Well, I Guess We All Knew

Posted on July 14, 2025 by marcia

How Google Search Rankings Are Silencing Alternative Health Websites

July 14, 2025

google silencing alternative health websites

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

Google slashed traffic to Mercola.com by 99.9%, replacing years of trusted content with pharma-backed search results that promote junk food and drugs as “healthcare” solutions
A new term, “nonaginate,” describes Google’s tactic of wiping out 90% or more of alternative health websites’ visibility — a practice now threatening hundreds of holistic sources
Under the guise of safety, Google uses vague policies like EEAT and YMYL to bury licensed doctors and researchers who question mainstream pharmaceutical narratives
Google’s so-called “quality raters” depend on Wikipedia for judgments about credibility — even though its anonymous editors openly oppose natural health and block factual corrections
To protect your health freedom and privacy, I recommend ditching all Google products — from search to Gmail — and switching to platforms that respect your data and independence

Have you noticed how it’s getting more challenging to find non-mainstream health info in your search results lately? That’s not your imagination — it’s a deliberate tactic employed by Google to control the information you see. They’re targeting websites that question pharmaceutical orthodoxy or promote natural approaches to health, even those that are run by licensed practitioners, researchers, and authors with longstanding reputations — myself included.

I’ve been sounding the alarm on Google’s monopoly for several years now, and how they’re gravely endangering the free-flow of information, particularly in the health industry. Google views alternative health as a threat to Big Pharma, and uses its search ranking system to severely reduce natural health websites’ visibility and accessibility to the general public.

‘Nonagination’ — Google’s Attempt to Suppress Alternative Health Information

In his Substack page, Bill Dembski, a researcher, design theorist, and mathematician, wrote an extensive exposé on “the evilization of Google,”¹ and how this nefarious company strategically dismantled the reach and visibility of alternative health websites, including Mercola.com. Dembski introduced the term “nonaginate” to describe a tactic that goes far beyond censorship.²

•What does “nonaginate” mean? Dembski says this word was inspired by “decimate,” which dates to the old Roman practice of eliminating “one-tenth of an unruly band of Roman soldiers.” However, what Google does is so much worse, so using the word decimate is a grave understatement.

•It’s much worse than decimation — Dembski then turned to the Latin term for 90, “nonaginta,” and from here, he coined the word “nonaginate,” saying that this was a better-suited word for what this company does.

“Nonaginate — hat tip to Google for inspiring the term — is thus defined as destroying at least ninety percent of a thing. Nonagination is therefore much more extreme than decimation (in decimation’s strict literal sense of only destroying ten percent). Google prefers to nonaginate sites it doesn’t like,” he writes.

•I first-handedly experienced nonagination back in 2019 — Six years ago, on June 3, 2019, to be exact, Google implemented a broad “core update” that eliminated most Mercola.com pages from its search results. Virtually overnight, Google traffic to my site dropped by approximately 99.9%.

•Decades of valuable health information has been buried — Since 1997, Mercola.com has been considered a highly relevant source of health content, and has been one of the top natural health websites worldwide. But in one fell swoop, Google removed all our high-ranked results, and replaced them with health information from advertising companies that promote junk food and drugs instead.

Google Hides Behind Its So-Called ‘Policies’

Mercola.com wasn’t the only victim of nonagination — countless alternative health websites were also hit with similar penalties, losing their visibility, reach, and revenue streams. For many, this meant bankruptcy. Yet, Google does not publicly admit to this bias; instead, it hides behind abstract policy language.³

•Bias is hidden behind policies that claim neutrality — To justify its move to downrank alternative health websites, Google invokes content guidelines like “Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness” (EEAT), and “Your Money or Your Life” (YMYL).⁴

•On paper, these standards sound like they exist to protect users — But in practice, they create a false sense of objectivity that allows Google to bury dissenting voices without admitting to any ideological filtering. Even licensed physicians and researchers are downgraded if they suggest that healing might come from something other than patented drugs.

•This suppression is systemic, not incidental — EEAT and YMYL policies are enforced by both machine algorithms and human raters, all trained to flag anything outside of conventional dogma as untrustworthy — even if that information is backed by clinical experience or published studies.

•The result? Websites that promote natural, research-backed concepts like real food, mitochondrial health, sunlight exposure, or EMF reduction are treated the same way as snake oil scams. Google nonaginates them in the name of “safety.”

From Crowdsourcing to Crowd Control

In the past, google search results were based on crowdsource relevance. An article’s rankings on Google search would ascend based on the number of people who clicked on it. Basically, if you produced unique and high-quality content that matched what people were looking for, you were rewarded by ranking in the top of search results.

•To help you ideate this, here’s an example — Let’s say you have an article about Akkermansia that is found on the seventh page of Google’s search results, and then your competitor also has an Akkermansia article on the fifth page of search results. If more people click on your article than your competitor’s, your article will move up in rank. So, in a nutshell, these search results are based on popularity.

•But this is no longer the case — Now, Google is manually lowering the ranking of undesirable content with the help of “quality raters.” These raters are basing their feedback largely on Wikipedia’s assessment of the author or site (more on this in the next section).

•Who are these so-called quality raters? According to the company’s Search Quality Rater Guidelines, they have 16,000 external search quality raters working for them to “provide ratings based on our guidelines and represent real users and their likely information needs, using their best judgment to represent their locale.”⁵

•However, these raters are not Google employees — Rather, they are employed by external firms who have contracted them to Google. According to an article by ARS Technica:

“They’re carefully trained and tested staff who can spend 40 hours per week logged into a system called Raterhub, which is owned and operated by Google. Every day, the raters complete dozens of short but exacting tasks that produce invaluable data about the usefulness of Google’s ever-changing algorithms.

They contribute significantly to several Google and Android projects, from search and voice recognition to photos and personalization features.”⁶

Google Quality Raters Rely on Wikipedia for ‘Expertise’ and ‘Trustworthiness’

As mentioned earlier, one of the primary sources Google’s quality raters are instructed to use when assessing the expertise, authoritativeness and trustworthiness of an author or website is Wikipedia, “the free encyclopedia.”

•Wikipedia is highly biased against natural health — Unfortunately for many of us in the field of alternative health, Wikipedia’s founder and editors are well-known to have extreme bias against natural health content and authors.

•What’s more, the editors are completely anonymous — Wikipedia’s editors are purely volunteers, and there are a few who have reached the most powerful editing status. They’re known as the administrators. However, you will not know their identity as they hide behind pseudonyms and usernames.

So, basically, you have no idea whether the editors who are editing your content are truly experts on the topic. So how can we consider Wikipedia to be an authority of credibility when the editors are anonymous and uncredentialed?

Wikipedia Is Aggressive When It Comes to Censorship

While Google’s censoring of content started just several years ago, Wikipedia has been censoring information and blocking editors since the beginning. About 1,000 users are blocked from the platform on any given day.

•Wikipedia is often edited by people with a very specific agenda — According to investigative journalist Sheryl Attkisson, anyone who tries to clarify or clear up inaccuracies on the site is simply blocked. The reality is a far cry from Wikipedia’s public promise, which is to provide readers with unbiased information.

•Google is funding Wikipedia — Considering its history of bias and its incredibly effective blocking of opposing views, no matter how factual, it’s not surprising that Wikipedia is Google’s chosen arbiter of expertise and credibility. And Wikipedia is profiting from this partnership, financially speaking. In January 2019, Google donated $2 million to Wikimedia Endowment, Wikipedia’s parent organization, and another $1.1 million to the Wikimedia Foundation.

•So what does this mean? Since Google’s freelance raters rely on Wikipedia, it means the whole “quality rating” system they’ve set up is rotten from the ground up, as its quality raters are instructed to base their quality decisions on an already biased source.

