problems since the COVID shots rolled out. If side effects such as cancer, heart disease and stroke are killing working age adults in unprecedented numbers already, what will the excess mortality be, say, 10 years from now if children and teens keep getting mRNA boosters every year?
I shudder to even think about it. Making matters even worse, drug makers are working overtime to deliver other mRNA-based “vaccines” as well, including one against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has already fast-tracked it. This, despite the fact that previous attempts to create an RSV vaccine failed because they caused antibody dependent enhancement (ADE).
Now that we’re more than two years into the COVID injection campaign, the cost-benefit analysis is clearer than ever. The benefit is so small as to be inconsequential, while the costs are enormous. Here’s a quick summary breakdown, based on available evidence:
•Benefit — Short-term (four to six months) protection from severe COVID illness and death.
•Cost — Negative effectiveness after a few months (meaning the risk of infection, hospitalization and death from COVID is higher than before the injection). It also doesn’t prevent infection or spread of the virus, so vaccine-induced herd immunity can never be achieved.
The shots destroy immune function, making people more prone to all types of infections and chronic diseases, which in turn puts pressure on the health care system, raises disability rates and excess mortality, and lowers life expectancy. On top of all that, there’s evidence suggesting the shots have adverse effects on fertility, which could potentially result in a population collapse.
By December 2021, at which time the COVID jabs had only been out for one year, reports of surges in menstrual changes and stillbirths were already proliferating. And, while health officials were, and still are, adamant that the COVID shot is safe for pregnant women, the data tell a very different story.
The study11 most widely used to support the U.S. recommendation for pregnant women to get injected was sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in April 2021. According to this study, the miscarriage rate among COVID jab recipients was 13.9%.
However, there was a MAJOR mistake made in this study, which was highlighted in a rapid communication12 from the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK). The authors are Aleisha Brock, Ph.D. of New Zealand, and Simon Thornley, Ph.D., a senior lecturer in the section of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Auckland.
They explained that the NEJM study “presents falsely reassuring statistics related to the risk of spontaneous abortion in early pregnancy, since the majority of women in the calculation were exposed to the mRNA product after the outcome period was defined (20 weeks’ gestation).”13
When the risk of spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) was recalculated based on the cohort that was injected prior to 20 weeks’ gestation, the incidence of miscarriage was seven to eight times higher than the original study indicated, with a cumulative incidence of miscarriage ranging from 81.9% to 91.2%!
What’s more, 12.6% women who received the jab in the third trimester reported Grade 3 adverse events, which are severe or medically significant but not immediately life-threatening.
Another 8% also reported a fever of 38 degrees C (100.4 degrees F), which can lead to miscarriage or premature labor.14 Another problem with the NEJM study is that follow-up only continued for 28 days after birth, meaning the long-term effects of prenatal exposure to babies is still unknown.
A Pfizer-BioNTech rat study also showed the injection more than doubled the incidence of preimplantation loss. Birth defects, specifically mouth/jaw malformations, gastroschisis (a birth defect of the abdominal wall) and abnormalities in the right-sided aortic arch and cervical vertebrae, were also observed.15
It’s become quite clear that the technocratic, transhumanist cabal that it trying to seize worldwide control is aggressively trying to genetically alter humanity. But to what end? Considering all the negative effects we’re seeing in adults, just two years in, what will happen to the infants and children who have been jabbed over the next decade or two? Especially if they start getting mRNA boosters every year?
Transhumanism is “sold” as the way of the future — a future in which everyone is in perfect health and can live as long as they want. We already see how the COVID shots are advertised as a simple “software update” for your immune system. The idea is that, eventually, any health issue will be solved this way.
The problem with this utopia is manifold, however. First of all, considering how disastrous this first mRNA injection is, it seems clear the reengineering of an already perfect biological system isn’t as easy as they make it out to be, and I for one doubt they’ll ever perfect it.
