We’re closing out the week with a topic that—while not exactly lighthearted—is one of those strange, head-scratching headlines that makes you wonder, “Is this real life?”
And yes, friends, it is.
Thank you to one of my lovely Healthy Americans, Eleanor, who alerted me to this trash scam surveillance scheme that’s rolling out right now in San Diego. It’s bizarre. It’s invasive. And it’s expensive.
Elenor is a San Diego resident who reached out to me after confronting her city councilman about this very issue—and being laughed at. She’s undaunted, and is organizing, speaking up, and rallying others to push back against this overreaching surveillance plan.
Here’s her email, shared with her permission:
Hello Peggy,
Firstly, I’d like to thank you for all the truth that you put out. There are many times that I’ve listened to you and in my mind composed an email responding, but I never actually did it. I did reach out to you when we were trying to get our medical freedom initiative onto the ballot. After that I decided I was going to have a rest and not try to fight everyone’s battles. However, I am picking up the sword again and opposing the new RFID trash cans and exorbitant, fraudulent tax that the city councils imposed on the residents. I think many people are unaware of the nefarious reasons for the RFID chips. I would like to rally the people of San Diego to come together and oppose this agenda, but I need to get the word out. I have several ideas about what we can do including dumping our trash outside the city council building, and disabling the chips. There is definitely power in numbers, and we need that power now. I am asking for your help in getting the word out and have people contact me at this email address. I really appreciate your help. Thank you and prayers to you and your family for continually putting out the truth!
Apparently, the City of San Diego is rolling out a fee-based trash pickup system—and with it, brand new bins equipped with RFID chips. These Radio Frequency Identification tags are embedded into your trash and recycling bins, and they’re designed to track the time, location, and frequency of your trash pickups.
Yes. Your trash is now being surveilled.
Friends, why does the government need to know how often you take out the trash What happens with that data?
What’s next? Fines for too much garbage or improper recycling?
How Much Is This Going to Cost You?
“the rollout comes as San Diego officials set out to charge single-family homeowners a special fee for trash collection. Earlier proposals set the monthly fee as high as $53. Following public backlash over the price, the city recently revised the proposed rate to $47.59 per month for full-service customers. The fee would increase gradually, reaching $59.42 by July 2027 under the revised proposal. Smaller bin users would pay less” Voice of San Diego reports.
Most residents are already paying city taxes and property taxes, which in the City of San Diego, already covered things like trash pickup.
This is a brand new tax, dressed up as a “service fee,” tied directly to a tech-enabled tracking system.
The Surveillance
The chips don’t collect “live” data (yet), but they do transmit a unique identifier to RFID readers on the garbage trucks. This logs the exact time and place your trash was collected and stores it in a city database.
Why??
The city claims it helps track pickup schedules and bin assignments, but think about the potential uses of this down the road. According to Eleanor, the data collected could be used to:
Build a profile of your consumer behavior (what you throw away and how often)
Monitor recycling compliance
Penalize you for excess waste
Feed information into private databases for advertising, analytics, or insurance
Here is exactly what Eleanor (and others) are concerned about with these RFID chips:
– RFID tags in trash bins track RFID tags in trash bins.
– What you throw away, how often you throw it, and how much waste you produce.
– By monitoring waste, authorities and private contractors can build a profile of your consumer behavior, diet, economic class, and compliance with recycling rules.
– This will give them information about you. With this date they can issue automatic fines for not recycling “correctly” and penalize you for producing “excess” waste. Currently they are not admitting to this because the first step is to normalize the chips and have people accept them.
-They will shame those who don’t meet waste targets. It shifts waste disposal from a public service to a compliance metric
-It’s not about cleaning the earth — it’s about disciplining its inhabitants.
-RFID-enabled bins are part of the smart grid. Eventually this will lead to other hikes regarding other utility services. Your trash becomes your confession booth.
-Many cities contract private waste firms that:
Sell the data collected from bins
Use it for targeted advertising, consumer analytics, or insurance scoring
Push subscription-based waste plans (like internet packages)
-You’re not just throwing things away — you’re feeding a data economy.
-Constant monitoring of trash habits trains people to:
Self-police
Accept that even waste must be justified
Internalize that every action is under watch
This normalizes the idea that nothing is private, not even your garbage — a soft form of techno-totalitarianism hidden behind eco-rhetoric.
– RFID in trash bins is not about sustainability — it’s about subtle submission.
– When even your garbage is tracked, you’re being told:
There is no part of your life we won’t measure.
– Other problems that I can see arising are people throwing their trash in neighbors bins, drug paraphernalia being dumped in bins and homeowners being investigated, people policing each other, and a myriad of other problems once this has been accepted and the screws tightened. Also, research the organizations behind the waste management company that the city has contracted with.
Sadly there are many people who don’t see the ramifications of this.Other people are complaining, but are unwilling to take action, and yet others give their power away to corrupt politicians.
Eleanor’s email highlighted so many important concerns about how these RFID-enabled bins are part of the smart grid—which means you’re feeding the data economy. She also astutely pointed out that this is a classic case of incrementalism—the county isn’t openly admitting the full scope of the plan, because the first step is simply to normalize the chips and get people to accept them without question.
And this normalizes the idea that nothing is private, not even your garbage.
Even if you don’t live in San Diego, I urge you to check what’s going on in your city.
These policies often start in “pilot cities” like San Diego, Seattle, and New York, and then slowly spread. It’s called incrementalism: normalize one little intrusion, wait until the outrage dies down, and then roll out the next one.
What You Can Do
If you’re in San Diego:
Contact your city council members.
Show up to the City Council meeting in September with Eleanor. Please email me (support@thehealthyamerican.org) and i’ll put you in touch with her.
