Learn more at Dr. Hyman’s Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@drmarkhyman/videos
Learn more at Dr. Hyman’s Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@drmarkhyman/videos
Since 2020, parents have had to contend with increasingly brazen efforts by governments, schools, foundations, Big Tech, Big Pharma and others to hijack, injure or destroy children’s minds and bodies. Here are some strategies for parents to help kids resist the pressure to comply.
Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender’s Top News of the Day. It’s free.
Since 2020, parents have had to contend with increasingly brazen efforts by governments, schools, foundations, Big Tech, Big Pharma and others to hijack, injure or destroy children’s minds and bodies.
Far from being piecemeal or merely opportunistic responses to a convenient “pandemic,” these assaults on children — and adults, too — reflect a well-financed, long-term control agenda aimed at implementation of digital identities, social scoring and “full monitoring and tracking of every human being through … mechanisms already in place.”
At the “Defeat the Mandates” rally in January 2022, Children’s Health Defense Chairman and Chief Litigation Counsel Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., asserted, “Nobody in the history of the planet has ever complied their way out of totalitarian control” and reminded the public, “Every time you comply, you get weaker.”
Kennedy also warned, “they’re coming for our children.”
As if in confirmation, infants, kindergartners and college students were badgered throughout the year to get — and then suffered atrocious damage from — COVID-19 shots, despite overwhelming evidence that the jabs urgently needed to be withdrawn from the market.
Clued in to these and other dangers crowding around their children, a growing number of parents recognized the need for noncompliance.
Keeping noncompliance as the watchword for 2023, here are some actions that could make a real difference in the coming year.
Choose home schooling
In a nine-part series written earlier this year, journalist Corey Lynn of Corey’s Digs described comprehensive social engineering efforts — “obedience training” — rolling out in coordinated fashion in 110 countries, in part via school-based “Social and Emotional Learning” programs.
Implemented by educators, counselors and other professionals in “public schools, charter schools, after-school programs, summer camps, virtual schools and remote schooling,” the goal is, according to Lynn, “shaping minds, regulating emotions, controlling behaviors, instilling twisted beliefs, and building an obedient workforce.”
As Anna L. Noble put it in an April 2022 article in The Defender, “Schools provide a useful testing ground to experiment with ways to hold the attention of children, develop nudges, and elicit desirable behavioral responses.”
Scathing education whistleblower Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, a now-deceased former senior policy advisor for the U.S. Department of Education, decried the “deliberate dumbing down of America” and traced the education system’s shift “from academics to behavioral modification” back to at least 1965.
Iserbyt observed that the Department of Education did not exist prior to its 1979 creation under the Carter Administration, stating, “There is nowhere in the constitution that calls for a Department of Education.”
Even private schools, under the thumb of the agenda-driven National Association of Independent Schools, appear to have lost any vestiges of “independence,” with enrollment contracts reportedly prohibiting parents “from ‘[voicing] strong disagreement’ with school policy or curricula, under threat of expulsion.”
Instead of continuing to expect something different from an “abusive” educational system, Lynn suggests that home schooling can be a powerful form of noncompliance.
Home schooling is now the fastest-growing form of education in the U.S.
Stop the poisoning
Earlier this month, more than a third of parents surveyed (35%) — up from less than one-fourth (23%) in 2019 — questioned school vaccine mandates,
And this was only the latest in a string of reports addressing rising parental ambivalence about “routine” childhood vaccines.
These trends suggest that a critical mass of parents is coming to see vaccines as a “con man trick,” understanding that promises of vaccine safety were false and conflict-of-interest-riddled well before COVID-19 shots came along — and in fact, since the very inception of childhood vaccination programs.
The world’s vaccine experts conceded this point in a roundabout manner at a World Health Organization Global Vaccine Safety Summit in late 2019, as did Danish researcher and long-time vaccine insider Christine Stabell Benn at around the same time.
Benn commented, “Vaccination opponents are justified in being concerned [about safety],” adding:
“No vaccines have been studied for their non-specific effects on overall health, and before we have examined these, we cannot actually determine that the vaccines are safe.”
Benn’s colleague Peter Aaby admitted, also in 2019, “Most of you think that we know what all our vaccines are doing; we don’t.”
In mid-2021, Benn and Aaby cautiously argued against COVID-19 shots for children in the high-status BMJ scientific journal.
Given the shocking odds of vaccine injury that already prevailed prior to COVID-19 — conservatively estimated in a 2010 government-commissioned report at one in every 39 vaccines administered — it is not surprising that the carnage from COVID-19 jabs would now be swelling the ranks of questioners and “ex-vaxxers.”
Parents willing to do their own research and forge their family’s own nutritional and healthcare path will find that it may be within their reach to lessen, if not entirely eliminate, their children’s exposure to other common poisons such as food additives, glyphosate, organochlorine and organophosphate pesticides and over-the-counter drugs like acetaminophen, all of which come with vastly underreported dangers.
Reduce screen time
In 2006, author Richard Louv coined the term “nature-deficit disorder” in the subtitle to his book “Last Child in the Woods,” suggesting that today’s “wired generation,” with parents’ conscious or unconscious permission, has unwisely prioritized screens over time in nature.
Worried researchers also describe how screens are displacing “developmentally beneficial activities” as basic as sleep, physical activity, family interactions and book reading.