Secondly, while they say this transhumanist utopia is for everyone, it’s absolutely not. Do you really believe they want 8 billion people to be in perfect health and live for hundreds of years?
Perfect health means perfect reproductive capacity, so the number of offspring would be staggering. Clearly, they don’t want this, seeing how these same individuals are already complaining that the world is overpopulated. So, perfect health for everyone is a pipedream.
Extreme life extension for the masses also isn’t in the cards. Already, they want people to die as close to retirement age as possible, to minimize payouts. Do you really think they’d be willing to pay billions of people to spend 100 years in retirement?
Even if the retirement age was pushed way back to, say, 150, and the average life span is 175, who’s going to employ all these people? Remember, robots and artificial intelligence are already slated to take over most jobs, making most humans obsolete. There’s simply no incentive to extend the health span and life span of billions of people.
No, the transhumanist utopia is intended to be reserved for a select few, and this is something to keep in mind as they continue these genetic experiments on humanity. They’re not for our benefit.
In closing, here’s a snippet from a November 22, 2022, Truth Talk article, in which blogger Katrina Wicks ponders the reasons behind the transhumanist push:16
“They make no secret of it, it’s not some wild conspiracy theory and is in fact being implemented in front of us and around us. Changing humans from what we are, into something else. Augmented humans seem to be on the horizon, as well as disrupted, corrupted and spliced humans too …
‘The Island of Dr. Moreau’ … by H.G. Wells … highlights an obsession with making animals more human through ‘medical intervention’ … I wonder if they are trying to do the opposite … to make humans more animal like? …
A certain international organization seems to have a nominated mascot who is the mouthpiece of how they want us to be bio-mechanical beings essentially, being constantly monitored, tested, observed and upgraded. Weird huh? Yet they gleefully put these plans forward and explain how and when. Just not really covering the why, or at least the real reasons for it.
But you can make up your own mind on what their purpose really is … what is out there for everyone to see is that they do want control.
Of your daily activities, thoughts, fears, aspirations … and generally of your future. So that is where you do get to take an active role, unless you already consider your life forfeit and have already accepted their new regime and landscape. But if you do not … and you have chosen to live, then now is the time.”
You are reading this correctly. You are devouring glorified cancer tumors when consuming fake meat.
Joe Fassler, the author of the piece, revealed that in order for lab-grown meat companies to produce what they “cultured meat,” they utilize what are called “immortalized cells.” These cells, in some cases ,are fully cancerous.
The big honking asterisk is that normal meat cells don’t just keep dividing forever. To get the cell cultures to grow at rates big enough to power a business, several companies, including the Big Three, are quietly using what are called immortalized cells, something most people have never eaten intentionally. Immortalized cells are a staple of medical research, but they are, technically speaking, precancerous and can be, in some cases, fully cancerous.
Despite this, leading scientists claim you cannot get cancer when you eat fake meat.
If we wanted to, we could eat malignant chicken tumors by the bucketload. “It’s essentially impossible for a cell from one species to gain a foothold in the tissues of another species,” says Dr. Robert Weinberg. “So even if one were to take highly malignant cells from a cow and drink them, I don’t see what the problem would be.”
The FDA, as previously reported by the Gateway Pundit, also asserted lab meat was safe to eat back in November.
The problem with this assumption according to National Pulse, is that these “immortalized cell lines” reproduce forever, just like cancer. This means they are effectively cancer.
These cell lines have been used in scientific research but never to produce food before. So the assertions by scientists that cancer cells in lab grown meat cannot cause cancer are not exactly based on factual information.
We also cannot forget what happened during the COVID-19 pandemic when the experts lied at multiple turns and cost millions of workers their jobs and even their lives. Trusting them on health matters can be questionable.
Cancer is not the only potential danger from eating fake meat. The Children’s Health Defense Fund reported on a study by Impossible Foods in September which demonstrated that rats had serious complications such as unexplained weight gain and anemia.