If you’re outside of San Diego:
Share this article (or video) with friends or family who live there.
Watch for similar initiatives in your own town and start these conversations with your city council.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved hundreds of drugs without proof that they work—and in some cases, despite evidence that they cause harm.
That’s the finding of a blistering two-year investigation by medical journalists Jeanne Lenzer and Shannon Brownlee, published by The Lever.
Reviewing more than 400 drug approvals between 2013 and 2022, the authors found the agency repeatedly ignored its own scientific standards.
One expert put it bluntly—the FDA’s threshold for evidence “can’t go any lower because it’s already in the dirt.”
A System Built on Weak Evidence
The findings were damning—73% of drugs approved by the FDA during the study period failed to meet all four basic criteria for demonstrating “substantial evidence” of effectiveness.
Those four criteria—presence of a control group, replication in two well-conducted trials, blinding of participants and investigators, and the use of clinical endpoints like symptom relief or extended survival—are supposed to be the bedrock of drug evaluation.
Yet only 28% of drugs met all four criteria—40 drugs met none.
These aren’t obscure technicalities—they are the most basic safeguards to protect patients from ineffective or dangerous treatments.
But under political and industry pressure, the FDA has increasingly abandoned them in favour of speed and so-called “regulatory flexibility.”
Since the early 1990s, the agency has relied heavily on expedited pathways that fast-track drugs to market.
In theory, this balances urgency with scientific rigour. In practice, it has flipped the process. Companies can now get drugs approved before proving that they work, with the promise of follow-up trials later.
But, as Lenzer and Brownlee revealed, “Nearly half of the required follow-up studies are never completed—and those that are often fail to show the drugs work, even while they remain on the market.”
“This represents a seismic shift in FDA regulation that has been quietly accomplished with virtually no awareness by doctors or the public,” they added.
More than half the approvals examined relied on preliminary data—not solid evidence that patients lived longer, felt better, or functioned more effectively.
And even when follow-up studies are conducted, many rely on the same flawed surrogate measures rather than hard clinical outcomes.
The result: a regulatory system where the FDA no longer acts as a gatekeeper—but as a passive observer.
Cancer Drugs: High Stakes, Low Standards
Nowhere is this failure more visible than in oncology.
Only 3 out of 123 cancer drugs approved between 2013 and 2022 met all four of the FDA’s basic scientific standards.
Most—81%—were approved based on surrogate endpoints like tumour shrinkage, without any evidence that they improved survival or quality of life.
Take Copiktra, for example—a drug approved in 2018 for blood cancers. The FDA gave it the green light based on improved “progression-free survival,” a measure of how long a tumour stays stable.
But a review of post-marketing data showed that patients taking Copiktra died 11 months earlier than those on a comparator drug.
It took six years after those studies showed the drug reduced patients’ survival for the FDA to warn the public that Copiktra should not be used as a first- or second-line treatment for certain types of leukaemia and lymphoma, citing “an increased risk of treatment-related mortality.”
Elmiron: Ineffective, Dangerous—And Still on the Market
Another striking case is Elmiron, approved in 1996 for interstitial cystitis—a painful bladder condition.
The FDA authorised it based on “close to zero data,” on the condition that the company conduct a follow-up study to determine whether it actually worked.
That study wasn’t completed for 18 years—and when it was, it showed Elmiron was no better than placebo.
In the meantime, hundreds of patients suffered vision loss or blindness. Others were hospitalised with colitis. Some died.
Yet Elmiron is still on the market today. Doctors continue to prescribe it.
“Hundreds of thousands of patients have been exposed to the drug, and the American Urological Association lists it as the only FDA-approved medication for interstitial cystitis,” Lenzer and Brownlee reported.
“Dangling Approvals” and Regulatory Paralysis
The FDA even has a term—”dangling approvals”—for drugs that remain on the market despite failed or missing follow-up trials.
One notorious case is Avastin, approved in 2008 for metastatic breast cancer.
It was fast-tracked, again, based on ‘progression-free survival.’ But after five clinical trials showed no improvement in overall survival—and raised serious safety concerns—the FDA moved to revoke its approval for metastatic breast cancer.
The backlash was intense.
Drug companies and patient advocacy groups launched a campaign to keep Avastin on the market. FDA staff received violent threats. Police were posted outside the agency’s building.
The fallout was so severe that for more than two decades afterwards, the FDA did not initiate another involuntary drug withdrawal in the face of industry opposition.
Billions Wasted, Thousands Harmed
Between 2018 and 2021, US taxpayers—through Medicare and Medicaid—paid $18 billion for drugs approved under the condition that follow-up studies would be conducted. Many never were.
The cost in lives is even higher.
A 2015 study found that 86% of cancer drugs approved between 2008 and 2012 based on surrogate outcomes showed no evidence that they helped patients live longer.
An estimated 128,000 Americans die each year from the effects of properly prescribed medications—excluding opioid overdoses. That’s more than all deaths from illegal drugs combined.
A 2024 analysis by Danish physician Peter Gøtzsche found that adverse effects from prescription medicines now rank among the top three causes of death globally.
Doctors Misled by the Drug Labels
Despite the scale of the problem, most patients—and most doctors—have no idea.
A 2016 survey published in JAMA asked practising physicians a simple question—what does FDA approval actually mean?
Only 6% got it right.
The rest assumed that it meant the drug had shown clear, clinically meaningful benefits—such as helping patients live longer or feel better—and that the data was statistically sound.
But the FDA requires none of that.
Drugs can be approved based on a single small study, a surrogate endpoint, or marginal statistical findings. Labels are often based on limited data, yet many doctors take them at face value.
