Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Weird that the “I-Believe-The-Science(TM)” crowd has completely given up on science

The NY Times announces that henceforth, clinical trials for Covid-19 shots must be abandoned because real world data makes the cartel look bad

By Toby Rogers | June 9, 2022

I. Pharma is losing the game so they are throwing the chess board across the room

The NY Times published a vile piece of fascist Pharma propaganda today. Berenson flagged the online version of the article yesterday. As you know, I have been yelling about the FDA’s Orwellian “Future Framework” for weeks because it’s literally the worst idea in the history of public health.

It turns out that it’s even worse than I thought.

Pharma has already begun a PR offensive to get it across the line and Sharon LaFraniere of the NY Times was eager to do their bidding.

Here’s what’s happening. The mRNA shots are not working against SARS-CoV-2. Everyone knows this. So Moderna and Pfizer are racing to reformulate these shots. The reformulated shots are not working either. Just last week Moderna was touting a bivalent shot that combined Alpha + Beta, but now, apparently, they’ve abandoned that approach. The NY Times article hypes a Moderna shot targeting earlier Omicron variants (it does not say, but perhaps BA.2 and BA.2.12.1?). However evidence from South Africa shows that BA.4 and BA.5 are outcompeting the earlier Omicron variants and the reformulated Moderna shot probably won’t work against the new strains (the virus evolved for a reason — to evade vaccines).

So what are predatory pharmaceutical companies and their feckless government enablers supposed to do!? Abandon clinical trials altogether!

Here’s how the NY Times describes this scheme:

… many experts worry that the virus is evolving so quickly that it is outpacing the ability to modify vaccines, at least as long as the United States relies on human clinical trials for results.

See, it’s not that coronavirus vaccine have failed over and over again (even though they have). It’s that This Wily Virus(TM) is just evolving so quickly that we could not possibly allow human clinical trials of coronavirus vaccines ever again. The only way to beat This Wily Virus(TM) at this point is to abandon science.

Of course it gets worse. The NY Times elaborates:

The problem is that Moderna and Pfizer — the maker of the other main coronavirus vaccine in the United States — do not have enough time now to run more human clinical trials and still manufacture shots before the fall, when the Biden administration is hoping to be able to offer an updated vaccine to counter what public health experts predict will be a winter surge.

See, it’s not that rapacious pharmaceutical companies want to suck all wealth out of the world and put it into their own pockets while setting up a 1,000 year Pharma Reich. No, no, no, silly. It’s just that they “do not have enough time” to do actual science anymore so they are just going to skip all that. Don’t you worry your little head about it.

Furthermore, only a conspiracy theorist would believe that the FDA has abandoned all of its statutory responsibilities to protect public health in order to prostitute themselves to Pharma. The Correct Understanding(TM) is that the FDA is being forced by circumstances outside their control to abandon science. This is not a problem because the cartel is truth, the cartel has always been truth, and since the cartel has decided to abandon science altogether then that’s the new science.

Henceforth, quite literally, the peasants will be forced every six months to inject whatever they are told, with no questions asked, and “they will be [required by law to be] happy about it”.

Instead of human clinical trials the FDA will rely on a few test tube and mouse studies. In the article, Fauci describes this as, “alternative pathways of decision.” That guy just oozes totalitarianism at this point.

So if the “Future Framework” is approved on June 28 the new rules will be: a pharmaceutical company can claim that some new injection creates antibodies in a test tube or mouse (that no one else can see or audit). Done! Ship it and inject it! That’s it. Even though the FDA admits that there are no “correlates of protection.”

In the replies to my earlier articles about the Future Framework some astute readers have pointed out that the FDA has already abandoned human trials when it comes to Covid-19 shots in kids. None of the Moderna or Pfizer clinical trials in kids showed any real world health benefit at all. So they switched to looking at antibodies in the blood and use this tortured mental gymnastics called “immunobridging” to conjure up hypothetical future benefits that never materialize in the real world. Abandoning even the pretense of human trials and moving to test tubes and mice is the obvious next step in this complete abandonment of science.

When people say “I Believe The Science(TM)” what they really mean is “I Support The Genocide.” That’s what’s happening. The FDA has not done science in two years, probably much longer than that.

There is no left and right in politics anymore. Just, the FDA Pharma Fascist Party where members are expected to participate in self-genocide for “the good of society” (read: the profits of the cartel)

vs.

the Rebel Alliance where we practice actual science, critical thinking, logic, and reason, and work every day to protect human health and dignity.

Any politician who wants the 18 million votes of single-issue medical freedom voters in November needs to know that there must be hearings, arrests, and trials of the bureaucrats at FDA, CDC, NIAID, HHS, and NIH who did this to us.

II. What is to be done?

In the meantime, here are the email addresses for all of the public health political appointees, FDA staff, and VRBPAC members who have a say in connection with the “Future Framework”. Please contact them to urge them to reject this nonsense (proposed subject line and email text below — or share your own personal story).

Subject line: The “Future Framework” is the WORST idea in the history of public health. Please vote NO.

1. No Covid-19 shots for kids that failed clinical trials. According to the journal Nature Medicine, children and young people have a 99.995% recovery rate. According to the CDC, the overwhelming majority of children already have natural immunity. The harms from Covid-19 shots in kids are catastrophic.

2. The FDA and CDC must pivot to therapeutics. About twenty off-the-shelf treatments are more effective than vaccines (if used for prophylaxis or early intervention). Get these safe and effective medicines to people who need them and let doctors be doctors again and treat patients based on their own best clinical judgment.

3. Any reformulated Covid-19 shots MUST go through proper HUMAN clinical trials and FDA review. That means:
• large (50,000+ person) double-blind randomized controlled trials with inert saline placebos conducted by an independent third party;
• safety and efficacy studies for two years prior to any application; monitor the treatment and control group for the rest of their lives to record non-specific effects;
• must provide sterilizing immunity with greater than 90% efficacy and less than 0.1% Grade 3 Adverse Events; and
• proper monitoring for carcinogenesis, mutagenesis, and impairment of fertility.

[Contact list:]

sean.mccluskie@hhs.gov, commissioner@fda.hhs.gov, DeanofPublicHealth@brown.edu, Aux7@cdc.gov, Peter.Marks@fda.hhs.gov, Hong.Yang@fda.hhs.gov, Richard.Forshee@fda.hhs.gov, Huilee.Wong@fda.hhs.gov, Leslie.Ball@fda.hhs.gov, Doran.Fink@fda.hhs.gov, CBERVRBPAC@fda.hhs.gov, hanae@bcm.edu, paula.annunziato@merck.com, adam.berger@nih.gov, hbernstein@northwell.edu, acohn@cdc.gov, anc0@cdc.gov, hjanes@fredhutch.org, hgans@stanford.edu, david.kim@hhs.gov, asmonto@umich.edu, offit@chop.edu, spergam@fredhutch.org, Jportnoy@cmh.edu, erubin@hsph.harvard.edu, erubin@nejm.org, ashane@emory.edu, swamy002@mc.duke.edu, fullerao@umich.edu, bgellin@rockfound.org, RandyHawkins@cdrewu.edu, officeofthepresident@mmc.edu, JYLee@uams.edu, ofer.levy@childrens.harvard.edu, wayne_marasco@dfci.harvard.edu, cmeissner@tuftsmedicalcenter.org, mrn8d@virginia.edu, stanley-perlman@uiowa.edu, reingold@berkeley.edu, mhsawyer@ucsd.edu, mew2@cdc.gov

III. The FDA has opened the formal comment portal for the “Future Framework”

If you prefer the official route, you can lodge a formal comment with the FDA by following the instructions (here). Enter docket number FDA-2022-N-0905 at https://www.regulations.gov by June 22 to tell the FDA what you think of their proposed plan to abandon clinical trials for Covid-19 shots in perpetuity.

