Aletho News


Biden lied about Yemen

By Caitlin Johnstone | April 29, 2021

The Biden administration has finally admitted that the US is indeed providing offensive material support to Saudi Arabia’s genocidal assault on Yemen, directly contradicting Biden’s February claim that it would no longer be providing offensive support in that war. We are being lied to about yet another US war by yet another US president.

“The United States continues to provide maintenance support to Saudi Arabia’s Air Force given the critical role it plays in Saudi air defense and our longstanding security partnership,” Pentagon spokesperson Jessica McNulty has informed Vox reporter Alex Ward.

“Multiple US defense officials and experts acknowledged that, through a US government process, the Saudi government pays commercial contractors to maintain and service their aircraft, and those contractors keep Saudi warplanes in the air. What the Saudis do with those fighter jets, however, is up to them,” Ward reported, adding, “The US could cancel those contracts at any time, thus effectively grounding the Saudi Air Force, but doing so would risk losing Riyadh as a key regional partner.”

“The recent admission by the Department of Defense that US companies are still authorized to maintain Saudi warplanes … means that our government is still enabling the Saudi operations, including bombings and enforcing a blockade on Yemen’s ports,” Hassan El-Tayyab, the legislative manager for Middle East policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation lobbying group, told Ward.

El-Tayyab is on record speaking out after Biden’s deceitful February announcement, saying this administration needs to make it abundantly clear what it actually means by ending offensive support for the war on Yemen and actually stick to it.

“I’m not a full pessimist here. I welcome the news,” he told Al Jazeera at the time, adding, “But I’m just trying to stay vigilant and not take the foot off the gas on advocacy pressure. Because we don’t know what’s going to happen.”

Well, now we do know. The US is maintaining and servicing the warplanes that are bombing Yemen and enforcing a blockade, which has killed hundreds of thousands and the United Nations warns could kill 400,000 more this year alone if conditions don’t change, proving Joe Biden a liar and vindicating the experts and activists who cautioned against accepting his announcement on blind faith.

Getting to this point where questions are finally answered about the reality of the Biden administration’s Yemen policy has been like pulling teeth, with officials giving questioners the runaround for months on this issue. Watch this clip of US Yemen Envoy Tim Lenderking dodging questions like George Bush dodges shoes as congressman Ted Lieu tries to get a straight answer as to whether the US has stopped supporting the war on Yemen:

Antiwar’s Dave DeCamp writes the following:

“The admission comes over two months since President Biden said he was ending support for Riyadh’s ‘offensive’ operations in Yemen. Vox reporter Alex Ward asked Pentagon spokesman John Kirby on Monday if the planes that the US is servicing could be used for offensive operations in Yemen. Kirby admitted that the ‘maintenance support for systems could be used for both’ offensive and defensive operations. … Besides continuing to maintain the Saudi Air Force, the Biden administration has given Riyadh the political cover to continue enforcing the blockade on Yemen. Biden officials have claimed that Yemen is not under a blockade, even though Saudi warships are preventing fuel shipments from docking in the port of Hudaydah, which makes it impossible to deliver food to Yemen’s starving civilian population.”

The United Nations conservatively estimates that some 233,000 Yemenis have been killed in the [Saudi-led] war … mostly from what it calls “indirect causes.” Those indirect causes would be disease and starvation resulting from what UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres calls “the worst famine the world has seen for decades.”

When people hear the word “famine” they usually think of mass hunger caused by droughts or other naturally occurring phenomena, but in reality the starvation deaths we are seeing in Yemen (a huge percentage of which are children under the age of five) are caused by something that is no more natural than the starvation deaths you’d see in a medieval siege. They are the result of the Saudi coalition’s use of blockades and its deliberate targeting of farms, fishing boats, marketplaces, food storage sites, and cholera treatment centers with airstrikes aimed at making those parts [of the country, which are] controlled by Yemen’s Ansarullah movement so weak and miserable that they break.

The United States lies about all its wars with the help of the mass media, but up until this year its lies about Yemen have largely consisted of lies by omission: simply not talking about Yemen (like when MSNBC went an entire year without mentioning it a single time during the height of Russiagate hysteria), reporting on the famine as though it’s the result of a tragic natural disaster, or omitting America’s role in the slaughter. This time, it was just a straightforward lie: Biden said the US was ending offensive support, and it wasn’t.