Harvard researcher Aaron Kesselheim, who led the survey, said the results were “disappointing, but not entirely surprising,” noting that few doctors are taught about how the FDA’s regulatory process actually works.
Instead, physicians often rely on labels, marketing, or assumptions—believing that if the FDA has authorised a drug, it must be both safe and effective.
But as The Lever investigation shows, that is not a safe assumption.
And without that knowledge, even well-meaning physicians may prescribe drugs that do little good—and cause real harm.
Who Is the FDA Working for?
In interviews with more than 100 experts, patients, and former regulators, Lenzer and Brownlee found widespread concern that the FDA has lost its way.
Many pointed to the agency’s dependence on industry money. A BMJinvestigation in 2022 found that user fees now fund two-thirds of the FDA’s drug review budget—raising serious questions about independence.
Yale physician and regulatory expert Reshma Ramachandran said the system is in urgent need of reform.
“We need an agency that’s independent from the industry it regulates and that uses high-quality science to assess the safety and efficacy of new drugs,” she told The Lever. “Without that, we might as well go back to the days of snake oil and patent medicines.”
For now, patients remain unwitting participants in a vast, unspoken experiment—taking drugs that may never have been properly tested, trusting a regulator that too often fails to protect them.
And as Lenzer and Brownlee conclude, that trust is increasingly misplaced.
The changes crept in so gradually that most people didn’t notice. Your freedom to travel now depends on having the right QR code. Your bank monitors your purchases and reports suspicious patterns to government agencies, all under the banner of safety and security. Social media platforms flag your posts as ‘misinformation’ if they question official policies, while your children learn in school that ‘individual rights’ must always be ‘balanced’ against ‘collective responsibility’. When you visit your doctor, everything you say gets entered into databases shared across agencies and institutions you’ve never heard of.
These aren’t separate policies responding to different problems. They’re connected pieces of a single framework that treats you not as a free human being, but as a data point to be monitored, measured, and managed for the stability of a larger system. The framework has a name, a structure, and a timeline that was laid out in remarkable detail nearly eight decades ago.
The 1947 Blueprint
IIn 1947, Alice Bailey published The Externalisation of the Hierarchy1, a book that most readers readily dismissed as fringe esoteric speculation. But Bailey wasn’t making predictions — she was documenting a plan. Writing with the clinical precision of someone with inside knowledge, she described exactly how human civilisation would be reshaped over the following decades. Her book reads less like prophecy and more like a project timeline — complete with phases, methods, target dates, and operational structures.
Bailey laid out a systematic approach to planetary transformation that would unfold over roughly 78 years. The plan wasn’t to destroy existing institutions, but to infiltrate and repurpose them from within, keeping their familiar names and symbols while redirecting their fundamental purpose toward global control. She described the construction of ‘triangular networks’ that would later link government, business, and civil society into unified command systems — precisely the public-private partnerships, multi-stakeholder governance structures, and UN coordination bodies that now dominate global decision-making. Global crises would serve as accelerators, creating the psychological conditions necessary for populations to accept rapid changes that would normally take decades to implement.
Writing with remarkable specificity about the timeline, Bailey stated:
Thus a great and new movement is proceeding and a tremendously increased interplay and interaction is taking place. This will go on until A.D. 2025. During the years intervening between now and then very great changes will be seen taking place, and at the great General Assembly of the Hierarchy—held as usual every century—in 2025 the date in all probability will be set for the first stage of the externalisation of the Hierarchy. The present cycle (from now until that date) is called technically ‘The Stage of the Forerunner’.
Her esoteric terminology masked what was essentially the same systems management architecture that would later emerge through McNamara’s Planning-Programming-Budgeting Systems and evolve into today’s global governance framework — the difference being that she understood it as spiritual hierarchy while technocrats would frame it as systems theory for scientific administration.
The ultimate goal was a planetary management system where unelected experts would make decisions for everyone, justified by appeals to collective good and scientific necessity. Advanced technology, data systems, and psychological techniques would monitor and shape human behavior on a global scale. Bailey wrote that a ‘decisive first stage’ of this transformation would be completed by 2025, marking the moment when this hidden network would stop working behind the scenes and begin openly directing world affairs.
In 2025, 194 nations agreed on the final wording of the core aspects of the WHO Pandemic Agreement, establishing a framework that is expected to give international health officials binding legal authority to override national governments during declared emergencies. Crucially, these ‘emergencies’ are not limited to actual disease outbreaks, but include computer-modeled hypothetical scenarios based on potential pandemic drivers — which, under the One Health framework, encompasses climate change, biodiversity loss, and virtually any environmental condition that algorithms determine might theoretically contribute to future health risks. For the first time in human history, unelected global bureaucrats gained the power to suspend individual rights based on predictive models rather than actual events.
The 78-year timeline was complete, right on schedule.
The Three-Step Transformation
The transformation required a fundamental shift in how human beings understand themselves and their relationship to authority. This shift happened in three overlapping phases, each building on the previous one to create the philosophical and practical foundations for global management.
The first phase involved removing higher truth from human consciousness. As long as people believed in God, natural rights, or moral absolutes, they would resist accepting human authority as final. The solution was a decades-long cultural campaign to convince populations that nothing exists beyond what can be measured and managed by experts. Science was transformed from a method of discovery into the ultimate moral authority, while education systems taught children that ethics were subjective opinions rather than universal truths. Once people stopped believing in transcendent sources of meaning, concepts like ‘human dignity’ became negotiable — defined by whoever controlled the institutional apparatus.