June 11, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Biden Administration Makes Available 10 Million Doses of COVID Vaccine for Kids Under 5 — Before FDA Authorizes Shot

The Defender | June 9, 2022

The Biden administration today said it made available 10 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines for children under age 5 to states and healthcare workers with “millions more available in the coming weeks.”

The White House unveiled its “Operational Plan” for vaccinating the youngest age group — one week before advisors to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are scheduled to meet to decide whether to grant Emergency Use Authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna pediatric vaccines for babies as young as 6 months old.

According to the White House:

“If FDA authorizes and [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)] recommends one or both of the COVID-19 vaccines for this age group, it would be a historic milestone in the nation’s fight against the virus — and would mean nearly every American is eligible for the protection that vaccination provides.”

Children under 5 could begin receiving the vaccines as early as “the week of June 20th — with the program ramping up over time as more doses are delivered and more appointments become available,” the White House said.

Senior administration officials told The New York Times orders for the vaccines from states “have been somewhat tepid so far.”

Of the 5 million doses offered last week — prior to today’s announcement — 58% of the available Pfizer vaccines were ordered, and “roughly a third” of the available Moderna vaccines had been ordered.

The vaccines, paid for by the U.S. government, are being made available to pediatricians’ offices, community health centers, rural health clinics, children’s hospitals, public health clinics, local pharmacies and other community-based organizations.

The administration said it “will remain laser-focused on equity and making sure that we reach those hardest-hit and most at-risk communities.”

The plan includes working with programs such as Head Start and the Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC, Program in addition to Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP, and Latino, Black and Native American community programs.

The White House also will focus on parents, especially moms:

“‘What to Expect,’ a platform of over 20 million moms, will author a blog series featuring doctors and other trusted experts answering questions about pediatric COVID-19 vaccines, and how moms, expecting moms, and all parents can get the information they need to get themselves and their children vaccinated; author new articles dispelling myths about the COVID-19 vaccine and children; and create and amplify new What to Expect social media content, reaching moms where they are and fighting vaccine misinformation across all platforms.”

Critics question need, raise safety, efficacy concerns

Many experts have questioned the need to vaccine young children in part because the virus poses little-to-no serious risk to them and in part because, according to the CDC, the majority of children have already had, and recovered from the virus.

Dr. Marty Makary last week told Fox News the COVID-19 vaccines do “not make sense” for most kids.

Makary, a physician and public health researcher at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said:

“If you look at the fact that 75% of kids had COVID as of a CDC study back in February and Omicron has been ubiquitous since then, 80 to 90 plus percent of kids have already had COVID. So we’re talking about immunizing those who are already immune for a lot of people. That just does not make sense.

Others, including Dr. Michelle Perro, a pediatrician, have warned about the risks associated with the vaccine, and evidence the vaccines provide weak protection, especially as they were designed for the original Wuhan strain which has been supplanted by a wave of new strains.

In a letter submitted Wednesday to the FDA, 18 members of Congress addressed a number of concerns about the vaccines.

They asked the agency to, “Please list the medical emergencies of children 0 to 4 years old that enables the FDA to approve the COVID vaccine for children using its EUA.”

In all, the Congress members demanded answers to 19 questions and requested a response before next week’s meeting.

Commenting on today’s announcement by the White House and on its timing — a week before FDA scientists meet to review data on the vaccines — Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Chairman and Chief Legal Counsel Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. called on parents and physicians “now more than ever” to “step into the breach to protect our babies from our government.”

Kennedy said the COVID-19 countermeasures, including the vaccines, were “never about science or public health.”

He added:

“Now they have departed from common sense and into naked cruelty and barbarism. By recommending an unapproved, experimental, zero-liability and high-risk medical intervention for an illness that poses zero statistical danger to that age group, the White House has made itself the enemy of America’s children.

“The Pharma gods have demanded child sacrifice and the high priests of public health have offered a generation of infants. Now more than ever, parents and physicians must step into the breach to protect our babies from our government.”

Kennedy and CHD in February delivered a letter to top public health officials and the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee urging them to reject Pfizer’s application for EUA of its COVID vaccine for children 6 months through 4 years of age.

According to the letter:

“We are writing to put you on notice that should you recommend this pediatric EUA vaccine to children under five years old, CHD is poised to take legal action against you.

“CHD will seek to hold you accountable for recklessly endangering this population with a product that has little, no, or even negative net efficacy but which may put them, without warning, at risk of many adverse health consequences, including heart damage, stroke and other thrombotic events and reproductive harms.”

The FDA was originally scheduled to meet Feb. 15 to review Pfizer’s EUA application for COVID-19 vaccines for children 6 months to 5 years old, but postponed the meeting citing insufficient data. Pfizer resubmitted its application June 1.

Moderna submitted its application for the vaccine for children 6 months to age 6 on April 28, after changing its efficacy claims to meet FDA guidelines.

© 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

June 11, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Progressive Hypocrite, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

THE WHO, PANDEMIC PREPAREDNESS, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF FALSE MESSAGING

By Dr David Bell | Pandemics – Data and Analytics | June 9, 2022

The World Health Organization (WHO), and the growing pandemic preparedness industry sponsoring it, has faced considerable challenges in maintaining support for its COVID-19 response. It has addressed this difficult situation with simple and uniform messaging. The compliance thus achieved by the WHO has been vital to achieving a successful concentration of wealth, benefitting not just its major sponsors, but also the army of global health staff who have remained obedient throughout.

Threatening this progress, a skeptical minority within the public sphere have been using evidence and rational argument to undermine the pandemic industry’s potential. As the pandemic preparedness and response narrative is poorly defensible on rational criteria, such criticism and opposition must be dealt with and dismissed by other means. This is being achieved through the creation of a dogma around mass COVID-19 vaccination sufficiently separated from reality as to render the normal processes of debate irrelevant. If the gap between pandemic messaging and reality can be kept sufficiently wide, few passengers can step off, and this lucrative gravy train becomes unstoppable.

Small lies can be argued against, big lies become matters of faith

The development and mass deployment of vaccines has been a key component of the COVID-19 response, underpinning much of the transfer of wealth from lower-income people and countries to large Pharma, their investors and the global health workforce they sponsor. Against a background of rapidly increasing global poverty, this unprecedented increase in wealth has in turn raised the potential for unprecedented funding to global health institutions – the mostly Western-based industry that fills offices and drains aid budgets in Europe and North America.  A significant cognitive decoupling has been necessary across this sector to achieve sufficient uniformity of voice and purpose, as the institutions involved were ostensibly intended to improve the health and uphold the rights of those less financially fortunate. To achieve success, staff of the WHO and other international organizations therefore had to be enabled to signal virtuous intent while acting in concert for corporate gain.