Google Is the World’s Biggest Monopoly

There’s no doubt that Google is now one of the largest and clearest monopolies in the world. It monopolizes several different markets, including search and advertising. In the case of search, it controls 90% of the market; its closest competitor, Bing, only has 2% of the market.⁷ Google also controls about 60% of the global advertising revenue on the internet.

•Google’s primary business is the harvesting of user data — Google catches every single thing you do online if you’re using a Google-based feature, and this data is then used to build powerful personality profiles that are sold for profit and used in a variety of different ways.

This data gathering goes far beyond what most people realize was even possible and is one of the primary reasons smaller advertisers cannot compete — they don’t have the user data Google has.

•Google also owns DeepMind, the world’s greatest artificial intelligence (AI) company — With nearly 6,000 employees worldwide,⁸ many of them AI researchers, it is not hard for them to sort through all your data with their deep learning algorithms to detect patterns that can be exploited for profit.

•Unfortunately, many still fail to see the problem Google presents — Its services are useful and practical, making life easier in many ways, and more fun in others. However, the complete and utter loss of privacy is a high price to be paid for such conveniences. Ultimately, your user data and personal details can be used for everything from creating personalized advertising to AI-equipped robotic warfare applications.

Say Goodbye to Google Today

Today, being a conscious consumer includes making wise, informed decisions about technology, and one of the greatest personal data leaks in your life is Google. If you need an extensive list on just how pervasive Google is, I recommend reading my article, “Goodbye Google.”

Here’s a summary of action steps for you to take right now to protect your privacy. I recommend sharing them with your friends and family so they too can protect themselves from Google’s data theft practices.

•Swap out your browser — Uninstall Google Chrome and use Brave or Opera instead. Everything you do on Chrome is surveilled, including keystrokes and every webpage you’ve ever visited. Brave is a great alternative that takes privacy seriously.

•Switch your search engine — Stop using Google search engines or any extension of Google, such as Bing or Yahoo, both of which draw search results from Google. Instead, use a default search engine that offers privacy, such as Presearch, Startpage, DuckDuckGo, Qwant and many others.

•Use a secure email — Close your Gmail account and switch to a secure email service like ProtonMail. If you have children, don’t transfer their student Google account into a personal account once they’re out of school.

•Switch to a secure document sharing service — Ditch Google Docs and use another alternative such as Zoho Office, Etherpad, CryptPad, OnlyOffice or Nuclino, all of which are recommended by NordVPN.⁹

•Delete all Google apps from your phone and purge Google hardware — Better yet, get a de-Googled phone. Several companies now offer them, including Above Phone.

•Avoid websites that use Google Analytics — To do that, you’ll need to check the website’s privacy policy and search for “Google.” Websites are required to disclose if they use a third-party surveillance tool. If they use Google Analytics, ask them to switch!

•Use a secure messaging system — To keep your private communications private, use a messaging tool that provides end-to-end encryption, such as Signal.

•Use a virtual private network (VPN) such as NordVPN or Strong VPN — This is a must if you seek to preserve your online privacy.

•Don’t use Google Home devices in your house or apartment — These devices record everything that occurs in your home, both speech and sounds such as brushing your teeth and boiling water, even when they appear to be inactive, and send that information back to Google. The same goes for Google’s home thermostat Nest and Amazon’s Alexa.

•Don’t use an Android cellphone, as it’s owned by Google.

•Ditch Siri, which draws all its answers from Google.

•Don’t use Fitbit — It was recently purchased by Google and will provide them with all your physiological information and activity levels, in addition to everything else that Google already has on you.

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2025/07/14/google-silencing-alternative-health-websites.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20250714_HL2&foDate=true&mid=DM1774998&rid=340020525

Nowhere to go in an Emergency

Posted on July 10, 2025 by marcia

Why Private Equity Is Buying Hospitals & Shutting Them Down

July 3, 2025 A More Perfect Union and PBS 4

There is a growing trend for private equity firms to buy companies and then bankrupt them to enrich their investors. A formula used by private equity involves buying hospitals, loading them up with debt by taking out loans that obligate the hospitals, paying off investors, and then selling the facilities and leasing the real estate back to them, resulting in the closure of hospitals. The people in the community pay the price. In addition, private equity owned physician staffing groups operate nearly one-third of all emergency departments across the country.

Emergency departments are the last resort for low income and uninsured and low income people who wait for an emergency to get care. Private equity is attractive to investors because it has an average return on investment rate of 13%, compared to 8.6% in the stock market. Patients are a captive market in emergency situations. Private equity cuts costs by requiring doctors to see more patients, reducing time spent with each patient that reduces quality of care. Private equity often reduces staff and hospitals are short handed, resulting ibn long wait times. Private equity often increases billing and price gouging is the “secret” for increased profits.

Private equity acquired companies have had a 25% rise of patient adverse events that include bloodstream infections, falls, and a doubling of surgical infections.

An example is the Crozer-Chester Medical Center, located in Delaware County, Pennsylvania that was the busiest ER in the area, that treated tens of thousands of patients per year. Crozer Health system was in financial trouble because it was a safety-net hospital that cared for patients covered by Medicaid or uninsured people. In 2016, the non-profit hospital was sold to a for-profit California company called Prospect Medical Holdings, with Leonard Green & Partners, a private equity firm, as its principal owner.

In 2018, just two years after buying Crozer Health, Prospect took out a $1.1 billion loan and then sent nearly half of it straight to their investors while Crozer continued to suffer. The private equity firm is not on the hook for any of that debt. Leonard Green sold Prospect in 2019, but Prospect and its hospitals were still on the hook for the debt. In order to pay down that debt, Prospect sold the real estate of its hospitals, including Crozer, to an Alabama company called Medical Properties Trust, or MPT. These deals are known as sale-leaseback transactions. What MPT does is it partners with health systems like Prospect to buy up their real estate and then rent it back. A critic called it a ‘hospital landlord’. Most of the time the revenue that’s generated from these one-time sales of the real estate doesn’t go back into the hospital. It’s being pocketed by investors. And like a tenant, Crozer had to start paying rent— $35 million a year. Last year, the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s office sued Prospect and Leonard Green for mismanagement and breach of contract. This January, Prospect filed for bankruptcy and within months it closed its last hospitals in Delaware County.

And Now, An AI Mind Reader

Posted on July 10, 2025 by marcia

New ‘Mind-Reading’ AI Predicts What Humans Will Do Next, And It’s Shockingly Accurate

By StudyFinds Analysis

Reviewed by Steve Fink

Research led by Dr. Marcel Binz and Dr. Eric Schulz, Institute for Human-Centered AI at Helmholtz Munich

Jul 02, 202

FACT CHECKEDVERIFIED

(Image by metamorworks on Shutterstock)

In a nutshell

Scientists created an AI called Centaur that can predict human behavior across any psychological experiment with unprecedented accuracy
The AI outperformed decades-old specialized models and successfully predicted behavior in completely new scenarios it had never seen before
Centaur’s internal workings became more aligned with human brain activity just by learning to predict our choices, potentially revolutionizing our understanding of cognition

MUNICH — An artificial intelligence system can now predict your next move before you make it. We’re not just talking about whether you’ll click “buy now” on that Amazon cart, but rather how you’ll navigate complex decisions, learn new skills, or explore uncharted territory.

Researchers have developed an AI called Centaur that accurately predicts human behavior across virtually any psychological experiment. It even outperforms the specialized computer models scientists have been using for decades. Trained on data from more than 60,000 people making over 10 million decisions, Centaur captures the underlying patterns of how we think, learn, and make choices.

