Today on the program James celebrates the life and work of Dr. Tim Ball, a man who devoted his retirement years to fighting the good fight against the agents of the climate scam and the green enslavement agenda. His fearless truth-telling in the face of so much adversity serves as an example to us all.
Documentation – Droughts, Cloud Seeding and The Coming Water Wars
Time Reference:
39:05
Description:
A recent James Corbett editorial on the question of weather modification, geoengineering, and the increasing importance of water in the realm of geopolitics.
Documentation – Tim Ball – The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science
Time Reference:
39:41
Description:
Dr. Tim Ball delivers a lecture, answers questions, and calls out the Malthusian, anti-human, globalist ideology of the alarmists as he discusses The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science in 2014.
It is now nearly 11 months since Gillian Dymond started asking Dame June Raine, head of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority (MHRA), to explain what the organisation is doing to investigate the deaths and injuries occurring shortly after Covid-19 vaccination, and this open letter is her latest attempt to get an answer. You can read previous instalments in the saga here, here, here, here and here.
Dear June Raine,
You have not replied to any of the previous letters I have written you regarding the nationwide rollout of novel medications against SARS-CoV-2. I suppose I should simply accept your confident public assertion that these injections are, indeed, ‘safe and effective’: but how can I, when this is contradicted by so many disturbing post-injection reactions among my friends and family? So please excuse me for writing to you again. I am writing because I want to understand. I want to understand why you are doing this. I want to understand why you think it is right to enable the mass prescription of pharmaceutical products whose short-term testing was questionable, and whose medium- and long-term effects are entirely unknown.
You enjoyed an Oxford education, and I want to understand why, with your academic training, you are choosing to ignore the caveats of numerous high-quality experts by giving these injections your blessing. My own experience of university was that an essay which failed to take a balanced overview of any question would receive short shrift. Why, my tutor would ask, had I not considered this or that other important fact or perspective, this or that other authority, before drawing my conclusions?
You are a doctor, and I want to understand why you continue to authorise the emergency use of inadequately tested medications despite the availability of successful protocols involving the early use of tried-and-trusted treatments. I want to understand why, after the emergence of viable alternatives to the novel injections in the summer of 2020, well before any ‘vaccine’ came on to the market, you chose to risk violating the basic requirement of the Hippocratic Oath, ‘First do no harm’, by blacklisting these safe and effective treatments and advocating ‘emergency’ use of the questionable and the unknown.
Of course, both as an academic and as a doctor, you have done no more than fall into line with the vast majority of your peers. From your point of view, it would certainly have been a bad career move to announce that the new pharmaceuticals produced at such speed and such expense had proved to be unnecessary. For ordinary doctors, things were even worse: they faced disgrace and expulsion from their profession if they failed to jab as required. As for academics, even those unblinkered by ideology kept their heads down and played along with censorship of their few dissenting colleagues, on pain of jeopardising valuable funding. Only those who had already retired, secure in an unblemished record and a reliable income, had nothing but comparatively harmless attacks on their reputations to fear when they questioned the ‘settled science’ – indeed, the very idea of ‘settled science’. No wonder the institutions dishonoured by so much mindless kow-towing to the state-sponsored authorities who ordered them to betray their raison d’être have fallen into widespread contempt! How is it possible to respect an academic who acquiesces in censorship? How is it possible to respect doctors who fail to ensure informed consent prior to the injection of a potentially dangerous substance, or who refuse to see their unmasked patients face to face?
But, June, you are not just an academic and a doctor; you are not even just a civil servant; like me, you are a mother: and it is as a mother, above all, that I cannot understand why you have authorised the rollout of these inadequately-tested concoctions to children as young as five; children who stand in far greater danger from the injections than from the illness itself. How do you reconcile the fact that nobody has the least idea of the long-term effects of these treatments with your insistence that they are ‘safe’? How can you be sure that the risks are outweighed by the benefits, when the benefits are proving ever more debatable and the risks of long-term, potentially devastating, injury are unknown? Your own children must be well into adulthood, but would you really have advised your pregnant daughter or daughter-in-law to be injected? Perhaps you have young grandchildren. If so, have you urged them to roll up their little sleeves and be jabbed, without any qualms regarding their future health and reproductive ability?
Perhaps you are, indeed, as enthusiastic about the alleged life-saving qualities of the new medications in your private life as you are in public: in which case, given the mounting evidence against them, I sincerely wish to understand why. What do you know that is sufficient to countermand the indications of the Yellow Card scheme and justify the accumulating tragedies of those suffering serious adverse effects? Presumably you have really convinced yourself that the computer models (rubbish in, rubbish out?) are right, and that your emergency authorisation of the novel injections has saved billions of lives. If so, I would like you to help me understand why.