The related problem of screen or social media addiction — linked not just to sleeplessness but to eating disorders and outcomes like suicide — has become the focus of lawsuits alleging that social media companies “aggressively” deploy algorithms designed to addict children and adolescents.
Discovering the major role that “social influencers” seem to play in the exploding phenomenon of “rapid onset gender dysphoria” among girls, author Abigail Shrier’s top recommendation in her book, “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters,” is to not give one’s daughter a smartphone.
As “Financial Rebellion” and the Solari Report’s Catherine Austin Fitts explains, “Children are targets of some of the most powerful people and dangerous technology on the planet,” and it is parents’ job to “understand this and protect them.”
Teach kids to use cash, not plastic
In late 2020, Bank for International Settlements General Manager Augustín Carstens shared central bankers’ unfriendly vision of a monetary system enabling complete control of all transactions through central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) which, ominously, would also allow central banks to turn people’s money on and off at will.
Unfortunately, the younger generations are marching heedlessly toward this dystopian vision, with millennials, according to 2021 research by Capital One, “increasingly moving away from cash spending” in favor of digital payment systems.
Pushing a “convenience” narrative, some banks — seemingly unaware that CBDCs threaten their own future — are promoting the cashless agenda by offering high school debit cards that double as school ID cards, telling parents they’ll no longer have to “worry about lost lunch money.”
Parents can help by not only being cash role models themselves but by having their children “start handling cash when they are young.”
In 2015, Editor-at-Large Janet Bodnar of Kiplinger’s Personal Finance opined that “using cash is the best way to get young minds thinking wisely about money,” including older teens who can benefit from “the discipline of managing a stash of real cash.”
Bodnar dismissed as flawed the parental argument that plastic can teach kids “financial responsibility.”
A British math expert told The Guardian in 2021, “Being able to handle money and buy something yourself is very special: it builds up your confidence with money.”
Don’t fall for mental health traps
Over the years, many parents have learned to be wary of recommendations coming from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), an agency so accustomed to conflicts of interest and fake science that it is not embarrassed to use the same PR firm as Big Pharma.
Academy of Pediatrics deserve careful scrutiny.
As recently outlined in The Defender, cradle-to-grave psychiatric surveillance is a stealth tool for social control, and also risks stigmatizing and potentially life-threatening consequences like overdiagnosis, overmedicalization and overmedication.
Schools increasingly serve as the delivery mechanism for mental health screening and services, but as the Los-Angeles-based Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) — a mental health watchdog group — warned in a fact sheet, the “subjective and unscientific” mental health screening tools that schools are using are “developed by psychiatrists predominantly with financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.”
According to CCHR:
“Mental health screening asks young students embarrassing, personal and potentially upsetting questions that psychiatrists have worded in such a way that no student could escape being labeled mentally ill at some point during their education.”
CCHR adds, “These questionnaires can result in psychological or psychiatric intervention in the lives of a child and his or her family — often against their will or under threat.”
For households that are not home schooling, the watchdog group recommends that parents become aware of what is happening, sign exemption forms prior to mental health screening or counseling and “unite to get psychiatric screening expelled from schools.”
Stop financing the enemy
Author and researcher Dr. Naomi Wolf recently braved the cold in front of her alma mater Yale University to make the case that the university’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates turn students into “medical hostages” and constitute human trafficking.
In her Substack account of the Yale visit, Wolf described conversations with parents, who said “their children had begged them not to speak out, not to call the Dean, not to advocate for them to protect them from these injections, in any way,” due to the fear of reprisal and expulsion.
However, parents have a duty to make sure their young people understand what they are trading off for prestige — including, potentially, their health, their future fertility or their life.
Moreover, even if, as Wolf alleges, universities are now more beholden to government contracts than to those who pay tuition, college students and their parents still represent a powerful economic bloc capable of voting with their feet.
One tool at parents’ disposal, suggests Wolf, is to escrow potential donations to show universities the funds they are missing out on.
But parents who give their current or soon-to-be college students the permission and courage to shun any higher education institution that shows itself willing to poison them and deprive them of their constitutional freedoms can offer their children an even more powerful life lesson.
A high school student who recognized that “mandates will not end as long as we participate” developed a letter for college admissions offices (available as a template for others) that says:
“At this time, I’m only considering schools, colleges or universities that do not require a Covid-19 vaccine and that would mean the initial series, any boosters and including upcoming requirements to be considered ‘up to date.’ Medical freedom and body autonomy are my highest priority.”
Say no to the control grid
As Kennedy wrote in the afterword to his bestseller, “The Real Anthony Fauci,” “We can bow down and comply … Or we can say no. We have a choice, and it is not too late.”
CHD.TV’s “Financial Rebellion” offers weekly suggestions on how to not comply.
In Kennedy’s words:
“We can say no to compliance with jabs for work, no to sending children to school with forced testing and masking, no to censored social media platforms, no to buying products from the companies bankrupting and seeking to control us. These actions are not easy, but living with the consequence of inaction would be far harder. By calling on our moral courage, we can stop this march towards a global police state.”
