SADS, Immune System Destruction, & Jabs

Sudden Death: The No. 1 Cause of Death for Under 65s in 2021

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Mounting evidence shows the COVID shots are destroying people’s immune systems and are triggering turbo-charged cancers
  • A survey by Steve Kirsch found sudden death is the No. 1 cause of death among those under the age of 65 who got the COVID jab
  • Myocarditis as a cause of death is now registering across all age ranges but only for the vaccinated. Cardiac-related deaths are also significantly elevated among younger people (under 65) who got the jab compared to their unjabbed peers
  • Recent research shows repeated jabs trigger a switch in the types of antibodies your body produces and lower your ability to clear viruses. By switching from spike-specific neutralizing IgG antibodies to IgG4 antibodies, your body switches from tumor suppression mode into tumor progression mode
  • In addition to the potential for cancer cells to run amok, IgG4 dominance may also have severe autoimmune implications, as the COVID jab spike protein share similarities with human proteins

Evidence showing the COVID shots are a public health disaster keeps mounting. In late December 2022, Steve Kirsch1 and Jessica Rose,2 Ph.D., both published Substack articles detailing some of the latest evidence showing the shots are destroying people’s immune systems and have triggered an avalanche of turbo-charged cancers.

Kirsch’s article3 features results from a recent survey he conducted. It included four questions: age, whether the deceased was jabbed or not, year of death and cause of death. While the number of responses is low, major insights can still be gleaned by looking at the trends.

First, we have the baseline data from 2020, which show cancer was the No. 1 killer of Americans younger than 65, followed by hospital treatment for COVID. Turbo-charged cancers accounted for one-ninth of the cancer reports, and there were no reports of death from myocarditis.

Among seniors over the age of 65, preexisting conditions were the top cause of death in 2020. Cancer was second, COVID infection third and cardiac events fourth. There were no turbo-charged cancer deaths, nor any myocarditis deaths. Kirsch then gets into the differences between the vaxxed and the unvaxxed in 2021 and 2022.

What the Unvaxxed Died of in 2021 and 2022

In 2021 and 2022, the primary cause of death for people 65 and younger was hospital treatment for COVID. Incidences of sudden death, pulmonary embolism and turbo-charged cancers were all low, and there were no unknown causes of death, nor any myocarditis deaths.

record graph 1

The same went for people older than 65. Hospital treatment for COVID was the No. 1 killer. Heart attacks, turbo-charged cancer and sudden death were all low, and there were no deaths from myocarditis.

record graph 2

What the COVID-Jabbed Died of in 2021 and 2022

Among the COVID-jabbed aged 65 and younger, sudden death was the No. 1 cause of death in 2021 and 2022. The second was cardiac-related death and cancer was third. Importantly, the incidence of turbo-charged cancer among the jabbed was significant in this group, and myocarditis killed more than COVID-19.

record graph 3

Among those older than 65, cancer was the No. 1 cause of death, and the turbo-charged cancer rate is “huge compared to those without the vaccine.” Sudden death was also significantly elevated.

record graph 4

Stark Difference in Cancer Deaths Between Jabbed and Unjabbed

Kirsch summarizes the three most stunning differences between the jabbed and unjabbed:4

1.“Sudden death rates are off the charts for the vaccinated cf. unvaccinated for those <65 … It’s the #1 cause of death for this age group …

2.Myocarditis as a cause of death is registering now for both age ranges but only for the vaccinated …

3.Cardiac issues as a cause of death in vaccinated young people (<65) are significantly elevated vs. their unvaxxed peers.”

How COVID Jabs Raise Risk of Infections and Cancer

Exploding cancer rates is precisely what you would expect from a drug that impairs and destroys your immune system, which is what the COVID jabs do. The scientific paper “Innate Immune Suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccinations”5 describes how the COVID shots suppress your innate immune system by inhibiting the type-1 interferon pathway, which is the first-stage response to all viral infections.

The reason type-1 interferon is suppressed is because it responds to viral RNA, and there’s no viral RNA in the COVID shot. The RNA is modified to look like human RNA, so the interferon pathway doesn’t get triggered. As a result, the COVID jab makes you more susceptible to infections.

One mechanism by which the jab causes cancer has to do with the fact that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein obliterates 90% of the DNA repair mechanism in lymphocytes,6 a type of white blood cell that helps your body fight infections and chronic diseases such as cancer. That’s bad enough, yet that’s just one mechanism of many.

How the Jab Lowers Your Viral Clearance Capacity

Recent research7,8 also shows that repeated jabs trigger a switch in the types of antibodies your body produces and lower your ability to clear viruses. Jessica Rose reviews these findings in her Substack article:9

“A paper was published in Science Immunology on December 22, 2022 entitled: ‘Class switch towards non-inflammatory, spike-specific IgG4 antibodies after repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination’10 …

[It] explains in wonderful detail how a class of antibody that commands a non-inflammatory response (more like tolerizing) is prominent in people who have been repeatedly injected with the modified mRNA COVID-19 injectable products.

Translation: Instead of the intended pool of spike-specific neutralizing IgG antibodies being dominant in multiply-injected people, a pool of antibodies associated with spike-specific tolerance are dominant in multiply-injected people.

Besides the tolerizing capacity, they also showed that the phagocytic enabling capacities were much reduced overall. These activities lead to clearance of viral pathogens. Reduce them → reduction in viral clearance capacity …

To be clear, this wasn’t a ‘maybe the antibody profile was a little different’ … This was a ‘whoa there’s a 48,075% increase in spike-specific antibodies between the 2nd and 3rd injections …

IgG4 antibodies among all spike-specific IgG antibodies rose on average from 0.04% shortly after the second vaccination to 19.27% after the third … [I]mportantly, that is not a typical consequence of repeat antigen exposure from either natural infections and vaccination.”

Spike Overexposure Also Opens the Door for Cancer

As noted by Substack author Brian Mowrey:11

“This is a totally bonkers thing for an anti-spike-protein B cell to decide to do, and reflects B cell over-exposure to spike, which reflects super-excess production of spike by the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA code …

It is not normal to make IgG4 when repeat encounter with a virus is spaced out over a lifetime, but injection-prompted antigen exposure promotes this response, and mRNA vaccines accelerate this effect …

There is no reason to predict that this would be ‘good’ in an antiviral response … ‘Wearing out’ the immune response in this way is believed to contribute to the development of tolerance against tumors.”

So, to summarize the effects in layman’s terms, the switch from spike-specific neutralizing IgG antibodies to IgG4 antibodies switches your body from tumor suppression mode into tumor progression mode, as cancerous cells now can evade your immune system. You become “tumor tolerant” as your immune system is no longer scavenging for and eliminating cancer cells. Mowrey also points out that:12

“Once a B cell has switched to IgG4, it cannot switch to any other IgG subclass, as the genes for all those other base designs have been discarded. All future clones of this B cell will code for IgG4 receptor/antibody for the antigen in question.”

What Other Health Effects May Result?

For clarification, IgG4 is a subclass of the immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody type that responds to repeated and/or long-term exposure to an antigen. The mRNA shot evaluated here was that of Pfizer, and it was compared against Janssen’s viral vector-based shot. Moderna’s shot was not included. Notably, these results were not found among people who got Janssen’s shot, only Pfizer’s Comirnaty jab.

As noted by Rose:13

“… the bottom line here is that the Comirnaty product … induces a shift away from a viral clearing to a tolerance-inducing antibody class, and this is not the status quo for traditional vaccines or natural infections. The main problem here is … we have no idea of the effects of this ‘effect.'”

That said, we can look at what happens in people with IgG4-related disease, and start formulating hypotheses from there. As explained by Rose, a hallmark of IgG4-related disease is fibrosis, i.e., tissue scarring, which can lead to organ dysfunction, organ failure and even death if left untreated.

Rose is now researching the possible links between this antibody switching and the stringy white deposits found in COVID-jabbed people who died. Might it be a new form of connective tissue disease?

In addition to the potential for cancer cells to run amok (as discussed in the section above), IgG4 dominance may also have severe autoimmune implications seeing how the COVID jab spike protein share similarities with human proteins.

“Molecular mimicry has been shown14 in multiple publications to be a potential problem with regard to the spike protein whereby it has been shown to share motifs with human proteins,” Rose writes.15 “What this means is that autoimmunity potential against these human proteins is clear and present.

In the context of this recent publication showing a dominant IgG4 pool, I have to wonder what the implications of this dominant pool are for molecular mimicry. Are these IgG4 antibodies capable of tolerizing in the context of our own protein?”

Resources for Those Injured by the COVID Jab

If you got one or more jabs and suffered an injury, first and foremost, never ever take another COVID booster, another mRNA gene therapy shot or regular vaccine. You need to end the assault on your system.

The same goes for anyone who has taken one or more COVID jabs and had the good fortune of not experiencing debilitating side effects. Your health may still be impacted long-term, so don’t take any more shots.

When it comes to treatment, there are still more questions than answers, and most doctors are clueless about what to do — in part because they never bothered to give early treatment for COVID and therefore don’t understand how different medicines and supplements impact the spike protein.

So far, it seems like many of the treatments that worked against severe COVID-19 infection also help ameliorate adverse effects from the jab. This makes sense, as the toxic, most damaging part of the virus is the spike protein, and that’s what your whole body is producing if you got the jab.

Two doctors who have started tackling the treatment of COVID jab injuries in earnest include Dr. Michelle Perro (DrMichellePerro.com), whom I’ve interviewed on this topic, and Dr. Pierre Kory (DrPierreKory.com).

Both agree that eliminating the spike protein your body is now continuously producing is a primary task. Perro’s preferred remedy for this is hydroxychloroquine, while Kory’s is ivermectin. Both of these drugs bind and thereby facilitate the removal of spike protein.

As a member of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), Kory helped develop the FLCCC’s post-vaccine treatment protocol called I-RECOVER. Since the protocol is continuously updated as more data become available, your best bet is to download the latest version straight from the FLCCC website at covid19criticalcare.com16 (hyperlink to the correct page provided above).

The World Health Council has also published lists of remedies that can help inhibit, neutralize and eliminate spike protein. Inhibitors that prevent spike protein from binding to your cells include Prunella vulgaris, pine needle tea, emodin, neem, dandelion extract and the drug ivermectin.

Spike protein neutralizers, which prevent the spike from damaging cells, include N-acetylcysteine (NAC), glutathione, fennel tea, star anise tea, pine needle tea, St. John’s wort, comfrey tea and vitamin C. A March 2022 review paper17 suggests combating the neurotoxic effects of the spike protein using the flavonoids luteolin and quercetin.

Time-restricted eating (TRE) and/or sauna therapy can also help eliminate toxic proteins by stimulating autophagy. Several additional detox remedies can be found in “World Council for Health Reveals Spike Protein Detox.”

Other Helpful Treatments and Remedies

Other treatments and remedies that may be helpful for COVID jab injuries include:

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy, especially in cases involving stroke, heart attack, autoimmune diseases and/or neurodegenerative disorders. To learn more, see “Hyperbaric Therapy — A Vastly Underused Treatment Modality.”

Lower your Omega-6 intake. Linoleic acid is consumed in amounts ten times of ideal in well over 95% of the population and contributes to massive oxidative stress that impairs your immune response. Seed oils and processed foods need to be diligently avoided. You can review my previous post for more information.

Pharmaceutical grade methylene blue, which improves mitochondrial respiration and aid in mitochondrial repair. It’s actually the parent molecule for hydroxychloroquine. A dose of 15 to 80 milligrams a day could go a long way toward resolving some of the fatigue many suffer post-jab.

It may also be helpful in acute strokes. The primary contraindication is if you have a G6PD deficiency (a hereditary genetic condition), in which case you should not use methylene blue at all. To learn more, see “The Surprising Health Benefits of Methylene Blue.”

Near-infrared light, as it triggers production of melatonin in your mitochondria18 where you need it most. By mopping up reactive oxygen species, it too helps improve mitochondrial function and repair. Natural sunlight is 54.3% infrared radiation,19 so this treatment is available for free. For more information, see “What You Need to Know About Melatonin.”

Lumbrokinase and serrapeptidase are both fibrinolytic enzymes taken on an empty stomach one hour before or two hours after to help reduce the risk of blood clots.

from:    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/01/06/sudden-death-after-covid-shots.aspx

SADS, Jab Injuries, & Immune System Destruction

Sudden Death: The No. 1 Cause of Death for Under 65s in 2021

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked
  • Mounting evidence shows the COVID shots are destroying people’s immune systems and are triggering turbo-charged cancers
  • A survey by Steve Kirsch found sudden death is the No. 1 cause of death among those under the age of 65 who got the COVID jab
  • Myocarditis as a cause of death is now registering across all age ranges but only for the vaccinated. Cardiac-related deaths are also significantly elevated among younger people (under 65) who got the jab compared to their unjabbed peers
  • Recent research shows repeated jabs trigger a switch in the types of antibodies your body produces and lower your ability to clear viruses. By switching from spike-specific neutralizing IgG antibodies to IgG4 antibodies, your body switches from tumor suppression mode into tumor progression mode
  • In addition to the potential for cancer cells to run amok, IgG4 dominance may also have severe autoimmune implications, as the COVID jab spike protein share similarities with human proteins

Evidence showing the COVID shots are a public health disaster keeps mounting. In late December 2022, Steve Kirsch1 and Jessica Rose,2 Ph.D., both published Substack articles detailing some of the latest evidence showing the shots are destroying people’s immune systems and have triggered an avalanche of turbo-charged cancers.

Kirsch’s article3 features results from a recent survey he conducted. It included four questions: age, whether the deceased was jabbed or not, year of death and cause of death. While the number of responses is low, major insights can still be gleaned by looking at the trends.

First, we have the baseline data from 2020, which show cancer was the No. 1 killer of Americans younger than 65, followed by hospital treatment for COVID. Turbo-charged cancers accounted for one-ninth of the cancer reports, and there were no reports of death from myocarditis.

Among seniors over the age of 65, preexisting conditions were the top cause of death in 2020. Cancer was second, COVID infection third and cardiac events fourth. There were no turbo-charged cancer deaths, nor any myocarditis deaths. Kirsch then gets into the differences between the vaxxed and the unvaxxed in 2021 and 2022.

What the Unvaxxed Died of in 2021 and 2022

In 2021 and 2022, the primary cause of death for people 65 and younger was hospital treatment for COVID. Incidences of sudden death, pulmonary embolism and turbo-charged cancers were all low, and there were no unknown causes of death, nor any myocarditis deaths.

record graph 1

The same went for people older than 65. Hospital treatment for COVID was the No. 1 killer. Heart attacks, turbo-charged cancer and sudden death were all low, and there were no deaths from myocarditis.

record graph 2

What the COVID-Jabbed Died of in 2021 and 2022

Among the COVID-jabbed aged 65 and younger, sudden death was the No. 1 cause of death in 2021 and 2022. The second was cardiac-related death and cancer was third. Importantly, the incidence of turbo-charged cancer among the jabbed was significant in this group, and myocarditis killed more than COVID-19.

record graph 3

Among those older than 65, cancer was the No. 1 cause of death, and the turbo-charged cancer rate is “huge compared to those without the vaccine.” Sudden death was also significantly elevated.

record graph 4

Stark Difference in Cancer Deaths Between Jabbed and Unjabbed

Kirsch summarizes the three most stunning differences between the jabbed and unjabbed:4

1.“Sudden death rates are off the charts for the vaccinated cf. unvaccinated for those <65 … It’s the #1 cause of death for this age group …

2.Myocarditis as a cause of death is registering now for both age ranges but only for the vaccinated …

3.Cardiac issues as a cause of death in vaccinated young people (<65) are significantly elevated vs. their unvaxxed peers.”