The second phase established official institutions as the only valid source of information about reality. Even without belief in higher truth, people might still think for themselves and reach different conclusions about policy or governance. The solution was to position dissent itself as a form of ignorance or extremism. Questioning official narratives became synonymous with spreading ‘dangerous misinformation’ or ‘endangering our democracy’. Media organisations, technology platforms, and academic institutions coordinated to ensure that populations heard a single, unified story on every major issue. The shift was subtle but decisive: asking questions about policy stopped being called ‘healthy skepticism’ and started being labeled immoral ‘anti-science’.
The third phase deployed the technological and legal infrastructure necessary to enforce compliance without appearing overtly totalitarian. Surveillance systems monitor behavior in real time, algorithms predict and prevent dissent before it can organise, and the eventual social credit systems reward compliance while punishing resistance. Emergency powers bypass normal democratic processes, allowing rapid implementation of restrictions that would be impossible under normal legislative procedures. People become components — cogs in the machine — designed for nothing short of maximum system efficiency.
The Timeline of Implementation
The transformation didn’t happen overnight. It followed a carefully planned sequence that can be traced through public documents, policy changes, and institutional developments over the past six decades.
The foundation was laid between 1961 and 1965 when Defense Secretary Robert McNamara introduced Planning-Programming-Budgeting Systems to the military, then President Johnson expanded this systems-based management approach across the entire federal government. This marked the moment when government stopped being primarily about serving people and started being about managing data flows and optimising systemic outcomes.
The concept of planetary management emerged between 1968 and 1972 through a series of international conferences and agreements. The UNESCO Biosphere Conference established the framework for treating Earth as a managed ecosystem requiring centralised administration. The Club of Rome formed during this period and soon published warnings of planetary collapse without coordinated global control. In a remarkable development, the United States and Soviet Union — supposedly locked in existential conflict — collaborated to create the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, who ultimately became responsible for ‘black box’ global modelling. This demonstrated that Cold War enemies could unite around planetary management objectives, later to become ‘Planetary Boundaries’, while the UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm cemented the idea that Earth needed centralised administration to prevent ecological collapse.
The 1980s and 1990s saw the conversion of ethics itself into a tool of global governance. ‘Rights and responsibilities’ frameworks began replacing absolute human rights in international law and academic discourse, with Leonard Swidler positioning these as the middle principles leading to Global Ethics. The Earth Summit embedded ‘sustainable development’ as a moral duty that could override traditional notions of sovereignty, while installing ‘soft law’ controls on carbon emission and sequestration through the UNFCCC and Convention on Biological Diversity. Global business ethics codes aligned corporate behavior with planetary goals rather than local communities or shareholders, an initiative later turbocharged as Enron collapsed in late 2001. Universities established degree programs in ‘global governance’, training the future expert class that would eventually run these systems.
Between 2001 and 2015, the philosophical groundwork was translated into operational policy. WHO ethics papers redefined ‘human dignity’ from an inherent right to something earned through compliance with collective objectives. The ‘One Health’ framework merged human, animal, and environmental governance into a single administrative domain while academic conferences and think tanks normalised the idea that individual rights could be suspended during emergencies for ‘the greater good’. By 2015, international organisations had official ethical frameworks that explicitly authorised overriding personal freedoms when experts determined it was necessary — with no realistic possibility of appeal.
The infrastructure was completed between 2015 and 2019 as surveillance systems, digital identity platforms, and emergency response protocols moved from pilot programs to operational readiness. International emergency protocols were harmonised across countries, though the details remained buried in technical annexes and working group reports that few people read. Everything was in place for activation when the right crisis presented itself.
COVID-19 provided that crisis in 2020, serving as the first global test of the new system. Emergency powers bypassed normal legislative processes, digital health passes demonstrated that populations would accept compliance-based freedoms, and government agencies, media organisations, and technology platforms operated with unprecedented coordination, seeking to censor any divergent point of view with strategic decision. The system worked exactly as designed — at least for a while, though a compliant police force was militarised against the people who objected.
Between 2021 and 2024, ‘temporary’ emergency measures became permanent features of governance. Legislative changes quietly extended emergency powers to cover climate change, artificial intelligence risks, and other global issues. International treaties and public-private partnerships fused health, finance, and environmental control into an integrated global management architecture. The pattern was established: each crisis expands the system’s reach, with climate emergencies, AI safety threats, and cybersecurity incidents already positioned as the next triggers for expanded global coordination.
The WHO Pandemic Treaty signed in 2025 represents the completion of this 78-year process. At present trajectory, international officials will eventually come to possess binding authority over national governments during declared emergencies — exactly as Bailey had outlined. The ‘externalisation’ is complete — global governance operates openly rather than behind the scenes.
The Choice Before Us
Understanding this history clarifies the choice we face. We are not heading toward this system of global management — we are already living within it, though it hasn’t yet had time to fully set. The question is whether we will accept it as inevitable and beneficial, or whether we will work to restore governance based democratic accountability while we still can.
Accepting the system means embracing a future where rights depend on compliance scores, where algorithms make decisions once reserved for human judgment, and where global bureaucrats can override local representatives whenever they declare an emergency that cannot be challenged. It means raising children who understand freedom as permission granted by authorities rather than an inherent birthright.
Rejecting the system requires rebuilding institutions based on different principles — transparency in emergency powers, genuine democratic consent for international agreements, full transparency and genuine accountability for public officials committing crimes, and recognition that human dignity cannot be conditional on compliance with expert recommendations. It means supporting alternatives that prioritise humanity over system efficiency, and teaching the next generation that rights do not derive from being well-behaved.