This issue does, after all, have wider ramifications. It is not a one-off. You have made it clear that the current roll-out is merely a precedent to similar population-wide prescriptions of mRNA medications to similar population-wide prescriptions of mRNA medications, and that the MHRA is busy ‘transforming’ itself into an enabler, rather than a regulator, of new medicines. At the very least the public deserve to be made aware that your agency is now working with the pharmaceutical industry to speed the entry of new drugs on to the market within 100 days of any proclaimed ‘emergency’, using the public as guinea pigs in ‘real-time’ testing. Since very few of us watch MHRA board meetings, and no mention is made of such a transformation in the highly selective news bulletins fed to the public by the mainstream media, this strange departure from the precautionary principle is, like the long-term effects of the medications which will be ‘offered’ to us, largely unknown. If it were better publicised, the public might well insist that the MHRA take its place openly as an ancillary of the drug manufacturers, and demand that a genuine regulatory body, working on the time-honoured principles of long-term testing and ‘First do no harm’, take its place.
It seems to me that your transformation into an ‘enabling agency’, on the back of the ‘pandemic’, is a transformation for the worse, to the point of being a threat to the lives and health of the population. Covid-19 was struck off Public Health England’s list of high consequence infectious diseases on February 19, 2020, even before the first lockdown. Off-label remedies were speedily found to treat the illness successfully. The ‘pandemic’ existed only because it was redefined as such by the WHO and industriously promoted and kept alive by government misinformation. I want to understand why you, an intelligent woman, so easily accepted this misinformation; I want to understand why you chose to abandon academic rigour and the provisions of the Hippocratic Oath when no emergency required you to do any such thing; and I want to understand why you are proposing to repeat this recklessness in relation to a steady stream of future products.
On October 11th a Bill is to be presented to the Queensland Parliament which would impose draconian limits on what doctors can say to their patients. If passed, doctors will no longer be able to express their opinion or use their experience, training and education, if that opinion goes against what the Government health bureaucrats determine to be in the general interests of the public.
The National Law originally came into being after the Commonwealth, States and Territories all entered into an intergovernmental agreement in 2008. By that agreement it was established the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (the National Law) would first become legislation passed by the Queensland parliament (s.6.3), which the other States and Territories would then mirror and pass via each of their parliaments (s.6.4), The same intergovernmental agreement established the Australian Health Workforce Ministerial Council (s.7.1) charged with overseeing the National Law.
Once passed into law by the Queensland parliament, all the other States and Territories are required to create virtually identical Bills and submit to their parliaments to be made law, thereby effecting the same amendments to the National Law of their State or Territory (s.13.4).
Australian doctors will be bound to follow Government policy regardless of countervailing evidence, which means that Government health bureaucrats will determine how doctors should approach treatment recommendations for their patients.
The Health Practitioner Regulation National Law and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 proposes changes which would give the Queensland Health Ombudsman, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) and the Medical Board of Australia unprecedented powers to sanction doctors for expressing their professional opinion based on their assessment of the best available science.
This amendment to the Bill is clearly designed to destroy our healthcare system. A patient visits their doctor for an ‘opinion’, which will be obliterated by the act. Healthcare is nuanced, almost every day I ‘violate’ textbook recommendations because patients do not conform to idealised representations, each has unique features. Those deviations come down to experience, which is the patient’s and doctor’s most powerful asset.
Medicine will cease to evolve. It will become fossilised in the Covid Ice Age. Minor indiscretions like prescribing antibiotics when the indications are blurred could be subject to disciplinary action. Guidelines are contradictory so it would be almost impossible to practise medicine without contravening dictates. Most disease classification is already antiquated with diagnostic definitions set down sometimes 100 years ago or more. This legislation would lead to disastrous consequences for all Australians.
The aim of the Act must be to pave the way for multi-corporate management of healthcare. With 96% of the revenue of the Therapeutic Goods Administration, which is responsible for approving all pharmaceutical products including vaccines, coming from the pharmaceutical industry, the potential for conflicts of interest is self-evident. Therapeutic interventions will become legislated in the interests of big pharma. mRNA vaccines could be delivered unopposed on ‘conscience’ grounds, including to children. The cargo in the mRNA vaccines can be changed at will without going through full regulatory approval. By the time our children turn five, they would be comprehensively ‘protected’ by the ‘Pharma Ring of Protection’, vaccinated against everything from diabetes to in-growing toenails, all without the constraints of clinical opinion.