How COVID Jabs Raise Risk of Infections and Cancer

Exploding cancer rates is precisely what you would expect from a drug that impairs and destroys your immune system, which is what the COVID jabs do. The scientific paper “Innate Immune Suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccinations”5 describes how the COVID shots suppress your innate immune system by inhibiting the type-1 interferon pathway, which is the first-stage response to all viral infections.

The reason type-1 interferon is suppressed is because it responds to viral RNA, and there’s no viral RNA in the COVID shot. The RNA is modified to look like human RNA, so the interferon pathway doesn’t get triggered. As a result, the COVID jab makes you more susceptible to infections.

One mechanism by which the jab causes cancer has to do with the fact that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein obliterates 90% of the DNA repair mechanism in lymphocytes,6 a type of white blood cell that helps your body fight infections and chronic diseases such as cancer. That’s bad enough, yet that’s just one mechanism of many.

How the Jab Lowers Your Viral Clearance Capacity

Recent research7,8 also shows that repeated jabs trigger a switch in the types of antibodies your body produces and lower your ability to clear viruses. Jessica Rose reviews these findings in her Substack article:9

“A paper was published in Science Immunology on December 22, 2022 entitled: ‘Class switch towards non-inflammatory, spike-specific IgG4 antibodies after repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination’10 …

[It] explains in wonderful detail how a class of antibody that commands a non-inflammatory response (more like tolerizing) is prominent in people who have been repeatedly injected with the modified mRNA COVID-19 injectable products.

Translation: Instead of the intended pool of spike-specific neutralizing IgG antibodies being dominant in multiply-injected people, a pool of antibodies associated with spike-specific tolerance are dominant in multiply-injected people.

Besides the tolerizing capacity, they also showed that the phagocytic enabling capacities were much reduced overall. These activities lead to clearance of viral pathogens. Reduce them → reduction in viral clearance capacity …

To be clear, this wasn’t a ‘maybe the antibody profile was a little different’ … This was a ‘whoa there’s a 48,075% increase in spike-specific antibodies between the 2nd and 3rd injections …

IgG4 antibodies among all spike-specific IgG antibodies rose on average from 0.04% shortly after the second vaccination to 19.27% after the third … [I]mportantly, that is not a typical consequence of repeat antigen exposure from either natural infections and vaccination.”

Spike Overexposure Also Opens the Door for Cancer

As noted by Substack author Brian Mowrey:11

“This is a totally bonkers thing for an anti-spike-protein B cell to decide to do, and reflects B cell over-exposure to spike, which reflects super-excess production of spike by the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA code …

It is not normal to make IgG4 when repeat encounter with a virus is spaced out over a lifetime, but injection-prompted antigen exposure promotes this response, and mRNA vaccines accelerate this effect …

There is no reason to predict that this would be ‘good’ in an antiviral response … ‘Wearing out’ the immune response in this way is believed to contribute to the development of tolerance against tumors.”

So, to summarize the effects in layman’s terms, the switch from spike-specific neutralizing IgG antibodies to IgG4 antibodies switches your body from tumor suppression mode into tumor progression mode, as cancerous cells now can evade your immune system. You become “tumor tolerant” as your immune system is no longer scavenging for and eliminating cancer cells. Mowrey also points out that:12

“Once a B cell has switched to IgG4, it cannot switch to any other IgG subclass, as the genes for all those other base designs have been discarded. All future clones of this B cell will code for IgG4 receptor/antibody for the antigen in question.”

What Other Health Effects May Result?

For clarification, IgG4 is a subclass of the immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody type that responds to repeated and/or long-term exposure to an antigen. The mRNA shot evaluated here was that of Pfizer, and it was compared against Janssen’s viral vector-based shot. Moderna’s shot was not included. Notably, these results were not found among people who got Janssen’s shot, only Pfizer’s Comirnaty jab.

As noted by Rose:13

“… the bottom line here is that the Comirnaty product … induces a shift away from a viral clearing to a tolerance-inducing antibody class, and this is not the status quo for traditional vaccines or natural infections. The main problem here is … we have no idea of the effects of this ‘effect.'”

That said, we can look at what happens in people with IgG4-related disease, and start formulating hypotheses from there. As explained by Rose, a hallmark of IgG4-related disease is fibrosis, i.e., tissue scarring, which can lead to organ dysfunction, organ failure and even death if left untreated.

Rose is now researching the possible links between this antibody switching and the stringy white deposits found in COVID-jabbed people who died. Might it be a new form of connective tissue disease?

In addition to the potential for cancer cells to run amok (as discussed in the section above), IgG4 dominance may also have severe autoimmune implications seeing how the COVID jab spike protein share similarities with human proteins.

“Molecular mimicry has been shown14 in multiple publications to be a potential problem with regard to the spike protein whereby it has been shown to share motifs with human proteins,” Rose writes.15 “What this means is that autoimmunity potential against these human proteins is clear and present.

In the context of this recent publication showing a dominant IgG4 pool, I have to wonder what the implications of this dominant pool are for molecular mimicry. Are these IgG4 antibodies capable of tolerizing in the context of our own protein?”

Resources for Those Injured by the COVID Jab

If you got one or more jabs and suffered an injury, first and foremost, never ever take another COVID booster, another mRNA gene therapy shot or regular vaccine. You need to end the assault on your system.

The same goes for anyone who has taken one or more COVID jabs and had the good fortune of not experiencing debilitating side effects. Your health may still be impacted long-term, so don’t take any more shots.

When it comes to treatment, there are still more questions than answers, and most doctors are clueless about what to do — in part because they never bothered to give early treatment for COVID and therefore don’t understand how different medicines and supplements impact the spike protein.

So far, it seems like many of the treatments that worked against severe COVID-19 infection also help ameliorate adverse effects from the jab. This makes sense, as the toxic, most damaging part of the virus is the spike protein, and that’s what your whole body is producing if you got the jab.

Two doctors who have started tackling the treatment of COVID jab injuries in earnest include Dr. Michelle Perro (DrMichellePerro.com), whom I’ve interviewed on this topic, and Dr. Pierre Kory (DrPierreKory.com).

Both agree that eliminating the spike protein your body is now continuously producing is a primary task. Perro’s preferred remedy for this is hydroxychloroquine, while Kory’s is ivermectin. Both of these drugs bind and thereby facilitate the removal of spike protein.

As a member of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), Kory helped develop the FLCCC’s post-vaccine treatment protocol called I-RECOVER. Since the protocol is continuously updated as more data become available, your best bet is to download the latest version straight from the FLCCC website at covid19criticalcare.com16 (hyperlink to the correct page provided above).

The World Health Council has also published lists of remedies that can help inhibit, neutralize and eliminate spike protein. Inhibitors that prevent spike protein from binding to your cells include Prunella vulgaris, pine needle tea, emodin, neem, dandelion extract and the drug ivermectin.

Spike protein neutralizers, which prevent the spike from damaging cells, include N-acetylcysteine (NAC), glutathione, fennel tea, star anise tea, pine needle tea, St. John’s wort, comfrey tea and vitamin C. A March 2022 review paper17 suggests combating the neurotoxic effects of the spike protein using the flavonoids luteolin and quercetin.

Time-restricted eating (TRE) and/or sauna therapy can also help eliminate toxic proteins by stimulating autophagy. Several additional detox remedies can be found in “World Council for Health Reveals Spike Protein Detox.”

Other Helpful Treatments and Remedies

Other treatments and remedies that may be helpful for COVID jab injuries include:

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy, especially in cases involving stroke, heart attack, autoimmune diseases and/or neurodegenerative disorders. To learn more, see “Hyperbaric Therapy — A Vastly Underused Treatment Modality.”

Lower your Omega-6 intake. Linoleic acid is consumed in amounts ten times of ideal in well over 95% of the population and contributes to massive oxidative stress that impairs your immune response. Seed oils and processed foods need to be diligently avoided. You can review my previous post for more information.

Pharmaceutical grade methylene blue, which improves mitochondrial respiration and aid in mitochondrial repair. It’s actually the parent molecule for hydroxychloroquine. A dose of 15 to 80 milligrams a day could go a long way toward resolving some of the fatigue many suffer post-jab.

It may also be helpful in acute strokes. The primary contraindication is if you have a G6PD deficiency (a hereditary genetic condition), in which case you should not use methylene blue at all. To learn more, see “The Surprising Health Benefits of Methylene Blue.”

Near-infrared light, as it triggers production of melatonin in your mitochondria18 where you need it most. By mopping up reactive oxygen species, it too helps improve mitochondrial function and repair. Natural sunlight is 54.3% infrared radiation,19 so this treatment is available for free. For more information, see “What You Need to Know About Melatonin.”

Lumbrokinase and serrapeptidase are both fibrinolytic enzymes taken on an empty stomach one hour before or two hours after to help reduce the risk of blood clots

from:    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/01/06/sudden-death-after-covid-shots.aspx

What’s In Your Head?

How Wireless Headphones Could Lead to Neurological Disorders

Wireless headphones, like Apple’s popular AirPods, could be dangerous to human health, according to a petition signed by 250 scientists.

Story at a glance:

  • Wireless headphones, like Apple’s popular AirPods, could be dangerous to human health, according to a petition signed by 250 scientists.
  • The petition to the United Nations (U.N.), led by the International Electromagnetic Field Alliance takes aim at nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs), which are used by AirPods and other Bluetooth devices, as well as cellphones and Wi-Fi, which emit radiofrequency radiation (RFR).
  • The devices, which include not only AirPods but also other wireless Bluetooth headphones, communicate with one another by sending a magnetic field through your brain.
  • One scientist who signed the petition believes the use of earbuds is akin to a giant experiment and could increase your risk of neurological disorders.

Wireless headphones, like Apple’s popular AirPods, could be dangerous to human health, according to a petition signed by 250 scientists.

The devices, which include not only AirPods but also other wireless Bluetooth headphones, bring a new level of function and convenience to those looking to listen to music, podcasts, audiobooks and more while on the go.

Since their introduction, more than 44 million AirPods have been sold, with another 55 million predicted to be sold in 2019 alone. Forecasts were that 80 million would be sold in 2020, but when the final tally came in, they actually hit over 100 million.

It’s an undeniably alluring bit of technology — one that was further made into a “necessity” of sorts when Apple removed the headphone jack from its iPhone 7 — but it’s one that may come at a steep price.

The petition to the United Nations (U.N.), led by the International Electromagnetic Field Alliance, takes aim at both nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs), which are used by AirPods and other Bluetooth devices, as well as cellphones and Wi-Fi, which emit radiofrequency radiation.

Scientists warn of danger from EMFs

The petition, which was originally released in 2015 and updated in 2019, is an international appeal from scientists who work closely in the study of the health effects of nonionizing EMF.

For decades, the industry has claimed that nonionizing radiation is harmless and the only radiation worth worrying about is ionizing radiation.

On the contrary, the scientists state:

“Based upon peer-reviewed, published research, we have serious concerns regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices.

“These include — but are not limited to — radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitting devices, such as cellular and cordless phones and their base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, smart meters and baby monitors as well as electric devices and infrastructures used in the delivery of electricity that generate extremely low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF EMF).”

Noting the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s classification of EMF as a possible human carcinogen, they also stated numerous scientific publications show EMF affects organisms at levels “well below” most international and national guidelines.

Among the potential risks of exposure include:

  • Cancer.
  • Cellular stress.
  • Increase in harmful free radicals.
  • Genetic damages.
  • Structural and functional changes in the reproductive system.
  • Learning and memory deficits.
  • Neurological disorders.
  • Negative impacts on general well-being.

By failing to take action, the petition states, the World Health Organization is “failing to fulfill its role as the pre-eminent international public health agency,” adding that damage from EMF “goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”

Why wireless earbuds could be particularly problematic

Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley and one of the petition’s signers, explained that earbud technology is so new that research hasn’t yet been done to detail what effects it could have on the brain.

However, he stated in a news release, “I couldn’t imagine it’s all that great for you,” noting that AirPods “communicate with one another using a magnetic induction field, a variable magnetic field [one] sends through your brain to communicate with the other.”

Bluetooth technology like that used by AirPods is typically low intensity, but it’s the close proximity to your brain that could make earbuds particularly dangerous, especially since they tend to be used for longer periods.

Moskowitz said the technology could “open the blood-brain barrier, which evolved to keep large molecules out of the brain.”

He believes that with earbuds, exposure leading to neurological disorders and diseases may be more likely than cancer.

“From a precautionary standpoint, I would argue you shouldn’t experiment with your brain like this by keeping these kinds of wireless headphones on your head or in your ears,” Moskowitz said in a news release.

“You’re conducting a health experiment on yourself, and current regulations are completely oblivious to these kinds of exposures.”

EMFs may damage your cells by causing excessive free radicals

Martin Pall, Ph.D., professor emeritus at Washington State University, is another one of the scientists who signed the petition.

He discovered more than two dozen bodies of research asserting that EMFs work by activating voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs), which are located in the outer membrane of your cells.

Once activated, they allow a tremendous influx of calcium into the cell — about 1 million calcium ions per second per VGCC. When there’s excess calcium in the cell, it increases levels of both nitric oxide (NO) and superoxide.

While NO has many beneficial health effects, massively excessive amounts of it react with superoxide, forming peroxynitrite, which is an extremely potent oxidant stressor.

Peroxynitrites, in turn, break down to form reactive free radicals, both reactive nitrogen species and reactive oxygen species, including hydroxyl radicals, carbonate radicals and NO2 radicals — all three of which do damage. Peroxynitrites also do their own damage.

EMFs are not, therefore, causing damage by having a thermal influence or heating your tissues; they are not “cooking” your cells as some suggest.

Rather, EMF radiation activates the VGCCs in the outer cell membrane, triggering a chain reaction of devastating events that, ultimately:

  • Decimates your mitochondrial function, cell membranes and cellular proteins
  • Causes severe cellular damage
  • Results in DNA breaks
  • Dramatically accelerates your aging process
  • Puts you at higher risk for chronic disease

Like Moskowitz, Pall believes consequences of chronic EMF exposure to the brain can include neurological changes leading to anxiety, depression, autism and Alzheimer’s disease.

Further, it’s known that elevated VGCC activity in certain parts of the brain produces a variety of neuropsychiatric effects.

According to Pall:

“I reviewed a [large number] of studies on various kinds of EMF exposures, each of them showing neuropsychiatric effects. What you find is that these effects have been repeated many times in these epidemiological studies.

“It’s the same thing that everybody’s complaining about, ‘I’m tired all the time,’ ‘I can’t sleep,’ ‘I can’t concentrate,’ ‘I’m depressed,’ ‘I’m anxious all the time,’ ‘My memory doesn’t work well anymore.’ All the things everybody’s complaining about.

“We know all those things are caused by EMF exposures. There’s no doubt about that. Because we know their effects on the brain, we know that the VGCCs’ excessive activity can produce various neuropsychiatric problems.”

Download the interview transcript

Nine measures to protect human health from EMFs requested

In their petition to the U.N., the scientists state there are inadequate nonionizing EMF guidelines on an international level, and the agencies responsible have failed to create and impose sufficient guidelines and safety standards to protect public health and populations that may be especially vulnerable to EMF, such as children.