“The human mind is remarkably general,” the researchers write in their paper, published in Nature. “Not only do we routinely make mundane decisions, such as choosing a breakfast cereal or selecting an outfit, but we also tackle complex challenges, such as figuring out how to cure cancer or explore outer space.”

An AI that truly understands human cognition could revolutionize marketing, education, mental health treatment, and product design. But it also raises uncomfortable questions about privacy and manipulation when our digital footprints reveal more about us than ever before.

How Scientists Built a Digital Mind Reader AI

The research team started with an ambitious goal: create a single AI model that could predict human behavior in any psychological experiment. Their approach was surprisingly straightforward but required massive scale.

Scientists assembled a dataset called Psych-101 containing 160 experiments covering memory tests, learning games, risk-taking scenarios, and moral dilemmas. Each experiment was converted into plain English descriptions that an AI could understand.

Rather than building from scratch, researchers took Meta’s Llama 3.1 language model (the same type powering ChatGPT) and gave it specialized training on human behavior. They used a technique that allows them to modify only a tiny fraction of the AI’s programming while keeping most of it unchanged. The entire training process took only five days on a high-end computer processor.

Image depicting a human brain connected to artificial intelligence — Centaur could mark a new turning point in AI in its unprecedented ability to understand the human mind. (Image by Shutterstock AI Generator)

Centaur Dominates Traditional Cognitive Models

When tested, Centaur completely crushed the competition. In head-to-head comparisons with specialized cognitive models that scientists spent decades perfecting, Centaur won in almost every single experiment.

The real breakthrough came when researchers tested Centaur on completely new scenarios. The AI successfully predicted human behavior even when the experiment’s story changed (turning a space treasure hunt into a magic carpet adventure), when the structure was modified (adding a third option to a two-choice task), and when entirely new domains were introduced (logical reasoning tests that weren’t in its training data).

Centaur could also generate realistic human-like behavior when running simulations. In one test involving exploration strategies, the AI achieved performance comparable to actual human participants and showed the same type of uncertainty-guided decision-making that characterizes how people behave.

Neural Alignment: Centaur Mimics Human Brain Activity

In a surprising discovery, Centaur’s internal workings had become more aligned with human brain activity, even though it was never explicitly trained to match neural data. When researchers compared the AI’s internal states to brain scans of people performing the same tasks, they found stronger correlations than with the original, untrained model.

Learning to predict human behavior apparently forced the AI to develop internal representations that mirror how our brains actually process information. The AI essentially reverse-engineered aspects of human cognition just by studying our choices.

The team also demonstrated how Centaur could accelerate scientific discovery. They used the AI to analyze human behavior patterns, leading to the discovery of a new decision-making strategy that outperformed existing psychological theories.

“We’ve created a tool that allows us to predict human behavior in any situation described in natural language – like a virtual laboratory,” says lead author Marcel Binz in a statement.

What’s Next for Human Behavior AI?

While impressive, this research represents just the beginning. The current version focuses primarily on learning and decision-making, with limited coverage of areas like social psychology or cross-cultural differences. The dataset also skews toward Western, educated populations, a common limitation in psychological research.

The team plans to expand their dataset to include more diverse domains and populations, envisioning a comprehensive model that could serve as a unified theory of human cognition. They’ve made both their dataset and AI model publicly available for other researchers to build upon.

“We combine AI research with psychological theory – and with a clear ethical commitment,” adds Binz. “In a public research environment, we have the freedom to pursue fundamental cognitive questions that are often not the focus in industry.”

For the first time, we have an artificial system that can predict human behavior across the full spectrum of psychological research with unprecedented accuracy. Whether that development excites or concerns you may depend on how confidently we can ensure such tools are used responsibly.

from: https://studyfinds.org/ai-thinks-like-humans-unprecedented-accuracy/

“You Don’t Need A Machine to Tell You How You Feel”

Posted on July 10, 2025 by marcia

The Great Surrender

A Document from 2065

JOSHUA STYLMAN

JUL 09, 2025

Back to the Future came out 40 years ago last week. While the original took us back to 1955, the end of the movie and the sequels imagined 2015 with flying cars and hoverboards. What they missed was the real transformation: how eagerly we’d hand over our most intimate biological data to corporations and governments.

Yesterday, someone sent me a document. I can’t verify its authenticity or origin, but they claimed it was leaked from a government archive dated 2065. Given what we already know about the current surveillance infrastructure—and the economic incentives driving the “Internet of Bodies”—it feels disturbingly plausible.

Sometimes, the best way to understand the present is to imagine how future historians might view our choices.

1985 BASELINE ASSESSMENT

Citizens showed dangerous levels of independence. Key problems:

Made Their Own Choices: 97% decided what to eat without consulting optimization algorithms
No Biometric Monitoring: 0% shared heartbeat, sleep, or activities with approved wellness partners
Relied on Primitive Instincts: Used outdated “gut feelings” to make decisions
Untracked Movement: Moved freely without carbon calculations or behavioral analysis
Suboptimal Decision-Making: Made incorrect choices 73% of the time when left unguided

Research Note: Citizens were obsessed with antiquated concepts like “privacy” and “personal autonomy.” Substantial cultural engineering would be required.

2025 MIDDLE PHASE

After making monitoring trendy and incentivized, citizens began voluntary participation:

Wellness Device Adoption: 73% wearing biometric optimization devices
Economic Compliance: 89% modified behavior when insurance adjusted rates in real-time
Algorithm Consultation: 45% check apps before making health decisions
Privacy Redefinition: Successfully rebranded “privacy” as “missing out on personalized optimization”
Identity Integration: 34% voluntarily linked biometric data to government systems for “seamless experience”
Social Media Conditioning: Platforms provided crucial behavioral modification infrastructure. Citizens voluntarily documented their lives for algorithmic analysis while competing for validation metrics. Personas replaced personhood with minimal resistance
Security Convenience Celebration (2025): TSA elimination of shoe removal requirements was celebrated by the public, including freedom advocates who failed to recognize the requirement was removed only because comprehensive body scanning infrastructure was now operational

Implementation Note: “Health freedom” extremists were neutralized by recruiting trusted celebrities. The “Make America Healthy Again” campaign proved highly effective, ironically accelerating acceptance of monitoring systems among traditionally skeptical populations.

2029-2037: TOTAL SYSTEM INTEGRATION

Key discovery: Citizens who embraced biometric monitoring were 340% more likely to accept additional systems when marketed as “feature upgrades.”

Integration Milestones:

Climate Fear Acceleration (2025-2027): Increased atmospheric modification programs generated optimal citizen anxiety levels about “climate crisis.” Geoengineering operations, previously denied, rebranded as “emergency planetary cooling” with 94% public acceptance
Conspiracy Theorist Classification (2025): Citizens investigating HAARP and atmospheric programs successfully marginalized as “climate deniers”
Atmospheric Wellness Enhancement (2027): Aluminum and barium particulate distribution normalized citizens to environmental chemical modifications. Transition from “chemtrail conspiracy” to “necessary climate intervention” achieved seamlessly
Medical Compliance Acceleration (2020-2023): Global health emergency provided unprecedented opportunity to test population-wide acceptance of experimental interventions. Citizens initially questioning protocols were successfully re-educated through social pressure
Frictionless Verification (2029): Biometric data auto-populates all government interactions
Movement Optimization Zones (2031): 15-minute wellness districts eliminate suboptimal route planning
Behavioral Prediction Integration (2032): Palantir’s wellness algorithms achieved 94% accuracy in identifying future non-compliance, enabling preemptive optimization interventions
Carbon-Biometric Fusion (2032): Personal carbon allowances calibrated to real-time health metrics
Social Compatibility Scoring (2033): Employment, housing, and dating filtered by wellness compliance
Public-Private Wellness Partnership (2034): Meta, Google, Amazon, and Palantir integrated seamless citizen engagement across all life domains. Alexa wellness coaching achieved 87% compliance with daily optimization directives
Universal Wellness Grid (2035): All systems merged. Citizens compete for monitoring privileges

Breakthrough: Each system enhanced perceived value of previous adoptions. The transition from “posting for likes” to “living for optimization scores” required minimal cultural adjustment. Citizens never recognized they were constructing their own containment infrastructure.