Background: The COVID-19 period highlights a huge problem that has been developing for decades, the control of science by industry. In the 1950s, the tobacco industry set the example, which the pharmaceutical industry followed. Since then, the latter has been regularly condemned for illegal marketing, misrepresentation of experimental results, dissimulation of information about the dangers of drugs, and considered as criminal. Therefore, this study was conducted to show that knowledge is powerfully manipulated by harmful corporations, whose goals are: 1/financial; 2/to suppress our ability to make choices to acquire global control of public health.
Methods: Pharmaceutical industry techniques for manipulating science and COVID-19 reporting were reviewed. Several sources of official documents were used: PubMed; National Institutes of Health resources; pharmaceutical companies; policy documents; national newspapers and news agencies; and books by prominent professionals (scientific and legal). A few studies have not been published in peer-reviewed journals; however, they have been conducted by reputable scientists in their respective fields.
Results: Since the beginning of COVID-19, we can list the following methods of information manipulation which have been used: falsified clinical trials and inaccessible data; fake or conflict-of-interest studies; concealment of vaccines’ short-term side effects and total lack of knowledge of the long-term effects of COVID-19 vaccination; doubtful composition of vaccines; inadequate testing methods; governments and international organizations under conflicts of interest; bribed physicians; the denigration of renowned scientists; the banning of all alternative effective treatments; unscientific and liberticidal social methods; government use of behavior modification and social engineering techniques to impose confinements, masks, and vaccine acceptance; scientific censorship by the media.
Conclusion: By supporting and selecting only the one side of science information while suppressing alternative viewpoints, and with obvious conflicts of interest revealed by this study, governments and the media constantly disinform the public. Consequently, the unscientifically validated vaccination laws, originating from industry-controlled medical science, led to the adoption of social measures for the supposed protection of the public but which became serious threats to the health and freedoms of the population.
Keywords: Behavior modification; COVID-19; Conflicts of interest; Scientific censorship; Side effects; Vaccination.
Copyright: © 2022 Surgical Neurology International.
There are no conflicts of interest.
Anewly published analysis in the journal Frontiers in Environmental Science argues that a toxic soup of insecticides, herbicides and fungicides is causing havoc beneath fields covered in corn, soybeans, wheat and other monoculture crops. The research is the most comprehensive review ever conducted on how pesticides affect soil health.
The study is discussed by two of the report’s authors, Nathan Donley and Tari Gunstone, in a recent article appearing on the Scientific American website.
The authors state that the findings should bring about immediate changes in how regulatory agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assess the risks posed by the nearly 850 pesticide ingredients approved for use in the USA.
Conducted by the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth and the University of Maryland, the research looked at almost 400 published studies that together had carried out more than 2800 experiments on how pesticides affect soil organisms. The review encompassed 275 unique species or types of soil organisms and 284 different pesticides or pesticide mixtures.
Pesticides were found to harm organisms that are critical to maintaining healthy soils in over 70 per cent of cases. But Donley and Gunstone say this type of harm is not considered in the EPA’s safety reviews, which ignore pesticide harm to earthworms, springtails, beetles and thousands of other subterranean species.
The EPA uses a single test species to estimate risk to all soil organisms, the European honeybee, which spends its entire life above ground in artificial boxes. But 50-100 per cent of all pesticides end up in soil.
The researchers conclude that the ongoing escalation of pesticide-intensive agriculture and pollution are major driving factors in the decline of soil organisms. By carrying out wholly inadequate reviews, the regulatory system serves to protect the pesticide industry.
The study comes in the wake of other recent findings that indicate high levels of the weedkiller chemical glyphosate and its toxic breakdown product AMPA have been found in topsoil samples from no-till fields in Brazil.
Writing on the GMWatch website, Claire Robinson and Jonathan Matthews note that, despite this, the agrochemical companies seeking the renewal of the authorisation of glyphosate by the European Union in 2022 are saying that one of the greatest benefits of glyphosate is its ability to foster healthier soils by reducing the need for tillage (or ploughing).
This in itself is misleading because farmers are resorting to ploughing given increasing weed resistance to glyphosate and organic agriculture also incorporates no till methods. At the same time, proponents of glyphosate conveniently ignore or deny its toxicity to soils, water, humans and wildlife.
With that in mind, it is noteworthy that GMWatch also refers to another recent study which says that glyphosate is responsible for a five per cent increase in infant mortality in Brazil.
The new study, ‘Pesticides in a case study on no-tillage farming systems and surrounding forest patches in Brazil’ in the journal Scientific Reports, leads the researchers to conclude that glyphosate-contaminated soil can adversely impact food quality and human health and ecological processes for ecosystem services maintenance. They argue that glyphosate and AMPA presence in soil may promote toxicity to key species for biodiversity conservation, which are fundamental for maintaining functioning ecological systems.
These studies reiterate the need to shift away from increasingly discredited ‘green revolution’ ideology and practices. This chemical-intensive model has helped the drive towards greater monocropping and has resulted in less diverse diets and less nutritious foods. Its long-term impact has led to soil degradation and mineral imbalances, which in turn have adversely affected human health.
If we turn to India, for instance, that country is losing 5334 million tonnes of soil every year due to soil erosion and degradation, much of which is attributed to the indiscreet and excessive use of synthetic agrochemicals. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research reports that soil is becoming deficient in nutrients and fertility.