They’re calling for the United Nations Environmental Programme to fund an independent multidisciplinary committee to figure out ways to lower human exposure to RFR and ELF, noting that while industry should cooperate in this process, they should not be allowed to bias the findings.

They also made the following nine requests regarding EMF:

  1. Children and pregnant women be protected.
  2. Guidelines and regulatory standards be strengthened.
  3. Manufacturers be encouraged to develop safer technology.
  4. Utilities responsible for the generation, transmission, distribution and monitoring of electricity maintain adequate power quality and ensure proper electrical wiring to minimize harmful ground current.
  5. The public be fully informed about the potential health risks from electromagnetic energy and taught harm-reduction strategies.
  6. Medical professionals be educated about the biological effects of electromagnetic energy and be provided training on treatment of patients with electromagnetic sensitivity.
  7. Governments fund training and research on electromagnetic fields and health that are independent of industry, and mandate industry cooperation with researchers.
  8. Media disclose experts’ financial relationships with industry when citing their opinions regarding health and safety aspects of EMF-emitting technologies.
  9. White-zones (radiation-free areas) be established.

Protections needed before 5G technology becomes widespread

The scientists’ petition is a somber warning as 5G, or “5th Generation,” networks continue to roll out. Unlike the “4th Generation” (4G) technology currently in use, which relies on huge 90-foot cell towers with about a dozen antenna ports on each, the 5G system uses “small cell” facilities or bases, each with about 100 antenna ports each.

Expected to be 10 to 100 times faster than 4G technology and capable of supporting at least 100 billion devices, 5G relies primarily on the bandwidth of the millimeter wave (MMW), which is between 30GHz and 300GHz, according to EMF coach and author Lloyd Burrell.

MMWs have not been widely used before, but there are some concerning findings to date, including that sweat ducts in human skin act as antennae when they come in contact with MMWs.

In addition, there is a possibility the technology could worsen the problems with antibiotic-resistant bacteria already plaguing the world, as they cause changes in E. coli and many other bacteria, depressing their growth and changing properties and activity.

This also raises concerns that the technology could lead to similar changes in human cells.

According to researchers in the journal Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology:

“MMW … or electromagnetic fields of extremely high frequencies at low intensity is a new environmental factor, the level of which is increased as technology advances. It is of interest that bacteria and other cells might communicate with each other by electromagnetic field of sub-extremely high-frequency range …

“[T]he combined action of MMW and antibiotics resulted with more strong effects. These effects are of significance for understanding changed metabolic pathways and distinguish [sic] role of bacteria in environment; they might be leading to antibiotic resistance in bacteria.

Studies have even shown that MMWs may invoke stress protein changes in plants such as wheat shoots, while low levels of nonionizing radiation have been linked to disturbances and health problems in birds and bees.

Skip the earbuds — and other tips to lower your EMF exposure

It’s clear that when it comes to the use of earbuds, the use of the precautionary principle is warranted. Don’t become part of the experiment — skip earbuds and listen to your media content the “old-fashioned” way instead.

Apart from that, here are 18 more suggestions that will help reduce your EMF exposure and help mitigate damage from unavoidable exposures.

1. Identify major sources of EMF, such as your cellphone, cordless phones, Wi-Fi routers, Bluetooth headsets and other Bluetooth-equipped items, wireless mice, keyboards, smart thermostats, baby monitors, smart meters and the microwave in your kitchen.

Ideally, address each source and determine how you can best limit their use. Barring a life-threatening emergency, children should not use a cellphone or a wireless device of any type. Children are far more vulnerable to cellphone radiation than adults due to having thinner skull bones, and developing immune systems and brains.

2. Connect your desktop computer to the internet via a wired Ethernet connection and be sure to put your desktop in airplane mode. Also avoid wireless keyboards, trackballs, mice, game systems, printers and portable house phones. Opt for the wired versions.

3. If you must use Wi-Fi, shut it off when not in use, especially at night when you are sleeping. Ideally, work toward hardwiring your house so you can eliminate Wi-Fi altogether. If you have a notebook without any Ethernet ports, a USB Ethernet adapter will allow you to connect to the internet with a wired connection.

4. Avoid using wireless chargers for your cellphone, as they too will increase EMFs throughout your home. Wireless charging is also far less energy efficient than using a dongle attached to a power plug, as it draws continuous power (and emits EMFs) whether you’re using it or not.

According to Venkat Srinivasan, director of Argonne Collaborative Center for Energy Storage Science, keeping your cellphone or tablet fully charged at all times will also reduce the life of the battery, which will necessitate the purchase of a brand-new phone.

As a lithium-ion battery charges and discharges, ions pass between a positive electrode and a negative electrode. The higher the battery is charged the faster the ions degrade, so it’s better to cycle between 45% and 55%.

5. Shut off the electricity to your bedroom at night. This typically works to reduce electrical fields from the wires in your wall unless there is an adjoining room next to your bedroom. If that is the case you will need to use a meter to determine if you also need to turn off power in the adjacent room.

6. Use a battery-powered alarm clock, ideally one without any light. I use a talking clock for the visually impaired.

7. If you still use a microwave oven, consider replacing it with a steam convection oven, which will heat your food as quickly and far more safely.

8. Avoid using “smart” appliances and thermostats that depend on wireless signaling. This would include all new “smart” TVs. They are called smart because they emit a Wi-Fi signal and, unlike your computer, you cannot shut the Wi-Fi signal off. Consider using a large computer monitor as your TV instead, as they don’t emit Wi-Fi.

9. Refuse a smart meter on your home as long as you can, or add a shield to an existing smart meter, some of which have been shown to reduce radiation by 98% to 99%.

10. Consider moving your baby’s bed into your room instead of using a wireless baby monitor. Alternatively, use a hard-wired monitor.

11. Replace CFL bulbs with incandescent bulbs. Ideally, remove all fluorescent lights from your house. Not only do they emit unhealthy light, but more importantly, they will actually transfer current to your body just being close to the bulbs.

12. Avoid carrying your cellphone on your body unless in airplane mode and never sleep with it in your bedroom unless it is in airplane mode. Even in airplane mode it can emit signals, which is why I put my phone in a Faraday bag.

13. When using your cellphone, use the speaker phone and hold the phone at least 3 feet away from you. Seek to radically decrease your time on the cellphone. Instead, use VoIP software phones that you can use while connected to the internet via a wired connection.

14. Avoid using your cellphone and other electronic devices at least an hour (preferably several) before bed, as the blue light from the screen and EMFs both inhibit melatonin production.

15. Since we now know the effects of EMFs are reduced by calcium-channel blockers, make sure you’re getting enough magnesium. Most people are deficient in magnesium, which will worsen the impact of EMFs.

16. Pall has published a paper suggesting that raising your level of Nrf2 may help ameliorate EMF damage. One simple way to activate Nrf2 is to consume Nrf2-boosting food compounds.

Examples include sulforaphane-containing cruciferous vegetables, foods high in phenolic antioxidants, the long-chained omega-3 fats DHA and EPA, carotenoids (especially lycopene), sulfur compounds from allium vegetables, isothiocyanates from the cabbage group and terpenoid-rich foods.

Exercise, calorie restriction (such as intermittent fasting) and activating the nitric oxide signaling pathway (one way of doing that is the Nitric Oxide Dump exercise) will also raise Nrf2.

17. Molecular hydrogen has been shown to target free radicals produced in response to radiation, such as peroxynitrites. Studies have shown molecular hydrogen can mitigate about 80% of this damage.

18. Certain spices may help prevent or repair damage from peroxynitrites. Spices rich in phenolics, specifically cinnamon, cloves, ginger root, rosemary and turmeric, have exhibited some protective effects against peroxynitrite-induced damage.

Originally published by Mercola.

from:    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/wireless-headphones-apple-airpods-neurological-disorders-cola/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=d00ea2b9-61c1-464c-a072-cc7b9e0cdd1a

Rethinking Colonoscopy

Colonoscopies Fail to Reduce Colorectal-Related Deaths

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked
October 20, 2022 

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • A landmark study published in The New England Journal of Medicine found the “benefits” of colonoscopies are not as great as they’re made out to be
  • After 10 years, those who were invited to get colonoscopies had an 18% lower risk of colorectal cancer than the unscreened group
  • There was no statistically significant reduction in the risk of death from colorectal cancer in the group invited to screening compared to those who were not screened
  • Colonoscopy may, in practice, reduce colorectal cancer risk similarly to other less expensive, and less invasive, screenings, including fecal testing
  • Colonoscopies can cause serious adverse events, including death, bleeding after removal of a precancerous polyp and perforation

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends adults between the ages of 45 and 75 be screened for colorectal cancer every 10 years.1 As a result, about 15 million colonoscopies are performed every year in the U.S.2 The procedure, which involves extensive preparation and comes with considerable risks — include the risk of death — is touted as a key way to prevent colorectal cancer deaths.

However, as noted in a landmark study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, “Although colonoscopy is widely used as a screening test to detect colorectal cancer, its effect on the risks of colorectal cancer and related death is unclear.”3 The researchers set out to determine if the benefits of colonoscopies are as great as they’re made out to be — and found that they’re far from it.

Even study author Dr. Michael Bretthauer, a gastroenterologist with the University of Oslo in Norway, stated, “[W]e may have oversold the message for the last 10 years or so, and we have to wind it back a little.”

Study: Colonoscopies Don’t Reduce Cancer Deaths

The Northern-European Initiative on Colon Cancer (NordICC) study — a randomized trial involving 84,585 adults between 55 and 64 years of age — assigned participants in a 1-to-2 ratio to receive an invitation to undergo a colonoscopy or to receive no invitation or screening. None of the participants had gotten a colonoscopy previously.

After 10 years, those who were invited to get colonoscopies had an 18% lower risk of colorectal cancer than the unscreened group.4 However, there was no statistically significant reduction in the risk of death from colorectal cancer in the group invited to screening. The researchers intend to follow the participants for another five years to see if anything changes, but according to the study:5

“The risk of death from colorectal cancer was 0.28% in the invited group and 0.31% in the usual-care group … The number needed to invite to undergo screening to prevent one case of colorectal cancer was 455 … The risk of death from any cause was 11.03% in the invited group and 11.04% in the usual-care group.”

There were some limitations to the study, including a low uptake rate for those invited to get a colonoscopy. Only 42% of those invited to do the procedure actually did so. When the researchers analyzed the results based only on those who received colonoscopies, the procedure reduced the risk of colorectal cancer by 31% and reduced the risk of dying from colorectal cancer by 50%.6

Still, speaking with STAT News, Dr. Samir Gupta, a gastroenterologist who was not involved with the study, noted, “This is a landmark study. It’s the first randomized trial showing outcomes of exposing people to colonoscopy screening versus no colonoscopy. And I think we were all expecting colonoscopy to do better. Maybe colonoscopy isn’t as good as we always thought it is.”7

Colonoscopy ‘Not the Magic Bullet We Thought It Was’

According to the American Cancer Society, in 2022 there will be 106,180 new cases of colon cancer diagnosed and 44,850 new cases of rectal cancer.8 The two types are grouped together — collectively known as colorectal cancer — since they have many of the same characteristics.

The rate of people being diagnosed with either colon or rectal cancers has gone down since the 1980s. The American Cancer Society (ACS) attributes this to changes in lifestyle as well as more people getting screened.9 The death rate from colorectal cancer has also decreased over several decades — a decline that ACS again attributes to screening, as well as colorectal cancer treatments.

“One reason is that colorectal polyps are now being found more often by screening and removed before they can develop into cancers,” ACS notes.10 However, the featured study makes it clear that colonoscopies’ benefits may have been overstated. Bretthauer told STAT News:11

“It’s not the magic bullet we thought it was. I think we may have oversold colonoscopy. If you look at what the gastroenterology societies say, and I’m one myself so these are my people, we talked about 70, 80, or even 90% reduction in colon cancer if everyone went for colonoscopy. That’s not what these data show.”

Bretthauer suggested colonoscopy may, in practice, reduce colorectal cancer risk by 20% or 30%, which is close to reductions offered by other less expensive, and less invasive, screenings, including fecal testing. Bretthauer told STAT News:12

“That raises an important point for policymakers … Colonoscopy is more expensive, more time-intensive, and more unpleasant in preparation for patients. Many European countries balked at putting public health dollars towards a large, expensive program, he said, when the fecal testing was cheaper, easier, and had greater uptake in certain studies.

‘Now, the European approach makes much more sense. It’s not only cheaper, but maybe equally effective.’”

Do the Benefits Outweigh the Risks?

In 2019, the BMJ published clinical practice guidelines13 for colorectal cancer screening using a stool test — known as the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) — a single colonoscopy or a single sigmoidoscopy. A sigmoidoscopy is similar to a colonoscopy but less extensive and less invasive. During a colonoscopy, your entire large intestine is examined, while a sigmoidoscopy only checks the lower part of your colon.

The practice guidelines recommend physicians use a tool to estimate an individual’s potential risk for developing colorectal cancer in the next 15 years. The team recommends that only those who have a risk of 3% or greater should undergo screening tests, choosing from one of four screening options.

This included a FIT done every year or a FIT done every two years depending on risk factors. Patients may also choose a single sigmoidoscopy or, the weakest recommendation from the team, a single colonoscopy.

However, the team determined that the risks associated with colorectal cancer screening outweighed the benefits in many cases. For instance, the risk of death from a colonoscopy from one source was 1 in 16,318 procedures evaluated.14

In the same analysis, the researchers also found 82 suffered serious complications. Another analysis found a death rate of 3 per 100,000 colonoscopies, along with serious adverse events in 44 per 10,000, “with a number needed to harm of 225.”15

Colonoscopies Carry Significant Risks

For any medical procedure, the benefits must outweigh the risks to the patient. But depending on your risk factors, it’s possible that colonoscopy could cause more harm than good. Aside from the risk of death, additional concerning risks include perforation and bleeding after removal of a precancerous polyp.

A systematic review and meta-analysis found the risk of perforation after colonoscopy was about 6 per 10,000 while the risk of bleeding was about 24 per 10,000 procedures.16 However, the risks can vary significantly depending on where the procedure is performed.

The risk of perforation at Baylor University Medical Center, according to one study, was 0.57 per 1,000 procedures or 1 in 1750 colonoscopies.17 In a report published in Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, it’s explained:18

“The frequency of complications is dependent on the skill of physicians doing the procedure, on safeguards that are in place within the laboratory where the procedure is carried out, and whether colonoscopy is done for screening or for diagnostic or therapeutic indications.

Major complications include adverse sedation or anesthetic events including aspiration pneumonia, post-polypectomy bleeding, diverticulitis, intraperitoneal hemorrhage, and colonic perforation.”

Improper Equipment Sterilization Is Dangerous

Another risk factor that varies from clinic to clinic has to do with how well the equipment is sterilized. David Lewis, Ph.D., and I discuss this in the short video above. One issue is the inability to thoroughly clean the inside of the scope.

One common issue is that, during the examination, the physician may be unable to see through the scope and is unsuccessful in the attempt to flush it using the air/water channel as it is clogged with human tissue from a past exam. The scope must be retracted and another one used. Since endoscopes have sensitive equipment attached, they cannot be heat sterilized.

Unfortunately, manufacturers have not been made to produce a scope with the ability to be heat sterilized. As Lewis points out in the video, “We can put a Rover on Mars, surely we can build a flexible endoscope that we can put in an autoclave.” These expensive tools are not disposable but require sterilization between each patient.