As we’ve discussed previously, when the people demand something of their government it’s a lot easier to simply tell them you’re on their side and redirect them than to tell them no. Democrats are especially good at this.

As awareness grows that Yemen is the single most horrifying atrocity taking place in our world today, pressure is mounting for the US government to use its tremendous amount of leverage over Saudi Arabia to cease the human butchery. Rather than increasing that pressure by saying no, the Biden administration defused it by falsely pretending to give in to the demands. Because the risk of “losing Riyadh as a key regional partner” was deemed too great.

And meanwhile the slaughter continues, unbroken from Obama to Trump and from Trump to Biden. The names change, the narratives change, but the murderous imperial war machine rolls on uninterrupted.

May 2, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Militarism, War Crimes | , , , | 3 Comments

80 Groups Blast US Interference in Mexico’s Phaseout of Glyphosate and GM Corn

By Jessica Corbett | Common Dreams | April 29, 2021

A coalition of 80 U.S. agricultural, consumer, environmental, public health, and worker groups sent a letter Thursday to key figures in the Biden administration calling for them to “respect Mexico’s sovereignty and refrain from interfering with its right to enact health-protective policies” — specifically, the phaseout of the herbicide glyphosate and the cultivation of genetically modified corn.

“Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador quietly rocked the agribusiness world with his New Year’s Eve decree,” Timothy A. Wise of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (ITAP) noted earlier this year. “His administration sent an even stronger aftershock two weeks later, clarifying that the government would also phase out GM corn imports in three years and the ban would include not just corn for human consumption but yellow corn destined primarily for livestock.”

“Mexico imports about 30% of its corn each year, overwhelmingly from the United States,” Wise added. “Almost all of that is yellow corn for animal feed and industrial uses. López Obrador’s commitment to reducing and, by 2024, eliminating such imports reflects his administration’s plan to ramp up Mexican production as part of the campaign to increase self-sufficiency in corn and other key food crops.”

The groups’ letter on the Mexican policies and U.S. interference—published in English (pdf) and Spanish (pdf)—is addressed to recently confirmed U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai. Its lead author is Kristin Schafer, executive director of Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA).

“We call on Secretary Vilsack and Trade Representative Tai, as key leaders in the new administration, to respect Mexico’s decision to protect both public health and the integrity of Mexican farming,” Schafer said in a statement. “It is completely unacceptable for U.S. public agencies to be doing the bidding of pesticide corporations like Bayer, who are solely concerned with maintaining their bottom-line profits.”

Fernando Bejarano, director of Pesticide Action Network in Mexico, explained that “we are part of the No Maize No Country Campaign, a broad coalition of peasant organizations, nonprofit NGOs, academics, and consumers which support the presidential decree and fight for food sovereignty with the agroecological transformation of agricultural systems that guarantee the right to produce and consume healthy, nutritious food, free of pesticides and transgenics.”

“We reject the pressure from corporations such as Bayer-Monsanto—and their CropLife trade association—which are working in both the United States and Mexico to undermine the presidential decree that phases out the use of glyphosate and transgenic corn,” Bejarano said.

The letter highlights Guardian reporting on U.S. government documents obtained by the Center for Biological Diversity through a Freedom of Information Act request. The documents revealed that CropLife America and Bayer AG—which acquired glyphosate-based herbicide developer Monsanto in 2018—worked with U.S. officials to lobby against Mexico’s plans.

According to journalist Carey Gillam’s mid-February report:

The emails reviewed by the Guardian come from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and other U.S. agencies. They detail worry and frustration with Mexico’s position. One email makes a reference to staff within López Obrador’s administration as “vocal anti-biotechnology activists,” and another email states that Mexico’s health agency (Cofepris) is “becoming a big time problem.”

Internal USTR communications lay out how the agrochemical industry is “pushing” for the U.S. to “fold this issue” into the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) trade deal that went into effect July 1. The records then show the USTR does exactly that, telling Mexico its actions on glyphosate and genetically engineered crops raise concerns “regarding compliance” with USMCA.