Vaccines traditionally protect the vaccinated against a target pathogen and humans tend to develop good immunity after respiratory virus infections. These two realities create an urgent problem for the pandemic preparedness industry, as the increased financing set to expand their reach is dependent on successfully convincing the world that these truths are indeed fallacies. Thus, to sell COVAX, the WHO’s financing facility for mass COVID-19 vaccination and the model for future pandemic responses, it was vital for the WHO to ensure that the obvious nonsensical nature of the programme would be ignored. This required coordination and adherence to a single simple message, repeated incessantly to stifle external opinion; a slogan so ridiculous that it becomes inarguable. In other words, it required propaganda.

It is essential to focus people on simplistic slogans if the aim is to suppress their tendency for independent thought and to make any venture in that direction a cause of stress. If people can see their respected authority figures standing behind a statement that is otherwise obviously false, it becomes easier to accept that the false must be true than to stand alone against authority and the crowd. Once one’s colleagues are on-board, the Asch conformity phenomenon kicks in – if everyone else is saying ‘X’, then it surely must be ‘X’, even if it looks like ‘Y’. If a health programme flies in the face of all existing medical knowledge, it must therefore be supported by a sufficiently strong dogma to negate evidence-based arguments. It is a testament to the power of group-think, loyalty to sponsors and the allure of money that this has, thus far, been brilliantly achieved.

COVAX – Selling the golden goose

“No one is safe, until everyone is safe”, the WHO’s COVAX motto, fulfills all the above criteria.

Most people want to be safe – and to achieve industry aims, the public must be convinced that others, not just themselves, are the key to their personal safety. They must support the blame or coercion being applied to these others. But the brilliance of ‘No one is safe, until everyone is safe’ is not just in its appeal to self-preservation and its divisiveness, but in its simple stupidity.

1) For the slogan to be true, the vaccine must be transmission-blocking only. It must not protect the vaccinated individual. Otherwise, their safety will not be dependent on the vaccination of others. However, the WHO and its partners also claim that “COVID-19 vaccines provide strong protection against serious illness, hospitalization and death”. Therefore, in promoting its ‘No one is safe’ slogan, WHO staff must collectively proclaim a falsehood. This builds loyalty and cohesion, as a lie is more easily maintained within a like-minded group.

2) To be ‘safe’ from a virus, one must either be intrinsically at very low risk (as most people are to most viruses) or gain immunity.

  • ‘Intrinsic low risk’ created a huge problem for the mass-vaccination narrative early in the COVID-19 outbreak, as data from China showed the very strong skew of severe COVID-19 towards old age, and association with certain comorbidities. Most people are clearly at minimal risk. This had to be suppressed to enable mass-vaccination – all must consider themselves at risk. Public health agencies and their corporate backers even proclaimed impending catastrophe for the people of sub-Saharan Africa, more than half of whom are under 20 years of age. The use of age-based disease metrics, standard for disease-burden assessments up to 2019, were put aside and ‘COVID-19’ mortality reported as raw mortality numbers only.
  • Immunity presents a problem, as it is both the pathway through which vaccines work, and the way we naturally gain protection. Immunity makes us safe, but natural immunity is useless to investors. While a safe vaccine would be preferable to a dangerous virus, once infection has occurred the gain from vaccination is minimal. This poses an immediate threat to profits and share price. The response to this dilemma included one of history’s more ludicrous statements from a global institution, when the WHO modified its herd immunity definition to only recognize immunity resulting from pharmaceutical intervention. This is nonsense to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of immunology, and of course the WHO’s staff have at least rudimentary knowledge.

Inevitably, SARS-CoV-2 has continued spreading, including from the vaccinated. Based on serology from Africa, India and the USA, and the highly transmissible Omicron variant, we can now be confident that nearly all the world’s population have post-infection immunity. It is no biological surprise that immunity gained from a respiratory tract infection with whole virus reduces disease severity more effectively than injection with spike-protein or its mRNA precursors. Claiming that mass vaccination still has public health relevance in these populations requires both abandonment of logic, and a willingness to dispense with decades of prior scientific learning. It requires acceptance of dogma.

A final component of the COVAX strategy, to lock-in celebrity support and enable those promoting the vaccine to still feel virtuous, is ‘vaccine equity’. People in rich countries are having boosters whilst many of the ‘global poor’ still await their first doses. The lack of  benefit to be obtained from these doses, and the requirement of coercion to attain high coverage, are irrelevant – inequity in vaccine distribution simply has to be ‘bad’. Whilst pushing more boosters on high income markets, the same Pharma companies can look good by demanding vaccine equity, advocating for the ‘disadvantaged’. In reality this diverts resources from areas of greater need, thereby killing more children, but such fine print will never make the front pages. Commodity equity expands markets and provides returns, while health equity does not. Fear of being vilified as anti-equity helps keep skeptics quiet.

Bolting down the golden goose

Science, including public health, were previously held to be based on processes of logic, based on an acceptance that aspects of our world are grounded in discoverable truth. This concept is a threat to COVAX and the wider pandemic preparedness narrative. It is a threat to the return on investment of the pandemic industry’s sponsors. Greed is a stronger driver than truth, and it must be allowed to run free if society is to be truly reset in favor of those who wish to concentrate and control its wealth.

Despite its massive internal contradictions, disproportionate cost, coercion, and requirement for its promoters to live obvious lies, COVAX and the entire mass-vaccination paradigm has created a strong model for the success of the wider pandemic preparedness project. If truth in public health can be so readily dispensed with, and those working in the field so willingly corralled, the potential for milking the public’s trust and desire for safety presents unprecedented potential for profit. As this wealth accumulates, it supports the continuing advocacy and manipulation required to keep its adherents loyal. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle – we can expect to see more outbreaks, health emergencies and pandemics declared, more vaccines rolled out, and more wealth concentrated as a result. An unstoppable cycle burying truth under a growing fog of fear and falsehood.

That, at least, is the plan. The eventual outcome will depend on whether truth, human rights, equality and trust were ever fundamental to maintaining societal cohesion and peace. If they were, then let us hope the chaos that follows their abandonment is somehow contained. For now, business is business, and the golden goose, bolted down in a hall of lies, will keep on laying.

June 11, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Progressive Hypocrite, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

The January 6 Capitol riot was not the real insurrection

America is under attack from within, and it’s not by the DC rioters from 17 months back

By Ian Miles Cheong | Samizdat | June 11, 2022

As members of the House of Representatives gather to attend the hearing of the US House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, one can’t help but wonder about the hypocrisy of the spectacle, especially in light of the Biden administration’s soft touch approach to the George Floyd riots that swept the nation in 2020.

As the pandemic raged during the summer of 2020, thousands of Americans took to the streets to protest, and in some cases riot, over the death of George Floyd, an African-American man who was killed in police custody.

Floyd’s death was a flashpoint in America’s growing racial and cultural divide, exacerbated by social justice activists who maintain that police in America are racist, and that their actions are enabled by systemic racism inherent in America’s culture, history, and its very foundations.

The riots saw over a billion dollars in property damage, according to reporting from Axios, but the true cost of the violence is even higher due to their impact on cities – not to mention the human cost and the destruction of anything that wasn’t properly insured.

Opportunists and looters ran amok in American cities, wreaking havoc on commercial districts – and even residential neighborhoods. Black- and minority-owned businesses in cities like Kenosha and Minneapolis were burned to the ground by rioters chanting ‘Black Lives Matter’ slogans, few of which have recovered.