In the absence of a functioning healthcare system, individuals will be encouraged by authorities to seek their healthcare online from approved ‘trusted sources’. Doctors will become demonised as pariahs, depicted as being left behind in the high tech era. We will doubtless be receiving a concoction of ‘junk food’ medicine upsold with pharma fries. For every thought, action and movement there will be a pharmaceutical solution, requirement even. Your mere existence will demand so, for the safety of others.
This obscene piece of legislation paves the way to an Orwellian nightmare, with consequences that go far beyond healthcare, to the very core of our humanity. It’s the desecration of our rights to autonomous existence, it’s the Monty Python boot trampling in the face of every individual Australian. Our children will be stamped, sealed and delivered from birth, with profit potential identified and catalogued.
For the Australian citizen this is our Stalingrad. Defeat here will open the field to unlimited human resources for oppressive forces that can never be turned back. We must oppose this with all our resolve.
‘Frank Mercy’ is a pseudonym for a doctor with a clinical practice who also holds an appointment at an Australian university.
This is the weirdest part of the PSYOP. It’s like the morning after an office party on which you wake up almost terminally hungover to hazy memories of having performed a Tequila-fuelled blowjob on Bob in Accounting in what was either the 9th Floor Reception Area or possibly the downstairs lobby of your building while someone vaguely resembling that smirking kid in the Mail Room filmed it on his phone.
Yes, it’s the Morning After … that revolting regurgitant chorus you’re hearing is the sound of millions of Covidian Cultists down on their knees in their gender-neutral bathrooms praying to the Porcelain God.
It has been quite a trip these last two and a half years, but the orgy of fear and hatred is over, the mass hysteria is wearing off, and the reality of the damage they have done is beginning to become undeniable.
Countless thousands of people have been killed, seriously injured, and permanently disabled, victims of experimental “vaccines” they did not need but were coerced into taking. Societies have been torn apart, economies crippled, institutions discredited, democratic precepts like the rule of law and constitutional rights made mockeries of themselves, friends and families turned against each other, and so on, and the dust hasn’t even settled yet. It will take many years to assess the damage … or, rather, to recontextualize, rationalize, deny, and memory-hole the damage (while simultaneously “normalizing” the fascistic biosecurity dystopia the damage made it possible to implement).
This process is now well underway. As I’m sure you’ve noticed over the past several months, governments, global health authorities, the corporate and state media, the culture industry, and other key components of “The New Normal Reich” have been quietly phasing out their “Covid restrictions,” rewriting “The Science,” rewriting history (i.e., the science and history they had previously rewritten), executing limited hangouts, and otherwise transitioning the masses out of “emergency” mode and into the New Normal.
In other words, everything is going to plan.
You can’t keep people whipped up into a state of full-blown hysteria indefinitely. When you’re radically destabilizing and restructuring a society, you hit them hard with the Shock-and-Awe for a few weeks, or months (or years in this case), and then you gently ease them into the new “reality.” Which, after being systematically terrorized, gaslighted, threatened, and otherwise tormented for however long you did that to them, they’ll be grateful for anything resembling “normality,” no matter how fascistic it turns out to be.
You have to be delicate executing this phase, in which the vast majority of the masses, having forced themselves to believe whatever you needed them to believe during the Shock-and-Awe phase, have to force themselves to believe they never believed whatever you needed them to believe then, and believe whatever you need them to believe now, which typically completely contradicts whatever they had previously forced themselves to believe (and actually, literally, believed) in a desperate attempt to keep you happy, so that maybe you would eventually stop beating on them, and relentlessly gaslighting and terrorizing them.
Now, a lot people seem to be having trouble understanding or accepting this fact, i.e., the fact that human beings are capable of forcing themselves to believe whatever they need to believe in order to survive or remain in good standing with “normal” society (or whatever social body they are members of and depend on to meet their basic needs). Not pretend to believe, literally believe, the way that religious converts believe, the way we believe whatever we believe today that we didn’t believe ten years ago.
I must say, I find it rather baffling, people’s lack of understanding and acceptance of this fact, as this capability is a fundamental human attribute that has been documented, over and over, throughout the course of human history. It is not some “theory” I just made up. It is how we maintain social cohesion. It is how we socialize our children. It is how armies and university departments work. It is a basic part of how social bodies function; conformity is rewarded and non-conformity is punished. There’s nothing new about this phenomenon. People have been conforming to new official “realities” and making themselves believe whatever they have to believe to survive within them for approximately five thousand years.