Lewis reports that up to 80% of hospitals are sterilizing the flexible endoscopes with glutaraldehyde (Cidex). On testing, he finds this has complicated the process as it does not dissolve tissue in the endoscope but rather preserves it.

When sharp biopsy tools are run through the tube, patient material from past testing is scraped off and potentially carried into your body. This is why it’s important to find a clinic or hospital that uses peracetic acid to thoroughly sterilize the equipment by dissolving proteins found in the flexible endoscopes. Before scheduling any endoscopic examination call to ask how the equipment is sterilized between patients.

Most Colorectal Cancer Cases Are Related to Diet

Aside from skin cancer, colorectal cancer is the third most common type of cancer in the U.S., as well as the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths.19 It’s wise to take steps to reduce your risk, and lifestyle changes can be quite effective. In fact, lifestyle factors, including dietary choices, play a major role in the occurrence and progression of colorectal cancer,20 with only an estimated 20% of cases caused by genetic factors with the remainder due to environmental factors.

Up to 70% of colorectal cancer (CRC) cases are believed to be related to diet, leading researchers with the University of South Carolina School of Medicine to state:21

“As such, bioactive food components offer exciting possibilities for chemoprevention due to their potential to target many factors associated with the development and progression of CRC. Furthermore, the ability of bioactive food components to elicit tumoricidal effects without displaying the high toxicity exhibited by standard pharmacological interventions may translate to improved quality of life and survival in patients with cancer.”

For instance, emodin, which is found in Chinese rhubarb as well as in aloe vera, giant knotweed, the herb Polygonum multiflorum (tuber fleeceflower) and Polygonum cuspidatum (Japanese knotweed), may help prevent colorectal disease due to impressive therapeutic effects, including anti-inflammatory and antitumor properties.22

Fermented foods are also gaining recognition as an important dietary anticancer adjunct. The beneficial bacteria found in fermented foods have been shown particularly effective for suppressing colon cancer. For example, butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid created when microbes ferment dietary fiber in your gut, has been shown to induce programmed cell death of colon cancer cells.23

Other strategies to help prevent colorectal cancer include eating more fiber, optimizing vitamin D, avoiding processed meat, maintaining a normal weight and controlling belly fat. In a larger sense, researchers have demonstrated that cancer is likely a metabolic disease controlled in part by dysfunctional mitochondria.

You can optimize your mitochondrial health through cyclical nutritional ketosis, calorie restriction, meal timing, exercise and normalizing your iron level. All of these lifestyle factors play a role in keeping your body healthy and disease-free.

from:    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/10/20/colonoscopies-carry-significant-risks.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art2ReadMore&cid=20221020&cid=DM1269224&bid=1625169157

Declining Birth Rates – Bioweapons – Jabbing

Regression of Humanity, How Big Pharma Is Risking Everything

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked
October 21, 2022 
covid vaccines bioweapons

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Media are reporting that pregnancy complications have spiked during the COVID pandemic, but claim the cause is unknown
  • Most blame the virus itself. But even then, they fail to address the fact that it’s the spike protein that is the most likely culprit. The obvious reason for that is because the spike protein is also what your body produces in response to the COVID shots
  • Around the world, women are reporting abnormal menses and vaginal hemorrhaging, both post-COVID and after exposure to the jab or someone who got the shot. Birth rates have significantly dropped, and we’re seeing upticks in preeclampsia, miscarriages, premature births and early puberty, as well as maternal and infant deaths
  • Despite the clear risks of vaccinating during pregnancy, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a whooping cough vaccine for newborns that is given to mothers in the third trimester. This is the first vaccine aimed at infants that is to be preemptively given to the mother during pregnancy
  • While U.S. media celebrated the FDA’s authorization of COVID shots for infants under the age of 5 last summer, European countries had long since stopped caring about the pandemic, and the head of public health in Denmark admitted it was a mistake to vaccinate children between the ages of 5 and 11

As soon as it was announced that COVID-19 would be combated with novel mRNA gene transfer technology, a number of scientists spoke out against it with dire warnings about potential health ramifications, including the theory that fertility might be adversely impacted.

In the two years since the rollout of these COVID shots, our worst fears have come true. Still, mainstream media feign surprise. Case in point: The Washington Post recently reported that “Pregnancy complications spiked during the pandemic” and “no one knows exactly why.”1

Aside from COVID-19 itself, the COVID shots are the only thing that has impacted a vast majority of the population worldwide during this timeframe, and everywhere the same effects are reported. To claim “no one knows why” is to ignore the proverbial elephant in the room as its tail is swatting you in the face and its trumpet sound threatens to shatter your eardrums.

Both Virus and Shots May Have Similar Impacts on Pregnancy

The Washington Post seems to go out of its way to not implicate the COVID shots, laying all the blame on the virus itself. But even then, they fail to address the fact that it’s the spike protein that is the most likely culprit. The obvious reason for that is because the spike protein is also what your body produces in response to the COVID shots.

However, when you read things like, “last fall and winter, Amy Heerema McKenney, a Cleveland Clinic pathologist … began receiving eerily similar reports of stillbirths,” you realize that “last fall and winter” refers to the winter of 2021, not 2020 or 2019.mR

In other words, we’re talking about a time when most people had received one or more mRNA shots, while the virus itself had mutated into milder forms that were rarely associated with severe blood clotting issues and other anomalies.

That said, it’s by no means impossible that SARS-CoV-2, even in its milder expressions, might have an adverse impact on pregnancy. After all, we’re likely talking about a genetically engineered bioweapon.

The respiratory effects may have mutated to be less severe while other organs may still be more adversely impacted by the spike protein. We also have the “shedding” issue to contend with, so just because a woman is unjabbed doesn’t mean she’s not affected by COVID jab spike protein.

Unique Damage to the Placenta

The Washington Post goes on to describe what McKenney was finding in the winter of 2021:

“Almost as soon as she began looking into [the stillbirths], Heerema McKenney recalled, she became ‘pretty panicked.’ A normal placenta is spongy and dark, reflecting the nourishing blood flowing through it. The ones she was looking at in her lab from the mothers who lost their babies were like nothing she had ever seen before: firm, scarred and more of a shade of tan.

‘The degree of devastation was unique,’ she said. Flipping through case files, she noted that most of the women were in their second trimester, unvaccinated or only partially vaccinated, and infected with the coronavirus within a two-week window before their pregnancies ending.

Heerema McKenney herself saw fewer than 20 potentially coronavirus-related stillbirths over about six months. But her findings matched up with cases colleagues were seeing in other parts of the world.

And they also echoed those in a paper from Ireland that looked at seven cases — six stillbirths and one second-trimester fetal death in pregnant people infected with the coronavirus — resulting from what the authors called ‘a readily recognizable pattern of placental injury.’ She said, ‘That’s when we realized we were all looking at the same thing.’”

While McKenney claims most were either unjabbed or partially jabbed, other evidence clearly implicate the COVID shots. For example, in November 2021, Lions Gate Hospital in North Vancouver, British Columbia (BC), delivered an astonishing 13 stillborn babies in a 24-hour period, and all of the mothers had received the COVID jab.2 In a typical month, there may be one stillborn baby at the hospital, making 13 stillbirths in 24 hours highly unusual.

Types of Pregnancy Complications on the Rise

That something is terribly wrong is clear from global statistics. Around the world, women are reporting abnormal menses3 and vaginal hemorrhaging,4 both post-COVID5 and after exposure to the jab6,7 or someone who got the shot. Birth rates have significantly dropped, and we’re seeing significant upticks in preeclampsia,8 miscarriages,9,10,11,12,13 premature births,14 early puberty, as well as maternal and infant deaths.

According to a research letter15 in JAMA published in late June 2022, maternal deaths in the U.S. rose from 18.8 per 100,000 live births prepandemic, to 25.1 per 100,000 live births during the second, third and fourth quarters of 2020, a relative increase of 33.3%.

That increase can be attributed to COVID-19, since no COVID shots were available in 2020. We don’t yet have the statistics for 2021 and 2022, but based on obituaries and social media posts, it seems many new mothers are now dying “suddenly” and for no apparent reason. Time will tell, but I doubt the trend has gotten any better after the rollout of the COVID shots for pregnant women.

More Vaccines for Pregnant Women

Despite the clear risks of vaccinating during pregnancy, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently approved a whooping cough vaccine for newborns that is given to mothers in the third trimester. This is the first vaccine aimed at infants that is to be preemptively given to the mother during pregnancy. According to Pharmacy Times:16

“Since children aged 2 months of age or younger are not eligible to receive an actual vaccine themselves, administering the Tdap vaccine to the mother can boost the infant’s immune system by boosting antibodies in the mother, who then transfers the antibodies to the developing fetus …

According to the CDC, although only 4.2% of US cases occur in this age group, 31% of infants who contract the disease who are also younger than 6 months go to the hospital due to the illness.”

Swedish Journalist Critiques American Reporting

In an early October 2022 commentary in the Swedish newspaper Sydsvenskan,17,18 journalist and author Johan Anderberg expressed being perplexed by The New York Times’ jubilant announcement this past summer that toddlers could finally get the COVID shot.

“For a reader on the other side of the Atlantic, the reporting on infant vaccination appeared somewhat puzzling,” Anderberg writes. “In most European countries, citizens had long since stopped caring about the pandemic, and in Denmark, the head of public health, Soren Brostrom, had even said that it was a mistake to vaccinate children between the ages of 5 and 11.

But for the New York Times — and its subscribers — this was a big event. When the magazine asked its readers to send in stories about what it was like to live with unvaccinated toddlers, they received 1,600 responses. Several of them said their children had never been allowed to play with friends or meet their relatives indoors.

At the end of the summer, the first numbers came out on how many Americans had actually vaccinated their toddlers in the first month. It turned out fewer than 5% of American children under the age of 5 had received their first injection.

Not so long ago, those kinds of numbers would have been thought provoking for a newspaper like the New York Times: Did we have an incorrect picture of the mood in the country? … Was there a perspective on the issue that we missed? But it no longer works that way.”

He goes on to describe how The New York Times has changed from “all the news that’s fit to print” into a publication that cherry picks its stories based on political bias and a preconceived agenda, and rarely ever presents more than one viewpoint anymore.

Had they been more journalistically inclined and less biased, they would not have gotten the COVID-jab-for-infants’ story so wrong. Many Americans also “received a blatantly incorrect picture of the risks with the new coronavirus through The New York Times reporting,” Anderberg writes.

The New York Times’ fallacies spread as far and as high as the Supreme Court, where Supreme Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor publicly overstated the number of serious COVID infections among children by 2,000%. That enormous flub was a direct result of depending on mainstream sources with an agenda to spread fear rather than truth.

Vaccines and Bioweapons Are One Industry

The fact that we have no real independent press anymore has become painfully clear over the past three years. What we have are corporate-government propaganda outlets and censored alternative media. There’s not much in between.

Certainly, you rarely ever find both sides of an issue covered by the same media outlet anymore. Media has become incredibly polarized and, with it, the population at large. As noted by Anderberg, the mainstream press has played a key role in this polarization, as it has abandoned rules of journalism such as unbiased research and reportage and presenting more than one side of every story.

The reason for this appears to be because media are owned and controlled by those who benefit from the pandemic. In short, media’s refusal to state the obvious is because the obvious doesn’t fit the narrative that we must surrender our freedom for biosecurity’s sake.

But the promise of biosecurity is itself a lie. Not only is SARS-CoV-2 a bioweapon, but the COVID shot is too. Once people realize that the vaccine industry and the bioweapons industry have become one and the same, the big picture will become clearer.

COVID Shots Are Weapons of Mass Destruction

These shots may have many purposes, but none of them is to protect your health. They may be part of a depopulation agenda. They may be part of an ongoing experiment to perfect some aspect of the transhumanist goal to merge man with AI and synthetic biology. They may have a social engineering purpose. They’re undoubtedly part of the global takeover effort by the New World Order/Great Reset cabal.

But they’re not part of a benevolent public health program. If they were, the corporate-government alliance would not have spent billions to first entice and bribe people into taking the shots (remember those million-dollar lotteries?), and later shame, bully and threaten to ostracize from society or outright kill the unvaccinated.

If COVID-19 were a naturally-occurring virus, then scientists, media, Big Tech and bioweapons chief Dr. Anthony Fauci would not have gone out of their way to suppress and censor debate about its origin.

Similarly, if the COVID shots were a novel but beneficial intervention for an unprecedented health crisis, the input and feedback of scientists around the world would have been welcomed rather than censored. (Ditto for doctors’ feedback on successful treatments. If saving lives was the goal, all suggestions would have been welcomed.)

The reason no one, regardless of qualifications, is permitted to speak about the dangers of these shots is because they’re supposed to be dangerous. They’re bioweapons. The mindset of those pushing for a post-human transhumanist world may be complex (if not incomprehensible), but the strategy to achieve their desired ends is that simple.

Mankind Is Being Regressed Into Oblivion

Mankind is being decimated by not just one but several different bioweapons — the original virus and a steady stream of ever-changing gene influencing shots. In the process, survivors of the next generation, children born and growing up in these times, are being robbed of intelligence, health and life span.

Mankind is quite literally being regressed. The Big Pharma-biotech-bioweapons complex are risking everything, the very future of mankind itself, in this effort to “reset” the world and shape it to their own liking and benefit.

Many worry about a nuclear World War III between nations but, in reality, World War III has already begun. The transhumanist-centered pharma-bioweapons industry has spent the last two years decimating its enemy — mankind — using the most sophisticated biowarfare and social engineering tools the world has ever seen.

Learn to Say No

The primary defense we have against these attacks is the word “no.” If enough of us simply reject whatever they roll out next and work on building our own parallel systems, we can preserve life and liberty for coming generations.

The globalist cabal is using bioweapons, but we can refuse to take them. They’re using sophisticated social engineering, but we can educate ourselves on their tactics, thereby insulating ourselves against their programming. They’re tearing down the infrastructure we depend on for life, including the financial system, the health care system and the food system, but we can replace them with ethical and pro-human alternatives.

We don’t have to agree to their “solutions,” which are coming, and will include living in smart cities with digital identities, a social credit score, surveillance down to your biological processes and a programmable central bank digital currency (CBDC), all of which will render you into a 21st century slave with a digital choke chain around your neck. Avoiding that fate won’t be easy. It certainly won’t be convenient. But it’ll be worth it.

from:    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/10/21/covid-vaccines-bioweapons.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20221021&cid=DM1269897&bid=1626029024Dr. Mercola

pregrn

What Is Going Down In California???

(NOTE:  Full Lengthy Article attached, but Mercola’s site retains articles for only 48 hours, and this information is important)

California’s Misinformation Epidemic Pt. 1

I recently had the pleasure of getting to know one of my favorite pseudonymous writers on Substack who goes by ‘A Midwestern Doctor.’ This powerful essay needs as wide exposure as possible.

californias misinformation epidemic

By: Pierre Kory

From The Forgotten Side of Medicine Substack, this essay brilliantly details the history, current state, and future of the criminal control of information, corruption of science, and coercion of the public in regards to vaccines. I consider it an honor to host this essay for my subscribers.

When I was younger, a friend who was a corporate executive told me about “tiger teams,” an approach industry would utilize to solve a complex problem facing them or to develop a plan for achieving a long-term strategic goal. After he vividly described the tenacity with which they attacked their problem, I realized large corporations could be expected to conduct highly strategic and Machiavellian plans over long timelines that would be difficult for anyone but the most talented observer to spot.