India is not unique in this respect. Maria-Helena Semedo of the Food and Agriculture Organization stated back in 2014 that if current rates of degradation continue all of the world’s topsoil could be gone within 60 years. She noted that about a third of the world’s soil had already been degraded. There is general agreement that chemical-heavy farming techniques are a major cause.
It can take 500 years to generate an inch of soil yet just a few generations to destroy. When you drench soil with proprietary synthetic agrochemicals as part of a model of chemical-dependent farming, you harm essential micro-organisms and end up feeding soil a limited doughnut diet of toxic inputs.
Armed with their multi-billion-dollar money-spinning synthetic biocides, this is what the agrochemical companies have been doing for decades. In their arrogance, these companies claim to have knowledge that they do not possess and then attempt to get the public and co-opted agencies and politicians to bow before the altar of corporate ‘science’ and its bought-and-paid-for scientific priesthood.
The damaging impacts of their products on health and the environment have been widely reported for decades, starting with Rachel Carson’s ground-breaking 1962 book Silent Spring.
These latest studies underscore the need to shift towards organic farming and agroecology and invest in indigenous models of agriculture – as has been consistently advocated by various high-level international agencies, not least the United Nations, and numerous official reports.
By Jeremy Loffredo
An investigation by academics, journalists and public interest researchers reveals a web of corporate money and industry-funded science surrounding the nonprofit organization International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI). ILSI describes itself as a network of think-tanks, science societies and institutes that promote food safety and nutrition. However, as research group U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) asserts, ILSI is a “food industry lobbying group” that works to benefit its corporate donors despite its proclaimed mission of improving “human health and well-being.”
USRTK details the revolving door between the ILSI and industry, which goes as far back as the organization’s foundation in 1978. It was started by former Coca-Cola executive Alex Malaspina, and as USRTK points out, the nonprofit has maintained its close ties to Coca-Cola. For example, Michael Ernest Knowles, president of ILSI from 2009-2011, hailed from Coca-Cola where he was the vice president of global scientific and regulatory affairs. As another example, ILSI’s president in 2015, Rhona Applebaum, was, at the same time, working as Coca-Cola’s chief health and science officer. Applebaum was forced to retire from both positions after reports showed that Coke funded and edited the mission statement of a prominent anti-obesity advocacy group in an effort to shift public conversation away from criticism of the effects of sugary drinks and instead blame the lack of physical activity on childhood obesity.
But, as noted in this recent study, sugary drinks are to blame for this epidemic. Researchers from the Medical University of Vienna looked at 20 studies addressing the link between sugary sweetened drinks and obesity in children and adults. Of all the studies, 93% concluded that there was a “positive association” between the onset of overweight or obesity and the consumption of sugary drinks in children and adults. Other research has found positive association between sugary drinks and cancer.
USRTK highlights ILSI’s influence on domestic health officials, in the U.S. and abroad. The report highlights the example of Chinese health officials, noting that ILSI-Chinese operations are actually located inside China’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention offices in Beijing. USRTK notes Harvard Professor Susan Greenhalgh findings, which show that Western food and beverage corporations have helped shape decades of Chinese science and public policy on obesity and diet by operating through ILSI.
Greenhalgh explains, “Since 2015, when The New York Times exposed Coke’s efforts to promote activity as the main solution for obesity, we’ve known that Coke was involved in distorting the science of obesity. My work reveals the scale of the impact and the inner workings of the organizations involved,” which includes ILSI.
The researchers also shows how ILSI takes money directly from food and chemical companies. While ISLI does not publicly disclose its funding from industry, researchers were able to find a $500,000 contribution from Monsanto in 2012 and more than $163,500 from Coca-Cola the same year.
In 2013, the ILSI received $337,000 from Coca-Cola and more than $100,000 each from corporations like Monsanto, Dow Chemical and Bayer.
A draft of ILSI’s 2016 tax returns also reveals hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from giants such as Nestle, Kellogg, Kraft, General Mills and Unilever.
USRTK notes that these monetary contributions can affect global health policy. In 2016, the United Nations panel on Monsanto’s chemical glyphosate was chaired by ILSI Europe Vice President Alan Boobis. Co-chairing the sessions was Angelo Moretto, an ILSI board member. Neither individual declared their ILSI leadership roles as conflicts of interest, despite the significant financial contributions ILSI has received from Monsanto.
What’s more, USRTK points out that these monetary contributions can be earmarked for specific initiatives. Coca-Cola earmarked its ILSI contributions to fund the organization’s “Platform for International Partnerships,” which manages its relationships with regulatory bodies like the World Health Organization. USRTK then references a June 2019 paper in Globalization and Health, which explains that corporations deploy ILSI “as a tool to promote their interests globally.” Researchers further demonstrate the existence of a nonprofit industrial complex, where “science institutes” like ILSI serve as a vehicle for corporate influence, at the expense of objective science and public health.
“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” ~ William Shakespeare
By Catherine Austin Fitts
I am not a scientist. I am not a doctor. I am not a biotech engineer. I am not an attorney. However, I read, listen, appreciate, and try to understand those who are.
I was an investment banker until politics made it impossible to continue to practice my art. I was trained as a portfolio strategist—so I map my world by watching the financial flows and allocation of resources. I was also trained as a conspiracy generator and foot soldier—conspiracies being the fundamental organizing principle of how things get done in our world. It was not until I left the establishment that I learned that those not in the club had been trained to disparage and avoid conspiracies—a clever trick that sabotages their efforts to gather power.