2038-2050: VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION

Revolutionary discovery: Citizens who chose optimization voluntarily showed 3500% higher compliance than those subjected to mandates. They became enthusiastic evangelists, shaming non-participants as “selfish.”

Resistance Elimination:

Non-participants excluded from financial services and employment
Social ostracism as monitored citizens avoided “optimization resisters”
Citizens who refused experimental medical interventions during 2020-2023 compliance testing pre-classified as “wellness non-compliant” and systematically excluded from society
Montana Privacy Commune Incident (2043): Final holdouts surrendered after their children were classified as “educationally at-risk.” Exit interviews showed 94% satisfaction with transition to monitored living

Critical Learning: Children proved optimal leverage points for behavioral modification of non-compliant adults.

2051-2065: PERFECT HARMONY

Consciousness Integration (2051): Direct neural interfaces eliminated the inefficiency of manual device checking. Thoughts now require pre-approval through the Wellness Grid.

Current Success Metrics (99.7% voluntary participation):

Complete Monitoring: 98.9% connected to behavioral prediction systems 24/7
Cognitive Pre-approval: Protocols automatically accepted before conscious processing
Thought Optimization: 87% reduction in “counter-wellness ideation”
Identity Dissolution: Citizens cannot distinguish personal desires from system recommendations
Decision Elimination: Zero unauthorized movements, purchases, or social connections

Recent Citizen Testimonial: “I wake up knowing exactly what to think, feel, eat, and believe. My carbon allowance perfectly matches my health goals. I am grateful the burden of choice has been eliminated. There is no confusion about what it means to be human—the system tells me.”

(Administrative Note: This citizen was processed 11 hours later for expressing individual gratitude, indicating dangerous residual self-awareness.)

ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS

Language Optimization: Terms like “freedom,” “gut instinct,” and “individual” reclassified as “wellness-negative vocabulary”
Generational Success: Citizens born post-2040 cannot differentiate between self and monitoring systems; personal identity successfully converted to subscription service
Economic Optimization: Wellness Grid generates $4.7 trillion annually through behavioral data monetization

NEXT PHASE OBJECTIVES

Neural infrastructure completion in remaining rural zones (Montana, Wyoming, Northern Idaho)
Deploy genetic optimization ensuring future generations born pre-compliant
Phase out museums containing pre-optimization historical materials (citizens request removal of “depressing old human content”)

PROJECT CODENAME: GRATEFUL CITIZEN Classification Level: COSMIC

A Final Thought

If this document seems impossible, remember: 40 years ago, no one imagined we’d voluntarily carry tracking devices everywhere, share our private thoughts on corporate platforms, or ask machines what to think, feel, eat, and believe.

The future isn’t inevitable. But it is predictable—if we refuse to change course.

The first act of resistance is remembering: You don’t need a machine to tell you how you feel.

from: https://stylman.substack.com/p/the-great-surrender?publication_id=24667&post_id=167869315&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

How About Trying a SmartPhone Diet?

Posted on June 30, 2025 by marcia

Giving Up Your Phone For Just 3 Days Can Reshape Your Brain Activity

HEALTH03 March 2025

ByDAVID NIELD

(Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images Plus)

How far away is your phone right now? When did you last look at it? For many of us, these digital devices are almost constantly in our hands, and a new study highlights the effects on brain activity that can happen when we cut back on using them.

The research involved 25 young adults aged between 18 and 30, who were asked to restrict their smartphone use as much as possible for 72 hours: Only essential communications and work-related activities were allowed.

Researchers from Heidelberg University and the University of Cologne in Germany used magnetic resonance imaging ( MRI) scans and psychological tests before and after the phone diet to determine what kind of effect this had on neural patterns and activity.

“We used a longitudinal approach to investigate effects of smartphone restriction in smartphone users,” write the researchers in their published paper.

“Associations between changes of brain activation over time and addiction-related neurotransmitter systems were found.”

During the scans run after the 72-hour period, the participants were shown a variety of image prompts – including pictures of smartphones turned on and turned off, as well as more ‘neutral’ images showing subjects such as boats and flowers.

Phone images — Images of phones and other objects were used to spark brain activity. (Schmitgen et al., *Computers in Human Behavior*, 2025)

When phone image prompts were used, changes were observed in parts of the brain linked to reward processing and cravings, similar in some ways to brain signals connected to substance addictions – suggesting our phones can be addictive like nicotine or alcohol.

That the changes seen in the brain were associated with dopamine and serotonin systems backs up this idea of phone addiction. These two neurotransmitters are linked to multiple brain functions, including compulsive behavior and mood control.

Based on the psychological tests, however, there were no changes in the mood of the participants or any feelings of craving, despite the limited phone access. Some volunteers did report improvements in mood, but this didn’t show up in the test data as significant.

The study didn’t delve into any detail about why the smartphone behaviors prompted the brain activity changes, but there are likely to be several factors at play. It’s possible that not all phone-based activities are as addictive as others.

“Our data does not disentangle craving for smartphone use and craving for social interaction, nowadays two tightly intertwined processes,” write the researchers.

“Although our data shows relatively robust findings without unraveling these processes, future studies should clearly aim to address this aspect.”

Scientists are still figuring out how phones are changing our lives, and our brains – it’s less than 20 years ago since the first iPhone appeared – but now we know a little more about some of the subtle withdrawal symptoms that happen when we aren’t picking up our mobiles every few minutes.

“The identified neural mechanisms may substantially promote addictive behavior in people at risk for excessive smartphone use,” write the researchers.

The research has been published in Computers in Human Behavior.

from: https://www.sciencealert.com/giving-up-your-phone-for-just-3-days-can-reshape-your-brain-activity

Smart Phones = Dumb Users

Posted on June 30, 2025 by marcia

Brain Drain: The Mere Presence of One’s Own Smartphone Reduces Available Cognitive Capacity

Adrian F. Ward, Kristen Duke, Ayelet Gneez, and Maarten W. Bos

Abstract

Our smartphones enable—and encourage—constant connection to information, entertainment, and each other. They put the world at our fingertips, and rarely leave our sides. Although these devices have immense potential to improve welfare, their persistent presence may come at a cognitive cost. In this research, we test the “brain drain” hypothesis that the mere presence of one’s own smartphone may occupy limited-capacity cognitive resources, thereby leaving fewer resources available for other tasks and undercutting cognitive performance. Results from two experiments indicate that even when people are successful at maintaining sustained attention—as when avoiding the temptation to check their phones—the mere presence of these devices reduces available cognitive capacity. Moreover, these cognitive costs are highest for those highest in smartphone dependence. We conclude by discussing the practical implications of this smartphone-induced brain drain for consumer decision-making and consumer welfare.

We all understand the joys of our always-wired world—the connections, the validations, the laughs … the info. … But we are only beginning to get our minds around the costs.

Andrew Sullivan (2016)

to Access the full article, go to: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/691462

What Does “Organic” Really Mean?

Posted on June 29, 2025 by marcia

Food Labels: Chicken, Eggs, Beef, Pork, Lamb, Produce

Know what they mean and How to read them

DR. SHERRI TENPENNY

JUN 28, 2025

With the recent focus on Making America Healthy Again (MAHA) with food, knowing a bit about the USDA and food labeling has never been more important.