It is, however, a rare occasion when we are able to observe the process this clearly. It usually takes place more or less invisibly within the context of normal everyday life. It is only during sudden radical shifts from one “reality” to another “reality” that we can watch people force themselves to believe whatever they perceive they need to believe, or are instructed by their rulers to believe, in order to survive and thrive in society (e.g., cult indoctrinations, religious conversions, the outbreak of war, physical torture, or in the wake of political revolutions).
This is what we’ve been watching since March 2020, not mass hypnosis, or mass formation psychosis, but the masses forcing themselves to believe whatever they sensed they needed to believe (or were instructed by the authorities to believe) in order to remain parts of “normal” society and not be demonized by their governments and the media, ostracized by their friends and family, fired from their jobs, segregated, censored, beaten and arrested by the police, and otherwise punished for non-conformity as a new “reality” was manufactured and imposed on societies throughout the world.
And now their “reality” is changing again, or “The Science is evolving,” or whatever, and the absurdities they forced themselves to believe are being exposed as … well, as absurdities, and their fanatical and often fascistic behavior, as it turns out, was based on absolutely nothing.
Many of them couldn’t care less, as their behavior was never “based” on anything other than going along with the herd, and so they have simply transitioned from fanatically hating “the Unvaccinated” to fanatically hating “the Russians,” and fanatically supporting Ukrainian neo-Nazis, and fanatically doing whatever else the GloboCap puppets on their televisions instruct them to fanatically do. However, a significant number of them have retained enough of their critical faculties that being yanked back and forth from “reality” to “reality” is causing them to experience mild cognitive dissonance, and confusion, and shame, or borderline psychosis.
Believe it or not, my heart goes out to them … these formerly fanatical Covidian Cultists that wanted me segregated from society, and silenced, and locked up in an internment camp. I cannot make it easier for them by pretending they didn’t do what they did (and in too many cases are still actively doing), or pretending they were hypnotized, or in some other altered state of consciousness, while they did what they did for the past two and half years, but just imagine how they must be feeling now that the party is finally over and the brutal morning after has arrived.
Imagine realizing at this late stage of things that everything you believed, thought, and said, the incalculable harm you have done to people, and to society, was never about a pandemic, but was always about conditioning the masses to respond to fear, coercion, and control like some global Pavlovian behavioral experiment.
Or just take it from actress Jennifer Gibson …
And now comes the really nauseating part, the part where the New Normal authorities admit that they “overreacted,” and that “mistakes were made,” and that they deeply regret having needlessly murdered and seriously injured God knows how many people, and psychologically crippled countless children, and accidentally totally destabilized and restructured the entire global economy, and explain in a lengthy piece in The New Yorker how they’re sorry, but they were drunk at the time, and swear they will never do it again.
You remember this part from 2004 after the invasion and occupation of Iraq when the photos of Abu Ghraib were published, and the American masses who had been hooting and hollering and waving American flags around, and calling people “ragheads” and “sand niggers,” and so on, had to stare themselves and their war crimes in the face.
You recall how the Americans dealt with their shame. That’s right, they reelected George Bush and carried on murdering and torturing Iraqis, and Afghans, and assorted other brown people, and hooting and hollering “we’re number one,” and waving American flags around, because in for a penny, in for a pound.
You see, another fundamental human attribute (in addition to our ability to force ourselves to believe whatever we need to believe in order to survive and thrive in society) is that we don’t tend to deal with shame very well. We tend to repress it and react aggressively to anyone who tries to force us to face it. If you don’t believe me, ask anyone you know who has been (or still is) in an abusive relationship. Ask them how their abuser reacts when they try to get them to take responsibility for their abusive behavior.
I can’t tell you exactly what’s going to happen over the coming months, but I told you back in January that there was going to be wailing and gnashing of teeth, and wailing and gnashing of teeth there has been, and there is certainly going to be a lot more of it … and probably not just wailing and gnashing.
This is just the dawn of the Morning After. I have a feeling we ain’t seen nothing yet.
Bivalent Covid vaccine uptake is moribund everywhere. Only 4.4 million doses were administered in the entire USA. This works out to 1.3% of Americans (one person out of 76) taking the bivalent boosters. Reminder, our Federal government purchased, and printed money to pay for, 171 million doses.
Why is the uptake of the bivalent booster, per 1,000 persons, greater in the USA as a whole than in Florida? The boosters are surely available to any Florida resident, right? The reason is that in other places, some holdouts keep vaccine mandates, demanding hapless young people to take Covid vaccines, and in Florida, such mandates are banned.