My response to living at war with agencies of the U.S. government for a time was to answer the questions of people who were sufficiently courageous and curious to solicit my opinion. Over many years, that response transformed into two businesses. One was The Solari Report, which continues to grow as a global intelligence network—we seek to help each other understand and navigate what is happening and contribute to positive outcomes. The other was serving as an investment advisor to individuals and families through Solari Investment Advisory Services. After ten years, I converted that business to doing an ESG screen. What those who use it want—that is not otherwise readily available in the retail market—is a screen that reflects knowledge of financial and political corruption. Tracking the metastasizing corruption is an art, not a science.
When you help a family with their finances, it is imperative to understand all their risk issues. Their financial success depends on successful mitigation of all the risks—whether financial or non-financial—that they encounter in their daily lives. Non-financial risks can have a major impact on the allocation of family resources, including attention, time, assets, and money.
Many of my clients and their children had been devastated and drained by health care failures and corruption—and the most common catalyst for this devastation was vaccine death and injury. After their lengthy and horrendous experiences with the health care establishment, they would invariably ask, “If the corruption is this bad in medicine, food, and health, what is going on in the financial world?” Chilled by the thought, they would search out a financial professional who was schooled in U.S. government and financial corruption. And they would find me.
The result of this flow of bright, educated people blessed with the resources to pay for my time was that, for ten years, I got quite an education about the disabilities and death inflicted on our children by what I now call “the great poisoning.” I had the opportunity to repeatedly price out the human damage to all concerned—not just the affected children but their parents, siblings, and future generations—mapping the financial costs of vaccine injury again and again and again. These cases were not as unusual as you might expect. Studies indicate that 54% of American children have one or more chronic diseases. Doctors who I trust tell me that number is actually much higher, as many children and their families cannot afford the care and testing necessary to properly diagnose what ails them.
One of the mothers featured in VAXXED—a must-watch documentary for any awake citizen, as is its sequel VAXXED II: The People’s Truth—estimated that a heavily autistic child would cost present value $5MM to raise and care for over a lifetime. When my clients who were grandparents insisted that they would not interfere with their children’s vaccine choices because it was “none of their business,” I would say, “Really? Who has the $5MM? You or your kids? When your kids need the $5MM to raise their vaccine-injured child, are you going to refuse them? You are the banker, and it is your money that is at risk here, so it is your business. Do you want to spend that $5MM on growing a strong family through the generations or on managing a disabled child who did not have to be disabled?” Often, that $5MM in expenditures also translates into divorce, depression, and lost opportunities for siblings.
My clients helped me find the best resources—books, documentaries, articles—on vaccines. You will find many of them linked or reviewed at The Solari Report, including in our Library.
Of all the questions that I had, the one that I spent the most time researching and thinking about was why. Why was the medical establishment intentionally poisoning generations of children? Many of the writers who researched and wrote about vaccine injury and death assumed it was an aberration—resulting from the orthodoxy of a medical establishment that could not face or deal with its mistakes and liabilities. That never made sense to me. Writings by Forrest Maready, Jon Rappoport, Dr. Suzanne Humphries and Arthur Firstenberg have helped me understand the role of vaccines in the con man trick of saving money for insurance companies and the legally liable.
Here is one example of how the trick may play out. A toxin creates a disease. The toxin might be pesticides or industrial pollution or wireless technology radiation. The toxin damages millions of people and their communities. Companies or their insurance provider may be liable for civil or criminal violations. Then a virus is blamed. A “cure” is found in a “vaccine.” The pesticide or other toxic exposure is halted just as the vaccine is introduced, and presto, the sickness goes away. The vaccine is declared a success, and the inventor is declared a hero. A potential financial catastrophe has been converted to a profit, including for investors and pension funds. As a portfolio strategist, I admit it has been a brilliant trick and likely has protected the insurance industry from the bankrupting losses it would experience if it had to fairly compensate the people and families destroyed.
Thanks to the work of Robert Kennedy and Mary Holland of Children’s Health Defense, I now understand the enormous profits generated by so-called “vaccines” subsequent to the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 and the creation of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program—a federal no-fault mechanism for compensating vaccine-related injuries or deaths by establishing a claim procedure involving the United States Court of Federal Claims and special masters. Call a drug or biotech cocktail a “vaccine,” and pharmaceutical and biotech companies are free from any liabilities—the taxpayer pays. Unfortunately, this system has become an open invitation to make billions from “injectibles,” particularly where government regulations and laws can be used to create a guaranteed market through mandates. As government agencies and legislators as well as the corporate media have developed various schemes to participate in the billions of profits, significant conflicts of interest have resulted.
The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREPA or the PREP Act) became law in 2005, adding to corporate freedoms from liability. The Act “is a controversial tort liability shield intended to protect vaccine manufacturers from financial risk in the event of a declared public health emergency. The act specifically affords to drug makers immunity from potential financial liability for clinical trials of . . . vaccine at the discretion of the Executive branch of government. PREPA strengthens and consolidates the oversight of litigation against pharmaceutical companies under the purview of the secretary of Health and Human Services.” (~ Wikipedia)
Over time, this has evolved to the engineering of epidemics—the medical version of false flags. In theory, these can be “psyops” or events engineered with chemical warfare, biowarfare, or wireless technology. If this sounds strange, dive into all the writings of the “Targeted Individuals.”