In Seattle, Antifa and Black Lives Matter activists took over an entire neighborhood. Dubbing it ‘CHAZ’ (Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone) or ‘CHOP’ (Capitol Hill Organized Protest), the protesters sectioned off a portion of the city, turning it into a police no-go zone. It was rife with crime. Several people, including minors, were shot and killed in the so-called ‘autonomous zone’. Several sexual assaults allegedly took place. Only one man was arrested over one of the fatal shootings a year later.

In the US alone, at least 25 people are estimated to have been killed while participating in protests and incidents related to the political violence that occurred throughout that summer. Retired police officer David Dorn was murdered on the streets of St. Louis while trying to protect a pawn shop. His death was a rallying cry for conservatives and supporters of the police who were tired of seeing the men and women in blue vilified for doing their jobs.

The impact of the George Floyd riots cannot be understated. It continues to reverberate throughout America as numerous liberal cities have moved to implement bail reform, defund police forces, and put in place legislation to hinder so-called ‘police brutality’ – effectively neutering law enforcement.

The nation saw a drop in police recruitment and rise in resignations, transfers, and an overall decline in morale. Cities like San Francisco, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, Seattle, Portland, and Minneapolis have seen spikes in property crime, violent crime, and carjackings as prosecutors refuse to try cases, letting felons back out onto the street with little more than a slap on the wrist. The shocking examples of victims falling by the wayside as violent criminals with extensive arrest records get away with racially-motivated assaults on whites, Asians, and Jews. Their crimes go unpunished while Joe Biden and members of his administration continue to rail against the threat of ‘white supremacy’ and wave around Transgender Pride flags, giving empty speeches about society’s apparently most marginalized demographic – trans people.

‘Move out of the cities’ has become a common refrain among conservatives who cite the destruction of America’s most prosperous and populous locales as a reason to embrace rural living outside of suburbia.

Cities, once the pinnacle of American culture, and home to monuments honoring the Founding Fathers, have become a sad parody of themselves. Crime goes unpunished, drug addicts litter the streets with needles, and homeless people set up camp right in front of the world’s largest corporations. In Seattle, Amazon was forced to shutter its downtown office due to violent crime.

At the height of the summer, innumerable statues were torn down, damaged, or removed by the cities due the racially-charged protests. Few were ever held responsible for the destruction of these historical monuments.

Despite the destruction and ruination of American cities, and the attack on America’s founding values, Democrats have chosen instead to not only ignore the riots’ cost to American lives, but champion the protests as a positive, progressive development.

Approximately $90 million was given to Black Lives Matter, and millions more have been spent on reshaping American culture through diversity initiatives in corporate boardrooms, civilian government, and even the military. The mayors of Portland and Minneapolis endured struggle sessions. Democrats took a knee in a symbolic gesture honoring Black Lives Matter.

When Democrats insist that the January 6 attack on Capitol Hill was one of the worst moments in American history, they’re ignoring the ongoing destruction of America and absolving themselves of their participation in it.

“The insurrection on January 6 was one of the darkest chapters in our nation’s history,” said President Biden at an event on Friday. Describing it as “a brutal assault on our democracy, a brutal attack on law enforcement,” the president insists that “it’s important that the American people understand what truly happened and to understand that the same forces that led to January 6 remain at work today.”

Biden is right about one thing – the forces that led to January 6 remain at work today.

To understand what’s going on, we have to look at how the January 6 riot was caused by a general sense of discontent with America’s downward trajectory. It was staged by a collective of Americans who refer to themselves as patriots, who are unhappy with the continued destruction of America and its values. When they raised their voices, they were mocked, silenced, and disenfranchised as traitors and conspiracy theorists – all this even before the events of that fateful day. And after that day, many were arrested – some of whom were forced into solitary confinement and stripped of their rights even to this day. They have had few defenders, and the legacy media remains unwilling to even speak of their plight.

If there’s an insurrection, it’s ongoing, and it’s seeing through the destruction of America’s core values. When all is said and done, the events of January 6, 2021 will be nothing more than a footnote in the history books.

Ian Miles Cheong is a political and cultural commentator. His work has been featured on The Rebel, Penthouse, Human Events, and The Post Millennial.

June 11, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Leslie Wexner’s Inner Demon

This short excerpt from Whitney Webb’s upcoming book “One Nation Under Blackmail” examines an obscure media profile of Leslie Wexner, Jeffrey Epstein’s mentor, from the 1980s that contains disconcerting revelations about Wexner’s personality and his inner world.

BY WHITNEY WEBB | UNLIMITED HANGOUT | JUNE 10, 2022

1985 was the year that Leslie Wexner became a billionaire. It was also that year that the chairman of The Limited (now L Brands) began to build up his public persona. This effort to “re-brand” himself began with a series of fawning media profiles. The main outlets that participated in Wexner’s first main, personal PR campaign were written by prominent New York City-based outlets, like New York magazine and the New York Times.

The New York magazine profile, which was the cover story for its August 5, 1985 issue, was entitled “The Bachelor Billionaire: On Pins and Needles with Leslie Wexner.” Though filled with photos of a middle-aged Wexner grinning and embracing friends as well as lavish praise for his business dealings and his “tender” and “gentle” personality, one of the main themes of the article revolves around what is apparently a spiritual affliction or mental illness of Wexner’s, depending on the reader’s own spiritual persuasion.

The New York magazine article opens as follows:

“On the morning Leslie Wexner became a billionaire, he woke up worried, but this was not unusual. He always wakes up worried because of his dybbuk, which pokes and prods and gives him the itchiness of the soul that he calls shpilkes [“pins” in Yiddish]. Sometimes he runs away from it on the roads of Columbus, or drives away from it in one of his Porsches, or flies from it in one of his planes, but then it is back, with his first coffee, his first meeting, nudging at him.”

One may interpret this use of shpilkes, literally “pins” or “spikes” in Yiddish and often used to describe nervous energy, impatience or anxiety, as Wexner merely personifying his anxiety. However, his decision to use the word dybbuk, which he does throughout the article, is quite significant. Also notable is how Wexner goes on to describe this apparent entity throughout the article and his intimate relationship with it.

First page of New York magazine’s 1985 profile of Wexner

As defined by Encyclopedia Britannica, a dybbuk is a Jewish folklore term for “a disembodied human spirit that, because of former sins, wanders restlessly until it finds a haven in the body of a living person.” Unlike spirits that have yet to move on but possess positive qualities, such as the maggid or ibbur, the dybbuk is almost always considered to be malicious, which leads it to be translated in English as “demon”. This was also the case in this New York magazine profile on Wexner.

The author of that article, Julie Baumgold, describes Leslie Wexner’s dybbuk as “the demon that always wakes up in the morning with Wexner and tweaks and pulls at him.” Wexner could have easily chosen to frame the entity as a righteous spirit (maggid) or as his righteous ancestors (ibbur) guiding his life and business decisions, especially for the purpose of an interview that would be read widely throughout the country. Instead, Wexner chose this particular term, which says a lot for a man who has since used his billions to shape both mainstream Jewish identity and leadership in both the US and Israel for decades.

As the article continues, it states that Wexner has been with the dybbuk since he was a boy and that his father had recognized it and referred to it as the “churning”. Per Wexner, the dybbuk causes him to feel “molten” and constantly pricked by “spiritual pins and needles”. It apparently left him at some point as a young man, only to return in 1977 when he was 40, half-frozen during an ill-fated trip up a mountain near his vacation home in Vail, Colorado. This specific trip is when Wexner says he both rejoined with his childhood dybbuk and decided to “change his life.”