This is not a partisan political issue. People across the traditional political spectrum should recognise the difference between governance that serves the people and management that treats people as data points to be optimised. The system transcends conventional politics because it operates at the level of fundamental assumptions about human nature and the proper relationship between individuals and institutions.
The transformation succeeded because it happened gradually, then suddenly. For decades, each change seemed reasonable in isolation. But the cumulative effect has been to create a system where human agency is increasingly replaced by algorithmic authority, where local control gives way to global management, and where individual rights become conditional privileges.
The people who designed this transformation understood that change happens through accumulated precedents rather than dramatic reversals. They also understood that systems depend on participation. The global management apparatus requires local compliance to function effectively. This creates opportunities for resistance that don’t depend on controlling national governments or international organisations.
Every individual choice to resist redefinitions of basic concepts like freedom and dignity contributes to a larger cultural shift. Supporting businesses and organisations that operate according to human-centered rather than data-centered principles creates alternative networks. Engaging in local governance where human relationships still matter more than algorithmic optimisation builds foundations for different kinds of institutions.
The next crisis will undoubtedly be used to expand control further, just as previous crises have been. But understanding the pattern makes it possible to resist the psychological manipulation that accompanies emergency declarations. Knowing your rights before they’re suspended ‘temporarily’ — even if this is promised to be for only ‘two weeks’ — creates space for a response rather than mere reactiongloba
The 78-year plan succeeded because most people didn’t know it existed.
Now that it’s visible, the choice is ours: participate in our own management, or remember what it means to govern ourselves.
James Li investigates whether Peter Thiel is the next Epstein—exposing his ties to private islands, youth blood infusions, and surveillance tech that’s quietly taking over the US government. Thiel had financial ties with Epstein and he held academic symposiums at Epstein’s Little St. James island. Some of the girls that Epstein brought to the island reported that they were the subjects of scientific experiments.
.
Peter Thiel was the co-founder of PayPal alongside Elon Musk. He was also the first major investor in Facebook, which was introduced the same day DARPA ended its lifelog program that was a program that sought to “trace the threads of an individual’s life in terms of events, states, and relationships.” Thiel co-founded Palantir, a data analytics and surveillance company used by many government intel and military agencies, including the CIA, NSA, ICE, and the IDF. Now, Thiel, like Epstein, was reported to have hosted “debaucherous” sex parties while in his prime that were legendary in gay circles. There are no records implicating Thiel in sexual activity with underage minors or sex trafficking.
Thiel is building his own island in French Polynesia to establish a kind of a non-governmental colony.
A podcaster revealed that Thiel held academic symposiums at Epstein’s Little St. James island. Scientific experiments were reported to have been conducted on some of the young girls Epstein brought there.
Thiel is involved in transhumanism research and development and is alleged to spend $40,000 per quarter on blood transfusions from 18-year olds.
Carbyne is an Israeli tech firm that market themselves as a next-gen 911 platform with software that gives governments and agencies the ability to access individuals’ smartphones, cameras, and mics in real time and integrates biometric tracking, geolocation, and live streaming into a single feed that is sent directly to law enforcement or intelligence hubs. This company was funded by Peter Thiel, Jeffrey Epstein and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.
In 2015 and 2016, Epstein put $40 million into two funds managed by Veilar Ventures, a New York City venture capital firm that was co-founded by Peter Thiel!
Vice President JD Vance is a protege of Peter Thiel, who funded Vance’s US Senate campaign.
Brace For Soaring Electricity Bills: Biggest US Power Grid Sets Power Costs At Record High To Feed AI
Very soon if you want AI (and even if you don’t), you won’t be able to afford AC.
Just this morning we warned readers that America’s largest power grid, PJM Interconnect, which serves 65 million people across 13 states and Washington, DC, and more importantly feeds Deep State Central’s Loudoun County, Virginia, also known as ‘Data Center Alley‘ and which is recognized as one of the world’s largest hubs for data centers…
… had recently issued multiple ‘Maximum Generation‘ and ‘Load Management‘ alerts this summer, as the heat pushes power demand to the brink with air conditioners running at full blast across the eastern half of the U.S.
But as anyone who has not lived under a rock knows, the deeper issue is that there’s simply not enough baseload juice to feed the relentless, ravenous growth of power-hungry AI server racks at new data centers.
“There is simply no new capacity to meet new loads,” said Joe Bowring to Bloomberg, president of Monitoring Analytics, which is the independent watchdog for PJM Interconnection. “The solution is to make sure that people who want to build data centers are serious enough about it to bring their own generation.”
Well, there is another solution: crank up prices to the stratosphere.
And that’s precisely what happened. As Bloomberg reports, business and households supplied by the largest US grid will pay $16.1 billion to ensure there is enough electricity supply to meet soaring power demand, especially that from a massive buildout in AI data centers.
The payouts to generators for the year starting June 2026 topped last year’s record $14.7 billion, according to PJM Interconnection LLC, which operates the grid stretching from the Midwest to the mid-Atlantic. That puts the capacity price per megawatt each day at a record $329.17 from $269.92.
In response to the blowout payout, shares of Constellation Energy and Talen Energy surged in late trading in New York on Tuesday.
As millions of Americans will very soon learn the hard way, AI data centers are driving the biggest surge in US electric demand in decades, leading to higher residential utility bills. That’s a key reason why PJM’s auction, once only tracked by power traders and plant owners but now increasingly a topic for general consumption as electricity bills are about to hit an all time high, has also become closely watched by politicians and consumer advocates.
As Bloomberg notes, this is the first auction that included both a price floor and cap, setting the range at $177.24 to $329.17, which of course was the clearing price level reached in this auction. Why even bother pretending there is an auction: just set the price at the max and be done with it. Last year’s 600% jump in capacity prices set off a political firestorm, resulting in PJM reaching a settlement with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro to essentially cap gains for two years and make auction prices more predictable after wild swings in recent years.
Despite the increase in costs across the grid, the price cap trimmed costs for consumers who saw the biggest hikes in the last auction. Exelon’s Baltimore area utility reached a $466 last time, while Dominion Energy’s Virginia territory came in at about $444.
Payouts to generators stayed at high levels due to surging demand from big data centers coming online swiftly, said Jon Gordon, policy director of non-profit clean energy advocacy Advanced Energy United. New facilities are consuming as much power as towns or small cities, coinciding with a wave of older power plants shutting down and lagging investment in new supplies and grid upgrades, he said.
The per-megawatt price exceeding the 2024 auction, and well closing at an all time high, is bullish for independent power producers including NRG, Talen, Constellation and Vistra, Barclays analyst Nick Campenella had forecast. These generators have spent more than $34 billion so far this year on deals to mainly buy up power plants fueled by natural gas to feed the AI boom especially in PJM.
This week, we witnessed another sledgehammer taken to the pharmaceutical empire—not in theory, but caught in confession.
In an undercover video, a senior regulatory scientist at Johnson & Johnson admitted their COVID-19 injection was neither “safe” nor “effective.” He freely admitted they didn’t follow standard testing protocols and laughed as he confessed,
“Do you have any idea the lack of research that was done on those products? People wanted it; we gave it to them.” This 6-minute video tells it all.
Let that sink in….then share this substack and video with your family and friends that called you a conspiracy theory nut during COVID-19. This is straight from the horse’s mouth.
A scientist, hired to ensure safety and compliance, said out loud what we a were thinking: they rushed it, they skipped the testing, they released the jab on February 27, 2021.
Only 45 days later, on April 13, 2021, the FDA and CDC recommended an immediate pause in J&J shots due to rare but serious cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) combined with low platelets (TTS), primarily seen in women. After a review, the pause was lifted on April 23, 2021, with an enhanced warning added to the label.
But then, in May 2022, due to ongoing risks and concerns, the FDA narrowed the authorized age of use to individuals aged 18 and over who had no access to, or had contraindications for, the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer/Modera). As demand lessened, the remaining doses expired on May 7, 2023, and the CDC instructed providers to dispose of them, essentially removing them from the market.
However, an estimated 19 million people in the US were injected with the Johnson & Johnson jab. Many said, “I’ll take the J&J because I only have to get one shot instead of three,” assuming that was somehow less dangerous. People trusted that the shot was at least tested for safety. It was not. The product that led to myocarditis, neurological issues, menstrual disruption, and—yes—death… was pulled from the market a mere 70 days after it was unleashed on the people of the world.
And yet, J&J remains protected by the PREP Act, which grants immunity from liability, no matter how grievous the injury, unless the injured can prove the manufacturer had actually intended to harm them (called willful misconduct). The countermeasure manufacturers are protected by a piece of legislation corruptly passed into law in 2005. Further protection has been provided by the silenced media and social media censorship.
“Safe and Effective.” The Lie That Launched Millions of Injuries.
I’ve said for years that the mantra of “safe and effective” was not science—it is a slogan. Repeated. Marketed. Weaponized. And now, one of their own—an insider—confirming what many of us have been vilified for saying:
“We didn’t test it like we should’ve. But they wanted it out fast.”
What is the proper term for that? Negligence? Malpractice? Fraud?
I’ll tell you what it’s not: it’s NOT science.
The Timing Is No Coincidence.
The day after this footage dropped, Rep. Thomas Massie introduced a bill to repeal the PREP Act—the law that gave Big Pharma blanket immunity from legal consequences. Here’s the full press release of the announcement of the PREP Repeal Act. I wrote extensively about the PREP Act and the horrors of the unfunded Countermeasure Injury Compensation Program (CICP) in my book “Zero Accountability.”
Another disruptive bill was introduced on September 26, 2024 by Congressman Paul Gosar: H.R. 9828 – the End the Vaccine Carveout Act . This bill sought to repeal the liability shield currently granted to vaccine manufacturers under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA). In doing so, it would restore the right of individuals to pursue legal recourse in state or federal courts if injured by a vaccine. Word has it, this bill is going to be reintroduced sometime this fall.
The veil is thinning. Accountability is coming…and it must be carried out in the public square. If Massie’s bill passes, we may finally see justice for the families whose lives have been forever altered. It means Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna—and their enablers—could finally be put on trial. No more hiding behind emergency declarations. No more shielded boardrooms.
A second case that should be screamed about in the mainstream but is being kept under wraps is happening in a Dutch Court. The case involved Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, Ursula von der Leyen (the president of the EU), Albert Bourla (CEO of Pfizer), and Mark Rutte (Secretary General of NATO and previous prime minister of the Netherlands). All are named and accused of conspiracy, bioterrorism, and crimes against humanity. Nearly 200 documents have been entered into the court dockets. A judgement is due in six weeks. As reported by @JimFergusonUK on X.com, it could trigger criminal prosecutions of the global leaders are the highest level, perhaps at the International Criminal Court. It is being called Nuremberg 2.0. The world is watching. Justice must be served.
Where Do We Go From Here?
First, we remember.
The mandates. The lockdowns. The job losses. The silenced doctors. The ignored VAERS reports. The unfunded CICP. The injured. The families who will never be whole again. Those who died.
Second, we act.
Support this bill. Call your representatives, repeatedly. Share the video. Speak the truth, louder now than ever before.
Finally, we prepare.
The exposure of corruption doesn’t mean they’re done. It means they’re desperate. And desperate systems get reckless. We have much more work to do.