Since that time, I’ve also come to appreciate how most businessmen and their industries will default to reusing tools that have previously proven themselves for addressing each new problem that emerges. As a result, once you learn what each of the tools are, it becomes possible to predict each of the sequential steps a tiger team will choose to accomplish its goals.

Since I have held a long-term interest in the politics of vaccination, I have been able to witness the sequential steps that played out first in California and then throughout the nation. What I still find remarkable about these events was how each one directly enabled the subsequent event, and that in many cases, what happened subsequently had previously been promised to never come to pass.

Given everything that I have observed, I am almost certain one or more tiger teams working for the vaccine industry chose to have California be the means through which to accomplish their goal of regular mandatory vaccinations for the entire American population.

At this moment, a highly unpopular law that prevents physicians from spreading “misinformation“ by questioning any orthodox perspective on COVID-19 is awaiting the governor’s signature, and if this law passes, it will likely be disastrous for the nation as additional jurisdictions adopt it.

The purpose of this article will be to discuss exactly what brought us to the point a law like that could be on the verge of passing and the important insights that can be taken from the entire process.

vax for the win

The “Truth”

Throughout human history, one of the most valuable commodities has always been ownership over the “truth,” as so much power and profit results from holding a truth that aligns with your vested interests. Once larger societies formed, determining “truth,“ was always a key societal need, and excluding a few enlightened societies, the method of determining truth normally evolved as follows:

  1. Might makes right.
  2. Judging the preponderance of evidence.
  3. A growing, and eventually unsustainable corruption of most “evidence.”
  4. Societal collapse or evolution.

Note: This trend roughly follows the 250 year life cycle of empires mapped out by a British general some suspect the U.S. is nearing the end of.

In many ways, forcing two opposing viewpoints to present their evidence and then having the appropriate parties determine which side presented the preponderance of evidence and thus “wins” is the best solution our species has developed for settling otherwise irreconcilable differences of opinion.

Unfortunately, as our times have shown, the natural response to having our society place a heavy weight on “evidence” is to have dishonest parties “win,” not by being on the side with the best evidence, but rather by buying out the entire evidence base and censoring the opposition — effectively creating a much more sophisticated form of “might makes right.”

In many ways, the anatomy of corruption within “science-based” medicine is quite simple and like many other things in business, continually reuses the same formulas. As a result, once you understand how corruption plays out in a few areas, it becomes feasible to understand how things will play out in many others.

I thus would argue many of the events we witnessed throughout COVID-19 (e.g. the sudden extreme censorship of scientific debate recently detailed by Pierre Kory), simply represents all of this longstanding corruption metastasizing to a degree which finally became visible to the general public.

Public Relations

Although Sigmund Freud is typically thought of as the most influential psychologist in history, his nephew Edward Bernays created an invisible industry that has had a far greater influence than Freud. To create his mark on the world, Bernays argued that the principles of psychology should be utilized not for individual psychotherapy but rather to control the population so that the irrational impulses of the masses could not derail the progress of society, and not surprisingly, the power-hungry elite fully embraced his narrative.

When you study the organizational structure of modern society, you will continually come across hierarchal pyramids being utilized that allow the top of the pyramid to exert a massive influence over the rest of society.

This is for instance why in medicine, doctors are expected to follow “guidelines” created by unaccountable committees that are typically composed of individuals being paid off by the pharmaceutical industry, and why in most cases it is nearly impossible for a patient to have any type of care provided to them without the approval of a doctor. Thus, by buying out a few committees, it becomes possible to exert a massive influence on the general public.

Public relations is essentially the science of how to create a pyramidal hierarchy throughout the media and to leverage that control so the general public can be manipulated into serving the interests of the sponsor.

We recently witnessed what I believe to be the most aggressive PR campaign in history and the collective effort to pull out every possible stop to sell the COVID-19 vaccines to the American public (ironically one of the individuals I know who became disabled from these vaccines worked in the industry and worked with a passionate zeal for over a year beforehand on the PR campaign for Moderna).

Studying the PR industry is quite depressing because it shows how much of the news is “fake,” just how manipulative much of it is, and how many foundational beliefs we hold in the culture are simply the product of a corporation’s public relations campaign. For those interested in this subject, an excellent book can be found here, a youtube documentary here, and an article here.

One of the most common tactics utilized in public relations is to take a complex subject and distill it down to a simple phrase that reframes it in terms that are favorable to the sponsor and removes the critical nuances from a debate (frequently this process is equated to weaponizing language).

Because the entire PR process is based around creating a pyramidal hierarchy that defers to the top, you can frequently observe these messages or scripted phrases that were developed by a PR firm be simultaneously disseminated on countless networks, including the “independent” ones:

Note: This behavior exists on both sides of the political spectrum; I am citing this one because it is the best montage I have come across.

“Misinformation”

During Obama’s presidency, the term “misinformation” started to come into vogue and was deployed to sink Trump’s presidential campaign (which failed as Trump managed to make the “fake news” meme every media platform was promoting stick to CNN instead of him). Before long, this steamrolled into “misinformation” being used as a justification to censor any viewpoint that challenged the status quo.

Initially, easy to disparage groups such as members of the far-right were targeted for censorship by Silicon Valley, before long liberal friends I knew who practiced holistic medical approaches (and had supported the initial censorship) were targeted, and by the time COVID-19 happened, this behavior had metastasized to the point it was nearly impossible to publicize any treatment for the disease or any potential harm from the vaccines.

Governments have continued their relentless push for censorship, best illustrated by the recent U.N. speech by New Zealand’s prime minister that declared free speech on the internet a weapon of war and called for the international community to work towards curating (censoring) all online information that questions government narratives.

Prior to Obama’s presidency, I had heard there was a push to establish a pyramidal hierarchy for all information on the internet, with a few major tech companies serving as the “gatekeepers” the public could access the information through, but until 2016, this always seemed like something that would happen in the far distant future. Recently, I learned that Sharyl Atkinson was able to identify when and where this all began:

“I first heard the term [curated] applied to controlling news and information in October 2016 when President Obama introduced the concept at an appearance at the private research university Carnegie Mellon. Obama claimed a “curating” function had become necessary.

The public at large had not been asking for any such thing. Instead, it was the invention of powerful interests that apparently felt the need to get a grip on public opinion — interests that were losing the information war online. But the concept is contrary to the nature of a free society and an open Internet. It would take some clever manipulation to convince the public to allow such “curating.”

“We’re going to have to rebuild, within this Wild, Wild West of information flow, some sort of curating function that people agree to,” said Obama. “… [T]here has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard because they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the world.”

As far as I know, that signaled the start of what would become a global media initiative to have third parties insert themselves as arbiters of facts, opinions, and truth in the news and online [prior to this they were viewed as a joke and fortunately still are by half of the electorate].”

Credible Sources

Most of our modern hierarchies operate on the basis of being “credible.” For example, in journalism, about a century ago during the era of Bernays, the concept of “professional journalism” was created and a standard was set that news could not be considered credible unless it was disseminated by someone who belonged to a corrupt credible news organization that served the bidding of those in power.

This article for example discusses the profound consequences of the monopolization of journalism, and how as the decades have gone by, the issue has only gotten worse and worse.

Sharyl Attkisson’s book (the source of the above quotation) describes how pervasive corruption gradually entered her industry, and how despite her clout in the network as a premier news anchor, more and more of her investigations were not permitted to air by her superiors.

For example, in 1997, Clinton legalized direct pharmaceutical advertising to consumers. As the networks become beholden to their new advertisers, anything critical of that industry, such as vaccine safety, was no longer permitted to air.

In the early 2000s, Atkinson was assigned to report on the controversial military anthrax and smallpox vaccinations, and not long after, the smallpox campaign was cancelled. Now, in contrast, no criticism whatsoever is permitted of the much more dangerous COVID-19 vaccines (and now even the government is paying to incentivize this censorship).

To see how much things have shifted consider this report that was aired on the nightly news after the 1976 swine flu vaccine debacle (this vaccine was not safe and I directly know people who developed permanent complications from it that persist to this day, but at the same time, it was much safer than the COVID-19 vaccines):

Something like this could never air today.

Evidence-Based Medicine

The pyramidal hierarchy of our society requires creating faith in authoritative sources and then having each institution work in unison to promote the sanctity of those (easy to control) sources. “Professional journalism” is one such example, another is the widespread societal adherence to the CDC’s arbitrary and ineffective guidelines (best illustrated by the absurd dictates they and other Western health authorities put forward in regards to social distancing during physical intimacy).

When evidence-based medicine (EBM) started, it was sorely needed by the medical profession because many disastrous practices were unchallengeable dogmas. However, in due time, as corruption entered the process, EBM became yet another means for “[financial] might to make right” as its authority was shifted into a pyramidal hierarchy. Presently, the “authority” in EBM rests in 5 areas.

  • The sanctity of all data.
  • Conducting large randomized clinical trials.
  • Peer-reviewed publications in high-impact scientific journals.
  • Authoritative committees reviewing the previous three to produce guidelines.
  • Other institutions (e.g. the media and the courts) upholding the sanctity of the data and evidenced-based guidelines.

There have been major issues in each of these areas for decades as industry has steadily worked to expand its influence over EBM, but as many observers noted, these issues spun completely out of control during COVID-19. Let’s review each of them:

  1. The sanctity of all data — The major problem with “data” is that most of it is never made available for outside analysis, which allows those who “own” the data to only present data that casts the owner in a favorable light (which essentially makes the data worthless).
    
    

    The pharmaceutical industry nonetheless has been able to sustain this practice by arguing that disclosing their data would constitute a violation of proprietary trade secrets. Thus excluding the occasional instance where they are forced to open their records as part of the discovery process (e.g. in the lawsuits against the antidepressant manufacturers) that research fraud and the concealment of critically important safety data never come to light (and never has for vaccines).

    
    

    Previously, one of the most egregious offenders in this regard were the statin manufacturers who have deliberately withheld their data from the public for decades. A corrupt Oxford academic consortium, the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration has access to that data and has published numerous pro-industry analyses of it, but despite continual outside requests, has refused to ever make this data available for outside scrutiny.

    
    

    This is concerning given the significant evidence that has emerged demonstrating statins are both ineffective and harmful, and has led to many more honest academics attempting to independently obtain this critical data from regulators.

    
    

    Almost all of the COVID-19 vaccine data likewise was never made available to the public (although the companies have suggested it may be made available a few years from now); instead, we simply received highly curated publications in prestigious medical journals. Since the vaccines have entered the market, countless red flags on their safety and efficacy have emerged in large datasets.

    
    

    However, in many cases, that data has only been available because it was leaked by whistleblowers or obtained by court order, and as the recent events in Israel showed (Israel agreed to be Pfizer’s laboratory to test their vaccines and many global vaccine policies were crafted from the Israeli data), much of the incriminating data against this program was deliberately concealed by governments around the world.

    
    

    On one hand, I view all of this as an immensely positive development, as in the past critical data suppression like this typically remained hidden and forgotten. On the other hand, I consider it completely unacceptable the public is being forced to take a vaccination product on the basis of data they are not even permitted to review.

  2. Conducting large randomized clinical trials — We are reflexively conditioned by the educational system to assume a clinical trial has no value unless it is randomized and controlled. While it is true that controlling for the placebo effect through blinding somewhat improves the accuracy of a study, conducting a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is immensely expensive, and the biases introduced by those costs dwarf those obtained by controlling for the placebo effect.
    
    

    A little known fact is that findings from study designs that do not rely on industry funding (i.e. retrospective observational controlled studies) reach the same conclusion, on average, to those of RCT’s. Yet the former are near systematically ignored by the high-impact journals and medical societies.

    
    

    Further, a frequent narrative parroted by high-impact journals and science news writers is that findings from studies deemed to be of a “low quality design” cannot be trusted. Not true. In a comparison of conclusions between groups of high and low quality studies, no meaningful differences were found.

    
    

    Put differently, RCT’s require industry funding, and industry funding has repeatedly been found to heavily bias trial data in favor of its sponsor. To highlight the absurdity of this, as the whistleblower Brooke Jackson showed, the RCT she supervised for the Pfizer vaccine was not even blinded because the trial site cut so many corners to produce a positive result for Pfizer.

    
    

    For those who wish to know about how the industry games clinical trials, this bookthis book and this book are the three best resources I have found on the subject.

  3. Peer reviewed publications in high-impact scientific journals — In the same way we are conditioned to reflexively dismiss anything that is not a large RCT, many people will not consider a scientific trial unless it is published in a high-impact peer-reviewed journal.
    
    

    Not surprisingly, there is a lot of money in this area and most of it comes from Big Pharma (which either comes from advertisements within the journal or agreements to purchase thousands of printed copies of that issue of the journal).

    
    

    This creates a setting where studies that support industry interests regardless of their deficiencies are published (e.g. pharmaceutical ghostwriting is a major source of fraud in the peer-reviewed literature), whereas articles that challenge their interests are never published. This has been a longstanding issue, and the earliest example I remember coming across was discussed in this 2001 book:

    medical biases and politics
    (I unfortunately was never able to track down the referenced news story; please let me know if you have)

    The positions of the journal sponsors also gradually enter the medical culture, and the peer-review culture frequently censors or attacks publications that do not match industry findings. One of the best examples was Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 study which ruffled so many feathers by suggesting a link between autism and vaccination that the study was retracted and a thorough example was made of him (e.g. he lost his license) to deter further research into vaccine injuries.

    
    

    Many other examples also exist, such as the extreme hostility faced by researchers who publish data that is critical of other sacred cows like routine statin usage or psychiatric overmedication.

    
    

    Because of the systemic biases that exist against publishing anything which challenges medical orthodoxies, it can often take years or decades for bad practices to be abandoned as no one is willing to on take the risk of publishing studies refuting them.

    
    

    For example, a few of my Ph.D. friends who researched viral genomes knew within a day of the original SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence being published that it came from a lab, yet not a single one was willing to expose themselves to the personal risk they would take from authoring a publication on that subject.

    
    

    At this point, there seems to be an unwritten understanding that the introduction and conclusion of a scientific publication must match the prevailing biases of medicine. It is hence always fascinating to see just how often an article’s conclusion is not supported by the data within it (sadly few ever read those parts of the paper).

    
    

    Throughout COVID-19, these problems also became much worse. To share a few memorable examples:

    • A large study was published in the Lancet which showed data from around the world indicated hydroxychloroquine killed COVID-19 patients who received it and was used by the WHO as justification to suspend clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine (along with governments forbidding its administration to patients).
      
      

      Outside evaluators realized the data was nonsensical (leading to serious questions over how one of the best editorial boards in the world let it be published), the company that provided the data effectively admitted fraud had been conducted, and the study was retracted. Another one of the top 5 medical journals, the NEJM, also published a study utilizing Surgisphere’s fraudulent dataset.

    • Despite a tsunami of data showing severe harm from the COVID-19 vaccines, it has been virtually impossible for any publication on the topic to enter the peer-review literature.
    • As Pierre Kory has detailed throughout the last few years, numerous large clinical trials have been conducted that clearly show a benefit from ivermectin for COVID-19 and no risks associated with the therapy. Despite the evidence for ivermectin being stronger than what can be found for almost any other drug on the market, as Kory’s recent series shows, it is nearly impossible to have a study supporting ivermectin be published (unless the conclusion says the opposite).
      
      

      When they are instead published as preprints they often are retracted for political reasons (retracting a preprint is absurd), and not surprisingly, ivermectin is now widely viewed by the medical community as both unsafe and ineffective.

    
    

    Currently I believe that of the top five medical journals, the BMJ is the only “prestigious” medical journal still conducting itself in a manner deserving of its reputation.

  4. Authoritative committees reviewing the previous three to produce guidelines — A common complaint from conservatives is that unelected bureaucrats are allowed to control our lives with impunity. One area where this is particularly true can be found within the committee model where “experts” are nominated to assess existing evidence and produce a consensus on what should be done.
    
    

    Even though those guidelines which bypassed the legislative process should not be treated as law (as was ruled by a federal judge), in most cases they are. As you might expect, the people who make it onto these committees tend to have heavy financial conflicts of interest that inevitably result in their voting for their sponsors. Consider this paraphrased example that was shared in chapter 7 of Doctoring Data:

    The National Cholesterol Education Programme (NCEP) has been tasked by the NIH to develop [legally enforceable] guidelines for treating cholesterol levels. Excluding the chair (who was by law prohibited from having financial conflicts of interest), the other 8 members on average were on the payroll of 6 statin manufacturers.

    
    

    In 2004, NCEP reviewed 5 large statin trials and recommended: “Aggressive LDL lowering for high-risk patients [primary prevention] with lifestyle changes and statins.” [these recommendations in turn were adopted around the world].

    
    

    In 2005 a Canadian division of the Cochrane Collaboration reviewed 5 large statin trials (3 were the same as NCEP’s, while the other 2 had also reached a positive conclusion for statin therapy). That assessment instead concluded: “Statins have not been shown to provide an overall health benefit in primary prevention trials.”

    
    

    Note: The Cochrane Collaboration (prior to 2012-2016 when they began taking industry money from groups like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and switched to defending their interests such as the HPV vaccine), was the group that best objectively evaluated existing clinical evidence.

    
    

    Many committees that directed the pandemic response have engaged in egregious misconduct. Consider for example the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the CDC committee that rubber stamps each new vaccine that enters the market (the only exception I know of was overruled by the current CDC director).

    
    

    The ACIP is the committee responsible for many of the vaccine mandates we have faced, and its rulings in favor of vaccination often bordered on the absurd. Similarly, Steve Kirsch was recently able to prove that the chair of the committee is willfully choosing to disregard Israeli data that undermines the justification for the entire vaccination campaign.

    
    

    I believe that the most corrupt committee during the pandemic response was the NIH one responsible for determining the appropriate therapies for COVID-19. Some (and possibly all) of its members were appointed by Anthony Fauci, many had personal ties to Fauci and almost all of them held significant financial conflicts of interest with Gilead, remdesivir’s manufacturer.

    
    

    Not surprisingly, that committee has consistently recommended against every therapy that effectively treats COVID-19 but is off-patent (and hence not profitable). Conversely, their recommendation for remdesivir is why it was the required treatment throughout the US hospital system despite the evidence for the drug being atrocious (a more detailed and referenced summary of this corruption can be found here).

    
    

    In many ways, the remdesivir story is eerily similar to the early days of HIV. There, Fauci used his influence to keep a variety of effective therapies away from dying AIDS patients so that he could win approval for AZT, a dangerous drug many believe significantly worsened the prognosis of those who received it.

  5. Other institutions (e.g. the media and the courts) upholding the sanctity of the data and evidenced-based guidelines — Many people I know used a variety of integrative therapies (e.g. intravenous vitamin C) to treat COVID-19 during the early days of the pandemic, and successfully saved many lives at the same time countless Americans were being sent to the hospitals to die (as they had no treatment for COVID-19 besides often lethal ventilators).
    
    

    Yet, it was those who treated COVID-19 successfully (including a few of my friends) who were targeted by the government and either served with a cease and desist or prosecuted for “endangering” the public by utilizing unproven therapies not supported by the COVID-19 treatment guidelines.

    
    

    The mass media was also fully complicit in this and never once mentioned any option for COVID-19 (other than needing to get more ventilators or vaccines), except when attacking the doctors who were providing life-saving outpatient therapies. However, while the new’s conduct was egregious, by far the biggest offender was Big Tech.

Curating Information

As I think through all the things that had to come together to enable the pandemic profiteers to destroy our economy, withhold life-saving treatments from the American public, and mandate a disastrous vaccination on the populace, I believe Obama’s push for the Silicon Valley to become the arbiter of what we were allowed to see online was by far the most consequential.

Since that time, I have observed a remarkable decline in the quality of discourse on many social media websites (as many worthwhile topics are now censored or flooded with bots — Substack is a rare exception) and it has become much more difficult to find the information I am looking for online (to the point I sometimes need to use Russia’s search engine to find it).

Throughout history, freedom of speech has always been a hotly contested subject as people tend to support it, except for viewpoints they disagree with, and frequently lack the insight to recognize why those positions are at odds with each other. Societies likewise follow cyclical trends towards and away from totalitarianism and fascist censorship.

The earliest example I know of was shared with me by a scholar who had reviewed the plays of ancient Greece and had found that as censorship (e.g. political correctness) entered the plays, it immediately preceded the fall of Greek democracy and an authoritarian government taking over. From studying countless iterations of this cycle, I now believe the following:

  • It must be acknowledged that any position you hold could be wrong or based on erroneous information.
  • It is important to defend the right of those you disagree with to speak and not hate them because they hold viewpoints you adamantly oppose.
  • If you refuse to defend your position in an open and fair debate, you are probably wrong.
  • Very strict stipulations must exist on what speech can be outlawed, and those stipulations must be agreed upon by (nearly) the entire society. Some things such as shouting “fire” in a movie theater as a prank everyone can agree on. Anything everyone cannot agree on I would argue does not meet the standard that must be met for censorship.
  • The government may incentivize speech it agrees with, but it cannot restrict speech it disagrees with.
  • Any attempt you make to censor a viewpoint you disagree with is not worth it because the censorship you helped create will inevitably be turned on you in the future.

During Obama’s presidency, two major changes emerged in Silicon Valley. The first many are aware of was an obsession (by these otherwise evil companies) with saving the world through social justice that I would argue was analogous to the well known practice of Greenwashing, where an egregious polluter conducts a token environmental initiative and through doing so successfully recasts themselves as protectors of the environment.

This social justice focus was particularly problematic as it was used to justify the censorship of anything that was not politically correct and I would argue that many of the tech employees who helped spearhead the movement are now directly experiencing the consequences of the climate they created.

Note: This focus on censorship in lieu of debating opposing (“unsafe”) viewpoints also creeped into the university system and then the culture during Obama’s presidency and I believe was a direct consequence of policies enacted by his Department of Education.

The second, much more important one was that Big Tech became a key financial supporter of the Democrat party, and to varying degrees merged with the pharmaceutical industry and biotech. Because of this, there was a seismic realignment in the priorities of the Democrat party and it began ardently supporting those industries.

It is important to recognize how these two trends dovetailed. Big Tech was able to use their “altruistic” focus on social justice to distract the public from the more sinister direction their industry was moving in by using the standard for censorship they had established in the name of creating a “safe” (politically correct) environment; while at the same time targeting threats to their partners in the pharmaceutical and biotech industry by censoring any voices suggesting dangers were associated with those products.

From watching each piece of the plan that has been rolled out throughout my career, I suspect the vision of these three industries is to transform medicine into an algorithmic practice where most medical “decisions” in patient care are made by an AI system and the human body is treated as a genomic software code that can be “solved” by programmers.

Although this approach will have the ability to overcome certain issues we presently face in medicine, it is also fundamentally incapable of addressing many of the needs of each human being who goes through the healthcare system and will likely prove disastrous to our species.

Antitrust Activity

At the time Bill Gates founded the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation he was one of the most disliked individuals in America. This was because he had leveraged the power of his operating system Windows, which was on almost every computer in America, to also monopolize the software market and prevent competitors like Netscape (an early internet browser) from being used by consumers.

Since this monopolistic behavior was illegal, Microsoft was sued for antitrust violations, and throughout the court process, Bill Gates was revealed to be a nasty individual who was doing everything he could to bury his competitors. To address the negative public perception of him, Gates founded the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to recast himself as a philanthropist and through this PR stunt was able to successfully remediate his public image.

From the foundation’s inception, Gates repeated the same antitrust behavior he had leveraged in the past but instead directed it toward the field of global public health. I first became aware of this behavior after I learned of the disastrous vaccination campaigns he conducted in India. For example to quote The Real Anthony Fauci:

“India’s Federal Ministry of Health suspended the [HPV vaccine] trials and appointed an expert parliamentary committee to investigate the scandal. Indian government investigators found that Gates-funded researchers at PATH committed pervasive ethical violations: pressuring vulnerable village girls into the trial, bullying illiterate parents, and forging consent forms. Gates provided health insurance for his PATH staff but not to any participants in the trials, and refused medical care to the hundreds of injured girls.”

Gates also diverted a large portion of the global health budget towards eradicating the last few remaining cases of polio by giving large numbers of the (live) oral vaccine to third world countries, in some instances 50 doses by the age of five. This was disastrous around the world, for example paralyzing approximately 491,000 children over two decades in India.

In addition to vaccine fanaticism, Gates engaged in other “public health” measures that are more accurately described as colonialist practices. These included forcing poor women around the world to receive Depo-Provera (this is a long-acting injectable birth control that can permanently impair fertility) and pushing communities to abandon their traditional forms of farming and switch to genetically modified industrial agriculture (which places them at risk of starvation anytime a commodity price goes up).

One of my friends who has worked for the WHO for decades told me that the WHO has implemented a lot of good public health measures that saved lives. Unfortunately, ever since Gates got involved, those measured have fallen to the wayside and the focus has been on monopolistic public health practices that ultimately serve to enrich a few select industries at the expense of the third-world citizens the measures are alleged to help.

Similarly, many in the global health community have stated that since Gates has so much influence over the global health budget (and the WHO), it is nearly impossible to criticize or question any policy he promotes. To further entrench this monopoly, his foundation has prioritized buying out the press (be it groups like the Cochrane Collaboration or putting over 300 million into countless media outlets around the world), so that anything that challenges his vision of public health is “misinformation.”

Much more could be said about Gates (and is aptly summarized within The Real Anthony Fauci). However, we will focus on the two most important correlates to the misinformation epidemic:

  • Gates made a lot of money from the pandemic. For example, on 9/4/2019, two months before COVID-19 emerged in China, he invested 55 million in the company that produced Pfizer’s vaccine. Last year that investment was worth 550 million.
  • It has now been admitted by the mainstream media that Gates (and the Wellcome Trust) directed the pandemic response that failed disastrously from a public health perspective (but not in money-making). One quote from that article is particularly telling:

    “Leaders of three of the four organizations maintained that lifting intellectual property protections [which would prevent everyone from making money] was not needed to increase vaccine supplies – which activists believed would have helped save lives.”

In the second half of this series, we will show how this antitrust behavior and militant censorship metastasized within Silicon Valley and how increasingly draconian laws enforcing vaccine mandates for the pharmaceutical industry have been implemented by the California legislature.

from:    https://takecontrol.substack.com/p/californias-misinformation-epidemic

Who Is Censoring You?

al Collusion Between Government and Big Tech Exposed

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked
government and big tech collusion

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Federal officials in the Biden administration have held secret and illegal censorship meetings with social media companies to suppress Americans’ First Amendment rights to free speech, and to ban or deplatform those who share unauthorized views about COVID and vaccines
  • The evidence for this comes out of a lawsuit brought by the New Civil Liberties Alliance and the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana (Eric Schmitt and Jeff Landry) against President Biden, filed in May 2022
  • Monthly, a Unified Strategies Group (USG) meeting took place — and may still be taking place — between a wide variety of government agencies and Big Tech companies, during which topics to be censored and suppressed were/are discussed
  • Censored topics included stories involving COVID jab refusal, especially those involving military refusals and consequences thereof, criticism against COVID restrictions and their effects on mental health, posts talking about testing positive for COVID after getting the jab, personal stories of COVID jab side effects, including menstrual irregularities, and worries about vaccine passports becoming mandatory
  • Discovery documents obtained so far have identified more than 50 federal employees across 15 federal agencies, engaged in illegal censorship activities. Emails from the strategic communications and marketing firm Reingold also reveals outside consultants were hired to manage the government’s collusion with social media to violate Americans’ Constitutional free speech rights

In a September 1, 2022, article,1 the Post Millennial reveals how federal officials in the Biden administration have held secret censorship meetings with social media companies to suppress Americans’ First Amendment rights to free speech, and to ban or deplatform those who share unauthorized views about COVID and vaccines.

The evidence for this comes out of a lawsuit2 brought by the New Civil Liberties Alliance and the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana (Eric Schmitt and Jeff Landry) against President Biden, filed in May 2022.

During the discovery process, the plaintiffs sought to identify “all meetings with any social media platform relating to content modulation and/or misinformation,” which is how we now know that such illegal meetings did, in fact, take place.

Illegal Collusion to Suppress Free Speech

Monthly, a Unified Strategies Group (USG) meeting took place — and may still be taking place — between a wide variety of government agencies and Big Tech companies, during which topics to be censored and suppressed were/are discussed.

Censored topics included stories involving COVID jab refusal, especially those involving military refusals and consequences thereof, criticism against COVID restrictions and their effects on mental health, posts talking about testing positive for COVID after getting the jab, personal stories of COVID jab side effects, including menstrual irregularities, and worries about vaccine passports becoming mandatory.3 According to the New Civil Liberties Alliance:4

“… scores of federal officials … have secretly communicated with social-media platforms to censor and suppress private speech federal officials disfavor. This unlawful enterprise has been wildly successful.

Under the First Amendment, the federal government may not police private speech nor pick winners and losers in the marketplace of ideas. But that is precisely what the government has done — and is still doing — on a massive scale not previously divulged.

Multiple agencies’ communications demonstrate that the federal government has exerted tremendous pressure on social-media companies — pressure to which companies have repeatedly bowed …

Communications show these federal officials are fully aware that the pressure they exert is an effective and necessary way to induce social-media platforms to increase censorship. The head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency even griped about the need to overcome social-media companies’ ‘hesitation’ to work with the government …

This unlawful government interference violates the fundamental right of free speech for all Americans, whether or not they are on social media. More discovery is needed to uncover the full extent of this regime — i.e., the identities of other White House and agency officials involved and the nature and content of their communications with social-media companies.”

Jenin Younes, litigation counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance added:5

“If there was ever any doubt the federal government was behind censorship of Americans who dared to dissent from official COVID messaging, that doubt has been erased. The shocking extent of the government’s involvement in silencing Americans, through coercing social-media companies, has now been revealed …”

Federal Agencies Involved in Free Speech Suppression

Documents obtained so far have identified more than 50 federal employees across 15 federal agencies, who participated in these censorship meetings or otherwise engaged in illegal censorship activities.6 This includes officials from:

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s (CISA) Election Security and Resilience team
Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Office of Intelligence and Analysis
The FBI’s foreign influence taskforce
The Justice Department’s (DOJ) national security division
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence
White House staff (including White House lawyer Dana Remus, deputy assistant to the president Rob Flaherty and former White House senior COVID-19 adviser Andy Slavitt)
Health and Human Services (HHS)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
The Office of the Surgeon General
The Census Bureau
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
The State Department
The U.S. Treasury Department
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Emails from a strategic communications and marketing firm called Reingold7 also reveals that outside consultants were hired to manage the government’s collusion with social media to censor Americans. For example, Reingold set up a “partner support portal” for the CDC so that CDC officials could link emails to the portal for easier flagging of content it wanted censored by social media companies linked to the portal.