I learned about this first-hand when I was litigating with the Department of Justice and was experiencing significant physical harassment. I tried to hire several security firms; they would check my references and then decline the work, saying it was too dangerous. The last one took pity and warned me not to worry about electronic weaponry, letting me know that my main problem would be low-grade biowarfare. This biowarfare expert predicted that the opposing team would drill holes in the wall of my house and inject the “invisible enemy.” Sure enough, that is exactly what happened. I sold my house and left town. That journey began a long process of learning how poisoning and nonlethal weapons are used—whether to move people out of rent-controlled apartments, sicken the elderly to move them to more expensive government-subsidized housing, gangstalk political or business targets, or weaken or kill litigants—and the list goes on. Poisoning turned out to be a much more common tactic in the game of political and economic warfare in America than I had previously understood.
After I finished my litigation, I spent several years detoxing from heavy metal toxicity—including from lead, arsenic, and aluminum. As I drove around America, I realized it was not just me. Americans increasingly looked like a people struggling with high loads of heavy metals toxicity. In the process of significantly decreasing my unusually high levels of heavy metals, I learned what a difference the toxic load had made to my outlook, my energy, and my ability to handle complex information.
This brings me to the question of what exactly a vaccine is and what exactly is in the concoctions being injected into people today as well as the witches’ brews currently under development.
In 2017, Italian researchers reviewed the ingredients of 44 types of so-called “vaccines.” They discovered heavy metal debris and biological contamination in every human vaccine they tested. The researchers stated, “The quantity of foreign bodies detected and, in some cases, their unusual chemical compositions baffled us.” They then drew the obvious conclusion, namely, that because the micro- and nanocontaminants were “neither biocompatible nor biodegradable,” they were “biopersistent” and could cause inflammatory effects right away—or later (http://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/IJVV-04-00072.pdf)
Aborted fetal tissue, animal tissue, aluminum, mercury, genetically altered materials—and what else?
Whatever the ingredients of vaccines have been to date, nothing is more bizarre and unsettling than the proposals of what might be included in them in the future. Strategies—already well-funded and well on the way—include brain-machine interface nanotechnology, digital identity tracking devices, and technology with an expiration date that can be managed and turned off remotely. One report indicates that the Danish government and U.S. Navy had been paying a tech company in Denmark to make an injectible chip that would be compatible with one of the leading cryptocurrencies.
I was recently reading Mary Holland’s excellent 2012 review of U.S. vaccine court decisions (“Compulsory vaccination, the Constitution, and the hepatitis B mandate for infants and young children,” Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics) and I froze and thought, “Why are we calling the injectibles that Bill Gates and his colleagues are promoting ‘vaccines’? Are they really vaccines?”
Most people are familiar with how Bill Gates made and kept his fortune. He acquired an operating system that was loaded into your computer. It was widely rumored that the U.S. intelligence agencies had a back door. The simultaneous and sudden explosion of computer viruses then made it necessary to regularly update your operating system, allowing Gates and his associates to regularly add whatever they wanted into your software. One of my more knowledgeable software developers once said to me in the 1990s—when Microsoft really took off—”Microsoft makes really sh***y software.” But of course, the software was not really their business. Their business was accessing and aggregating all of your data. Surveillance capitalism was underway.
The Department of Justice launched an antitrust case against Microsoft in 1998, just as the $21 trillion started to disappear from the U.S. government—no doubt with the help of specially designed software and IT systems. During the settlement negotiations that permitted Gates to keep his fortune, he started the Gates Foundation and his new philanthropy career. I laughed the other day when my tweet of one of Robert Kennedy Jr.’s articles from Children’s Health Defense—describing the gruesome technology Gates is hoping to roll out through “injectibles”—inspired a response: “Well, I guess he is finally fulfilling his side of his antitrust settlement.”
If you look at what is being created and proposed in the way of injectibles, it looks to me like these technological developments are organized around several potential goals.
The first and most important goal is the replacement of the existing U.S. dollar currency system used by the general population with a digital transaction system that can be combined with digital identification and tracking. The goal is to end currencies as we know them and replace them with an embedded credit card system that can be integrated with various forms of control, potentially including mind control. “De-dollarization” is threatening the dollar global reserve system. The M1 and M2 money supply have increased in the double digits over the last year as a result of a new round of quantitative easing by the Fed. The reason we have not entered into hyperinflation is because of the dramatic drop in money velocity occasioned by converting Covid-19 into an engineered shutdown of significant economic activity and the bankrupting of millions of small and medium-sized businesses. The managers of the dollar system are under urgent pressure to use new technology to centralize economic flows and preserve their control of the financial system.
Just as Gates installed an operating system in our computers, now the vision is to install an operating system in our bodies and use “viruses” to mandate an initial installation followed by regular updates.