So, just running the math, had there not been remaining mandates to take the boosters, instead of one out of 76 Americans taking the bivalent, only one of 573 would take it — of SEVEN TIMES FEWER. The same is happening in Germany, by the way.
Such is the time that we live in — only one out of 573 Americans still believes in science.
The World Economic Forum (WEF) held the Sustainable Development Impact Meetings, where unelected groups held a “Tackling Disinformation” panel, with participants including the UN, Brown University, and even CNN.
The panel discussed how best to control narratives on issues like climate change and COVID-19.
The UN’s Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications, Melissa Fleming, noted that the UN had partnered with Big Tech companies, including Google and TikTok, to control narratives surrounding COVID and climate change.
“We own the science, and we think that the world should know it, and the platforms themselves also do,” she said.
The UN said it partnered with Google to influence search results on climate change so that narratives from “authoritative” sources would appear at the top of search results.
“We partnered with Google,” said Fleming. “For example, if you Google ‘climate change,’ you will, at the top of your search, you will get all kinds of UN resources.
“We started this partnership when we were shocked to see that when we Googled ‘climate change,’ we were getting incredibly distorted information right at the top.”
The UN also says it partnered with TikTok on a project dubbed “Team Halo,” to control the narratives surrounding COVID-19.
“We had another trusted messenger project, which was called ‘Team Halo’ where we trained scientists around the world and some doctors on TikTok, and we had TikTok working with us,” Fleming said.
“Another really key strategy we had was to deploy influencers,” she said, adding, “influencers who were really keen, who have huge followings, but really keen to help carry messages that were going to serve their communities, and they were much more trusted than the United Nations telling them something from New York City headquarters.”
The “Tackling Disinformation” panel was moderated by Adrian Monck, the WEF’s managing director.
Monck said that the CNN was part of the strategy to “own the narrative.”
“CNN is both an organization that’s trying to make sense of the world and trying to establish the facts; it’s also part of a political war on who owns the narrative,” he said.
US chief medical officer Anthony Fauci’s net worth surged to $12.6 million in 2021, nearly twice the $7.6 million it had been in 2019, watchdog group OpenTheBooks revealed on Friday, citing financial disclosures it obtained from Fauci’s employer, the National Institutes of Health.
Already the highest-paid employee in the federal government before the pandemic as director of the National Institutes for Allergies and Infectious Diseases, Fauci pulled down a salary of $456,000 in 2021 and $480,000 in 2022. However, that paycheck represents just a fraction of the money he made while his Covid-19 policies helped push the US economy into a recession.
The disclosures show multiple trusts, retirement accounts, and other financial assets, all of which seem to have appreciated in value during the pandemic even as much of the real economy suffered. Book royalties and the $1 million Dan David Prize from Israel, as well as appearances and speaking fees, round out Fauci’s Covid-19 windfall. When OpenTheBooks asked the NIH to see all royalties paid to the doctor, however, the document they received – which would have shown exactly how much Fauci was financially benefiting from drugs and other patents – was reportedly heavily redacted.
“While Dr. Fauci has been a government bureaucrat for more than 55 years, his household net worth skyrocketed during the pandemic,” OpenTheBooks CEO Adam Andrzejewski told Fox News, attributing the doctor’s wealth spurt to “career-end salary spiking, lucrative cash prizes awarded by nonprofit organizations around the world, and an ever-larger investment portfolio.”
Fauci has been criticized throughout the pandemic for allegedly profiting off the pricey antiviral medication remdesivir, which he proclaimed the standard for treating Covid-19 despite lackluster clinical trial results and having been against the initial advice of the World Health Organization.
Fauci appears to dislike discussing his finances in public, having been caught on a hot mic describing Republican Senator Roger Marshall as a “moron” for merely asking to see what were supposed to be publicly available documents. The Kansas senator, who is also a doctor, asked to see Fauci’s financials during a January hearing only for the NIAID chief to insist they were already public – a statement that was not true at the time. OpenTheBooks sued for access in January and only recently received the documents it posted on Friday.
Following the hearing, Marshall introduced the FAUCI Act (Financial Accountability for Uniquely Compensated Individuals) to require that government employees’ financial disclosures be publicly accessible on the Office of Government Ethics website.
The German government has ordered 100 million doses of BA.1 and BA.4/5 bivalent vaccines at a cost of 2.5 billion Euros, and almost nobody wants them. An amusing Welt article chronicles the scenes unfolding at our deserted regional vaccination centres, which for some reason are still open:
Michael Hubmann did not expect that so few would come. Only 85 people had themselves vaccinated against Covid-19 on Thursday in Fürth in Middle Franconia, a district with 120,000 inhabitants. “We’ve tried to make it as easy as possible for people,” says Hubmann, a paediatrician who coordinates the vaccination campaign. He explains that vaccinations were offered simultaneously in two shopping centres, a bus, a home for the elderly and in a former shop in the pedestrian zone. “Yet hardly anyone wanted to have the fourth dose.”
The medical bureaucrats are baffled, just baffled:
“Unfortunately, interest in the fourth dose has been pretty low so far,” says Markus Beier, Chairman of the German Association of General Practitioners. At the same time, he says it’s important that people over 60 and those with previous illnesses in particular protect themselves with a further dose. “There is uncertainty among the population as to what further vaccinations will achieve. But they still strengthen protection against severe outcome.”
Meanwhile, vast quantities of vaccine are expiring. At the end of August alone, 3.9 million doses of Moderna and another 700,000 doses of Novavax had to be binned.
The chart above tells the whole sordid story of our recent experiment with mass vaccination. Demand for this snake oil was highest in the beginning, before anybody had any direct experience with it; and in the Fall, when the government tied it to specific social privileges. As overt vaccinator coercion has faded and millions of people have tried these doubtful elixirs for themselves, demand has all but evaporated. This is the ultimate vindication for all those who have been saying that the vaccines are lousy overhyped pharmaceutical products with a bad side-effect profile. A safe and effective product would only gain momentum with the population. It took less than two years for these to wear out their welcome.
FROM 2009: Just as the oligarchs are moving to consolidate their power in a new global governmental scheme based on the manmade climate change scare, their fraud has been exposed. The source code doesn’t lie, unlike the scientists who have perverted the good name of science in the pursuit of their political goals.
DOCUMENTATION
Documentation – Corbett Report 2009 Data Archive (USB Flash Drive)
Time Reference:
00:20
Description:
Get your copy today from the New World Next Week store!
Documentation – FLASHBACK: The Bankster Bailouts (2009)
Time Reference:
00:45
Description:
In this flashback to the Economics 101 series, Michel Chossudovsky of globalresearch.ca explains the circular mechanism by which the banks become creditors of the very government that is bailing them out and thus leverage financial power over the political system itself.
Documentation – BBC Climate Correspondent Was Forwarded CRU Emails Five Weeks Before They Were Made Public
Time Reference:
39:41
Description:
A BBC Weather presenter who was discussed by scientists in the “climategate” emails says he was forwarded the material more than five weeks before it was made public on the internet.
On September 8, I wrote about California Governor Gavin Newsom having AB 2098 — legislation that “tells the state’s medical boards to punish doctors who challenge the coronavirus orthodoxy” — on his desk for him to either veto or sign into law. The punishment the state medical boards could impose under the legislation includes revoking doctors’ medical licenses.
Here is an update. On Friday, Newsom signed into law this bill directing the prosecution of an attack on free speech, medical freedom, and the pursuit of better health.
The coronavirus orthodoxy, or party line, the legislation seeks to protect has repeatedly been wrong — from promoting “social distancing” and mask wearing that have not been shown to provide a net benefit in countering coronavirus to advocating that everyone take the “safe and effective” coronavirus “vaccine” shots that turned out to be both exceedingly dangerous and ineffective. The coronavirus orthodoxy also demanded that much of the economy and social interactions be shut down for an extended period of time in a supposed effort to reduce the spread of the not-very-threatening-to-most-people coronavirus. In short, the coronavirus orthodoxy is an enemy of wellbeing.
Newsom’s decision to sign AB 2098 into law is not surprising given that he has been one of the governors most adamant in imposing a coronavirus crackdown.
The evidence for the presence of thermite at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11 is extensive and compelling. This evidence has accumulated to the point at which we can say that WTC thermite is no longer a hypothesis, it is a tested and proven theory.
Therefore it is not easy to debunk it. But the way to do so is not difficult to understand.
To debunk the thermite theory, one must first understand the evidence for it and then show how all of that evidence is either mistaken or explained by other phenomena. Here are the top ten categories of evidence for thermite at the WTC.
Molten metal: There are numerous photographs and eyewitness testimonies to the presence of molten metal at the WTC, both in the buildings and in the rubble. No legitimate explanation has been provided for this evidence other than the exothermic reaction of thermite, which generates the temperatures required and molten iron as a product.