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is a huge executive division within the US government. It is subdivided into 15 agencies with oversight by 15 administrative offices. The USDA employs nearly 100,000 people, working at more than 4,500 locations nationwide and abroad. For 2024, the USDA was given an operating budget of $24.46 billion, an increase of 11.5% over the previous year. The bureaucratic behemoth has oversight regarding food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and issues related to public policy.

One agency is the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). The AMS creates and administers domestic and international marketing opportunities for producers of “food, fiber, and specialty crops.” This includes commodity procurement and contract management for cotton, tobacco, livestock, poultry, specialty crops, and all types of food labeled organic.

As it turns out, the National Organic Program (NOP) is the federal regulatory program within the AMS that develops then enforces national standards for organically produced agricultural products sold within the United States. Run by only 34 employees and the Office of the Deputy Administrator, the NOP was allocated $24 million within the 2024 operating budget to oversee and regulate all elements of the organic food industry. For comparison, the budget for the Packers and Stockyards program, which regulates and monitors the activities of livestock, meat, and poultry, was allocated $35 million.

NOP oversees the work of 84 certifiers who perform audits, write audit report reviews, send out notices of noncompliance, issue corrective action reviews, and respond to consumers and producers seeking information and assistance regarding all food categories of organic food and labeling, including meat. The expanded availability of organic products in retail stores, supermarkets, and online platforms has made it easier for consumers to access organic meat and has contributed to its market’s growth. In 2021, just over 16,000 certified organic farms were in operation in the US, with California having the most certified farms by far (3,061) while nearly 7,000 farms were certified as organic pastureland and rangeland.

Want to become an organic farmer? There’s a lot to know…

The organic food market’s overall growth has impacted the organic meat sector in many positive ways. As consumers become more aware and critical of the quality of food they eat and prepare for their families, their concerns are driving the availability of organic products in retail stores, supermarkets, and online platforms, including the search for organic meat.

The size of the Global Organic Meat Market was valued at USD $18.78 Billion in 2022 and is poised to grow to USD $37.39 Billion by 2031. The concern for animal welfare is a significant driver for the organic markets. North America is expected to lead the global demand for organic meat. This is, at least in part, due to NOP and USDA programs that support the production of organic meat and meat-related goods.

There is also a growing emphasis on regenerative organic practices for the organic meat industry. Organic meat production typically adheres to stricter animal welfare standards than conventional meat production.

Regenerative farming has been used since the late 1970s, but the terms Regenerative Agriculture and Regenerative Farming came into wider circulation in the early 1980s and is becoming a very popular buzzword now. The technology focuses on restoring soil health via holistic land management, rotational grazing, and enhancing crop biodiversity. While organic farms also prioritize soil health, regenerative practices often go beyond organic standards.

Under NOP regulations, each certified organic farm must have an organic systems plan (OSP), a detailed outline that explains how the farm operations will satisfy the requirements of the NOP regulations. Just understanding all the rules used to monitor and market the organic food market is onerous. This includes (in part) keeping track of updates to each of these regulations:

USDA organic regulations (100s of pages long)
Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (100s of pages long)
Organic enforcement rules
Organic certification processes
Organic livestock and poultry standards
Organic labeling rules
….and more.

What does “organic” really mean?

According to the USDA,

Organic is a labeling term that indicates that the food or other agricultural products have been produced through approved methods. These methods integrate cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster the recycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. Synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, irradiation, and genetic engineering may not be used.

The Organic Standards can be found here.

The Label Quiz

Many consumers want to eat as “clean” as possible, meaning they want real food that is not contaminated with chemicals, antibiotics, pesticides, GMOs, and toxic vaccines.

Livestock and poultry farmers have caught on to this. Many farmers believe in the organic certification concept but are unwilling to go through the long, and often very expensive, certification program process. After the certification, farmers have to pay an annual, often pricey, fee to maintain the certification.

When consumers see the word “organic” on a package or a label, they have expectations about the product they are purchasing. USDA-certified organic foods must be grown and processed according to federal guidelines that take into consideration soil quality, animal raising practices, pest and weed control, and the use of antibiotics and hormones.

USDA organic regulations prohibit the use of GMO ingredients, listing them as “excluded methods.” Foods labeled organic are also not allowed to contain bioengineered ingredients (BE), which means ingredients made using recombinant DNA technology such as gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the positions of genes. (NOTE: These ingredients ARE in foods that are NOT organic).

Organic products are labeled according to the percentage of organic ingredients they contain. There are four distinct labeling categories for organic products:

100 Percent Organic – Products with this label contain only certified organic ingredients, including any processing aids.
Organic – For products in the “organic” category, at least 95% of the ingredients must be certified organic. The remaining five percent of ingredients must be organically produced, unless commercially unavailable or allowed on the National List.
Made With Organic ***– For multi-ingredient agricultural products, the “Made with organic ***” label means the product must contain at least 70 percent certified organic ingredients. These products may contain up to 30% of allowed non-organic ingredients. All ingredients – including the 30% non-organic ingredients – must be produced without GMOs.

If a product states, “Made with organic grains,” all ingredients derived from grains— including enriched wheat flour, corn oil, or oats—must be certified organic. If a product contains both organic and non-organic forms of the same ingredient, they must be identified separately in the ingredient statement.

Specific Organic Ingredients – This label is a mixture of non-organic and certified organic ingredients. The ingredient statement of the products identifies that the product contains less than 70% organic content.

Chart Source: Cetrafoods.com

These labeling differences help educated consumers to distinguish between products that are either labeled as “made with organic ingredients” or products that are made with a mix of ingredients.

The USDA and NOP organic regulations prohibit organically labeled food from being contaminated with residues from pesticides, antibiotics, hormones, and genetically modified (GMO) or bioengineered (BE) ingredients. Products undergo required residue testing. If foods are found to be even minimally contaminated (there is no minimum level that is tolerated), penalties and warning letters are issued. (In other words, organic food appears to have a zero tolerance level for these residues. That’s good!)

Labels for Meat

Chicken

To be designated as organic, the birds must be raised organically, starting no later than two days after they hatch. The USDA requires the chicken’s feed to be grown without pesticides or synthetic fertilizers and certified.

Being free-range is not the same as being organic. Free-range and cage-free refers to where/how the chickens lived, not what they were fed, and gives no indication about the quality of the air or hygiene levels where they lived. According to the New Roots Institute,

“Outside space provided to free-range chickens is loosely defined and often just a formality: it’s likely too small, barren, and otherwise inadequate for the thousands of chickens being raised in a farm for slaughter.’

Free-range. “Free-range” is a marketing term used by the food industry. It means the bird was provided shelter, unlimited access to food, fresh water, and outdoor access during their production or life cycle for at least 51% of their lives (making it “the majority” of their lives).
Cage-free. This label indicates that the bird could roam within a building, a room, or an enclosed area with unlimited access to food and fresh water. Cage-free hens generally have no access to the outdoors.

Don’t be fooled by food labels that sound like the living conditions are better for chickens. The ASPC (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals^®) has a table to help make informed choices about chicken meat. The guide helps consumers make choices based on chicken welfare. These three are the best choices:

Source: ASPC table

Eggs

With labels like “organic,” “free-range,” “cage-free,” and “vegetarian fed” it’s hard to know which eggs are the best to buy. While food labeling should be simple and transparent, unfortunately, is mostly about marketing.

Conventional Eggs

Conventional eggs are not the most ethical or nutritious eggs. These birds are generally fed poor quality feed that often contains antibiotics and hormones. Hens live in stacked rows of cages and live in a space approximately the size of a sheet of paper. The vast majority of egg-laying hens are confined in battery cages. Unable to spread their wings, caged laying hens are among agribusiness’s most intensively confined animals. The poor living conditions increase the risk of bacterial contamination.