Citing discussions with CropLife, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) joined in the effort, discussing in an inter-agency email “how we could use USMCA to work through these issues.”

Full article

May 2, 2021 Posted by | Economics, Environmentalism, Timeless or most popular | | 1 Comment

Hancock has blood on his hands – Shocking rise in expectant mothers who’ve lost their baby after having the Covid Vaccine


A tragic milestone has been surpassed as the effects of the mass roll-out of an experimental vaccine continue to devastate the lives of those who “get the jab, when they get the call”. It is with sadness that we have to report that over 100 women have now lost their unborn or newborn baby after having one of the Covid vaccines.

Health authorities in the UK advise women to avoid things like smoked fish, soft cheese, wet paint, coffee, herbal tea, vitamin supplements, and processed junk foods when pregnant. But for some strange and sinister reason they are now adamant the Covid vaccines are 100% safe for use in pregnant women despite the fact there have not been any trials conducted to prove this.

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) released a statement just a few short weeks ago saying “it’s preferable for pregnant women in the UK to be offered the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines where available. There is no evidence to suggest that other vaccines are unsafe for pregnant women, but more research is needed.”

This led to the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock to announce on Twitter – “I encourage all pregnant women when they are called to get the jab”.

The fact the JCVI could say “it is preferable for pregnant women” to have the jab, and “more research is needed” in the same sentence would be laughable if it didn’t have such dire consequences. And the fact Hancock actively encouraged pregnant women to get the jab despite the existing evidence it was not safe is criminal.

Unfortunately but not surprisingly the JCVI and Hancock now have blood on their hands since these statements were made.

Blood on their hands because according to the UK Governments latest report on adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines, as of the 21st April 2021 a total of 58 women had suffered a miscarriage after receiving a dose of the Pfizer / BioNTech mRNA vaccine. But the devastation doesn’t end there. The Pfizer jab had also caused two foetal deaths as of the 21st April, 1 still birth and the death of 1 premature baby.

The AstraZeneca viral vector vaccine is also causing devastation to countless lives. As of the 21st April a total of 37 women had sadly suffered a miscarriage after receiving a dose of the AstraZeneca jab, as well as a total of 3 still births.

These numbers may seem small considering the fact we are told tens of millions of people have now received a dose of an experimental Covid vaccine. But let’s put these figures into context. The Covid jab is only just being offered to those in their early 40’s, which means the majority of those who have been vaccinated so far are over the age of 50. The average age for a woman to reach the menopause is 51. This means they cannot get pregnant and therefore cannot suffer a miscarriage.

But then we also have to consider the fact that up until this ghastly unscientific announcement from the JCVI and Hancock the UK Governments advice on administering the Covid vaccine to pregnant women was as follows –

There are no or limited amount of data from the use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2.
Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine
BNT162b2 is not recommended during pregnancy.

For women of childbearing age, pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination. In addition, women
of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.

Taking all of this into account, the 102 expectant mothers who have sadly lost their child after having the Covid vaccine as of the 21st April suddenly becomes an extraordinarily high number.

How many more women need to lose their baby for the health authorities to say enough is enough?

May 2, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Doctors are Paid Massive Bonuses from a Health Insurance Company for Vaccinating Babies

By Alex Pietrowski – Waking Times – August 8, 2017

Here is a perfect example of the tactics that Big Pharma uses to incentivize doctors to push vaccines on the public. Insurance company Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) pays pediatricians $400 for EACH fully vaccinated child under the age of 2. This means that for every 100 vaccinated patients, the doctor gets a $40,000 bonus!

Moreover, it is now very difficult to find a pediatrician who will accept a family who doesn’t vaccinate. Even parents who partially vaccinate or follow a different schedule have a hard time finding a doctor. Here’s why: doctors have to vaccinate a certain percentage of their patients or they don’t get their bonus. BCBS says doctors need to vaccinate 63% of their patients to get the payout.

BCBS outlines the incentive program for vaccinating babies in the BCBS doctor incentives booklet. Below is an image of the childhood immunization incentives page.