This isn’t just about J&J.
This is about restoring medical ethics, revoking blanket immunity, and rebuilding trust from the ground up.
To the injured: We see you.
To the silenced: We hear you.
To the ones who knew better and did it anyway: We’re exposing the truth—and the accountability that follows.
Author and researcher Nick Bryant said that he never saw prosecutors try so hard to throw a case as he did in the prosecution trial against Sean “Diddy” Combs. For example, he said that there were five private lawsuits filed against Diddy and two of the plaintiffs were minors when Diddy allegedly molested them, but the feds did not prosecute those cases.US Attorney Damian Williams, who was slated to prosecute Diddy’s case, resigned from office and Maureen Comey, daughter of disgraced former FBI Director James Comey, was appointed to prosecute the trial instead. Maureen Comey was also the lead prosecutor in the Epstein-Maxwell case.
Peter Soros was on a board that gave Damian Williams $90,000 to go to Yale Law School. Bryant compared to the payment for Williams’ education to the movie ‘The Departed’ that features a gangster grooming a boy from childhood to infiltrate the police department. Bryant said that he believes the hot new young socialist politicians have been funded and sent to school to do the bidding of billionaires and oligarchs.
.
Deep dive on government corruption and sex trafficking with Nick Bryant on the Michael Franzese show recorded in February 2025.
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.
Republicans can only afford to have three members vote ‘no’ to stop Trump’s “big, beautiful bill.” Representative Thomas Massie said that he is opposed to the bill that adds $20 trillion to the debt over 10 years. He said, “I don’t think he [Mr Trump] wants to talk about cutting spending.”
Trump emphasized that he does not want Medicare touched, and said that only waste, fraud and abuse would be cut. Representative Ted Lieu observed, “I don’t think the President has read the bill. He said ‘Don’t F around with Medicaid.’ The bulk of their bill messes around with Medicaid.”
Meanwhile, zero cuts were made to the Pentagon, instead, about $10 billion was funneled into it.
About 80 million Americans get Medicare and 70 million get Medicaid. Analysis from the congressional budget office shows that 7.6 million people would lose their Medicaid coverage if the current House proposal becomes law. 63% of nursing home care is funded by Medicaid. The bill would also cut 3 million people from the SNAP food stamps program.
The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that the bill as written would increase deficits by $3.8 trillion through to 2034.
.
From The Telegraph:
Donald Trump has told Republicans in Congress not to “f— around” with his “big, beautiful bill” in a closed-door meeting to quash dissent.
The US president met with GOP representatives on Tuesday, urging them to unite around the budget reconciliation bill which will be crucial to driving through his massive domestic programme.
“Don’t f— around with Medicaid,” he told fiscal conservatives, who have pushed for cuts to the programme providing health insurance to low-income Americans, while urging moderates to drop their backing for tax relief.
Tuesday’s meeting was a test of Mr Trump’s ability to enforce his will on Congress and unite warring factions of his party behind his “big, beautiful bill” on energy, tax and border security.
Although he insisted before heading into the closed-doors gathering that the party was united behind his agenda barring “one or two grandstanders”, at least eight Republicans said immediately afterwards they were still opposed.
Trump ‘losing patience’
Republicans have a razor-thin majority in the House of Representatives and can only afford to lose three votes if the bill is to pass through the chamber.
While fiscal conservatives want Medicaid cuts to limit the growth of the deficit, other Republicans have warned it would hurt the party’s popular appeal and see it lose control of the House in the mid-terms next year.
A senior White House official said Mr Trump is “losing patience with all holdout factions”, according to The Wall Street Journal. A House Republican described the US president’s attitude: “He’s done with this.”
Andy Harris of Maryland, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, which is pushing for Medicaid cuts, said he would not support the bill and that Republicans were “a long ways away” from a deal.
Chip Roy, a Texas congressman and another member of the caucus, said the bill needed to “deliver on the spending restraint” and was not “exactly where it needs to be, yet”.
Mr Trump pledged to oppose slashing the health insurance programme during his White House run last year, although he told Republicans on Tuesday that savings would be generated by addressing “waste, fraud and abuse”.
Marjorie Taylor Greene, the hardline Republican from Georgia, was one of the staunchest defenders of protecting Medicaid.
She has repeatedly warned her party that it risks losing touch with its base and on Tuesday told her colleagues that Mr Trump had not been elected to cut Medicaid, a source familiar with the meeting told The Telegraph.
Writing in The New York Times last week, Josh Hawley, the Missouri senator, said slashing the health programme would be “morally wrong and politically suicidal”.
It would mean “workers and their children will lose their health care” and end “any chance of us becoming a working-class party”, he argued.
A White House spokesman said: “President Trump and Republicans are protecting and preserving Medicaid for the Americans who the programme was intended to be a lifeline for: pregnant women, children, disabled individuals, and seniors.”
Analysis from the congressional budget office shows that 7.6 million people would lose their Medicaid coverage if the current House proposal becomes law.
Warren Davidson, an ally of Mr Trump’s, said he would vote against the bill as it stands because it “grows the deficit this Congress”.
The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that the bill as written would increase deficits by $3.8 trillion through to 2034.
Institutional investors snapped up mobile home and trailer parks during COVID, and from 2020 to 2021, they bought almost a quarter of the parks that were sold. 12 private equity firms own at least 1,200 parks nationwide. 22 million Americans live in mobile home and trailer parks and are often the last line before homelessness. Residents own their homes and pay rent on the lot; they are captives because it costs too much to leave.