Globally, non-typhoidal Salmonella is the most frequently documented cause of foodborne disease. In the US, it is the second most common cause of foodborne outbreaks, and around 20% of the illnesses caused by Salmonella are related to poultry, poultry products, and eggs.

In a study from 2023, Salmonella contamination varies widely among egg-producing countries. Contamination in US is low, and reported to be 0.005%. In Europe, Salmonella contamination has been found to be about 0.37%, and in China, the world’s largest egg producer eggs, between 0.5% and 5.6% of eggs were found to be contaminated with the bacteria.

Free-Range Eggs

Lines can get blurred when it comes to the free-range egg label. This is because organic eggs must be from free-range hens, but free-range eggs aren’t necessarily organic, because the birds do not need to be fed organic feed. The USDA only requires free-range eggs come from “free-range” chickens but most really only have limited access to a small, fenced in outdoor area.

Likewise, eggs labeled as “vegetarian,” “antibiotic-free,” or “all-natural” don’t have to meet the strict standards required for certified organic eggs. There’s little oversight, so it’s often up to individual farms or companies to define what those labels mean

Organic Eggs

Under the USDA Organic Certification Requirements, organic eggs must come from chickens that are fed only organic feed that is free of animal by-products, synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, or chemical additives. These chickens must not be given any antibiotics or additional hormones.

Organic eggs must be laid by 100% free-range, cage-free chickens with access to an outdoor area, even if it’s small. Overall, organically raised hens offer the highest standard of animal welfare, making them the most ethical egg option available.

Organic eggs are more nutritional sound, even though the industry says there is no difference between organic and non-organic eggs. Since the hens are fed high-quality feed, have more movement, and are drug-free, they produce fresher eggs with more nutrients. The yolks of organic eggs have a richer orange color; they certainly taste richer and healthier. After eating organic eggs, I find the non-organic eggs served in most restaurants taste like styrofoam in comparison.

While organic eggs are often more expensive, sometimes double the cost of commercial eggs, they’re worth it. Look for the USDA Certified Organic label on the egg carton or buy from local farmers who follow the strict standard s for raising organic birds.

Beef

NOTE: Grass-fed describes WHAT the animal was eating, whereas pasture-fed describes WHERE the animal was being fed.

Organic means the cows ate only organic feed and were not given antibiotics or hormones.

Grass-fed

Animals receive most of their nutrients from grass and forages (such as hay) throughout their life. However, the animal’s diet has nothing to do with whether or not it received hormones or antibiotics, or was exposed to toxic pesticides, including glyphosate. In other words, just because it the meat is labeled grass-fed, doesn’t necessarily mean it is organic.

The American Grassfed Association (AGA), a non-governmental organization, developed an approval label to clear this concern. If the meat has an AGA label , it means the animal was raised in a pasture, only fed grass or hay, and was never treated with hormones or antibiotics. American Grassfed Association (AGA) is a producer-founded and run non-profit organization that supports American Family Farms and Ranchers through certification, advocacy, and education programs.

A list of AGA-approved providers can be found here.

Pasture-raised

A pastured-raised animal must have had access to the outdoors for at least 120 days per year. According to USDA regulations, this label includes terminology that refers to only a particular animal. For example, the animal may have lived in a field or on a wide-open ranch, or it may have lived outside in a small pen. The USDA has not developed a labeling policy regarding hormones and antibiotics for pasture-raised products.

Pork

Pigs intended for meat products must be raised organically from the last third of gestation and, like beef, without the use of antibiotics and growth hormone stimulants. To be labeled USDA certified organic, the pork must not only come from pigs raised on organically certified farms but also be processed by a USDA certified organic processing plant.

There are four major aspects of USDA-certified organic regulations relating to pig production—source of animals, feed, healthcare, and living conditions. The only piglets that can be sold as organic are those who whose mother (the sow) has been managed organically from the last third of gestation to birth (gestation ranges from 111 to 120 days.) Federal organic regulations require that organic pigs have access to the outdoors, shade, shelter, exercise areas, fresh air, clean drinking water, and direct sunlight. Organic pigs must have access to clean, dry bedding. If the bedding has crop residue, it must be from organic crops. (Pigs are treated more humanely than chickens).

Pork labeled as organic must come from pigs that have only been fed a diet consisting of organic grains and protein sources, including organic soybean meal. The animal feed must be 100% organically produced and without animal byproducts or daily drugs. GMOs, or hormones. While antibiotics are strictly prohibited, vaccines are allowed….and they get many.

Sheep

As of Jan. 31, 2024, there were 5.03 million head of sheep in the United States, with the largest numbers being located in Texas, California, and Colorado. Even though sheep are produced in all 50 states, most large sheep ranches are located west of the Mississippi River. When it comes to the countries with the most sheep, the US isn’t even in the top 10.

Difference Between Lamb and Mutton

Lamb is meat from a young sheep, under one year of age. Lamb is said to have a very delicate, even slightly sweet, grass-fed flavor; the meat is very tender. Lamb is usually 60-70% more costly than mutton. Mutton is the meat of mature sheep, harvested between 2 to 3 years of age. Mutton is said to have a robust, greasy, even gamey taste compared to true cuts of lamb. Because the animal is older, the meat tends to be tougher and more “chewy.” Most lamb meat sold in the US comes from older sheep.

The USDA does not have clear labeling rules that differentiate between lamb and mutton. Classifying and labeling the meat lamb, yearling, or mutton is left to producers. Therefore, any sheep meat under 24 months at the time of harvest can be labelled as lamb when it is actually mutton.

An astonishingly large and diverse number of products are made from sheep and their byproducts, from food to cosmetics and shaving cream to surgical sutures. Check out this American Sheep Industry Association flier to see the full list.

What about produce labels?

Produce can be labeled organic if it was grown in soil that has not had any prohibited substances applied to it for at least three years before harvest. Products that are clearing not organic have no misleading labeling, except for products that now bear the label coated with Apeel, which I’ve written about previously.

Another chemical used on produce since 1996 is called 1-MCP, which stands for methyl-cyclopropane, marketed under the name Smart Fresh. When sprayed on apples and oranges, the shelf life can be extended for up to three years by blocking the replication of bacteria on the surface of the fruit, but it can also disrupts human and animal gut microbiome.

Other labels found on produce are the PLU labels, standing for Price-LookUp codes. They allow retailers to manage inventory, process customer checkout faster, and help manage the produce industry supply chain. Assigned by the International Federation for Produce Standards (IFPS), more than 1,400 PLU codes have been assigned to various types of fruits and vegetables. The labels also identify if the produce is organic or conventionally grown.

A four-digit code starting with the number 3 or 4 (3000 or 4000 series) is used for conventionally grown produce. This means synthetic fertilizers, chemicals, and/or pesticides might have been used during the growth of the produce.
A five-digit code starting with the number 3 identifies fruits and vegetables that have been irradiated or electronically pasteurized.
A five-digit code starting with the number 6 identifies pre-cut fruits and vegetables.
A five-digit code starting with the number 8 is designated for fruits and vegetables that have been genetically modified or bioengineered.
A five-digit code starting with the number 9 is designated for organic fruits and vegetables.
If the code contains more than five digits, it is not part of the IFPS standardized system.

Summary

the next time you go to the grocery store, spend a little more time reading food labels. Now that you know a little more how they are categorized, you can be an even better consumer for yourself and your family. You’ll want to chose organic eggs, Certified Humane chicken, and AGA labeled beef. You may want to shop using the ASPC food shopping list. They say on their website, but it’s a place to start.