Now I appreciate why Gates and his colleagues want to call these technologies “vaccines.” If they can persuade the body politic that injectible credit cards or injectible surveillance trackers or injectable brain-machine interface nanotechnologies are “vaccines,” then they can enjoy the protection of a century or more of legal decisions and laws that support their efforts to mandate what they want to do. As well, they can insist that U.S. taxpayers fund, through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, the damages for which they would otherwise be liable as a result of their experiments—and violations of the Nuremberg Code and numerous civil and criminal laws—on the general population. The scheme is quite clever. Get the general population to go along with defining their new injectible high-tech concoctions as “vaccines,” and they can slip them right into the vaccine pipeline. No need to worry about the disease and death that will result from something this unnatural delivered this quickly. The freedom from liability guaranteed by the PREP Act through the declaration of an emergency—and the ability to keep the emergency going through contact tracing—can protect them from liability for thousands if not millions of deaths and disabilities likely to follow such human experimentation. Ideally, they can just blame the deaths on a virus.
A colleague once told me how Webster’s Dictionary came about. Webster said that the way the evildoers would change the Constitution was not by amending it but by changing the definitions—a legal sneak attack.
I believe that Gates and the pharma and biotech industries are literally reaching to create a global control grid by installing digital interface components and hooking us up to Microsoft’s new $10 billion JEDI cloud at the Department of Defense as well as Amazon’s multibillion cloud contract for the CIA that is shared with all U.S. intelligence agencies. Why do you think President Trump has the military organizing to stockpile syringes for vaccines? It is likely because the military is installing the roaming operating system for integration into their cloud. Remember—the winner in the AI superpower race is the AI system with access to the most data. Accessing your body and my body on a 24/7 basis generates a lot of data. If the Chinese do it, the Americans will want to do it, too. In fact, the rollout of human “operating systems” may be one of the reasons why the competition around Huawei and 5G telecommunications has become so fractious. As Frank Clegg, former President of Microsoft Canada has warned us, 5G was developed by the Israelis for crowd control.
In the face of global “de-dollarization,” this is how the dollar syndicate can assert the central control it needs to maintain and extend its global reserve currency financial power. This includes protecting its leadership from the civil and criminal liability related to explosive levels of financial and health care fraud in recent decades.
Which brings me back to you and me. Why are we calling these formulations “vaccines”? If I understand the history of case law, vaccines, in legal terms, are medicine. Intentional heavy metal poisoning is not medicine. Injectible surveillance components are not medicine. Injectible credit cards are not medicine. An injectible brain-machine interface is not a medicine. Legal and financial immunity for insurance companies does not create human immunity from disease.
We need to stop allowing these concoctions to be referred to by a word that the courts and the general population define and treat as medicine and protect from legal and financial liability.
The perpetrators of this fraud are trying a very neat trick—one that will help them go much faster and cancel out a lot of risk—at our expense. I understand why they are doing it.
What I don’t understand is why we are helping them. Why are we acquiescing in calling these bizarre and deeply dangerous concoctions “vaccines”? Whatever they are, they are not medicine.
So, what shall our naming convention be? What name shall we give to the relevant poisons, neurologically damaging metals, and digital shackles?
Whatever we call them, I know one thing. THEY ARE NOT MEDICINE, WHICH MEANS THEY SURE ARE NOT VACCINES.
Forrest Maready is producing a movie that might be of interest in these unsettling times.
Right now we all need to be questioning what is going on and to look for and look at the bigger picture. We as individuals can only be safe and saved and healthy if we all work together to uncover the lies and bring to the light the dark agendas that are threatening our sanity, our economy, our neighborhoods, our ways of life, and our own ways of thinking.
On March 12th, 2020, Anderson Cooper and Dr. Sanjay Gupta held a global town hall on “Corona Facts and Fears.” During the discussion, Anderson encouraged the audience to get a flu shot, suggesting that it may help with the coronavirus. Is this true?
Greg. G Wolff, an Epidemiologist with the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Branch recently published a study in the Journal Vaccine titled, Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense personnel during the 2017–2018 influenza season. The study examined virus interference in a Department of Defense population, this refers to the increased risk of other respiratory viruses as a result of, in this case, the influenza vaccine. The study found that virus interference varied among vaccinated individuals for individual respiratory viruses, and found that for coronavirus in particular, in this study, those who had been vaccinated with the flu vaccine had a 36 percent higher risk of contracting it
The study compared the vaccination status of more than two thousand people with non-influenza respiratory viruses to more than three thousand people with pan-negative results. The vaccination status of more than three thousand cases of influenza were compared to three different control groups, and appropriate adjustments were made.
The study points out that recently published studies have “described the phenomenon of vaccine-associated virus interference; that is, vaccinated individuals may be at increased risk for other respiratory viruses because they do not receive the non-specific immunity associated with natural infection.” The study goes on to emphasize that “There has been limited evidence that the influenza vaccine may actually be associated with the virus interference process. Other studies have found no association between influenza vaccination and increased respiratory virus risk.”
Other studies have found no association between the flu vaccine and an increased risk for other respiratory viruses, but when looking specifically at coronavirus, Wolff’s study found that “Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus; however, significant protection with vaccination was associated not only with most influenza viruses, but also parainfluenza, RSV, and non-influenza virus coinfections.”
Metapneumovirus causes both upper and lower respiratory disease in all ages.