The fires at Ground Zero could not be put out for several months. Despite the application of millions of gallons of water to the pile, several rainfall events at the site, and the use of a chemical fire suppressant, the fires would not subside. Thermal images made by satellite showed that the temperatures in the pile were far above that expected in the debris from a typical structure fire. Only thermite, which contains its own oxidant and therefore cannot be extinguished by smothering it, can explain this evidence.
Numerous eyewitnesses who were fleeing the area described the air mass as a hot wind filled with burning particles.[1] This evidence agrees with the presence of large quantities of thermite byproducts in the air, including hot metallic microspheres and still-reacting agglomerates of thermite.
Numerous vehicles were scorched or set on fire in the area. Photographic evidence shows that cars parked within the lower-level garage areas of the WTC complex burned as if impacted by a super-hot wind like that described by the eyewitnesses. All non-metallic parts of the cars, including the plastic, rubber, and glass, were completely burned off by a hot blast.
There was a distinct “white smoke” present—clearly different from smoke caused by a normal structural fire—as indicated by eyewitnesses and photographic evidence.[2] The second major product of the thermite reaction is aluminum oxide, which is emitted as a white solid shortly after reaction.
Peer-reviewed, scientific research confirmed the presence of extremely high temperatures at the WTC. The high temperatures were evidenced by metallic and other microspheres, along with evaporated metals and silicates. These findings were confirmed by 9/11 investigators and by scientists at an independent company and at the United States Geologic Survey.
The environmental data collected at Ground Zero in the months following 9/11 indicate that violent incendiary fires, like those produced by thermite, occurred on specific dates. Peer-reviewed scientific analysis of these data show that the components of thermite spiked to extraordinary levels on specific dates in both the air and aerosol emissions at Ground Zero.
Carbon nanotubes have been found in the WTC dust and in the lungs of 9/11 first responders. Formation of carbon nanotubes requires extremely high temperatures, specific metal catalysts, and carbon compounds exactly like those found in nanothermite formulations. Researchers have discovered that nanothermite produces the same kinds of carbon nanotubes. That finding has been confirmed by independent analysis in a commercial contract laboratory.
There is also a great deal of indirect evidence for the thermite theory. This includes the attempts by the government agency NIST to downplay the evidence for thermite. It also includes things like a weak effort by Rupert Murdoch’s National Geographic Channel to discredit the ability of thermite to cut structural steel, which was itself roundly discredited by an independent investigator. It is now unquestionable that thermite can cut structural steel as needed for a demolition.
Therefore, debunking the WTC thermite theory is not easy but is very straightforward. Doing so simply requires addressing the evidence listed above point by point, and showing in each case how an alternative hypothesis can explain that evidence better. Given the scientific grounding of the thermite theory, use of the scientific method, including experiments and peer-reviewed publications, would be essential to any such debunking effort.
That is almost certainly why we have seen no such debunking. Instead, the people working to refute the WTC thermite theory have resorted to what might be called a case study in how NOT to respond to scientific evidence.
The failed thermite theory debunkers have produced:
Thousands of chat room comments and other posts yet not one peer-reviewed scientific article.
Alternate hypotheses that have little or no evidence to support them. For example, the mini-nuke hypothesis and the “Star Wars Beam” hypothesis.
Attempts to exaggerate the meaning of the evidence, for example by saying that thermite or nanothermite could not have caused all of the effects seen at the WTC.
The last of these methods has been the most popular. Trying to debunk the tenth piece of evidence for WTC thermite, NIST contractor James Millette produced an unreviewed paper that purports to replicate the finding of nanothermite in the WTC dust. This was apparently organized in the hope that doing so would discredit all of the evidence for thermite at the WTC.
Millette is well known for having helped create the official reports on the analysis of WTC dust. He was responsible for creating the form that was used to pre-screen all materials found in the dust prior to any analysis by official investigators. Those official reports did not mention any of the evidence listed above, in particular failing to report the abundant iron microspheres scattered throughout the WTC dust. Additionally, Millette’s official report team did not find any red-gray chips, let alone nanothermite.
As he worked to debunk the WTC thermite research, Millette was still unable to find any iron microspheres. But he did claim to have finally found the red-gray chips. Curiously, he did not attempt to replicate the testing that would determine if those chips were thermitic.
Claiming to have found the chips, Millette perfomed an XEDS analysis for elemental composition but failed to do any of the other tests including BSE, DSC, the flame test, the MEK test, or measurement of the chip resistivity. Having inexplicably “ashed” the chips at 400 °C in a muffle furnace, thereby proving that they were not the materials of interest (which ignite at 430 °C), Millette ignored the remainder of the study he had set out to replicate.