In 2019 the manufacturing company, Impossible Foods, applied for permission to market the burger in the EU and the U.K.
However, the results of a rat feeding study commissioned by Impossible Foods and carried out with SLH suggest that the burger may not be safe to eat.
SLH is the substance that gives the burger its meaty taste and makes it appear to bleed like meat when cut. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) initially refused to sign off on the safety of SLH when first approached by the company.
The rat-feeding study results suggest that the agency’s concerns were justified. Rats fed the GM yeast-derived SLH developed unexplained changes in weight gain, changes in the blood that can indicate the onset of inflammation or kidney disease, and possible signs of anemia.
If you thought the Zuckerberg interference in US elections was over in 2020 when Democrats pulled off a shocking victory over President Trump five days after Election Day, you would be wrong.
Zuckerbucks are back. And Democrats are now going after local elections offices around the country and pushing far-left candidates or secret sleepers to move elections in the Democrat Party’s direction.
Democrats no longer have to worry about nominating candidates who are senile or can’t string together two sentences. All they have to do is make sure they are running the elections offices and counting the ballots.
It’s nothing new. Joseph Stalin excelled in this effort.
According to its website, The U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence is a collaboration between the Center for Tech and Civic Life, the Center for Civic Design, Center for Secure and Modern Elections, the Elections Group, Hasso Plattner Institute of Design (the d.school) at Stanford University, Prototyping Systems Lab, and U.S. Digital Response.
the Alliance is a five-year, $80 million strategy funded by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to recruit far-left candidates to run local elections offices around the country.
The Arizona Sun Times reported:
The injection of private money into public election administration — or “Zuckerbucks” — is continuing in a new form, as left-leaning candidates are being recruited to run for local elections offices by an organization that receives funds from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.
The U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence, a project of the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), is awarding funds to counties and municipalities under the Centers for Election Excellence program. The alliance will provide $80 million over five years “to envision, support, and celebrate excellence in U.S. election administration,” according to CTCL.
CTCL poured nearly $350 million into local elections offices managing the 2020 election, with most of the funds donated to the nonprofit by Zuckerberg. The nonprofit has claimed its 2020 election grants — colloquially known as “Zuckerbucks” — were allocated without partisan preference to make voting safer amid the pandemic.
Critics of the unprecedented level of private funding injected into election administration offices in 2020 argue the grants were awarded disproportionately to boost voter participation in swing state Democratic strongholds. A House Republican investigation found that less than 1% of the funds were spent on personal protective equipment.
Following controversy surrounding the disproportionate resources funneled to Democratic jurisdictions and claims the imbalance helped sway the election in Biden’s favor, 24 states have either restricted or banned the use of private money to fund elections, while 12 counties have also restricted or banned the funds, according to the Capital Research Center.
On Monday, during the broadcast of “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Fox News Channel host Tucker Carlson aired and discussed some of the footage from the Capitol on January 6, 2021 that he received from House Speaker Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA).
One portion of the footage from the Capitol that Carlson discussed touched on the timing of and cause of U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick’s death. Carlson said the footage shows Sicknick was alive after he was allegedly killed by people at the Capitol and the footage was viewed by members of the January 6 Committee, who refused to release it to the public.
In 2021, the D.C. Medical Examiner’s office concluded that Officer Sicnick’s death was due to natural causes, a finding the U.S. Capitol Police accepted.
Another portion of the footage showed the movements inside the Capitol on January 6 of various people who entered the building — most notably the so-called “QAnon Shaman,” Jacob Chansley. Carlson said that while some of the people who entered the Capitol were “hooligans” and committed vandalism, others inside the Capitol aren’t that day were not and respected the building. In some of the security footage aired by Carlson, Chansley is seen walking near police in the Capitol building unobstructed.
Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett
Matt Hancock told aides he wanted to ‘frighten the pants off everyone’ to ensure compliance with Covid-19 restrictions, leaked messages reveal, as it emerges he told top London lawyers he should be immune from prosecution just days before the WhatsApp scandal broke.
In an online Q&A with law firm Mishcon de Reya, Matt Hancock accused those prosecuting Secretaries of State as ‘chasing tabloid headlines’ just 12 days ago, The Mirror reports.
It comes as a new swathe of messages from Mr Hancock’s WhatsApp account were revealed today, involving discussions over how to scare the public to limit the spread of coronavirus, and when to ‘deploy’ details of a new strain.
The latest set of WhatsApp exchanges show Mr Hancock and others discussed how to use an announcement about the Kent variant of the virus to scare the public into changing their behaviour.
The messages, among more than 100,000 WhatsApps passed to the Telegraph by journalist Isabel Oakeshott, show that Cabinet Secretary Simon Case suggested in January 2021 that the ‘fear’ factor would be ‘vital’ in stopping the spread of the virus.
The latest set of WhatsApp exchanges show Mr Hancock and others discussed how to use an announcement about the Kent variant of the virus to scare the public into changing their behaviour
The discussion took place in December, just three weeks before the whole of the country was placed back under lockdown rules
In December 2020, the exchanges show concern that London Mayor Sadiq Khan could follow the example of Mayor of Greater Manchester Andy Burnham, who had clashed with the Government over the decision to impose stringent lockdown restrictions on the region.
Mr Hancock’s adviser said: ‘Rather than doing too much forward signalling, we can roll pitch with the new strain.’
‘We frighten the pants of everyone with the new strain,’ the then Health Secretary responded.
‘But the complication with that Brexit is taking the top line,’ he said, in an apparent reference to media coverage of the UK’s EU exit.
‘Yep that’s what will get proper behaviour change,’ the adviser said.
‘When do we deploy the new variant,’ Mr Hancock said.
The conversation, on December 13, came amid concerns about the rapid spread of the virus in south-east England.
Mr Hancock announced that a new Covid-19 variant had been identified in the UK on December 14.
London and south-east England were to enter a new Tier 4 alert level, it was announced on December 19, when then prime minister Boris Johnson also cancelled a promised Christmas ‘bubbles’ policy allowing families to meet.
The entirety of England entered the third national lockdown on January 6 2021.
Messages from January 10 show Mr Hancock and the Cabinet Secretary discussing ways to ensure compliance.
‘More mask-wearing might be the only thing to consider.
‘Effectively free and has a very visible impact? Wear masks in all settings outside home and in more workplaces?
‘Am not sure that got us much further, did it? Basically, we need to get compliance up.’
TO see the rest of the article go to the source:
Ford Motor Company filed a US patent application that shows autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles could potentially repossess themselves if their owners miss lease or loan payments.
The idea of self-driving cars repossessing themselves might sound dystopian, but it is not surprising that automakers are considering this technology to ensure payment. Repossession is a common practice, and as we’ve described recently, cracks are beginning to form in the subprime auto loan market (read: here & here).
While this patent application was first filed in Aug. 2021 and formally published on Feb. 23, it could be years before Ford implements such a technology.
The patent, titled “Systems and Methods to Repossess a Vehicle,” explains how a future lineup of Ford vehicles would be capable of “[disabling] a functionality of one or more components of the vehicle.”
If a driver misses a car payment, the vehicle will disable air conditioning, radio, GPS, and cruise control to irritate the driver.
If the owner misses more payments, the repossession cycle will worsen. The car would emit an “incessant and unpleasant sound.” Worse, the vehicle might lock out the driver on certain days until payments are made.
And still, if the lockout doesn’t work and payments are missed, the vehicle could drive to a safe, nearby location for a repo team to seize it and avoid confrontation with the owner.
It is worth noting that filing a patent application does not necessarily mean the technology will be implemented, but the takeaway is a glimpse of the dystopic future.