He told New York magazine that his dybbuk makes him “wander from house to house”, “wanting more and more” and “swallowing companies larger than his own.” In other words, it compels him to accumulate more money and more power with no end in sight. Wexner later describes the dybbuk as an integral “part of his genius.”

Wexner further describes his dybbuk as keeping “him out of balance, emotionally stunted, a part of him — the precious, treasured boy-son part — lagging behind [the dybbuk].” This is consistent with other definitions of the term in Jewish media, including a feature piece published in the Jewish Chronicle. That article first defines the term as “a demon [that] clings to [a person’s] soul” and then states that: “The Hebrew verb from which the word dybbuk is derived is also used to describe the cleaving of a pious soul to God. The two states are mirror images of each other.” Per Wexner’s word choice and his characterization of what he perceives as an entity dwelling within him, the entity — the dybbuk — is dominant while his actual self and soul “lags behind” and is stunted, causing him to identify more with the entity than with himself.

This is also reflected in the concluding paragraph of the New York magazine article:

“Les Wexner picks up his heavy black case and flies off in his Challenger, with his dybbuk sitting next to him, taunting and poking him with impatience, that little demon he really loves. The dybbuk turns his face. What does he look like? ‘Me,’ says Leslie Wexner.”

Outside of the spiritual aspect of this discussion, it can also be surmised from the above that there is a strong possibility that Wexner suffers from some sort of mental disorder that causes him to exhibit two distinct personalities which continuously battle within him. What is astounding is that he describes this apparent affliction to a prominent media outlet with pride and the author of the piece weaves Wexner’s “demon” throughout a piece that seeks to praise his business acumen above all else.

Yet, perhaps the most troubling aspect of Wexner’s experience with his “dybbuk”, whether real or imagined, is the fact that Wexner, in the years before and after this article was published, has had a massive impact on Jewish communities in the US and beyond through his “philanthropy.” Some of those philanthropic efforts, like the Wexner Foundation, saw Wexner mold generations of Jewish leaders through Wexner Foundation programs while others, such as the Mega Group, see the organized crime-linked Leslie Wexner joined by several other like-minded billionaires, many of which also boast considerable organized crime connections, in an effort to shape the relationship of the American Jewish community, as well as the US government, with the state of Israel.

For a man of such influence in the Jewish community, why have there been essentially no questions raised as to Wexner’s role in directing the affairs of that ethno-religious community given that he has openly claimed to be guided by a “dybbuk”? This is particularly odd when one considers that Wexner has come under increased scrutiny in recent years after his protege and closest associate for decades, Jeffrey E. Epstein, was outed as both a pedophile and serial sex trafficker. Did Wexner’s dybbuk draw him to Epstein and prompt him to financially support his horrific crimes against minors?

Note: The above is an adapted excerpt from Whitney Webb’s upcoming book “One Nation Under Blackmail: the sordid union between Intelligence and Organized Crime that gave rise to Jeffrey Epstein”. Those interested may pre-order the book directly from the publisher’s website or from Amazon.

June 11, 2022 Posted by | Book Review | , , | Leave a comment

Ex-Bolivian president Jeanine Anez sentenced to 10 years in prison

Press TV – June 11, 2022

Former Bolivian interim president Jeanine Anez has been sentenced to a 10-year prison term more than a year after being arrested on charges of leading a US-backed plot in 2019 to oust re-elected socialist president Evo Morales.

Anez will serve 10 years in a women’s prison in La Paz, the administrative capital’s First Sentencing Court announced on Friday in a ruling that came three months after her trial began.

Convicted of crimes “contrary to the constitution and a dereliction of duties,” the former right-wing television presenter was sentenced to “a punishment of 10 years” over charges stemming from when she was a senator, before becoming president.

Government prosecutors, however, had asked for a 15-year jail term for Anez, who has been held in pre-trial detention since March 2021 while dismissing her trial as “political persecution.”

Also sentenced to 10 years were the former chief of Bolivia’s armed forces, William Kaliman, and the country’s ex-police chief Yuri Calderon — both of whom have reportedly fled the country and remain on the run.

This is while Anez still faces a separate, pending court case for sedition and other charges related to her short presidential tenure.

At the start of her presidency, the US-sponsored rightist politician had called in the police and military to restore order. The post-election unrest left 22 people dead, according to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).

For that, Anez also further faces genocide charges, which carry prison sentences of between 10 and 20 years.

The IACHR described the 22 deaths that occurred at the beginning of Anez’s presidential stint as “massacres,” and found they indicated “serious violations of human rights.”

Unlike the other accusations against Anez, the case will be dealt with by congress, which will decide whether or not to hold a trial.

The ex-president had already declared she would appeal if convicted, claiming, “We will not stop there. We will go before the international justice system.”

Anez became Bolivia’s interim president in November 2019 after Morales, who had won a fourth consecutive term as president, fled the country in the face of what was widely viewed as a US-sponsored unrest purportedly against alleged electoral fraud.

The US-led and Washington-based Organization of American States (OAS) claimed at the time that it had found “clear evidence” of voting irregularities in favor of Morales, a popular, anti-US president who was re-elected into office for 14 years.

Many potential successors to Morales — all members of his MAS party – were also forced to resign or flee, leaving right-wing opposition member Anez, then vice-president of the Senate, next in line.

Virtually unknown, the lawyer and former TV personality proclaimed herself interim president of the Andean nation on November 12, 2019, two days after Morales’ forced resignation.

The Constitutional Court recognized Anez’s mandate as interim, caretaker president, but MAS members disputed her legitimacy.

Elections were held a year later, and won by Luis Arce – a close ally of Morales.

With the presidency and congress both firmly in MAS control, Morales returned to Bolivia in November 2020.

After handing over the presidential reins to Arce, Anez was detained in March 2021, charged with illegitimate assumption of power.

“I denounce before Bolivia and the world that in an act of abuse and political persecution, the MAS government has ordered my arrest,” she proclaimed in a Twitter post at the time.

June 11, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

Germans warned of ‘difficult autumn’ and ‘tough winter’

“Whoever saves energy helps Germany become more independent from Russian imports and also does it for the sake of the climate”

Samizdat | June 11, 2022

Germans should brace for a difficult autumn and winter due to skyrocketing prices, as the country pushes for independence from Russian energy, the Vice Chancellor, and head of the Ministry of Economy, Robert Habeck warned on Friday.

“As for the support of the people who need it, I clearly indicated what is ahead of us and what is already partially a reality… we are facing a very difficult autumn and a very tough winter,” he said, as cited by RIA Novosti.

Habeck made the prediction as he presented a new energy saving initiative of the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action (BMWK). Berlin is planning to replace Russian coal and oil by the end of the year and stop importing Russian gas by 2024, and is struggling to find alternative energy sources. According to the vice chancellor, energy prices are already extremely high and “many people will get significantly higher bills than usual” in the upcoming heating season.

“For this reason alone, saving energy is urgently needed, and I know that many are already looking at where they can save something, especially when they have to watch every cent anyway,” he said.

The new initiative – ‘80 million together for energy change’ – aims to motivate people to save energy. It provides examples on its website from everyday life and recommendations for saving energy, including: regularly defrosting the freezer, raising the refrigerator temperature to 7C, using LED light bulbs in offices, ways to cut down on water consumption and heating in the bathroom and kitchen, etc.