The program specifies that patients under the age of 2 must receive 24 inoculations for the doctor to receive the $400 per-patient payout. Notice the list includes the flu vaccine, even though evidence suggests that the flu vaccine actually weakens the immune system long-term. Furthermore, during the 2012-2013 flu season, the flu vaccine’s effectiveness was found to be just 56 percent across all age groups reviewed by the CDC.

Exorbitant Payouts for Vaccinating Babies

So how much money can a doctor make by pushing vaccines on trusting parents? Here’s the breakdown:

The average American pediatrician has 1546 patients, though some pediatricians see many more. The vast majority of those patients are very young, perhaps because children transition to a family physician or stop visiting the doctor at all as they grow up. As they table above explains, Blue Cross Blue Shield pays pediatricians $400 per fully vaccinated child. If your pediatrician has just 100 fully-vaccinated patients turning 2 this year, that’s $40,000. Yes, Blue Cross Blue Shield pays your doctor a $40,000 bonus for fully vaccinating 100 patients under the age of 2. If your doctor manages to fully vaccinate 200 patients, that bonus jumps to $80,000. (source: )

Doctors Receive Bribes for More Than Vaccinations

The complete BCBS doctor incentives booklet was posted by here.

The booklet shows that payouts aren’t available just for vaccines. Doctors receive bonuses for making sure that patients “adhere to their prescribed drug therapy.” This falls under BCBS category of “disease management” and includes statins, drugs for hypertension, and oral diabetes medications. Doctors also receive bonuses for helping patients manage depression… but only if they do so using drugs.

These types of practices by the medical establishment give rise to many questions. First, are doctors more concerned about earning their bonus than about children’s health? That would explain why so many doctors are no longer taking families that do not vaccinate. Further, do doctors even care if the one-size-fits-all approach to vaccination is safe?

Finally, if doctors receive payouts for disease management, then why would they want to cure their patients? This approach definitely illustrates the biggest problem of our medical establishment. Let’s face it, the establishment is creating long-term customers instead of curing patients.

You May Also Like:

The Outrageous Ways Big Pharma Has Bribed Doctors to Shill Drugs

May 2, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Timeless or most popular | 1 Comment

UK Gov. awards £320 million tax-payer funded contract for ‘Covid-19 Media Propaganda Campaign’ which runs until April 2022


You don’t think things are going to go back to normal on the 21st June 2021 do you? The evidence is mounting to the contrary and the latest piece of the puzzle has cost the British tax-payer £320 million.

Previous pieces of the puzzle have come in the form of a document produced for the UK Government entitled ‘Summary of further modelling of easing of restrictions – Roadmap Step 2’, and a contract currently out for tender for the employment of ‘Covid Marshals’.

The former declares that a third wave is inevitable and that it will be the fault of children and those who refuse the experimental Covid-19 vaccines. Whilst the latter confirms that Covid Marshals will be employed from the 1st July 2021 until the end of January 2022 at the earliest, to the tune of £3 million of tax-payers money.

The latest evidence that things will not be returning to normal on the 21st June 2021 comes in the form of a contract which has been awarded to a single company, costing the British tax-payer £320 million. The contract has a start date of 1st April 2021 and is due to run until the 31st March 2022. It’s stated purpose? “The provision of Media buying services for COVID 19 campaigns.”

The closing date for applications was 12am on the 31st March 2021 and the contract was awarded to ‘OMD Group Limited’. The company is based in London and has a financial director named ‘BELL, Ronald James‘ who has been with the company since the 1st November 2017. But we can also see that there have been three new appointees to the board on the 22nd February 2021. These include FENTON, Laura Claire who has been appointed as CEO. PANESAR, Ravinder who has been appointed as a financial director. And STURGEON, Natalie who has been appointed as CEO.

The three new appointees have certainly struck gold rather quick. We wonder if these people have any ties or links to any members of Boris Johnson’s current Cabinet? Track record would suggest so.

The Government has already spent hundreds of millions of tax payers money since March 2020 to advertise the fact that there is a pandemic and now plan to carry on the tradition for at least another year. The question is, if there was really a deadly pandemic would authorities need to advertise it?