Out of the 6120 people in the study with respiratory viruses other than influenza, those who received an influenza vaccine actually had a decreased risk of having other respiratory pathogens compared to the unvaccinated group. Again, it’s important to be specific with what respiratory pathogens one may have an increased risk of contracting as a result of being vaccinated against influenza. This is why for some pathogens, no increased risk was observed, and in some cases a decreased risk was observed. But again, specifically for coronavirus, a significant increased risk was observed.
With regards to the coronavirus and human metapneumovirus, the data in this study showed an increased risk of contraction within vaccinated individuals to be 36 percent greater.
The laboratory data in our study showed increased odds of coronavirus and human metapneumovirus in individuals receiving influenza vaccination…In our disease specific investigation, virus interference trends were noticed for coronavirus and human metapneumovirus…Examining non-influenza viruses specifically, the odds of both coronavirus and human metapneumovirus in vaccinated individuals were significantly higher when compared to unvaccinated individuals (OR = 1.36 and 1.51, respectively)
The study concluded that:
Receipt of influenza vaccination was not associated with virus interference among our population. Examining virus interference by specific respiratory viruses showed mixed results. Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus; however, significant protection with vaccination was associated not only with most influenza viruses, but also parainfluenza, RSV, and non-influenza virus coinfections.
But overall, the results showed “little to no evidence supporting the association of virus interference and influenza vaccination.”
Furthermore, a study published in the same journal, Vaccine, found that“Among children there was an increase in the hazard of ARI (acute respiratory illness) caused by non-influenza respiratory pathogens post-influenza vaccination compared to unvaccinated children during the same period…Patient perceptions of illness following influenza vaccination may be supported.”
The Department of Defense has a Global Respiratory Pathogen Surveillance Program (DoDGRS), it’s a DoD-wide program established by the Global Emerging Infections Surveillance and Response System (GEIS). This is how Wolff was able to gather all of his data with regards to who had been vaccinated with the influenza virus, and what other illnesses they experienced. The Defense Health Agency/Armed Forces Health Surveillance Branch – Air Force Satellite Cell (DHA/AFHSB – AF) and United States Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine (USAFSAM) also provided access to the data.
According to the study above, “significant protection with vaccination was associated not only with most influenza viruses, but also parainfluenza, RSV, and non-influenza virus coinfections.” So, it does point out the benefits of influenza and suggests it’s effective. It also sites multiple studies that show it’s effective as well.
But there is conflicting research on the the flu vaccine and its effectiveness against influenza. For example, Dr. Peter Doshi is an associate editor at The BMJ (British Medical Journal) and also an assistant professor of pharmaceutical health services research at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, published a paper in The BMJ titled “Influenza: Marketing Vaccines By Marketing Disease.” In it, he points out that the CDC pledges “to base all public health decisions on the highest quality of scientific data, openly and objectively derived,” and how this isn’t the case when it comes to the flu vaccine and its marketing. He stresses that “the vaccine may be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and that “the threat of influenza seems to be overstated.”
He goes on to state:
But perhaps the cleverest aspect of the influenza marketing strategy surrounds the claim that “flu” and “influenza” are the same. The distinction seems subtle, and purely semantic. But general lack of awareness of the difference might be the primary reason few people realize that even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the “flu” problem because most “flu” appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive. (fig 2).⇓ All influenza is “flu,” but only one in six “flus” might be influenza. It’s no wonder so many people feel that “flu shots” don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.
Dr. Alvin Moss, MD and professor at the West Virginia University School of Medicine emphasizes in this video:
The flu vaccine happens to be the vaccine that causes the most injury in this country. The vaccine injury compensation program, 40 percent of all vaccinations in this country are flu shots, but 60 percent of all the compensations are for the flu vaccine. So a disproportionate number of vaccine related injuries are the flu shot. I think many of you it’s been recommended to you that you get the flu shot, I don’t know if you’re aware of the fact, the CDC statistics are, that every year they look at vaccine effectiveness, for this particular year the vaccine effectiveness is 48 percent, so that means it’s not highly effective. It’s not even all that effective, if you look at the scientific literature…the evidence to support giving the flu vaccine is moderate to weak. It is not strong evidence. They say the evidence to support giving the flu vaccine to people over the age of 65 is not there, it’s inconclusive. So a lot of the things we’ve been told as Americans about vaccinations are not really based on the science. (source)
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury (NCVIA) has already paid out approximately $4 billion to compensate families of vaccine injured children. As astronomical as the monetary awards are, they’re even more alarming considering HHS claims that only an estimated 1% of vaccine injuries are even reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).
Something to think about. The information in this article shows that’s it’s ok to question, and that the science on vaccine safety is not ‘settled.’ We must ask ourselves, why are there terms like ‘anti-vax’ and why does big media constantly try to ridicule any information that paints vaccines in a concerning light? Surely the questioning of vaccine safety is in the best interest of all parties involved?
At the end of the day, it’s not about who is right and who is wrong, and it’s not about one side or the other. It’s about coming together in a peaceful manner and understanding the concerns that are being raised, and dealing with them, addressing, and responding to them appropriately. We cannot hold hate in our own being if we want to rid the world of it, and we cannot use ridicule and judgement against, otherwise we are simply perpetuating what we are trying to get rid of. Operating from a place of peace is essential, it helps to see things in a clearer way, and it’s something that needs to become a necessity for all parties involved, whether you support vaccination or do not.