Big Tech Companies Involved in Government Censorship

On the private industry side, notable tech participants in the censorship meetings include:

Google Facebook
Twitter YouTube
Reddit Microsoft
Verizon Media Pinterest
LinkedIn Wikimedia Foundation

While some social media companies may have “hesitated” to censor on the government’s behalf at times, Facebook was certainly an eager beaver from the get-go. As early as February 2020, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was in contact with the State Department, offering its services to help “control information and misinformation related to coronavirus.”8

Biden Administration’s ‘Executive Privilege’ Denied

As you might expect, the White House has not cooperated with discovery and have fought to keep communications secret — especially with regard to Dr. Anthony Fauci’s correspondence — claiming all White House communications as “privileged.”

However, executive privilege does NOT apply to external communications, so the plaintiffs called on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana to “overrule the government defendants’ objections and order them to supply this highly relevant, responsive and probative information immediately.”

September 7, 2022, Judge Terry Doughty did just that. The Biden administration’s claim of executive privilege was rejected and Doughty ordered the White House to hand over any and all relevant records.9 That includes correspondence to and from Fauci, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and many others. According to the judge’s order, they have three weeks to comply.

Examples of Illegal Government Censorship

On Twitter,10 Missouri AG Schmitt has shared a long list of examples of government censorship, including one document in which Clarke Humphrey, COVID-19 response digital director at the White House, asked Facebook to take down the Instagram account “anthonyfauciofficial,” a parody account dedicated to making fun of Fauci.11 Facebook complied.

Schmitt also shared emails12,13 between a senior Facebook official and the surgeon general, stating, “I know our teams met today to better understand the scope of what the White House expects from us on misinformation going forward.” This email came on the heels of the surgeon general’s July 2021 “misinformation health advisory.”

The CDC also coordinated with Facebook, providing them with talking points to debunk various claims, including the claim that spike protein in the COVID shots is dangerous and cytotoxic. In a July 28, 2021, email, a CDC official provided Facebook with the following counter-narrative, taken straight from the “How mRNA Vaccines Work” section on the CDC website:14

“Messenger mRNA [sic] vaccines work by teaching our cells to create a harmless spike protein …” (Emphasis in the original.)

Fast-forward to mid-June 2022, and the CDC was suddenly less sure about the harmlessness of the spike protein.

Up until then, the words “harmless spike protein” had always been bolded, but in this June revision, they removed the bolding, along with an entire section in which they’d previously claimed that mRNA was rapidly broken down and spike protein did not last more than a few weeks in the body.15 Clearly, the truth was catching up to them and certain lies were getting too risky to hold on to.

CISA also reached out to Google, Meta (Facebook’s parent company), Microsoft and Twitter for help, shortly after the DHS’s Disinformation Governance Board was announced.16 Fortunately, public outcry put an end to this Orwellian Ministry of Truth before it got started.

When Censorship Becomes Election Interference

According to The Washington Times:17

“Details about the Biden administration’s conduct raised the hackles of Republican lawmakers. ‘Confirming that this is the most dangerously anti-free speech administration in American history AND that Facebook … is nothing but an appendage of the deep state,’ Sen. Josh Hawley, Missouri Republican, said on Twitter as he shared news of the court filing.”

Other lawmakers are also getting involved. In an August 29, 2022, letter18,19 to Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, Republican Sens. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin requested records of the government’s contacts with social media companies to ascertain whether the FBI and/or DOJ did, in fact, instruct them to censor information about the Hunter Biden laptop scandal by falsely referring to it as “Russian disinformation.”20

Zuckerberg has also been asked21 to provide any correspondence involving the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story, especially as it pertains to the FBI’s instructions to censor this political hot potato — something he openly admitted in a recent Joe Rogan interview (see video above).22

Lawmakers Pursue Legislation to Penalize Gov’t Censorship

Three Republican House Representatives on the House Oversight and Reform, Judiciary, and Commerce committees — Reps. James Comer of Kentucky, Jim Jordan of Ohio, and Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington — have also introduced the Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act23 (HR.8752), aimed at preventing federal employees from using their positions to influence censorship decisions by tech platforms.

The bill would create restrictions to prevent federal employees from asking or encouraging private entities to censor private speech or otherwise discourage free speech, and impose penalties, including civil fines and disciplinary actions for government employees who facilitate social media censorship.

While the U.S. Constitution clearly forbids government censoring and restricting free speech, HR. 8752 could be a helpful enforcement tool, as people might tend to think twice when they know there’s a real and personal price to pay.

from:    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/09/15/government-and-big-tech-collusion.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20220915_HL2&cid=DM1261937&bid=1604984985

“Morality Pills”, Religious Belief, Magnetogenetics, & Digital Vaccines

Behavioral Modification: What You Need to Know

Analysis by Tessa Lena

Story at-a-glance

  • Neuroscientists have been working on a number of advanced techniques with military applications
  • Magnetogenetics is a technique of using magnetic fields to remotely control cell activity
  • In human experiments, scientist experimented with reducing religious feelings
  • In animal experiments, researchers were able to induce specific behaviors in mice using genetically modified viruses and magnetic fields
  • Another area of behavioral modification is “digital vaccines,” which is special software for behavioral change

This story is about behavioral modification, both as a philosophical ambition and as a military application. This topic is vast — so I’ll focus on a few relatively recent developments, especially in the area of magnetogenetics. But first, morality pills!

Morality Pills

In August 2020, Forbes published an article titled, “Could A ‘Morality Pill’ Help Stop The Covid-19 Pandemic?” It was based on the opinion of a bioethicist Parker Crutchfield who stated the following:

“Moral enhancement is the use of substances to make you more moral. The psychoactive substances act on your ability to reason about what the right thing to do is, or your ability to be empathetic or altruistic or cooperative.”

The problem that Crutchfield was trying to solve with his theoretical ‘morality pills’ was the pesky COVID contrarians, the proverbial grandma killers who refused to comply with masking and social distancing.

“The problem of coronavirus defectors could be solved by moral enhancement: like receiving a vaccine to beef up your immune system, people could take a substance to boost their cooperative, pro-social behavior.”

The author seemed to think very highly of his own ability to make perfect decisions about things — including about the best pandemic response — and therefore he had no qualms about imposing his opinions on others in the form of pills or, perhaps, morality injections. He went as far as to say that “a solution would be to make moral enhancement compulsory or administer it secretly, perhaps via the water supply.”

Crutchfield further referred to his work, in which he explored the concept of enhancing democracy by secretly medicating the citizens. He stated the following:

“Some theorists argue that moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory. I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement.

My argument for this is that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration is a matter of public health, and for this reason should be governed by public health ethics.

I argue that the covert administration of a compulsory moral bioenhancement program better conforms to public health ethics than does an overt compulsory program. In particular, a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality, and autonomy better than an overt program does. [emphasis mine].”

Bravissimo! Does this combo of freedom and covertly administered forced medication come with DeBlasio fries?

The good thing about morality pills is that they are seemingly theoretical … hopefully. How about creating fake memories? That, now, is actual science! In 2014, Smithsonian Magazine published an article titled, “Meet the Two Scientists Who Implanted a False Memory Into a Mouse,” which described a series of rather sadistic experiments showing that implanting false memories was achievable. (Should we mandate morality pills for the scientists? Just wondering.)

Implanting a False Memory in a Mouse

The scientists did a number of manipulations that I will describe in great technical detail in just a second — but the gist of it is that they placed a mouse in a particular box and gave the mouse a foot shock while simultaneously triggering a memory of being in a different, “safe,” box from an earlier experiment when the mouse was is that other box without receiving the shock.

They then placed the mouse in the “safe” box again, and the mouse acted terrified, as if it associated that first box with being given a shock, while in reality the shock was given in the second box, not in the first box. The conclusion that the scientists drew was that in the mouse’s mind, it “remembered” being given a shock in the box in which it had never been given a shock.

Great technical detail: Working with genetically engineered lab mice, the scientists injected their brains with a biochemical cocktail that included a gene for a light-sensitive protein (channelrhodopsin-2). The cells participating in memory formation would then produce the protein and become light-sensitive themselves.

Namely, they “surgically implanted thin filaments from the laser through the skulls of the mice and into the dentate gyrus. Reactivating the memory — and its associated fear response — was the only way to prove they had actually identified and labeled an engram [a unit of cognitive information imprinted in a physical substance].

The researchers sacrificed the animals after the experiment and examined the brain tissues under a microscope to confirm the existence of the engrams; cells involved in a specific memory glowed green after treatment with chemicals that reacted with channelrhodopsin-2.”

In order to manipulate a specific engram to create a false memory, they “prepared the mouse, injecting the biochemical cocktail into the dentate gyrus. Next, they put the mouse in a box without shocking it. As the animal spent 12 minutes exploring, a memory of this benign experience was encoded as an engram.

The following day, the mouse was placed in a different box, where its memory of the first (safe) box was triggered by shooting the laser into the dentate gyrus. At that exact moment, the mouse received a foot shock. On the third day, the mouse was returned to the safe box — and immediately froze in fear. It had never received a foot shock there, but its false memory, created by the researchers in another box, caused it to behave as if it had.”

Here you have it. The scientists were allegedly able to create a false memory in a mouse by torturing it and its fellows. False memories, check. How about manipulating religious feelings in people? Did the scientists try? Sure they did.

Experiments To Manipulate Religious Beliefs With Magnetism

In 2015, an article called, “Neuromodulation of group prejudice and religious belief” was published in “Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience.”

The authors of the study “presented participants with a reminder of death and a critique of their in-group ostensibly written by a member of an out-group, then experimentally decreased both avowed belief in God and out-group derogation by downregulating pMFC activity via transcranial magnetic stimulation. The results provide the first evidence that group prejudice and religious belief are susceptible to targeted neuromodulation.”

Magnetogenetics

Speaking of magnetic stimulation, let’s talk about magnetogenetics. Magnetogenetics is a biological technique that involves the use of magnetic fields to remotely control cell activity. According to the behavioral research company Noldus, “magnetogenetics, or the use of electromagnetic control, involves activating cells using magnetic fields. With magnetogenetics researchers have found a way to control neurons with electromagnets.”

For context, magnetogenetics is adjacent to two other methods, optogenetics and chemogenetics. Optogenetics is based on switching populations of related neurons on or off on a millisecond-by-millisecond timescale with pulses of laser light. Optogenetics is an invasive method that requires insertion of optical fibers that deliver the light pulses into the brain. Chemogenetics uses engineered proteins that are activated by designer drugs and can be targeted to specific cell types.

The “Magneto” Experiment

In 2016, two University of Virginia scientists demonstrated that neurons in the brain that have been supplemented with a synthetic gene can be remotely manipulated by a magnetic field. In their own words, they “may have discovered a major step toward developing a ‘dream tool’ for remotely controlling neural circuits.”

At the time, Güler, a biology professor at UVA, and UVA neuroscience Ph.D. candidate Michael Wheeler “engineered a gene that can make a cell sense the presence of a magnetic field. They coupled a gene that senses cellular stretch with another gene that functions as a nanomagnet. This synthetic combination turns on only when in the presence of a magnetic field, allowing them to control neuronal activity in the brain.”

“In a series of tests on mice that had the Magneto gene used to express comfort or pleasure, the mice voluntarily went to a chamber of their cage where the magnetic field was present, similar to going there as if food was present.

Likewise, when the magnetic field was turned off, the mice did not display any particular preference for that area of the cage. But when the magnetic field was turned back on, they again moved to that area of the cage. Mice without the Magneto gene did not display any behavioral changes in the presence of magnets.”

According to the Guardian, the premise of the experiment was that nerve cell proteins activated by heat and mechanical pressure “can be genetically engineered so that they become sensitive to radio waves and magnetic fields, by attaching them to an iron-storing protein called ferritin, or to inorganic paramagnetic particles.”

The technique used the protein TRPV4, which is sensitive to both temperature and stretching forces that “open its central pore, allowing electrical current to flow through the cell membrane; this evokes nervous impulses that travel into the spinal cord and then up to the brain.”

The scientists “used genetic engineering to fuse the protein to the paramagnetic region of ferritin, together with short DNA sequences that signal cells to transport proteins to the nerve cell membrane and insert them into it …

When they introduced this genetic construct into human embryonic kidney cells growing in Petri dishes, the cells synthesized the ‘Magneto’ protein and inserted it into their membrane. Application of a magnetic field activated the engineered protein, as evidenced by transient increases in calcium ion concentration within the cells.”

“Next, the researchers inserted the Magneto DNA sequence into the genome of a virus, together with the gene encoding green fluorescent protein, and regulatory DNA sequences that cause the construct to be expressed only in specified types of neurons.

They then injected the virus into the brains of mice, targeting the entorhinal cortex, and dissected the animals’ brains to identify the cells that emitted green fluorescence. Using microelectrodes, they then showed that applying a magnetic field to the brain slices activated Magneto so that the cells produce nervous impulses.”

When the scientists placed the animals into an apparatus split into magnetised a non-magnetised sections, “mice expressing Magneto spent far more time in the magnetised areas than mice that did not, because activation of the protein caused the striatal neurons expressing it to release dopamine, so that the mice found being in those areas rewarding. This shows that Magneto can remotely control the firing of neurons deep within the brain, and also control complex behaviours.”

Let me just say that as a citizen, I don’t feel particularly relaxed knowing that this research exists — especially under today’s circumstances. Usually, whenever there is a technology that is suitable for behavioral modification and crowd control, somebody tries to use it. Politicians and greedy corporate leaders are funny this way! When there’s a hammer …

Dr. James Giordano’s Talk on Military Neuroscience

Speaking of hammers, I highly recommend you watch this mind-twisting, sci-fi-sounding, and frankly creepy presentation on military applications of neuroscience by Dr. James Giordano, Professor at Georgetown University Medical Center who has served as a Senior Science Advisory Fellow of the Strategic Multilayer Assessment group of the Joint Staff of the Pentagon.

In his presentation, Dr. Giordano talks about neuroweapons and how new developments in brain science can be used in the military (and beyond). Some of the applications and scenarios he describes will make you scratch your head very hard!

“Digital Vaccines”

Another area of behavioral modification is the so called “digital vaccines,” or behavioral modification software. According to the Center for Digital Health at Brown’s Alpert Medical School, digital vaccines are “a solution to the problem of creating sustained behavioral change” and “a subtype of digital therapeutics, which use neurocognitive training to promote positive human behavior using technologies like smartphone apps.”

They are called “vaccines” because they create resistance to disease through a different mechanism. (I would posit that they are called “vaccines” because it’s a trendy, investor-friendly word that might also potentially come with a lack of legal liability — but that’s just my cynical guess.)

Carnegie Mellon University hosts Digital Vaccine Project, an initiative that focuses on the development and evaluation of “digital vaccine” candidates. Among other candidates, they are talking about a “digital vaccine” for COVID-19, which looks suspiciously like a gamified, nudging bot designed to train people to practice good “health-hygiene habits,” as defined by the owners of the algorithm.

This sounds to me like a good ol’ missionary in a shiny digital form: an unsolicited and unwanted “boss” with a superiority complex and no sense of tact!

Sooner or later, the scientists will figure out that their “patients” become annoyed by the bot out of their wits — at which point the hopeful priests of behavioral modification will come up with a “fix” on top of a “fix” — and money will be made by investors every step of the way — as it usually goes, at the price of the people.

digital vaccine project

Let me end by saying that technological behavioral modification is a rotten idea, driven by maniacs. The fact that hunger for total control is so painfully prevalent in our world doesn’t change the pathological nature of that hunger.