“Where to buy” information is kept up-to-date by individual companies; please contact the store or seller directly to confirm product availability.

*The ASPCA does not audit farms or ranches and instead relies on independent animal welfare certifications as the basis for evaluating different food brands in the marketplace.

from: https://drtenpenny.substack.com/p/food-labels-chicken-eggs-beef-pork?publication_id=931759&post_id=166770095&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Genomic Mapping, Disease, and COntrol

Posted on June 24, 2025 by marcia

(This is the introduction from an article in his substack)

‘Predicting future disease with AI’—just as I wrote, here it is—disaster

JON RAPPOPORT

JUN 24, 2025

No surprise it would be taking over in the UK, where the Nanny State boobs are some of the most deranged on the planet.

Buckle up.

BBC: “Every newborn baby in England will have their DNA mapped to assess their risk of hundreds of diseases, under NHS plans for the next 10 years.”

“…part of a government drive towards predicting and preventing illness…”

“The government’s 10-year plan…is aimed at easing pressure on [medical] services. The Department for Health and Social Care said that genomics—the study of genes—and AI would be used to ‘revolutionise prevention’ and provide faster diagnoses and an ‘early warning signal for disease’.”

This is complete bullshit.

The study of genes to treat disease is aimed largely at raising MONEY for research.

Aside from isolated “miracle cases” here and there, there are NO genetic cures for any disease.

So how in the world will analyzing the DNA of every baby add up to “better medical care?”

What WILL happen is lots more government surveillance of citizens from cradle to grave—using their DNA profiles—under the convenient do-good cover story of “we’re catching disease earlier and treating it.”

Also, the people of the UK can look forward to hundreds more nonsense disease labels, supposedly describing what “genetic research” is uncovering.

Every person will be a captive of the medical cartel from birth to death. Featuring all new toxic drugs and vaccines. (link)

from: https://jonrappoport.substack.com/p/predicting-future-disease-with-ai-here-it-is-disaster?publication_id=806546&post_id=166748126&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

And Today’s Movie Is: THE BIBI FILES

Posted on June 24, 2025 by marcia

Free Movie: The Bibi Files. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu Could Go to Prison If He Is Voted Out of Office

June 23, 2025 Alexis Bloom 1

The Bibi Files is a film that features leaked interrogation footage from the trial of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu.

He faces corruption charges that may to lead to a prison sentence if he loses his seat in office. Critics say that he has prolonged the Gaza war in order to keep his post as prime minister and avoid being tried on corruption charges for accepting lavish gifts and bribing the media for positive news coverage.

The corruption charges include accepting expensive gifts that include champagne for his wife Sara, who witnesses in the film say drinks excessively. Hollywood film producer Arnon Milchan said that he bought her a necklace. It is alleged that Milchan, who revealed that he secretly helped Israel develop its nuclear weapons program, received benefits from Netanyahu. Critics believe that Sara Netanyahu sets policy and gained power after Bibi admitted to an affair in 1993.

Miriam Adelson, who pledged $100 million to Trump in the 2024 election made a startling statement when she was asked if the basis of the Adelson’s friendship with the Netanyahus was money. She replied, “What can I say? If this comes out, I am dead.”

Excerpts from Al Jazeera December 2024:

Analysts and observers posit that in his [Netanyahu’s] efforts to avoid the trials and possible conviction, Netanyahu has been extending and expanding Israel’s assault on the besieged Gaza Strip.

Interactive_Netanhyahu_prosecution_charges_trial_Israel_court_Dec2_2024-1733138488

Here’s a breakdown of what he is accused of doing:

Case 1000

Also known as the “Gifts Affair”, this case charges the Israeli prime minister with fraud and breach of trust.

It involves allegations that Netanyahu and his wife Sara received lavish gifts from two wealthy businessmen in exchange for political favours.

The businessmen are Arnon Milchan, an Israeli Hollywood film producer, and Australian billionaire James Packer. The gifts allegedly include champagne and cigars.

Milchan testified that he provided gifts to Netanyahu in June 2020.

Netanyahu is accused of advancing Milchan’s interests by helping secure a United States visa after speaking to US government officials.

He is also accused of advancing a tax exemption law that could have benefitted Israelis abroad, including Milchan.

Fraud and breach of trust can result in prison sentences of up to three years, while bribery charges can result in up to 10 years in jail and/or a fine.

Then-Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit said the gifts were given continuously, “such that they became a sort of ‘supply channel’”.

The goods were valued at approximately 700,000 shekels ($186,000), according to a statement made by Mandelblit following the indictment, and were given to Netanyahu “in connection with his public roles and his status as Israel’s Prime Minister”.

Case 2000

It says Netanyahu made a deal with businessman Aron Mozes, a controlling shareholder of the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, for favourable coverage in exchange for legislation to slow the growth of the rival Israel Hayom newspaper.

This case also charges him with fraud and breach of trust.

In Mandelblit’s indictment summary, he said despite “a profound rivalry” between the two men, they conducted three series of meetings between 2008 and 2014.

During these meetings, Netanyahu and Mozes “engaged in discussions regarding the promotion of their common interests: improving the coverage that Mr. Netanyahu received in the ‘Yedioth Aharonoth’ media group; and the imposition of restrictions on the ‘Israel Hayom’ newspaper”, Mandelblit said.

A legislative bill was also being considered that would have limited the circulation of Israel Hayom, according to the indictment’s summary.

Case 4000

This case indicts Netanyahu for granting regulatory favours to Israeli telecommunications company Bezeq in return for positive coverage of him and his wife on a news website controlled by its former chairman.

Netanyahu, in his capacity as communications minister at the time, allegedly provided regulatory benefits to Shaul Elovitch, the owner of Bezeq who also controlled the news website Walla.

The benefits reportedly included mergers and financial gains.

In exchange, Elovitch provided favourable coverage of Netanyahu and his wife.

Netanyahu “dealt on several occasions with regulatory matters pertaining to Mr Elovitch, and took specific actions that promoted significant business interests of Mr Elovitch of substantial financial value”, the indictment summary said.

Besides fraud and breach of trust, Netanyahu has been charged with bribery in this case.

Read full article here…

Considering Vaccine Injuries Through the Years

Posted on June 24, 2025 by marcia

(This is the beginning of a much larger article — worth a read if you have any questions or concerns at all about vaccine safety and efficacy.)

How Much Damage Has Mass Vaccination Done to Society?

The data that shows the less appreciated and forgotten consequences of vaccination.

A MIDWESTERN DOCTOR

JUN 15, 2025

Story at a Glance:

•A long history exists of a wave of severe injuries following new vaccinations being introduced to the market. In most cases, those injuries were swept under the rug to protect the business.

•In many cases, the severe “mysterious” injuries we see now are remarkably similar to those that were observed over a century ago. Unfortunately, a widespread embargo exists on ever allowing this data to come to light (as that would instantly destroy the vaccine program).

•A variety of independent studies (summarized below) have shown that vaccines cause a wide range of chronic illnesses.

•A 1990 book made a strong case that widespread vaccination was also causing an epidemic of widespread brain damage which was both lowering America’s IQ and causing a massive rise in violent crime.

•In this article, we will also review exactly what in that 1990 book and the classic signs that can be used to determine if someone has a vaccine injury (along with the subtle more spiritual ones).

Note: due to the recent ACIP changes (the committee which decides which vaccines you take) and past interest in this article, I revised and updated it.