“Whoever saves energy helps Germany become more independent from Russian imports and also does it for the sake of the climate,” Habeck said.

The tumultuous situation with energy prices around the world has hit Germany hard. The availability of Russian energy carriers on the global market was put into jeopardy following the launch of Moscow’s military operation in Ukraine and the retaliatory sanctions from the West.

Energy prices propelled annual inflation in Europe’s largest economy to 7.9% in May, its highest level in nearly 50 years. Energy prices in the country rose 38.3% year-on-year last month, while food prices posted an 11.1% leap, data from the Federal Statistical Office (Destatis) shows. As a result, nearly half of German citizens have been forced to change their lifestyle and cut back on spending, media reports, citing polls. According to a study conducted for Bild newspaper by INSA this week, every sixth German citizen does not eat regularly due to the rise in prices, and another 13% are considering the possibility of saving on food.

June 11, 2022 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

One in Six Germans Forced to Skip Meals Thanks to Food Price Crunch: Survey

Samizdat – 11.06.2022

Europeans face a perfect storm of soaring inflation, self-inflicted energy price shocks caused by sanctions on Russia, and fears of a looming recession. In Germany, the region’s traditional economic and industrial powerhouse, ordinary people have taken a hit to their wallets, while businesses have warned of large-scale losses and layoffs.

Nearly one in six Germans (16 percent) have been forced to go without regular meals to make ends meet, and another 13 percent may face a similar situation if food prices continue to rise, a new survey by the Institute for New Social Answers (INSA) for Germany’s Bild newspaper has found.

According to the survey, people from low-income households whose income after taxes is less than 1,000 euros per month have been the most heavily affected, with 32 percent of respondents forced to skip meals regularly.

42 percent of those polled also indicated that they are forced to cook more sparingly due to inflation, leaving out certain ingredients in meals, or dessert. Another 41 percent said they rely on supermarket special offers and discounts to stretch their euros as far as possible.

INSA’s study was conducted on 7 June, with a representative sample of 1,002 people queried.

Adolf Bauer, president of the German Association for Social Affairs, told Bild he was “greatly worried” by the survey’s results, saying it was a “clear sign that the measures taken by the federal government to date are not sufficient.” Bauer had previously warned Berlin not to introduce an energy embargo on Russia, saying it would add to suffering among ordinary people caused by out of control energy, food and rent prices.

Verena Bentele, president of the Social Association of Germany, a major Berlin-headquartered socio-political advocacy organization, echoed Bauer’s concerns, saying the figures show that people are “suffering greatly from the increased prices.”

“Members tell us they can only afford pasta and toast. We urgently need the VAT on fresh foods to be abolished and financial relief for those who have so far received nothing from the government’s energy price flat-rate,” Bentele urged.

Germans and other Europeans have faced out of control inflationary and price pressures in recent months, with Handelsblatt reporting double-digit growth on some food items in April. Last month, Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten reported that EU sanctions on fertilizer imports from Russia and Belarus would result in losses of up to 3 million tonnes of harvest in the current year. Europe relied on the two countries for some 4.6 million tonnes of its 13 million tonnes-worth of fertilizer consumption last year, while local production efforts have been hampered by the large amount of energy required to produce them.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has lamented at the European Union’s decision to commit “economic suicide” by depriving itself of cheap and reliable Russian energy supplies, and expressed sympathy for ordinary Europeans and Americans suffering as a result of their leaders’ decision-making. “The truth is that the current problems that millions of people in the West face are the result of many actions by the ruling elites of their states, their mistakes, myopia and ambitions. These elites are not thinking about how to improve the lives of their citizens. They are obsessed with their own selfish interests and surplus profits,” he suggested at a briefing in March.

June 11, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

US policies led to ‘new G8’ – Moscow

Samizdat | June 11, 2022

The United States “with its own hands” pushed the countries, which are not participating in “sanctions wars,” to form a “new Big Eight” group with Russia, the Russian State Duma speaker Vyacheslav Volodin said on Saturday.

Following the launch of Russia’s military offensive in Ukraine in late February, the US, EU, UK and many other countries imposed hard-hitting restrictions on Moscow, making Russia the most sanctioned country in the world.

In a Telegram post, Volodin included a table with IMF data on GDP based on purchasing power parity of countries he calls the “new G8” and of countries forming the current G7 (after Russia’s participation in the bloc was suspended over Crimea’s vote to join the country in 2014, the G8 effectively turned into the G7).

“The group of eight countries not participating in the sanctions wars – China, India, Russia, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico, Iran, Turkey – in terms of GDP at PPP is 24.4% ahead of the old group,” Volodin wrote.

In his opinion, the economies of the G7 members – the United States, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy and Canada – continue “to crack under the weight of sanctions imposed against Russia.”

“The rupture of existing economic relations by Washington and its allies has led to the formation of new points of growth in the world,” Volodin claimed.

While having serious economic difficulties, the US, according to the Duma speaker, continues “doing everything to solve their problems at the expense of others.” Creating tensions will “inevitably” lead the US to lose its world domination, Volodin stressed.

“The United States created the conditions with its own hands for countries wishing to build an equal dialogue and mutually beneficial relations to actually form a ‘new Big Eight’ together with Russia,” he said.

Meanwhile, on Friday, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Eric Woodhouse said that Washington and its allies had realized that they would get “spillovers” of anti-Russia sanctions into their own economies. Their determination in imposing sanctions on Moscow, he claimed, has demonstrated a willingness to “accept those costs.”

US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen admitted on the same day that the anti-Russia sanctions have made a “huge difference to food and energy prices,” amid record-setting inflation. The remarks followed the statement by the Russian President Vladimir Putin who said that “many years of mistakes made by Western nations” in their economic and sanctions policies have caused “a global wave of inflation, disruption of established logistical and manufacturing chains, a surge in poverty and a deficit of food.”

June 11, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Research Confirms Statins Are a Colossal Waste of Money

This article was previously published December 8, 2021, and has been updated with new information.

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | June 9, 2022

The lecturer in the featured video, Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., produced the 2014 Australian Catalyst documentary, “Heart of the Matter: Dietary Villains,” which exposed the cholesterol/saturated fat myths behind the statin fad and the financial links which lurk underneath.

The documentary was so thorough that vested interests actually convinced ABC TV to rescind the two-part series.1 The Australian Heart Foundation, the three largest statin makers (Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme) and Medicines Australia, Australia’s drug lobby group, complained2 and got the documentary expunged from ABC TV.

Cholesterol and saturated fat have been the villains of heart disease for the past four decades, despite the many studies showing neither has an adverse effect on heart health.

The entire food industry shifted away from saturated fat and cholesterol, ostensibly to improve public health, and the medical industry has massively promoted the use of cholesterol-lowering statin drugs for the same reason. Despite all of that, the rate of heart disease deaths continues to be high.3 That really should tell us something.

Statins Are a Colossal Waste of Money

Since the release of Demasi’s documentary, the evidence against the cholesterol theory and statins has only grown. As noted in an August 4, 2020, op-ed by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, a general practitioner with the British National Health Service:4

“New research shows that the most widely prescribed type of drug in the history of medicine is a waste of money. One major study found that the more ‘bad’ cholesterol was lowered, the greater the risk of heart attacks and strokes.