The need for mechanical control is born out of fear and anxiety, and that’s undeniable. And yes, today, the Machine still reigns and has the power to bully but without a doubt — whichever way we get there — we are moving toward a world where we are fully alive and free. The stronger and braver we are in the face of the darkness, the sooner we get free.

About the Author

To find more of Tessa Lena’s work, be sure to check out her bio, Tessa Fights Robots.

from:  https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/01/14/behavioral-modification-and-neuroweapons.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art2HL&cid=20220114_HL2&mid=DM1090441&rid=1379335023

PLEASE BE ADVISED:  Dr. Mercola takes his articles down after 48 hours, however he does have an archive which can be accessed.

What YouTube Sees

YouTube Bans all Content That Questions the Safety or Effectiveness of Vaccines

Censorship, Unsplash
Youtube, under Susan Wojcicki’s leadership, has already removed 130,000 videos for violating their COVID-19 vaccine policies, and the company is now expanding its ban to criticism of other vaccines as well. Despite evidence showing that autism is linked to vaccines, Matt Halprin, the global head of trust and safety at YouTube, said, “The ban will include any media that claims vaccines are dangerous or lead to chronic health outcomes such as autism.” Videos by Robert Kennedy, Jr., and Dr. Joseph Mercola have been removed.-GEG

Under YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki’s new speech codes, YouTubers can now be banned for quoting CDC director Rochelle Walensky admitting last month on live TV that covid shots do not “prevent transmission” of the virus.

From YouTube’s Official Blog, “Managing harmful vaccine content on YouTube”:

Today, we’re expanding our medical misinformation policies on YouTube with new guidelines on currently administered vaccines that are approved and confirmed to be safe and effective by local health authorities and the WHO.

[…] Since last year, we’ve removed over 130,000 videos for violating our COVID-19 vaccine policies. 

[…] We’ve steadily seen false claims about the coronavirus vaccines spill over into misinformation about vaccines in general, and we’re now at a point where it’s more important than ever to expand the work we started with COVID-19 to other vaccines. 

Specifically, content that falsely alleges that approved vaccines are dangerous and cause chronic health effects, claims that vaccines do not reduce transmission or contraction of disease, or contains misinformation on the substances contained in vaccines will be removed. This would include content that falsely says that approved vaccines cause autism, cancer or infertility, or that substances in vaccines can track those who receive them. Our policies not only cover specific routine immunizations like for measles or Hepatitis B, but also apply to general statements about vaccines.

 

Read full article here…

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2021/10/youtube-bans-all-content-that-questions-the-safety-or-effectiveness-of-vaccines/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=youtube-bans-all-content-that-questions-the-safety-or-effectiveness-of-vaccines

Time to Stand Up For Your Rights & the Truth

A Global Uprising is Underway

Dr. MercolaGuest
Waking Times

After six months of intermittent or in some cases near-continuous lockdowns, many have reached their limit and uprisings are finally emerging around the world. The last week of August 2020 saw gatherings of tens of thousands of individuals in Berlin,1 London2 and Dublin,3 protesting stay-at-home orders, business closures, mask and vaccine mandates and Bill Gates’ dictatorial grip on public health matters.

In the U.S., a protest took place August 30, 2020, in Boston, Massachusetts, against a new student flu vaccination mandate,4 and in Virginia, protesters gathered September 2 in opposition of unconstitutional COVID-19 mandates.5

 

 

These are just a few of the many demonstrations that have taken place in recent weeks around the world, as people are starting to realize their human rights are being stripped away over a virus with a lethality on par with that of seasonal influenza and other pandemic viruses, none of which was responded to with a global shutdown of economies and forced quarantining of healthy individuals.

COVID-19 — A Massive Brainwashing Scheme?

In recent weeks and months, more and more experts have come out sharing what they know about the roles of Big Tech, Big Pharma and global health organizations such as the World Health Organization in the creation of a new technocratic world order.

If you missed my interview with financial analyst Patrick Wood, in which he details the technocratic take-over plan, which has been in play for decades, be sure to review it now. Other articles shedding light on what’s happening behind the scenes include “Harvard Professor Exposes Google and Facebook,” featuring a documentary with professor Shoshana Zuboff, and “Plandemic Part 2.”

When you start to put all the puzzle pieces together, it seems clear this pandemic is being used as a cover story for both a global wealth redistribution scheme, and for the implementation of a technocratic system of totalitarian rule by unelected leaders. …

As reported by Reclaim the Net,6 the WHO eavesdrops on everything you do online, from reviewing your social media interactions to analyzing your emotions. To counteract “spread of misleading information” about the pandemic — which was a key area of focus during Event 201 — the WHO has partnered with an analytics company that uses machine learning analysis to scan more than 1.6 million social media posts per week.

The aim of this “social listening approach”— a nicer term than good old-fashioned spying — is to counteract anything that doesn’t align with the WHO’s current narrative on illnesses, treatments, interventions and causes of disease.

Aiding them in this dystopian censoring process is the United Nations, which has launched an army of 10,000 digital volunteers who troll the internet for “false” information and opposing views.

On top of that, most social media platforms have their own highly biased “fact-checkers” who censor for all they’re worth. Back in April 2020, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, wife of Google product director Dennis Troper, announced they would ban and remove any video from the platform that contradicts the WHO.7  ….

Just How Deadly Is COVID-19?

According to groundbreaking data8 recently released by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, only 6% of the total COVID-19-related deaths in the U.S. had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death on the death certificate.

Six percent of 169,044 (the total death toll as of September 2) is 10,143. “For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death,” the CDC states. As reported by Rochester First,9 the top underlying medical conditions included influenza, pneumonia, respiratory failure, high blood pressure, diabetes, dementia, heart problems and renal failure.

However, the list also includes 5,424 intentional and unintentional injury and poisoning deaths, so basically, accidents and suicides in which the individual just happened to test positive (or was suspected of being positive for SARS-CoV-2) are also included in the grand total.

(Please note, these data were accurate as of this writing. The CDC does not notate when data is altered as new death certificates come in, so the numbers may therefore be different from what is reported here, depending on when you’re looking at it. For the most up-to-date figures, see the CDC’s website.10)

The fact that only 6% of COVID-19-related deaths are directly attributable to SARS-CoV-2 is bad news when you’re trying to keep a doomsday narrative going. In what appears to be a blatant attempt to minimize exposure of these data, social media platforms have censored many trying to share it.11

As noted by independent news commentator Tim Pool in the video below, fact-checkers are digging into nitpicky semantics in their effort to censor the CDC data, and in so doing, they’re really stretching the “false” claim ultrathin.

Similar data have emerged from Palm Beach County, Florida, where an investigation by CBS 1212 I-Team revealed only 86 of the reported 658 COVID-19 deaths had “COVID-19 pneumonia” listed as the sole cause of death.

All others had multiple comorbidities,. …

Infection Fatality Rate on Par With the Flu

Keeping the “killer virus” narrative going much longer is probably going to become even more difficult in light of a September 2, 2020 article13 in Annals of Internal Medicine, which points out that:

“Because many cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are asymptomatic, generalizable data on the true number of persons infected are lacking, and that when calculating mortality rates from confirmed cases, you end up overestimating the infection fatality ratio (IFR).”

The paper reads, in part:14

(Go to link to read excerpt)

The estimated infection fatality rate for seasonal influenza listed in this paper is 0.8%. So, the only people for whom SARS-CoV-2 infection is more dangerous than influenza is those over the age of 60.

All others have a lower risk of dying from COVID-19 than they have of dying from the flu. Put another way, if you’re under the age of 60, your chances of dying from the flu is greater than your chance of dying from COVID-19.

White House coronavirus task force coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx also confirmed this far lower than typically reported mortality rate when she, in mid-August 2020, stated that it “becomes more and more difficult” to get people to comply with mask rules “when people start to realize that 99% of us are going to be fine.”(emphasis added)15

Expect Massive Propaganda Campaign to Boost Vaccine Uptake

With death rates being as low as they are for everyone under the age of 60, it really weakens the rationale for vaccinating the entire world, including newborns, the risk to whom the virus poses is virtually nil.

The vaccine looking increasingly unnecessary is likely a reason for why the U.S. government is planning to launch an “overwhelming” COVID-19 vaccine campaign this fall, using carefully researched messages. As detailed in “Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century,” Yale University has conducted a trial16 to determine the type of message that will maximize acceptance and uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine. Messaging slants evaluated in the investigation included:17

Personal freedom message — A message about how COVID-19 is limiting people’s personal freedom and how working together to get enough people vaccinated can preserve society’s personal freedoms.
Economic freedom message — A message about how COVID-19 is limiting people’s economic freedom and how, by working together to get enough people vaccinated, society can preserve its economic freedom.
Self-interest message — A message that COVID-19 presents a real danger to one’s health, even if one is young and healthy, with the idea being that getting vaccinated against COVID-19 is the best way to prevent oneself from getting sick.
Community interest message — A message about the dangers of COVID-19 to the health of loved ones. The idea to promote is that the more people who get vaccinated against COVID-19, the lower the risk that one’s loved ones will get sick. The idea: Society must work together and all get vaccinated.
Economic benefit message — A message about how COVID-19 is wreaking havoc on the economy and the only way to strengthen the economy is to work together to get enough people vaccinated.
Guilt message — This message is about the danger that COVID-19 presents to the health of one’s family and community, with the idea that the best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated, and that society must work together to get enough people vaccinated. Then it asks the participant to imagine the guilt they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease.
Embarrassment message — This message is about the danger that COVID-19 presents to the health of one’s family and community. The idea to promote is that the best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated and by working together to make sure enough people get vaccinated. Then it asks the participant to imagine the embarrassment they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and subsequently spread the disease.
Anger message — This message is about the danger that COVID-19 presents to the health of one’s family and community. The sales idea is that the best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated and by working together to make sure that enough people get vaccinated. It then asks the participant to imagine the anger they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease.
Trust in science message — A message about how getting vaccinated against COVID-19 is the most effective way of protecting one’s community. It promotes the idea that vaccination is backed by science, and that anyone who doesn’t get vaccinated doesn’t understand how infections are spread or who ignores science.
Not bravery message — A message which describes how firefighters, doctors and front line medical workers are brave, and infers that those who choose not to get vaccinated against COVID-19 are not brave.

The study, which was completed July 8, 2020, also sought to determine:

  • Participant’s confidence in the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine after hearing the message in question
  • Participant’s willingness to persuade others to get vaccinated
  • Their fear of those who have not been vaccinated
  • The social judgment of those who choose not to vaccinate

Prosocial Pressure Tactics Work Best

Harvard Business School in collaboration with the Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have also published a working paper18 comparing self-interested versus prosocial motivations for COVID-19 prevention behaviors.

Considering the messages we’ve been bombarded with over the past few months — calling people who don’t wear masks “grandma killers” and so on — it seems clear that results from these kinds of investigations have been capitalized on.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~ Voltaire

In that paper, “Don’t Get It or Don’t Spread It?” the authors review studies in which various types of messages were compared — messages highlighting the threat to self, versus the threat you might pose to others.

Overall, prosocial messages, i.e., messages that stress the importance of complying with prevention behaviors in order to protect others fared the best. According to the authors:19

(Go to link for excerpt)

Stop Believing in the Lockdown

A powerful essay20 in the American Institute for Economic Research asks the question: Is the lockdown the best way to minimize casualties in this pandemic?

Using historical examples beginning with Voltaire’s words, “those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities,” the author reasons that lockdowns are not going to save the world from COVID-19, if for no other reason than whenever lockdowns are eased, infections naturally start to creep back up.

However, the vast majority of these “infections” or “cases” are asymptomatic. …

Never in medical history has a “case” meant someone who is perfectly healthy and requires testing to determine whether they are infected with a particular pathogen. Would you get tested for the common cold or influenza if you had no symptoms? …

There are other myths, mostly scare tactics, that people are willingly believing that need to be stopped now, too, the author asserts — and it’s time to start questioning what is credulous and what is not. I encourage you to read that essay in its totality.

The Fatal Attraction of Techno-Fascism

Another article21 well worth reading is Mark Petrakis’ “The Fatal Attraction of Techno-Fascism.” This one also starts off with an excellent quote by Cato the Elder: “Those who are serious in ridiculous matters will be ridiculous in serious matters.” One of the first points he makes is that fascism is attractive because:

“… it requires so little from us, so little independent thought; just our basic belief and adherence to a limited set of popularly-shared directives and narratives that once fully accepted, relieve us of the need to address stubborn questions or to fret over subtle differences of opinion and feeling.

Propaganda reassures us that we are complete, that we know all there is to know, that we are rational, pragmatic and pure, that the science has been settled and that we are a part of something special.”

Petrakis goes on to discuss why propaganda and disinformation is required in order to maintain control in a fascist regime, and how truth is a liability that must be disallowed and penalized. In the end, the price we pay for this kind of intellectual laziness is “soul-crushing denial and disconnection.”

No one who has been paying attention this past year in particular can have missed that propaganda is in full swing, 24/7, and that both truthful facts and personal opinions that run counter to the established propaganda narrative are being censored and penalized in equal measure.

When it comes to COVID-19, the propaganda is so pervasive and widespread that it has actually shattered what Petrakis refers to as “the grandest illusion of all” that “must be maintained at all costs,” namely the appearance that the propaganda messages are randomly generated.

“It must always appear that the media’s coverage and the comments of experts are entirely free from any preconceived manipulation,” he says. Today, there is little doubt that the narrative we see is anything but free from bias. There’s little doubt that what we’re told is “weaponized storytelling,” to quote Petrakis yet again.

(Go to link for quote)

Ultimately, the economic system known as technocracy is tailor-made for the transhumanist revolution — which I touch upon in “Will New COVID Vaccine Make You Transhuman?” — where man is merged with technology and AI. As always, the lure will be greater convenience, self-improvement and “a better world for all.”

What’s never mentioned is the ultimate price. The price for all of it is complete subjugation to faceless leaders who profit from your every move, and therefore will dictate all of them.

COVID-19 Rules Mark ‘Hysterical Slide Into Police State’

I’ll end this with some observations by British Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption, who in a March 30, 2020, interview22 with The Post warned that COVID-19 rules are paving the way for despotism — the exercise of absolute power in a cruel and oppressive manner.

“The real problem is that when human societies lose their freedom, it’s not usually because tyrants have taken it away. It’s usually because people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection against some external threat. And the threat is usually a real threat but usually exaggerated.”

It is time to ask ourselves some very pressing questions. Is it reasonable to expect government to eliminate ALL infection and ALL death? They’ve proven they cannot, yet we keep relinquishing more and more freedoms and liberties because they claim doing so will keep everyone safer. It’s an enticing lie, but a lie nonetheless.

Remember, they sold us on the business shutdowns and home quarantining by saying we just need to flatten the curve of infection to avoid hospital overcrowding. Now the curve is in a visible nosedive and hospitals are far from overcrowded with COVID-19 patients, yet lockdowns remain in many areas and some — Australia being a prime example — have reached astonishing new heights.

Sooner or later everyone must decide which is more important: Personal liberty or false security? Circling back to where I started, the good news is that many are in fact starting to see the writing on the wall; they’re starting to see we’ve been “had,” and are starting to choose liberty over brutal totalitarianism in the name of public health.

 

  • from:    https://www.wakingtimes.com/2020/09/16/a-global-uprising-is-underway/