Some tenants band together to get financing to buy their park. A few states are considering legislation to limit rent increases and other measures that can hurt the landlords trying to sell the parks. A critic noted that if legislators are concerned about losing affordable housing, they could work with state housing authorities to provide funding for park owners looking to expand.
Randall Smith is the founder of Alden Global Capital; Homes of America is an affiliate company that, since 2021, has spent $300 million to acquire a 138 parks across 17 states. maintenance can be deferred because the tenants have nowhere else to go.
In Michigan, a bill requiring park owners to justify rent increases above rate of inflation and limit fees landlords can charge was not passed, despite its popularity, after the Michigan Manufactured Housing Association pulled its support and it died in the Michigan State Senate. At the same time, Robbie Pratt and Anthony Antonelli, members of the Michigan Manufactured Housing Association political action committee, received large donations totalling $358,889.
Maine lawmakers consider bill to stop mobile home park sales for 3 months
State lawmakers are considering a three-month moratorium on the sale of mobile home parks, a move that could disrupt at least two pending sales in Maine.
Supporters say a pause on mobile home sales would allow lawmakers to evaluate a handful of mobile home-related bills, while also giving the residents of Friendly Village in Gorham a fair shot at purchasing their park.
But opponents argue the stoppage would infringe on the rights of private property owners, and one would-be seller said it could sink a sale that is critical to both him and his tenants.
Proposed by Sen. Chip Curry, D-Belfast, the bill would bar the sale of any mobile home park in Maine until Oct. 31. Because the bill is proposed as an emergency bill, it would go into effect immediately after passage, although it would require two-thirds majorities in both chambers.
Some supporters suggested adding an exemption for residents trying to purchase their parks, as well as an extension of the moratorium through the end of the year.
Curry told the Housing and Economic Development Committee that he updated the bill’s language after hearing for months that the state is losing affordable housing to private equity investors looking to profit “and I would argue exploitatively” from low-income Mainers.
Curry proposed the moratorium “to give us time to catch up on the regulatory environment so we can best protect our most vulnerable members of the community,” he said.
BILLS ON THE TABLE
Mobile home parks in Maine and across the country are increasingly being purchased by out-of-state investors who then raise the monthly lot rents, in some cases by two or three times, according to national data. An estimated one-fifth of Maine’s 468 licensed parks are now owned by out-of-state investors.
Following the passage of a 2023 “opportunity to purchase law,” several communities, including those in Brunswick, Bangor and Monmouth, have formed cooperatives to purchase their parks. But more than twice as many have failed, even with offers just above those of the competition.
Lawmakers are currently considering several bills to protect mobile homeowners, including one that would give residents the “right of first refusal” to purchase their park when it goes up for sale.
Another would attach a hefty per-lot fee to the purchase of a community (on top of the purchase price) to be paid to MaineHousing to replenish a statewide program designed to help residents buy their parks. Resident-owned co-ops and affordable housing groups would be exempt from the fee.
Another bill would eliminate the real estate transfer tax on sales of mobile home parks to resident buyers.
The committee tabled two similar bills Tuesday that aim to prevent sudden and dramatic lot-rent increases.
Rep. Cheryl Golek, D-Harpswell, who proposed one of the rent control bills, asked that committee members consider a freeze on mobile home rents if they decide to push her bill to next session.
“These are people’s lives that we’re talking about,” she said. “This is not a political divided issue. We have hundreds and hundreds of people begging us … to do something to protect them.”
A TALE OF TWO PARKS
Dawn Beaulieu, a resident of Friendly Village for almost 30 years, said residents plan to submit an offer Monday — one that is higher than the $22 million offer from Crown Communities, the prospective buyer.
But many sellers don’t want to give up a sure sale in favor of an offer from residents who may struggle to pull the money together.
“(The moratorium) would give us the amount of time we need to put a good faith motion forward with financing, to show them that they’re still going to get what they’re looking for,” Beaulieu said.
Nora Gosselin, director of resident acquisitions at the Cooperative Development Institute, said she’s watched the Legislature this session approach the “complicated issue of mobile home park preservation with huge creativity and thoughtfulness.” The institute assists residents who are trying to buy their parks.
The bill, she said, would weave together the committee’s work with Friendly Village’s “Herculean” organizing efforts to buy the park.
“A moratorium on large park transactions will allow the protections crafted by this committee … to kick into effect in time to benefit the almost 300 households at Friendly Village,” she said.
But Michael Oneglia, the owner of two parks in Belfast, said the bill could kill a deal that he has spent tens of thousands of dollars and more than 10 months trying to close.
Oneglia is under contract to sell Seacoast Village, a 22-lot park, and Hyland Estates, a 68-lot park, and is set to close in the coming weeks. Residents were not interested in purchasing the parks, he said, so he proceeded with a private sale.
But if the moratorium goes into effect, “I will absolutely lose my buyer,” he told the committee. “I have a personal situation where I need to sell and this will really screw things up for me and my tenants.”
If the deal falls through, Oneglia said, he would have to cut back the parks’ services to just the essentials, dramatically lowering the standard of living for his tenants, who will pay the same amount of money while he recovers from the financial hit.
“I just can’t believe we’re even at a point where we’re talking about a moratorium of the sale of a private piece of property,” he said. “It seems un-American and it’s completely inappropriate.”
‘MORE HARM THAN GOOD’
Others who opposed the moratorium bill, including many park owners like Oneglia, said a moratorium could devalue their properties and risks being an unconstitutional taking of property.
Tina Marie Smith, vice president of State Manufactured Homes in Scarborough, said the bill was “created with unsubstantiated hysteria” and that it and the provisions being considered in the other bills threaten the future of their industry.
She asked that legislators not paint all park owners with the same brush and consider families like hers who have owned the same park for generations.