Because he did not do the DSC test, he could not do XEDS of the spheres formed from the chips. Since he had still not found spheres in the dust, he could not test those and this allowed him to ignore the testing of spheres from the thermite reaction.
Millette rested his case on FTIR, which I have also performed on chips from WTC dust but with a much different result. Like Millette’s paper, my FTIR work is not yet part of a peer-reviewed publication and therefore should not be taken as authoritative evidence. There has been less urgency to this supplemental work because what has been done to date has received no legitimate response from the government or from much of the scientific community. That sad fact should be the central point of discussion today.
In any case, Millette attempted only one tenth of the tests in his struggle to replicate (or refute) one tenth of the evidence for thermite at the WTC. His un-reviewed “one percent approach” was nonetheless very convincing to many people, including some of the people who produced the official reports for 9/11. But it is obvious to others that Millette’s work was not a replication in any sense of the word.
I’m looking forward to the peer-reviewed scientific article that finally does replicate the nanothermite paper or any of the other peer-reviewed scientific papers that document the evidence for thermite at the WTC. Hopefully, we can approach those efforts without concerns about the sources and without recalling all the deception and manipulation that preceded them.
Until then, it is important to recognize the difference between the superficial appearance of science and the actual practice of science. Ignoring 90 percent of the evidence is not scientific. And replication of the 10 percent means actually repeating the work.
If thermite debunkers and alternate hypothesis supporters can find the courage and focus to step through that challenge, maybe they can begin to add to the discussion.
Kevin Ryan is a chemist, former laboratory director, and prominent voice in the 9/11 Truth movement.
Kim Iverson, a TV journalist formerly at The Hill and now streaming her own show on YouTube, has been one of the most honest and courageous voices during the pandemic. She is the rare journalist today who is willing to follow the evidence wherever it may lead. I sat down with her this morning for an interview about California’s latest attempt to suppress the free speech of physicians and undermine the doctor patient relationship. Assembly Bill 2098, which I have posted about previously—see Punishing Dissident Physicians and The Censorship of Medicine—is set to become law unless the governor vetoes it today.
I also had a wide-ranging two-part conversation with Dr. Drew Pinsky on his podcast recently, where we discussed my new book, The New Abnormal: The Rise of the Biomedical Security State. It’s available on the Apple Podcasts (link to Part 1 and Part 2), or your other favorite podcast app.
You can pre-order the book here and it will ship in one month…
The volcanic mineral medicine will not patent — for the toxic burden medicine will not name
Lies are Unbekoming – October 30, 2026
Zeolite is old. It is in Roman concrete that has held for two thousand years. It’s in the water filters of ancient cisterns. It’s in the stomachs of Pacific livestock whose keepers knew, somehow, that this grey crumbling rock made the animals healthier. It’s in Soviet clinical protocols from the 1960s. It’s in the standard emergency response to the Chernobyl explosion.
In 1986, after the Chernobyl reactor failure, the Soviet Union manufactured and distributed natural zeolite at industrial scale — for soil remediation, for livestock feed, for human consumption, for the cleanup itself. Karl Hecht, who had been director of the Institute for Experimental and Clinical Pathophysiology at the Charité of Humboldt University Berlin, spent the six decades after that building the clinical research base — on silicon’s role in human health, on zeolite’s clinical safety, on its applications in ageing. In 2018, Pavelić and colleagues published a comprehensive clinical safety review of natural clinoptilolite in Frontiers in Pharmacology. In 2019, Mastinu analysed its binding affinities. In the Western medical literature, these works sit largely uncited.
What has not been treated at book length, until now, is how a volcanic mineral with six decades of Soviet clinical work behind it, two major peer-reviewed Western reviews, and ongoing clinical use across the former Eastern Bloc, remains almost entirely absent from Western medical practice — and what the toxic burden it’s meant to address actually is.
The Zeolite Book gathers the Soviet clinical record, the Western peer-reviewed studies, three contemporary practitioner voices, and three serious counterviews into one honest treatment. That’s why the book runs to seven appendices. 288 pages, four parts, three practitioner voices, three counterviews, seven appendices. The honest treatment is the argument.
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Zeolite is old. It is in Roman concrete that has held for two thousand years. It’s in the water filters of ancient cisterns. It’s in the stomachs of Pacific livestock whose keepers knew, somehow, that this grey crumbling rock made the animals healthier. It’s in Soviet clinical protocols from the 1960s. It’s in the standard emergency response to the Chernobyl explosion.
Aletho News