My mind often overlaps the past present and future onto themselves. Because of this, I will frequently recall events that happened in the past which perfectly mirror what is unfolding before us, and in turn, I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve witnessed humanity repeat its same mistakes or can see a slow motion train-wreck ahead on the horizon. During COVID, I realized we were again reenacting the same tragedy humanity had ever experienced since the smallpox vaccine was brought to the market and I had a thought. If people became aware of what had happened before and ended our collective amnesia, perhaps this could at last stop.

As fate would have it, my wish came true, and without knowing me, Steve Kirsch gave me the opportunity to begin introducing that forgotten history to the world. This happened after he chose to publish an article I wrote illustrating how the trucker protests were identical to smallpox protests that had happened more than a century before and then for reasons I still do not understand, encouraged his readers to subscribe to me so I would start writing here.
Note: At the time I chose the username “A Midwestern Doctor” (for the smallpox article), I did not put much thought into it as I was never expecting to use it again.

Over the years, I’ve noticed again and again that a vaccine disaster happens which injuries many in a very similar way, it gets swept under the rug (often by officials who are quite conflicted in their decision to do so), and then the same thing happens again a few decades later.

Given that we give dozens of vaccines to each member of society, this raises an obvious question—what is that doing to society?

A Brief History of Vaccine Disasters

In 1798, the smallpox vaccine hit the market. Once it hit the market, it was observed to frequently cause smallpox outbreaks (rather than prevent them) and to cause a wide range of debilitating and complex injuries that many of the doctors had never seen before (and many of which I believe were examples of “blood stasis”). Curiously, rather than recognizing this was a mistake, most of the medical profession endorsed the smallpox vaccine, and governments around the world mandated it as cases kept on increasing, leading to a downward spiral that was eventually broken by mass public protest against those mandates. Having looked at it extensively, I am of the opinion the smallpox vaccine reshaped the trajectory of humanity’s health and was an inflection point in the era of chronic illness.

In the 1800s and early 1900s, a variety of early vaccines (e.g., rabies, typhoid, diphtheria, tuberculosis) and horse-generated antiserums (for most of the common infections at the time) entered the market. Since many of these vaccines were produced in small independent labs, there were a variety of quality control issues with these products, which frequently led to hot lots being released that severely injured or killing a group of people. Additionally, many of those vaccines had a high degree of toxicity. Because of this, a variety of new and severe medical conditions emerged, many of which were deemed to be due to brain inflammation (encephalitis) or brain damage (encephalopathy) and observed to occur in conjunction with cranial nerve damage. Most of these conditions (which I discussed in detail here) in turn mirrored the myriad of injuries we now too see from modern vaccinations. In addition to the injuries, two major issues stood out during this period:

•First, in addition to sometimes being directly contaminated with the disease causing organism (e.g., yellow fever or tuberculosis) and causing the illness, vaccines would often cause a temporary immune suppression which lead to disease outbreaks in those vaccinated (discussed here). However, each time this happened, rather than it being seen as a sign we needed to dial back vaccination, it was interpreted as not enough people being vaccinated and harsher and harsher vaccine mandates being instituted to enact that policy or new vaccines being created to address the existing damage of vaccination (e.g., the DPT vaccine frequently caused polio outbreaks).

•Second, public health officials and vaccine designers were well aware of the injuries vaccines were causing, but since no other treatments existed for the disease, regrettably deemed this to be a necessary sacrifice for the greater good and hence covered the injuries up so the public would continue to vaccinate. However, while I understand their perspective, it rested on a faulty premise—effective treatments did exist for the illnesses (e.g., in 1920 it was known IV hydrogen peroxide could treat severe infections and in 1928 it was known that ultraviolet blood irradiation could treat many otherwise incurable infections).
Note: as you might have noticed, everything I just described also applies to the COVID-19 vaccines, hence illustrating how these dysfunctional cycles frequently perpetuate indefinitely.

In the 1940s-1950s, the original pertussis vaccine (DPT) entered the market. This vaccine excelled at causing brain inflammation and a variety of concerning differences were seen in the generations born after its mass adoption in America.
Note: The rabies vaccine also excelled at causing encephalitis (around 1 in 750 injections, of which 20% were fatal), but it did not have as large an impact on society because far fewer people received it.

Between the 1950s to 1970s, numerous instances happened where a rushed and poorly produced experimental vaccine (e.g., polio or the swine flu) was brought to market to address a non-existent “emergency,” and the government chose to ignore warnings from its scientists that it was not safe to give to America. Since the press was honest at this time, they reported the disaster, it became a national scandal and the government provided compensation to the victims.
Note: I compiled those media reports here, the last of which happened in 2002 with Bush’s smallpox vaccine.

In 1986, enough public awareness existed of the dangers of the DPT vaccine that lawsuits were regularly being filed for the brain damage and sudden infant deaths it caused (discussed here). This in turn led to the 1986 vaccine injury act being passed (discussed further here), an act that both shielded vaccine manufacturers from product liability and was intended to help parents of vaccine injured children (even though it didn’t due to selective enforcement of its provisions and the Supreme Court exempting manufacturers from injuries caused by defective vaccines). This act being passed led to an industry gold rush to bring experimental and liability free vaccines to the market, and before long the childhood vaccination schedule ballooned in parallel to chronic illnesses increasing as well.

Note: since this time other vaccines (e.g., RSV and annual COVID vaccinations) were also added to the childhood schedule (but fortunately MAHA managed to recently do the impossible and remove COVID from it).

In 1990, an experimental anthrax vaccine was deployed upon the military to prepare them for invading Iraq. While the war was non-eventful (Saddam did not use anthrax and it was likely the most one-sided conflict in history), the anthrax vaccine severely injured over 100,000 servicemen (leading to what was known as Gulf War Syndrome). Despite these issues, individuals within the Department of Defense who were committed to funding their bioweapons defense program mandated it—leading to severe injuries throughout the military and widespread rebellion against this edict.

After this, new biotechnologies began emerging which made it possible to genetically engineer a plethora of new vaccines that then began to flood the market as ACIP endorses virtually every vaccine given to them regardless of its merits (in fact, throughout their dozens of endorsements I could only identify one case where ACIP did not [boosters for teachers and healthcare workers], and in that instance the CDC simply overrode ACIP). In tandem, direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising was legalized by a 1997 FDA decision, making it possible for the pharmaceutical industry to buy the mass media’s silence, and hence end all future coverage of vaccine injury.

In 2010, Merck convinced America’s women they were at a high risk of dying from cervical cancer (which in reality only kills about 1/38,000 American women each year) so that everyone would buy their highly lucrative vaccine (which was never proven to reduce cervical cancer deaths). This vaccine had an extraordinarily high rate of injuries (e.g., severe autoimmune disorders), but nonetheless, despite a deluge of complaints, the CDC and FDA did everything they could to protect it, and to this day it is still mandated for children.

In 2021, the COVID vaccine hit the market and caused an unprecedented amount of injury (e.g., many noticed healthy adults dying “suddenly” and large polls showed 34% of vaccine recipients reported minor side effects while 7% reported major ones severely impacting their quality of life). Fortunately or unfortunately, the rate of injuries from it was so high that unlike the past disasters, the mass media could no longer sweep it under the rug, which eventually culminated in MAHA ascending as a political force and RFK Jr. being put in charge of the agency which has orchestrated the vaccine disaster for decades.

In my eyes, one of the most important points to take from this history is that at the time each of these happened, the medical profession and public were struck by the explosion of these new diseases (and their immense social cost) but before long, became acclimated to them and forgot they had ever emerged in the first place.

The Harms of Vaccination

There is a large body of evidence suggesting vaccines are either solely responsible for, or one of the primary things responsible for the tsunami of chronic illness which has followed their ever-increasing adoption. …

to read the rest go to: https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/how-much-damage-has-mass-vaccination?publication_id=748806&post_id=166011036&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email