The answer of course lies in the fact that this has never been about a virus, and has always been about control. This £320 million contract is to fund propaganda and maintain the level of fear that they have created in a large amount of the UK population.

The contract also explains why the mainstream media have remained largely silent and toed the line at all times in regards to the narrative being portrayed by the UK Government and their circle of scientific advisors. It would cost them millions of pounds in advertising fees if they refused to do so.

Think things will go back to normal on the 21st June 2021? Think again. This won’t end until we all say it does.

May 2, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | Leave a comment

Do anti-depressants work?

By Sebastian Rushworth, M.D. | April 30, 2021

Anti-depressant drugs are common. Very very common. According to the Centers for Disease Control in the United States, 13% of adults reported taking an anti-depressant when surveyed a few years ago. Among women over the age of 60, almost one in four was taking an anti-depressant!

When I work in the hospital, I frequently see elderly people who are on five, ten, fifteen, or even twenty drugs simultaneously. Invariably, one or more of these drugs is an anti-depressant. This absurd overuse of medications, an issue known as polypharmacy, is one of the biggest health problems facing elderly people today. Anti-depressants are one of the main drug classes contributing to polypharmacy.

With so many people taking anti-depressants, you would think that they must at the very least be effective. And safe. Why else would so many millions of people be taking them on a daily basis? Why else would doctors prescribe them so freely?

The most commonly prescribed type of anti-depressant is the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). Examples of this type of drug include sertraline (a.k.a. zoloft), escitalopram (a.k.a. cipralex), and fluoxetine (a.k.a. prozac). SSRI’s increase serotonin signalling in the brain, which is hypothetically a good thing for people who are depressed. They are generally considered to have the best balance of efficacy and safety of any anti-depressant drug, which is why they are the first line therapy.

So, how effective are SSRI’s at treating depression?

A systematic review and meta-analysis was published in BMC Psychiatry in 2017 that sought to answer this question. The review was funded by the Danish government. It identified 131 randomized placebo-controlled trials investigating SSRI’s as a treatment for depression in adults, with a total of 27,422 participants, and meta-analyzed them (i.e. added all their results together to create one big “meta” trial – this gives a more reliable result than the individual trials can provide).

Before we get in to the results, we need to quickly discuss the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HDRS). The HDRS is the scale most commonly used to assess severity of depression in studies, and also to assess how the severity changes over time. It is a 52 point scale, so a score of 52 is as bad as it can get. A score below eight is considered normal (i.e. not depressed). 8 to 13 is considered to be “mild” depression. 14-18 is considered to be “moderate” depression. 19-22 is considered to be “severe” depression, and anything from 23 and up is considered to be “very severe” depression.

The authors of the review decided, before analyzing the data, that anything less than an average reduction of three points on the scale would be considered a negative result. Personally I think that this is a bit generous. I find it hard to believe that anyone would be able to notice a three point reduction on a 52 point scale. I would have set the threshold higher, at more like six points at the very least. One article published back in 2015 came to the conclusion that people are unable to detect anything less than a 7 point difference on the 52 point Hamilton scale. But as we shall soon see, setting the threshold higher wouldn’t have made a difference anyway. So, let’s get to the results.

Overall, SSRI’s resulted in a 1.94 point greater reduction on the 52 point HDRS scale than placebo. Even when only trials of people with very severe depression (a score of 23 or higher) were included, the improvement over placebo was still only 2.69 points.

So, SSRI’s were not able to get over even the generously low bar set by the reviewers. And let’s remember that most of the studies included in the analysis were industry funded, and industry funded studies usually show a bigger benefit than is seen in reality, so it is likely that the real effect is even smaller than was found in the systematic review.

In other words, SSRI’s are not effective as anti-depressants. Considering that they are currently the first line drug therapy for depression, that would seem to be quite a big problem. And before you suggest that we should use non-SSRI anti-depressants instead, like for example tricyclics, I would note that these have not been shown to be markedly more effective than SSRI’s in head-to-head comparisons. Otherwise we’d be using them as the first line therapy, not SSRI’s.

What about safety? Did SSRI’s cause any serious adverse events?

2.7% of participants in the SSRI arm developed a serious adverse event, as compared with 2.1% in the placebo arm. That is a 0.6% absolute difference, which would mean that roughly one in 170 people treated with an SSRI will suffer a serious adverse event as a result of the treatment. Note that the definition of a serious adverse event is an event that causes death, significant risk of death, disability, and/or hospitalization. In other words, “serious” is serious. So even a small increase in serious adverse events is something that needs to be taken quite, well, seriously.

Medical treatments should ideally result in a decrease in serious adverse events. They certainly should not cause an increase. A truly effective anti-depressant would not just make people feel better, it would also make them less likely to try to commit suicide, which would result in an overall reduction in serious adverse events. No such signal was seen here. Even if you look just at suicide attempts, rather than at adverse events overall, there was no signal that SSRI’s decrease their frequency.

Note that the trials in the review were generally of healthy people under 65 years of age. Frail elderly people treated with SSRI’s will likely experience serious adverse events at a much higher rate than that found here.

Speaking of frail elderly people, in particular those living in nursing homes, I want to take the opportunity to point out that they are frequently the heaviest users of anti-depressants. So you would think that there would be a lot of research showing that anti-depressants are useful to give to the frail elderly… Well, having seen that the evidence doesn’t support using anti-depressants in younger people, you might be a bit skeptical by now. A systematic review was published in the Journal of the American Medical Directors Association in 2012, that sought to determine how beneficial anti-depressants are when used as a treatment for depression in people over the age of 65 who are living in nursing homes. The review was funded by the US government.

Two(!) randomized controlled trials were identified that compared anti-depressants with placebo in nursing home residents, with a total of 55(!) participants. It’s pretty shocking that the evidence base is so small, when you consider that nursing home residents are such heavy user of anti-depressants. Basically, when we (doctors) use these drugs on elderly nursing home residents, we have pretty much zero idea what we’re doing, because there is so little evidence.

Neither of the two trials found any benefit to treating nursing home residents with anti-depressants (although to be fair, they were so small that I wouldn’t have expected them to find anything – they were statistically underpowered). The number of participants was far too small to gain any kind of estimate of the prevalence of serious adverse events, although I think it’s fair to assume, as mentioned above, that it would be much higher in this group than in the younger healthier group included in the studies in the previous review.

I’m mainly bringing this tiny systematic review up to illustrate how atrociously small the knowledge base often is when it comes to the effects of drugs on the frail elderly.

What conclusions can we draw these systematic reviews?

Anti-depressant drugs are ineffective against depression. The harms of these drugs clearly outweigh the practically non-existent benefits. That is true for everyone, but especially so for the frail elderly who are at much higher risk of side effects than the general population. In light of this information, which has now been in the public domain for at least a few years, you would expect large campaigns to get doctors to stop prescribing these drugs. Funnily enough, that hasn’t happened yet.

May 2, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | 2 Comments

US/Western War on Public Health

By Stephen Lendman | April 30, 2021

The US healthcare industry is misnamed — what more accurately should be called a sickness industry.

Hostile to health Pharma profits from sickness.

Immunization News accused the industry of waging “chemical warfare on humanity.”

Deaths from prescription drugs far exceed numbers from global hot wars.

Over two-thirds of Americans use one or more legal drugs. They all have potential harmful to health side effects.

Their use and misuse is the third leading cause of deaths in the US.

The annual cost of healthcare in the US is around $3.3 trillion — about 20% of GDP.

In October 2020, Forbes magazine reported that “US prescription drug spending exceeds $500 billion a year and is growing at a rate that’s three times faster than inflation.”

Pre-seasonal flu renamed covid, the US was around a $30 billion annual market for vaccines.

Because of covid mass-jabbing with experimental, unapproved, hazardous mRNA technology and vaccines, a Global Vaccine Markets Features and Trends report projects mass-vaxxing will grow $100 billion annually by 2025.

Given what’s going on, perhaps this spending level will be reached by yearend or in 2022.

The US public is being mind-manipulated to falsely believe that health protection comes from a syringe.

Ties between Pharma and US/Western public health agencies are incestuous — serving their interests at the expense of public health, not the other way around.

According to Children’s Health Defense (CHD), “American children have never been sicker with a vast array of chronic illnesses,” explaining:

Over half of US children “had at least one of 20 chronic health conditions.”

US “(l)ife expectancy is falling and infant mortality is rising.”

“US children are 76% more likely to die before their first birthday than infants in other wealthy countries.”

Around half of Americans aged 13 – 18 have been “diagnosed with at least one mental, emotional, and/or behavioral disorder.”

According to the US war department, over two-thirds of youths in the country are unfit for military service “because of obesity, asthma, hearing and eyesight problems and mental illness.”

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. explained the “(t)he greatest crisis that America faces today is the chronic disease epidemic in America’s children.”

Mass-vaxxing plays a leading role in creating illness, not protecting from it, Kennedy’s CHD, explaining:

US “(c)hildren vaccinated according to the standard schedule had significantly more outpatient and emergency department visits than ‘undervaccinated’ children.”

The more vaccines taken, the greater the harm to health.

According to a 2017 study, “vaccinated children had a more than twofold greater odds of having been diagnosed with any chronic illness compared to unvaccinated children, and a roughly fourfold greater odds of a diagnosed neuro-developmental disorder (learning disabilities and/or ADHD and/or ASD), as well as a far greater likelihood of having one or more allergic conditions,” CHD reported.

Noted German microbiologist Sucharit Bhakdi warned that global covid mass-jabbing is “decimating the world’s population” by harming people at the cellular level.

These experimental drugs fail to achieve what’s claimed about them.

They harm and don’t protect.

Almost no one under age-70, without a serious preexisting condition, is at risk of dying from seasonal flu now called covid.

Manipulating people to be unnecessarily jabbed is “unethical (and) criminal,” Bhakdi stressed.

CHD quoted noted pediatrician Michelle Perro, saying “(s)ick is the new normal” for US children today, adding:

It’s “so commonplace that diseases that are indeed dis-eases have become normalized, such as chronic asthma, allergies, gut issues, neurologic issues — ADHD to autism spectrum disorders.”

“And there are many others, obesity, metabolic disturbances and every other disorder is becoming normalized because they are so commonplace.”

Decades earlier children in the US were much healthier than ones today because of proliferated environmental toxins — including hazardous to health GMO foods, ingredients, and drugs, notably in the age of flu now called covid.

Perro stressed that Pfizer and Moderna covid drugs aren’t vaccines, saying:

They’re “genetically produced compounds made with messenger RNA that then tells your DNA what to transcribe.”

“Some of these medical interventions have been created using adenoviruses.”

“Adenoviruses are common infections in kids.”

“That they don’t react with our own DNA is misguided.”

Perro added that “(m)ainstream medicine is outdated and no longer relevant to the dangers facing our children today.”

“(T)he leading cause of children’s demise right now (are) the alterations to the microbiota, the microbiome.”

“We as integrative medicine practitioners, particularly during this particular era in this last year, have been marginalized with our integrative tools.”

“(I)t’s horrific how we’ve been marginalized to kind of promote a single-minded agenda and to discredit those of us that practice holistically.”

“There has been a campaign to discredit and censor our group.”

We’re being lied to and mass deceived by Western governments, their hostile to public health officials, Pharma wanting maximum profits, and media press agents for all of the above.

They want us jabbed and rejabbed with what harms health, not protects it.

Mandating masks and social distancing is all about enforcing draconian social control — unrelated to protecting and preserving health.

Mass-jabbing madness, along with all else mandated and promoted is harmful to health, not beneficial.

Since last year, we’ve been betrayed by diabolical dark forces in the US and West.

They’re hostile to public health, well-being, and safety by pushing a humanly destructive protocol to be rejected, not followed.

May 2, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | 1 Comment

Is our relationship with the government healthy?

Phill Sacre | April 23, 2021

The government have become such a part of our lives over the last few months, it’s almost like we’ve all entered into another relationship with them. But is that relationship healthy, or is it abusive? And how did we even get here?

The article I refer to from Psychology Today is here: 20 signs your partner is controlling –…

If you’d like to find out more about Christianity, I have a website / YouTube channel called Understand the Bible – Website:


My website:

May 2, 2021 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Video | | 1 Comment