In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, almost every other medical condition has been shoved onto the sidelines. However, in the UK last year, heart attacks and strokes (CVD) killed well over 100,000 people — which is at least twice as many as have died from COVID-19.

CVD will kill just as many this year, which makes it significantly more important than COVID-19, even if no one is paying much attention to it right now.”

According to a scientific review5 published online August 4, 2020, in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, lowering LDL is not going to lower your risk of heart disease and stroke. “Decades of research has failed to show any consistent benefit for this approach,” the authors note.

Since the commercialization of statin drugs in the late ’80s (lovastatin being the first one, gaining approval in 19876), total sales have reached nearly $1 trillion.7,8 Lipitor — which is just one of several brand name statin drugs — was named the most profitable drug in the history of medicine.9,10 Yet these drugs have done nothing to derail the rising trend of heart disease.

Lowering Cholesterol Does Not Show a Beneficial Impact

According to a press release announcing the BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine review, the analysis found that:11

“… over three quarters of all the trials reported no positive impact on the risk of death and nearly half reported no positive impact on risk of future cardiovascular disease.

And the amount of LDL cholesterol reduction achieved didn’t correspond to the size of the resulting benefits, with even very small changes in LDL cholesterol sometimes associated with larger reductions in risk of death or cardiovascular ‘events,’ and vice versa. Thirteen of the clinical trials met the LDL cholesterol reduction target, but only one reported a positive impact on risk of death …”

In their paper,12 the study authors argue that since dozens of randomized controlled trials looking at LDL-cholesterol reduction “have failed to demonstrate a consistent benefit, we should question the validity of this theory.”

They also cite the Minnesota Coronary Experiment,13 a double-blind randomized controlled trial involving 9,423 subjects that sought to determine whether replacing saturated fat with omega-6 rich vegetable oil (corn oil and margarine) would reduce the death rate from heart disease by lowering cholesterol.

It didn’t. Mortality and cardiovascular events increased even though total cholesterol was lowered by 13.8%. For each 30 mg/dL reduction in serum cholesterol, the death risk rose by 22%. In conclusion, the Evidence-Based Medicine study authors note that:14

“In most fields of science the existence of contradictory evidence usually leads to a paradigm shift or modification of the theory in question, but in this case the contradictory evidence has been largely ignored, simply because it doesn’t fit the prevailing paradigm.”

Deception Through Statistics

If lowering cholesterol doesn’t reduce mortality or cardiovascular events, there’s little reason to use them, considering they come with a long list of adverse side effects. Sure, there are studies claiming to show benefit, but many involve misleading plays on statistics.

One common statistic used to promote statins is that they lower your risk of heart attack by about 36%.15 This statistic is derived from a 2008 study16 in the European Heart Journal. One of the authors on this study is Rory Collins, who heads up the CTT Collaboration (Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration), a group of doctors and scientists who analyze study data17 and report their findings to regulators and policymakers.

Table 4 in this study shows the rate of heart attack in the placebo group was 3.1% while the statin group’s rate was 2% — a 36% reduction in relative risk. However, the absolute risk reduction — the actual difference between the two groups, i.e., 3.1% minus 2% — is only 1.1%, which really isn’t very impressive.

In other words, in the real world, if you take a statin, your chance of a heart attack is only 1.1% lower than if you’re not taking it. At the end of the day, what really matters is what your risk of death is the absolute risk. The study, however, only stresses the relative risk (36%), not the absolute risk (1.1%).

As noted in the review18 “How Statistical Deception Created the Appearance That Statins Are Safe and Effective in Primary and Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease,” it’s very easy to confuse and mislead people with relative risks.

Statins Sabotage Your Health

A stunning review of statin trials published in 2015 found that in primary prevention trials, the median postponement of death in those taking statins was a mere 3.2 days. While potentially extending life span by 3.2 days, those taking statins are also at increased risk for:

  • Diabetes (if taken for more than two years, your risk for diabetes triples)
  • Dementia, neurodegenerative diseases and psychiatric problems such as depression, anxiety and aggression
  • Musculoskeletal disorders
  • Osteoporosis
  • Cataracts
  • Heart disease
  • Liver damage
  • Immune system suppression

Oftentimes statins do not have any immediate side effects, and they are quite effective, capable of lowering cholesterol levels by 50 points or more. This is often viewed as evidence that your health is improving. Side effects that develop over time are frequently misinterpreted as brand-new, separate health problems.

Crimes Against Humanity

The harm perpetuated by the promotion of the low-fat, low-cholesterol myth is so significant, it could easily be described as a crime against humanity. Ancel Keys’ 1963 “Seven Countries Study” was instrumental in creating the saturated fat myth.19,20

He claimed to have found a correlation between total cholesterol concentration and heart disease, but in reality this was the result of cherry picking data. When data from 16 excluded countries are added back in, the association between saturated fat consumption and mortality vanishes.

In fact, the full data set suggests that those who eat the most saturated animal fat tend to have a lower incidence of heart disease, which is precisely what other, more recent studies have concluded.

Procter & Gamble Co.21 (the maker of Crisco22), the American Heart Association and the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) all promoted the fallacy for decades, despite mounting evidence that Keys had gotten it all wrong.

The AHA was issuing stern warnings against butter, steak and coconut oil as recently as 2017.23 That same year, Procter & Gamble partnered with University Hospitals Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute to promote heart health by lowering cholesterol.24

CSPI was also instrumental in driving heart disease skyward with its wildly successful pro-trans fat campaign. It was largely the result of CSPI’s campaign that fast-food restaurants replace beef tallow, palm oil and coconut oil with partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, which were high in synthetic trans fats linked to heart disease and other chronic diseases.

As late as 1988, CSPI praised trans fats, saying “there is little good evidence that trans fats cause any more harm than other fats” and that “much of the anxiety over trans fats stems from their reputation as ‘unnatural.'”25

CSPI and AHA Omit Their Role in Heart Disease Epidemic

Today, you’ll have to dig deep to unearth CSPI’s devastating public health campaign. In an act of deception, they erased it from their history to make people believe they’ve been doing the right thing all along. Their historical timeline26 of trans fat starts at 1993 — the year CSPI decided to change course and start supporting the elimination of the same trans fat they’d spent years promoting.

Similarly, the AHA conveniently omits saturated fat and cholesterol from its history of “lifesaving” breakthroughs and achievements.27 It makes sense, though, considering the AHA’s and CSPI’s recommendations to swap saturated fat for vegetable oils and synthetic trans fat never resulted in anything but an epidemic of heart disease.

The idea that the harms of trans fats were unknown until the 1990s is simply a lie. The late Dr. Fred Kummerow started publishing evidence showing trans fat, not saturated fat, was the cause of heart disease in 1957. He also linked trans fat to Type 2 diabetes.

The Truth About Saturated Fat

In addition to the more recent studies mentioned earlier, many others have also debunked the idea that cholesterol and/or saturated fat impacts your risk of heart disease. For example:

•In a 1992 editorial published in the Archives of Internal Medicine,28 Dr. William Castelli, a former director of the Framingham Heart study, stated:

“In Framingham, Mass., the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person’s serum cholesterol. The opposite of what … Keys et al [said] …”

•A 2010 meta-analysis,29 which pooled data from 21 studies and included 347,747 adults, found no difference in the risks of heart disease and stroke between people with the lowest and highest intakes of saturated fat.

•Another 2010 study30 published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that a reduction in saturated fat intake must be evaluated in the context of replacement by other macronutrients, such as carbohydrates.

When you replace saturated fat with a higher carbohydrate intake, particularly refined carbohydrate, you exacerbate insulin resistance and obesity, increase triglycerides and small LDL particles, and reduce beneficial HDL cholesterol. According to the authors, dietary efforts to improve your cardiovascular disease risk should primarily emphasize the limitation of refined carbohydrate intake, and weight reduction.

•A 2014 meta-analysis31 of 76 studies by researchers at Cambridge University found no basis for guidelines that advise low saturated fat consumption to lower your cardiac risk, calling into question all of the standard nutritional guidelines related to heart health. According to the authors:

“Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats.”

Will Saturated Fat Myth Soon Be Upended?

Nina Teicholz, a science journalist, adjunct professor at NYU’s Wagner Graduate School of Public Service and the executive director of The Nutrition Coalition, is the author of “The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet,” which reviews the many myths surrounding saturated fat and cholesterol.

In an interview I did with Dr. Paul Saladino and Teicholz, they reviewed the history of the demonization of saturated fat and cholesterol, starting with Keys, and how the introduction of the first Dietary Guidelines for Americans in 1980 (which recommended limiting saturated fat and cholesterol) coincided with a rapid rise in obesity and chronic diseases such as heart disease.

Teicholz also reviewed a paper32 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, published online June 17, 2020, which actually admits the long-standing nutritional guideline to limit saturated fat has been incorrect. This is a rather stunning admission, and a huge step forward. As noted in the abstract:

“The recommendation to limit dietary saturated fatty acid (SFA) intake has persisted despite mounting evidence to the contrary. Most recent meta-analyses of randomized trials and observational studies found no beneficial effects of reducing SFA intake on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and total mortality, and instead found protective effects against stroke.

Although SFAs increase low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol, in most individuals, this is not due to increasing levels of small, dense LDL particles, but rather larger LDL which are much less strongly related to CVD risk.

It is also apparent that the health effects of foods cannot be predicted by their content in any nutrient group, without considering the overall macronutrient distribution.

Whole-fat dairy, unprocessed meat, eggs and dark chocolate are SFA-rich foods with a complex matrix that are not associated with increased risk of CVD. The totality of available evidence does not support further limiting the intake of such foods.”

Sources and References

June 11, 2022 Posted by | Book Review, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

Obama: We have to “detoxify” the “scourge of disinformation and conspiracy theories and hate online”

By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | June 10, 2022

Former US President Barack Obama made a fresh push for online censorship during an appearance at the Copenhagen Democracy Summit by calling for crackdowns on content that he deems to be “disinformation,” “hate,” or a “conspiracy theory.”

Before Obama took the stage, 2022 Obama Foundation Leader Sarah-Josephine Hjorth hinted at what was to come by railing against “fake news and misinformation.”

“While the increase in use of smartphones and social media first came with the whisper of renewed democratic participation, fake news and misinformation dominate the digital landscape and result in an erosion of the fabric of truth and polarization,” Hjorth said.

Shortly after taking the stage, Obama continued this theme by invoking the January 6 Capitol riot and tying it to “misinformation and conspiracy theories.”

“In my own country, the forces that unleashed mob violence on our Capitol are still churning out misinformation and conspiracy theories,” Obama said.

Towards the end of his speech, Obama made a more direct call for censorship of content that’s branded as a conspiracy theory, disinformation, or hate.

“We have to take steps to detoxify our discourse,” the former President said. “Particularly the scourge of disinformation and conspiracy theories and hate online that has polluted our political discourse.”

Obama continued by demanding that technology companies “accept a certain degree of democratic oversight and accountability” and noting that he spoke at length about these issues during his April 21 speech at Stanford University.

In his Stanford speech, Obama called for “solving the disinformation problem,” welcomed social media censorship of “hate speech,” and said that content moderation “doesn’t go far enough.”

After finishing his speech, Obama invited three 2022 Obama Foundation leaders, Tudor Iulian Bradatan, Selvije Mustafi, and Federica Vinci, to the stage. He then complained about the increased amount of misinformation since he left office and the difficulty of “sorting between what’s true and what’s false, what’s journalism and what’s fabrication.”

Obama continued by claiming that the politicization of COVID issues, such as getting vaccinated or wearing masks, was “driven just by misinformation that was out there.”

“I’m wondering how…it’s [misinformation] affected you and whether you’ve seen some solutions to…help young people distinguish between what’s true and false in making decisions about how to participate and what to support?” Obama asked.

Mustafi, a national grassroots organizer at the biggest Roma movement in North Macedonia, said “there are big concerns also in our movement about how…false information and misinformation is spreading on the internet to influence decisions by some political actors or political sides.”

She added that the challenge of this kind of fake news and misinformation is that it makes people have a “different kind of opinion which is not necessarily relevant or truthful.”

Vinci, the Deputy Mayor of Isernia, Italy, described the spread of “false news” and “false noise” as “scary.”

Obama’s Copenhagen Democracy Summit and Stanford University speeches are some of the many pushes he’s made for rules that would chill online speech.

Earlier this year, the former President proposed “modifications” to online anonymity when people are “rude, obnoxious, cruel, or lie” and suggested that social media algorithms should be audited by federal inspectors to deal with misinformation.

And in previous years, Obama has called for social media regulations that curb “crazy lies and conspiracy theories” and pushed internet platforms to reduce the influence of hate groups.

June 10, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

‘Boeing falls victim to anti-Russia sanctions’

Samizdat | June 10, 2022

Boeing’s decision to pause production of its popular 737 MAX plane may be due to sanctions imposed on Moscow, air safety expert Roman Gusarov told the newspaper Izvestia. Russia provides critical parts and components to the American aircraft maker.

Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that Boeing had to bring production of narrow-body jets to a halt for 10 days in May due to supply-chain snarls.

“Boeing’s dependence on Russian titanium is extremely high, amounting to about 30-40%, meaning that at least every third Boeing aircraft is assembled entirely from Russian titanium,” Gusarov said, adding that apart from titanium, which is vital to aircraft engineering, the company also imports titanium products from Russian producer VSMPO-AVISMA.

The analyst added that the US aircraft manufacturer previously received nearly finished parts that were produced at a jointly-run factory in the Russian town of Verkhnyaya Salda.

In March, Boeing suspended titanium purchases from Russia, saying that it had substantial inventory of the metal and could secure additional supplies from other sources. This decision was made after Russia was hit with severe sanctions by the US and its allies.

According to Gusarov, the temporary halt in production of the 737 MAX jets could be attributable not only to the suspension of Russian titanium deliveries but also to the global disruption of supply chains. The expert added that the annual global production of up to 600 planes typically involves engaging nearly all of the global manufacturing capacity of the relevant components.

“After all, Russia has also imposed indirect retaliatory sanctions that target supplies of nonferrous metals and products of gas-to-chemicals industry, which are widely used by microchip producers across the world,” Gusarov said, adding that the products for Boeing are made by thousands of global companies.

In March, Bloomberg reported that the ban of Russian aircraft from US airspace could also hit Boeing because the company used to contract giant Antonov An-124 cargo planes, operated by Russia’s Volga-Dnepr Group, to move supplies to its plants in the US.

June 10, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »