We’ve been covering the emerging food crisis for months now. Detailing how the economy was deliberately sabotaged to drive up the cost of living, especially food, via lockdowns and sanctions.
But propaganda wars are like regular wars: They have theatres, fronts and overt for covert campaigns.
Yes, the big noise on food is that we need to change to “save the planet”, but there’s more going on in smaller spheres. A constant drip-feed of stories, articles and studies designed to undermine public faith in the food we eat.
Here are four examples, all from just the last ten days.
1. BEEF CAUSES CANCER
On June 3rd MedicalXpress reported on a new study which – allegedly – (we’ll be using that word a lot) found red meat increased cancer risk in certain people.
The “study”, carried out at the Boston University School of Medicine and originally published in the Journal of Nutrition, claims to have found that “unprocessed” red meat increased the risk of colorectal cancer {CRC} – in black women:
Unprocessed red meat intake was associated with an increased CRC risk in the present study, the first positive evidence that red meat plays a role in the etiology of CRC in Black women.
2. SO DOES FISH
Then, on June 9th, Sky News reported another study which found eating fish on a regular basis also increases your risk – this time of skin cancer.
This “study”, done out of Brown University and published in the journal Cancers Causes and Control, alleges those who eat over 40g of fish per day had a 22% increased risk of skin cancer:
We found that higher total fish intake, tuna intake, and non-fried fish intake were positively associated with risk of both malignant melanoma and melanoma in situ. Future studies are needed to investigate the potential biological mechanisms underlying these associations.
3. … EVEN MORE CANCER, THIS TIME FROM DAIRY
A third study, again in MedicalXpress and this time from June 9th, found an increased risk of prostate cancer in men who drink a lot of milk.
The “study”, done at Loma Linda University Health and published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, concludes:
Men with higher intake of dairy foods, but not nondairy calcium, had a higher risk of prostate cancer compared with men having lower intakes. Associations were nonlinear, suggesting greatest increases in risk at relatively low doses.
This parallels a study from last year, done by the same researchers, which found drinking milk increased the risk of breast cancer.
4. OH, AND KEEPING YOUR OWN CHICKENS GIVES YOU FOOD POISONING
Not a study this time – and technically not just about food either – but on June 10th CBSNews reported that the US CDC was launching a “probe” into an increase in food poisoning cases allegedly linked to people keeping their own chickens:
Federal health officials are probing several multi-state outbreaks of salmonella infections linked to backyard poultry, saying more than 200 Americans have been stricken so far this year, with one death reported.
Already in vogue in parts of the U.S., the earthy hobby of raising backyard flocks grew even more popular during the pandemic, as Americans stuck at home set up coops with an eye on fresh eggs and animal companionship. But such efforts at small-time farming can come at a cost.
Of course, this is coming straight off the back of a “bird flu outbreak” which has seen 10s of millions of poultry culled, and price of eggs and chicken skyrocket.
Interestingly, organic and free-range chickens are already said to be the most impacted by bird flu, leading some to ask if bird flu could spell “the end of free-range chicken”.
No free-range chickens, no keeping your own chickens…hmmm…seems like some time soon the only way to get chicken (and eggs) will be through Big Food corporate giants.
THE SOLUTION
So, according to The ScienceTM – all natural food humans (and most other animals) have been eating for literally thousands upon thousands of generations is somehow suddenly contriving to give us all cancer.
Personally, I’m freaking out.
But don’t worry, because there’s a few ready made solutions to this problem: If you want to save yourself from all that nasty chicken, eggs and milk, try “alternate forms of protein”.
That’s media-speak for eating insects.
The push on that front started years ago, with articles like this one from March 2021: “If we want to save the planet, the future of food is insects”
There was a lot of pushback, with “Eat Ze Bugs” becoming an ironic slogan for those resisting the new normal. That reaction effectively bullied the “let’s eat insects” stories out of the news for a while. But now they’re back.
On May 22nd, Forbes reported yet another a new “study” which apparently found “Eating Insects Could Cut Your Environmental Impact By More Than 80%”.
On May 28th, The Sun claimed that eating insects (among other things) could “solve food shortages”.
On June 6th the BBC’s kid-focused Newsround prompted children to ask the (rather leading) questions “Eating insects: Should we be eating more? Why are they so good?
And then on June 11th, the Toronto Star simply asked
Why aren’t we all eating insects yet?”
So, yes, there’s a renewed energy behind the pro-bug-eating media. But the big move being touted is undoubtedly the pivot to lab-grown meat and dairy. The propaganda is flowing thick and fast on that.
On June 6th Forbesreported that“Cell-Cultured Seafood Isn’t just An Idea; It’s A Reality”.
Just three days ago it was announced the Israeli company ReMilk was approved to begin selling its “precision fermented cow-less dairy products” across the US.
So, while the news cycle floods with stories that beef and fish and milk are causing cancer or food poisoning, the mainstream media is packed with stories on the benefits of cultured proteins.
Medical journals are publishing articles like this one, suggesting lab-grown meat is “healthier” than natural meat.
A Schmidt Foundation-sponsored article in the Guardian, on June 4th, tells us that lab-grown meat could save the planet if people can be “convinced to make rational food choices”.
How ‘lab-grown’ meat could help the planet and our health
… and goes on to suggest fake meat would prevent “future pandemics” by removing the risk of zoonotic viral transmission.
The messaging could not be clearer.
CUI BONO?
So, let’s say that over the next year or so more and more natural meat/fish/dairy products are replaced on the market by lab-grown or vegetable-based alternatives. Who stands to benefit?
The answer to that is unfortunately predictable: It’s the same people that always benefit.
The problems are manifold, the reactions diverse, but the solution is always pretty much the same – giving the elite more money and more power.
It’s interesting to note that, just yesterday, the CEO of one of the biggest poultry suppliers in the world has called on the EU to allow the sale of cultured meat.
As “market forces” and “climate friendly policies” come into play, governments will institute measures such as the proposed “meat taxes”, making it cheaper to buy fake meat than real meat.
In the end the same people benefit no matter where you get your electricity, and – as the war on food continues – the same people will benefit whether you get real meat, lab-grown meat or “alternate forms of protein”.
The people most hurt by this will be family farms, small local companies, and any producers of organic and ethically sourced meat and dairy. Many of whom will be driven out of business.
Meanwhile the public will be left with a “choice” between extortionately expensive mass-produced actual meat clogged with hormones and antibiotics, or fake lab-grown meat made of god-knows-what.
And since the same corporate giants will be making both options, you’ll line the same pockets either way.
They want the COVID-19 vaccine approval for children so bad, Peter Marks himself and his cronies published the very study he has to use to evaluate for approval.
As promised, the FDA has ginned up a report that ostensibly will be used to try to justify “approval” (whatever they mean by that now) of COVID-19 vaccines for infants and toddlers (children < 5 years old). Here’s the report for your reference.
This report comes after a torrent of massive reports from Moderna and Pfizer that claim to review studies of the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in children. It is not hard to see what shenanigans the FDA has been up to to try to bolster a vaccine that fewer and fewer adults want. It’s more of the same: exaggerate the apparent risk of the virus and minimizing the perception of risk. In other words, lies.
There is no evidence of clinical urgency. Infants and toddlers (and children in general) do not get COVID-19; they do not (yet) die from COVID-19. All that can change when antibody dependent enhancement kicks in for the vaccinated. FDA’s own reports cites 1,086 deaths “from COVID-19” and 10,700,000 “cases” of COVID-19 in children aged 0-17. There have been 832 days since April 1, 2020 when diagnoses started for COVID-19. For the entire population of children in the US (73,000,000), the risk of COVID-19 infection since the onset of COVID is 10,700,000/73,000,000 = 0.14657. The risk of a child dying if they have a diagnosis is 1,086/10,700,00 or 1086/10700000 = 0.00010149532. The risk of any child dying of COVID-19 over this time period is 1,086/73000000 = 0.00001487671. The per-day risk is on the order of 1.78806611e-8 (0.000000001788). There is no real unmet clinical need and the FDA needs to go back to college to understand how to use RT-PCR correctly. Children do not get COVID-19, and they do not die.
Inconsistent use of the idea “vaccinated”. This has been the pattern from the very first study. FDA, CDC, Moderna, Pfizer, and others pull out whatever definition of “vaccinated” they want. Examples: “Vaccinated” is defined in the original trials as people who received both doses and who did not develop COVID-19 before two weeks passed after the second exposure to the vaccine. In fact, that means that people who developed COVID-19 due to disease enhancement were dropped from the study calculations. First, this is the first time people were dropped from a vaccine trial for getting infected with the pathogen targeted by the vaccine up to 13 or 14 days after being vaccinated. Second, it’s actually five entire weeks – one month and one week – 44 days – after the first exposure. ALL of the vaccine efficacy being cited by FDA is suspect. Moderna’s and Pfizer’s vaccines never achieved >90% true vaccine efficacy; the best estimate is more like 75%.
Inconsistent use of the idea “vaccine efficacy”. Over the time period since the first COVID-19 vaccine trials, various definitions of “vaccine efficacy” have been used. Decreased transmission. Reduction in infection rates. Reduced hospitalization. Presence of neutralizing antibodies. Presence of antibodies. All are used and cited in FDA’s report whenever convenient, all in an ad-hoc manner. It’s more than irritating. It’s moving the goal post and represents reckless (and ineffective) attempts to manipulate public perception. This practice continues in the reports and studies that are cited by FDA. I do not trust the efficacy data FDA cites in their report (why would we given Point 1?).Further evidence of the futility of the evidence used to claim efficacy comes from Moderna’s Sponsor Briefing report to the FDA:“3.3 Regulatory Considerations for Clinical Development of COVID-19 Vaccines in Children
Effectiveness
Regulatory precedent with other preventive vaccines provides a basis for inference of vaccine effectiveness in pediatric populations based on immunobridging to a young adult population in which clinical disease endpoint vaccine efficacy has been demonstrated for the same prototype vaccine. The immune marker(s) used for immunobridging do not need to be scientifically established to predict protection but should be clinically relevant to the disease. Based on available data in humans and animal models, FDA considers neutralizing antibody titers (a functional measure of the vaccine immune response against SARS-CoV-2) to be clinically relevant for immunobridging to infer effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in pediatric age groups. Because no specific neutralizing antibody titer has been established to predict protection against COVID-19, two immunogenicity endpoints (GMT and SRR) are considered appropriate for comparing the range of neutralizing antibody responses elicited by the vaccine in pediatric versus young adult populations.
Also embedded in this piece of work is the fact that FDA does not need evidence of long-term immunity; they are settling for something called “immunobridging” – guessing at the efficacy of a vaccine in one clinical population from measurements made from other clinical populaton.
They also are making people dependent on vaccines… expecting patients to have antibodies from one vaccine to the next. This makes no sense immunologically. We don’t need continuously high antibody levels against any pathogen. We have memory B-cells and T-cells. In accepting this paradigm, FDA is completely off its rocker and will cause immune exhaustion with constant vaccinations every 3-4 months.
Incomplete consideration of the scientific data (Barnstable County, Israel, Ontario). We know that months after vaccination, those who are vaccinated are at higher risk of infection and now of hospitalizations. Data actually show negative vaccine efficacy in children (per Jeremy Hammond). See: “Evidence for Negative COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness in Children”. From that article:“vaccine effectiveness (VE) in children becomes(sic) negative within several months since receipt of the second dose.Researchers from the New York State Department of Health published a study on the preprint server medRxiv on February 28 noting that the evidence for vaccine effectiveness in children, particularly those aged five to eleven, was “limited”. So, they aimed to provide data to inform policymaking.“During Omicraon variant predominance,” the authors concluded, “VE against infection declined rapidly” for young children in the state of New York, “with low protection by one month following full-vaccination.”Comparing COVID-19 cases during January between unvaccinated and vaccinated children, they estimated initial vaccine effectiveness for children aged twelve to seventeen to be 76 percent, but this dropped to below 50 percent after just five weeks since receipt of the second dose.Moreover, for young children (aged five to eleven), they observed a drop from 65 percent to just 12 percent after only one month.Thereafter, their estimate indicated significantly negative effectiveness for this age group, as shown in Figure 2 of their paper: by 35 to 41 days, VE reached negative 10 percent, and by 42 to 48 days, it reached negative 41 percent.
Jeremy goes on to report (correctly) that the authors of the article misinterpreted their own data. History will remember Jeremy as a reporter with great integrity.
Moderna and Pfizer reports fail to study long-term risks. Like I said, more of the same shenanigans. In this report, for example, Moderna offers data on myocarditis only up to Day 28 after the vaccine. Why Day 28? Why not “since the vaccine has been administered” to more accurately reflect the real-world clinical situation? They also state that myocarditis in a large concern in people infected with SARS-CoV-2 – but the comparison is to the uninfected, not the vaccinated, and we know that the spike protein is the cause (syncytia among heart muscles caused by the spike protein). The spike protein, of course, is the basis of their mRNA vaccines.
Incestuous COIs/Unjustified Influence by Regulators. Peter Marks is charged with setting the decisions at FDA whether to consider vaccines for specific populations. Why the hell is he involved in a study conducted to bolster the vaccines he is going to have to decide upon? See “Benefit-risk assessment of COVID-19 vaccine, mRNA (Comirnaty) for age 16–29 years”. That “study” is also guilty of all of the same loose logic as above; it is noteworthy that the study assumes as “worst case scenario” of zero deaths from myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination (Credit: Toby McDonald, who wrote this to me:“I’m reading the Moderna “Sponsor Briefing Document” and they built their benefit-risk assessment off of Funk et al. (2022). So I looked up Funk and it’s a recent paper by six staffers at the FDA including Peter Marks, Richard Forshee, and Hong Yang (who wrote the dreadful benefit-risk assessment for kids 5 to 11 back in October). Quite literally in their “worst-case scenario” they predict 0 deaths from myocarditis in the vaccine group. It’s a stunning work of fiction.”
I’m on an email thread with Steve Kirsch (he considers me part of his “debate team”. Last week, Steve challenged Peter Marks to a debate:“Hi Peter,You are right about the vaccine uptake problem. According to independent survey we just commissioned, only 33% of Americans opted to go further than the first 2 doses.You were quoted in that CNN article:“We do have a problem with vaccine uptake that is very serious in the United States and anything we can do to get people more comfortable to be able to accept these potentially life-saving medical products is something that we feel we are compelled to do,” said Dr. Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.Isn’t it time for you to end the misinformation problem by debating us in a public forum?My colleagues and I look forward to hearing from you.
The only way to end the misinformation is to debate the top misinformation spreaders. You will never win by trying to censor us.
To my knowledge, Marks has not replied. I replied to Steve and the entire email thread, including Marks, though:
“Steve,
History is going to remember one person on this email thread in a manner in which I would not ever care to be seen associating with.
I would therefore decline to participate in such a debate.
Sincerely,
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD
I could continue and debate dozens more points in the report dump by the FDA. I don’t have to. Marks himself provides evidence of being way off-target immunologically and lying about the “need” for COVID-19 vaccines for children.
Here’s an old video of Prevaricating Peter lying about the need for “high antibody titres” for immunity, and that children’s immune response is “not enough for some of these variants” (no data on that, just words):
The comments in that video have not aged well. Call your Senator and Congressional Reps and demand that Peter Marks resign. Email them this article. Marks and the FDA are NOT basing their considerations on independent fact, science and logic. He and his cronies are either incompetent or working for the industry. Either way, he and his cronies have to go.
I recently posted a deeply referenced compilation of evidence detailing the historic humanitarian catastrophe that has slowly unfolded within most advanced health economies across the world. Caused by a global mass vaccination campaign led by the Pharma masters of BMGF/WHO/CDC that illogically (but profitably) targeted a rapidly mutating coronavirus. They did it with what turned out to be the most toxic protein used therapeutically in the history of medicine. In vials mixed with lipid nano-particles, polyethylene glycol and who knows what else.
As these events become more and more recognized by the average citizen (and occasional journalist), a new pathetic “Disinformation Campaign” was launched in response trying to blame all the young people dying as simply a need for increased awareness of the rare condition called Sudden Adult Death Syndrome (SADS), rather than examples of the legions dying from the vaccines. The fact checkers also came out in support of this narrative, branding anyone who thinks the vaccines are the cause of SADS as a conspiracy theorist. Like this self-appointed social media watchdog. Mentions of SADS are popping up from many countries… all in the last few weeks. Here, here, here, hereand.. oh whatever. This article even listed a dozen such publicized deaths in the past few weeks from all over the world… but blamed them all on SADS. You get it. What is nauseating is the tone of purported good intention within these articles, informing folks that if you are related to someone young who died suddenly you should go see a cardiologist to make sure you don’t have an abnormal EKG. After it turns out normal, they will assuredly tell you to get vaccinated, an absurdity atop a mountain of absurdities caused by our bio-medical-media industrial complex over the past 2+ years.
Ugh, lets move on. In this post, I will move away from numbers and data and studies to give a more qualitative view of how the vaccines’ impacts are manifesting in the “belly of the beast,” (i.e. on the inside of a major academic medical center).
The most profound reflection of this last week came from a patient who is a physician and therapist. She was hospitalized recently for non-COVID reasons and observed: “I think many of the physicians are exhibiting dissociation. It takes an enormous amount of energy to maintain their narrative and hold off the reality hitting them in the face every day.” I thought of this reading the recent piece you referenced from The Annals of Emergency Medicine.
Wikipedia:“The major characteristic of all dissociative phenomena involves a detachment from reality, rather than a loss of reality as in psychosis. Research has suggested that dissociation is inversely related to mindfulness, which is a potential treatment.“
TY PK for this dose of mindfulness.
I thought his comment was the perfect introduction to this post, where I will share disturbing “insider info,” compiled largely from recent correspondences with a senior ICU and ER Nurse, both via email and phone. Although she is not working full-time in ICU’s or ER’s anymore, she still does shifts on occasion, particularly night shifts. Night shifts, although brutal, are WAY more fun and relaxed than day shifts. That is, most of the time, unless you get slammed due to less staff being around. Although the worst shifts of my career were night ones, thankfully they were rare.
What is great about night shifts is the camaraderie and closeness that develops among staff that choose to primarily work nights. The pool of such folks is small, and they choose night shifts for various but often similar reasons (preference, child care responsibilities, other jobs, hatred of day shifts etc). The general atmosphere is more “intimate,” as you end up having conversations, longer and deeper than you would or could in the middle of a hospital day. This is because at night there are no families around, no administrators, most patients are sleeping (sort of), no masses of swirling ancillary specialists like dietitians, physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, physician sub-specialists, transporters, social workers, food service workers, maintenance folks etc.
Anyway, this was the first email I received from her (editorial note: I wrote out or translated all her abbreviations but made no other edits to substance – I had to do it as her writing style clearly reflected someone who has been writing myriad nursing notes her whole career :).
On May 12, 2022, at 7:47 PM, L. <XXXX> wrote:
I wish I could have you as my doc. Nurse of 20 yrs + ICU – cardiac, neuroICU/ neurosurgical ICU mostly, and ED at Level 1. Vax injured from 2 Pfizer doses mandated by my major University hospital system. Clotting issues, open bleeding, spontaneous with no ability to stop, weeping down arms and legs. Severe leg clot post-surgery in March. Had to get D-Dimer ordered by force at little ED I was in, and use my own portable doppler I brought in from work, b/c they had no Ultrasound techs or equipment access – TPA (clot buster med) finally. Cervical lymph nodes enlarged since vax especially, for over 1.5 yrs. Cannot biopsy at least one as it sits on my Left carotid, now wrapped around it, . Got Covid originally while working ED in March 2020. “N antibody” still high as of Nov 2021. Hit neuro, never respiratory. Had same issues with H1N1 vaccine which was also mandated and then I got Guillain Barre Syndrome and neurological weakness – out of work 5 months. Will not get any boosters or vaccines this year, but have no exemption as all docs took to the “deer in headlight” look and said nothing. I will lose my career this winter if I refuse. Functional med/family practitioner – she has a long wait list and I have no idea how she sits with this data on vaccine injured. My VAERS report – it was deleted. Pharmacist never entered as required so I did. It has vanished. My batch numbers – significant for bad neurologic responses, clotting. I lost my Hematologist-Oncologist doctor to vaccine injury – he is out and never to practice again – in his early 40s. He was a “true believer” and in denial until it was him who was the injured patient. Our cancer hospital – know most of the case managers and many doctors since they were residents. They now have case loads in the 1000s rather than 250-400 over any given quarter. Not enough bed or infusion space for the cancer patients as outpatients. Radiation treatment backlog. All at a huge cancer hospital monstrosity itself. All kinds – brain, lymph, stomach, pancreas, blood, AND EYE CANCERS – orbital especially in younger people recently vaxxed. Microvascular ischemia on rise in vaxxed younger people. Strokes way up in no-risk, no co-morbidities, young to younger-ish. Ask me anything. I’ll tell you inside scoop from the floors and suites. This has to stop. They need to admit the fraud and crime and STOP. The liability must be lifted, mandates ended. They KNOW NOW and many KNEW THEN. Don’t know if you’ll even read this, but I follow all of you on substack and Twitter – those not banned yet! – and read ALL the data. I’ve been a lab rat myself from an issue from a car accident yrs back – I know the process. So much fraud. Keep going. Never give up. Never, never, never give up. Thank you for all you do, hope that you inspire and the confirmation of that little voice in me, that said NO way back, everything was off. I did not have an option or data then. I have data now, and it will keep coming. The option is NO.
Follow up:
Lost 4 practitioners to serious side effects of “strongly encouraged” boosters. 2 hospitalized, one in MICU. The irony is, for most staff, completely lost … All in early 30s to mid 40s. They had no need for boosters while BEING OUTSIDE ALL WEEKEND even if they truly believed in efficacy of them. All had Covid previous, N antibodies fully measurable. One female, one male, both inpatient. Female still nursing newborn.
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 11:27 AM Pierre Kory <> wrote:
I am stunned by your email. Stunned. We know it’s bad, like real bad but this is the worst inside look I have heard yet. I am on the outside and don’t talk to most former colleagues so don’t have a feel. We should talk. Would you be interviewed on a VSRF (Kirsch’s organization) webinar? I assume not, but who knows, maybe anonymously like with altered voice and blurry screen? This needs to get out. Send me contact… and name? First name is fine… Thanks for this – Pierre
She wrote again before we talked, it was this email below that prompted me to ask her number so we could discuss in more depth:
It’s the inside folks who talk to each other, and you have to speak another language depending on who’s listening. That has been a skill set unto itself. It’s texting, the phone calls from area to area with back stories on patient issues. I was getting texts from my old stat team covering cardiac catheterization lab – the clots. The clots stunned everyone…it continues. My cardiac units – where I spent the bulk of my nursing years – lung and heart transplant included – have so many anomalies presented with patients that never existed before. Re-writing the script for each new problem never encountered. The constant codes (cardiac arrests). Can’t keep up.
Lost quite a few coworkers to either VAX injury itself – took them out of the work force, OR they resigned/accepted firing or retired once mandates were settled. It’s the phone calls I have with my cohorts in the other areas of the system. The real story is in those conversations. The doctors now admitting to injury is growing, but they can’t tell their patients why they are no longer practicing. Losing specialists is big problem not easily solved.
The signaling coming from management MD/PhD administrators has not been towards what winter will bring, but is focused on congratulating everyone on clinical excellence during the last 2 yrs. I think there is great trepidation in their approach because they see the data, they know the inside info on injury, disability/death of faculty and staff not from Covid itself, but the forced vax. We lost only a few to original Covid, with underlying co-morbidities that made outcomes a given in many cases.
I can’t come on a public show, but I can share info. My name is Linda (not her real name). In my current position, I read many charts and see in depth info – so much boosting and reboosting and not following other protocols – it’s a given now that the explosions in diagnosis of the cancers and cardiac issues especially come from these decisions. In some cases, the first thing you see on a chart is huge letters stating VAXXED alongside the pt’s diagnosis, treatments thus far, which is usually at odds with normal disease course, age and projected outcome, etc. They’re pushing the vax status, in bright letters, to the top of the list so it can be considered – not for every patient, but the “challenging cases” … That may be for research purposes.
I will explain the above – what Linda is saying is that practitioners are starting to call out the patient’s vaccination status more clearly on the first screen of the medical record in those cases where they know or suspect the vaccine is related to the patients’s new “mysterious” or “complex” problem. Let’s be clear though, the doctor’s don’t necessarily or explicitly include vaccines as a possible cause in their reasoning/impression/plan section of the patient note. But it seems the nurses and junior docs are now calling it out in some small/large way. Disassociation breaking, ever so slowly?
It makes me just stop, and by end of the week, take into account cases of say, ocular orbital cancer in 20-somethings. Have had 6 in last 2 weeks with no Family History or other indicators. Out of the blue, some with brain mets now. All vaxxed unwillingly, all had Covid and recovered fine prior to employer forced vax. The employers, the areas the patients reside in….nothing in common other than the previous. The actuaries are correct. Excess mortality, let along whatever-life-left disability. Stunning numbers.
I ended up talking to Linda.. about lots of things. She is clearly a fellow spirit, highly experienced in ICU and Emergency medicine, and she told me even more disturbing developments, like the fact that on some night shifts, nurse teams are seeing more cardiac arrests in a single shift than ever before and in unprecedented younger age patients. On some shifts, they have had so many that the “crash carts” are rolled straight from one arrest to another because Pharmacy, especially on night shifts, are not able to re-stock fast enough. This situation has happened maybe once in my whole career… when two arrests happened on the same floor or unit within a short time period.
She also told me that night nurses are more openly discussing the vaccine as the cause of what they are seeing (much more than during day shifts apparently). However, they do this largely in text, and they use “code”. Their code word for a vaccination injury or cause is “that issue,” i.e. in reference to a 22 year old who suddenly arrested on the hospital ward, “he is having that issue.” Note these are nurses.. not the docs.. but some of the docs are talking to her, like the one above who performed 6 enucleations (eyeball removals) this year already in young people (very rare to have to do this, especially in this age group). She also told me about how her interventional cardiologist nurse friends related that some patients are coming in with massive heart attacks, and during the angiogram the interventional cardiologists are seeing such extensive thrombi filling the entire artery (as documented by some embalmers), that they say “I can’t stent or remove this, this guy needs surgery, like now.”
In that conversation with Linda, I was also finally able to confirm a fraud that I had suspected was occurring within U.S hospitals regarding the accuracy (or willful inaccuracy) of the vaccination status listed in the medical record of a patient newly admitted to the hospital. It has long been my strong belief that this fraud drove the U.S data used to support some of the last remaining false narratives (i.e narratives #6 and $7 below) . Note these ever-shifting narratives were all directed at combatting vaccine hesitancy, which as some of you may know, was the primary military objective of the vaccinators.
BMGF/WHO/NIH et al. had clearly identified vaccine hesitancy as the main enemy in the battle plans they drew up and distributed after their viral pandemic simulation exercises over the past decade. In this prominent medical journal publication on addressing viral pandemics, they state “the World Health Organization has listed vaccine hesitancy among the greatest threats to global health, calling for research to identify the factors associated with this phenomenon.” Vaccine hesitancy is why the HHS gave $1 Billion to U.S media to support a relentlessly positive public relations campaign supporting the uptake of vaccines.
Now let’s get back to this fraud. First, note that during all of 2021, (well, up until late November when I was let go from my last pandemic ICU job on a completely fabricated accusation), I had only taken care of one ICU patient that was officially documented in their medical record as “fully vaccinated.” I knew that it could simply not be true that only one patient that I took care of the entire year was fully vaccinated. I knew this was false based on data from countries that more transparently (mistakenly?) reported vaccination status and hospital outcomes. In multiple reports starting in February 2021, the majority of hospitalizations and deaths (even when adjusted to rates per 100,000) had long been the vaccinated.
One of the more ridiculous attempts to cover this fraud up in the U.S was a media narrative launched in June/July of 2021, created from statements by Fauci and Wollensky, that 99% of patients in hospital and dying were the unvaccinated. They literally did this with a straight face, knowing that they were including in their numerator all the deaths that occurred prior to the start of the vaccination campaign. Yup, if you died in 2020, you were reported as dying in an unvaccinated status. Not subtle. But that was not the only lie. We must never forget the famous slip by the NY times.. when they suddenly and surprisingly called out the CDC for “withholding large amounts of COVID data” throughout the pandemic. Umm.. their actual job is to collect and disseminate data. Not subtle. Even crazier is that at the time of that narrative launch, during a lecture, a CDC slide deck mistakenly showed a slide which revealed that 26% of patients in U.S hospitals were vaccinated. But this number was falsely and fraudulently lower than the actual number. By a long shot.
Here is how I think they falsely suppressed the real rate of vaccinated patients entering U.S hospitals and dying:
In the most popular electronic medical record system in the U.S (EPIC), on the sidebar of every page in the chart are the name, demographics, room number, provider team, and COVID vaccination status of the patient. What I found weird from the outset was that, in EPIC, there were only two categories under the COVID-19 vaccine status section, “Vaccinated” or “Unknown.” There was no “Unvaccinated” status. Also realize that “Unknown” was interpreted by all providers and official data as akin to being “Unvaccinated”. Everyone I took care of in the ICU in 2021, except one, had an “Unknown” vaccination status. How could that be? How come only one ICU patient of mine in the entire year was reported as being “fully vaccinated?” Even if the vaccines worked really well (which I knew they didn’t), something was off, like really off.
There was only one hypothesis I could come up with to reconcile these observations. I suspected that during the admission process to the hospital, there must have been some sort of barrier to deeming someone “vaccinated.” I hypothesized that in order to be documented as vaccinated on admission, you had to have received the vaccine from a primary care physician’s clinic who worked for that same hospital system in a system office, and that they had already documented in the electronic medical record. If you got a vaccine from anywhere else outside that hospital system’s clinic, you were assigned an “Unknown”, i.e. “Unvaccinated” status in the electronic medical record.
And lo and behold, Linda confirmed this was the case in one major health system she worked at. What I found most striking is that she worked in two different hospital systems, in one (the smaller one) it was very easy to document a patient in the record as vaccinated. The admitting nurse could accept any documentation, from a Walgreen’s card to even a verbal report from the patient or family and they could put it in the record on admission and the patient would show up as “vaccinated” on the main screen sidebar.
In the other, larger, major (and I mean major) health system she worked in, if the patient received the vaccine from anywhere but an employed provider’s clinic within the health system (even if the patient had a vaccine card on them), she was forced to put it in an “open field” buried on page 2 of the initial nursing assessment not where nobody, and certainly no physician looked for it. All these patients were automatically documented on the main screen as “Unknown”, i.e “Unvaccinated”, even if the dates of each shot were entered into that nursing note field.
This process is what led the vast majority of U.S doctors to become convinced that the only people dying in hospitals were the unvaccinated. Which made perfect sense, I mean, the vaccinators did not want anyone to know the vaccines were not preventing hospital or death, so it would be helpful to their mission if they could make everyone think that all hospital patients were unvaccinated. This way, all the health care workers would get vaccinated out of fear of dying and would also aggressively insist that all their patients and family members get vaccinated. Which is what happened. It is also why a large percentage of the population (at least the ones I meet at lectures, conferences, and symposia) no longer want to see a “system doctor” or go to a “system hospital,” no matter how grand their brand/reputation once was. Fun fact: a long-time donor of large annual gifts to the Mayo clinic.. decided to direct their donation to the FLCCC this year because they felt the Mayo Clinic had departed from their founding principles and mission. Go FLCCC.
The system docs behaved this way because they saw with their own eyes, “the (false) reality” of what would happen if you were unvaccinated. This, combined with the medical journal propaganda publishing only favorable and selective analyses of vaccine efficacy and safety drove nearly all the nation’s doctors to go completely mad.
Their fervor to vaccinate everyone and everything, even in patients who just recovered from COVID, was something to behold. I saw overt hectoring, harassment and even rage. Twitter was one of the most terrifying places to watch doctors arrogantly propagate the need to be vaccinated.. even for folks who had (often hard-earned) natural immunity. I almost feel bad for some of those docs as history will not judge them kindly. Forgive them for they know not what they do. They were literally screaming across Social Media, Media, and Medical Journal editorials, that you will be OK if you just get vaccinated. The high profile docs were the worst, except I have little sympathy for them as some/many/most were likely complicit in the deception rather than just fooled like the rest. Folks like Eric Topol, Peter Hotez, Alastair McAlpine, Tom Friedan (who I used to deeply admire as NYC Health Department Commissioner), Eric Feigl-Ding-(bat), Jeremy Faust (probably the biggest ignoramus on Twitter, having taken an early lead in that competition since the pandemic broke in 2020), and Monica Gandhi. Leana Wen deserves particular ire as she is the most active prostitute for the Pharma-captured federal health agencies on mass media. A media darling as it were.
Then you started to see doctor walk-outs protesting the unvaccinated, increasing numbers of doctors publicly stating they would start refusing to see unvaccinated patients, heck, the Pharma controlled outlet called Medscape even got an ethicist to argue that it was OK to refuse to treat the unvaccinated. Yup. Crazy town. Clown World. One of my patients who is a hospital pharmacist even told me that at her hospital, the hospitalists were vaccinating patients admitted for COVID..as they were being discharged from the hospital. That’s right, as the patients were being discharged after having recovered from COVID, they were recommending and administering vaccines for the same illness. I even heard of one case where a team of clinicians decided to vaccinate a severely ill COVID patient in the ICU.
I also witnessed aggressive attacks in one of the nation’s largest medical-centers staff physician email forum. Doctors “screaming” that everything would be fine if everyone just got the damn vaccine. Deriding anyone bringing forth arguments about untested safety, suspicious efficacy data, and concerns about mandates violating patient autonomy and medical ethics. Anyone who brought forth “adverse data” towards the vaccines were treated with dismissal and a retaliatory posting of selectively favorable data with the imprimatur of the Pharma captured agencies and Pharma captured journals. I will never forget this time in the history of medicine. Ever.
Some other “insights” into the medical system I haver come across, from another ER nurse:
I have no research to offer but first hand experience from working as an RN
in an ER.
Ringing in ears and hallucinations have followed vaccinations in 3 of my
patients. Family members at a loss. I mention the vaccine but most don’t
even hear it…
The gentleman with the ringing in the ears (just had his 4th booster the day
before) I suggested he didn’t get any more boosters as ringing in the ears
is an adverse reaction to the vaccine. His wife looked at me and yelled
“his doctor told him he won’t survive the anti-virals for COViD” I was
speechless. The patient continued on and told me about his experience with
the vaccines 1st shot-he had a seizure, doctor recommended 2nd shot. After
2nd shot he was very sick, doctor recommended 3rd shot and he was
hospitalized 4th shot ringing in ears, abdominal bloating and months away
from dialysis. Wife added that she also had seizure after first vaccine and
she had that attitude that it was no big deal.
I have said this before, it’s criminal what is happening. I have cried on
my way home from shifts, I tell whoever will listen. The information I have
collected over the last 7 months (time of vaccine/booster in relation to
chief complaint) is jaw dropping.
I took a break from working for the summer but continue to keep in touch
with the nurses…
My friend told me about an 80yr old man, 4 strokes in the last year and
they all line up with his 4 shots but the doctors response is “he’s 80,
he’s going to have strokes”
Has anyone come across research in regards to GI bleeds and low hgb? I have
a lot of this patients, GI bleeds out of the blue… and they are young!
I had 28yr old black obese young woman… new diagnosis of enlarged heart
and CHF. Vaccine was roughly 1 month prior to ER admit and I suggested no
more vaccines for COViD and her response was “my doctor told me this
happened because I got the vaccine and a tattoo on the same day”
60ish lady…….just got over COViD (after have 3 COViD vaccines) and she told
me she was going in for second booster next week!!!!!!
Kids are having random seizures and are put on anti-seizure medication for
2 years…when I ask parents what caused the seizure, the neurologist has no
idea. All these children vaccinated for COViD-100%. NO ONE CONNECTS THE
DOTS.
The screenshot below is of 3 days I worked and I’m in the ER for 12 hours
and don’t see all admits. I’m also super busy so it’s hard to check status
of all admit patients… of course this is very limited information but a lot
of the patients have some issue 2-3 months post vaccine/booster.
I’m still shocked we don’t have a “vaccine team” monitoring all the
patients as they come into the ER but no one cares. Not the ER medical
director, not the doctors, not the COViD response team…..no one. Nurses see
it and they are talking but many are fearful of getting fired.
Thank you for all that you are doing! Although I can’t read all the emails,
I am just happy to know that there are others out there that are in the
same boat as I am.
I’m disgusted with the AMA and AAP. I don’t trust a thing they say. I don’t
trust them with my four children as they have not protected our children
over the past 2 years.
Thank you!
And another:
May 26 05:28PM -0400
Katie (not her real name),
Thank you for sharing your story! This is what I live every day and I tell my husband how hard it is to see so much damage. I have had more patients diagnosed with aggressive cancers than I have seen in the last two decades.
… I’ve been so especially concerned about the clotting effects with Total joints treated with Tranexamic Acid. I’ve been keeping track of my patients (that I would consider) have had mild/moderate vax injury. i.e. – reactivation of latent viruses, (oral herpes (not just one or two lesions, but their whole mouth broke out – something that had never happened before) shingles – affecting their eyes, that took more treatment than normal) – Histoplasmosis; *blood clots/Cardiac problems – Stroke from new onset Atrial fib in a patient on blood thinners within 12 hr post injection, Atrial fibrillation in a healthy, athletic 34 yr old male, new onset hypertension without prior history; * Persistent cough, months of diarrhea, migraine, neuropathy of upper extremity to the extent she could not write/type – all extensively checked out without cause. But, all within a few days/weeks/couple months of injection. All my practitioners are still advocating the Vax!!! What do you think we should do??? I’ve got to get the guts to gently visit with our Chief of Staff. CRNA, Colorado
Last one, from a colleague:
Just had dinner with my friend, a colleague friend of his here, Dr XXX renowned YY Physician . PRO Vaccine. Was adamant all physicians should get the vaccine and should not be able to practice without it. Was a trailblazer for the vaccine here. He got boosted around Christmas time, had a stroke less than a week after, lost his eyesight in one eye, lost his practice, cannot be a doctor any longer, and said undoubtedly it was from the Pfizer vaccine and encouraged all of his doctor friends to max out their disability insurance to protect themselves. I know not surprising to you, but this guy was so pro vaccine and clearly admits his stroke and his loss of eyesight from the vaccine!!
And then there is this doozy – another nurse sent me a case history below of an elderly woman whose blood thinner was highly “supra-therapeutic” (i.e. very thin blood at risk of major bleeding), yet she had a massive stroke caused by a blood clot. This simply does not happen.
Patrick Wood, a repeat guest, has spent decades studying technocracy — an invented economic system that the global cabal is currently trying to implement worldwide. He was recently interviewed by The Defender, the Children’s Health Defense newsletter. You will find that interview below. I would encourage you to watch because it provides a really good background of Wood and his work.
This conversation also ties in with an interview I recently did with professor Mattias Desmet, author of “The Psychology of Totalitarianism,” which will air in a few weeks, so be sure to keep an eye out for that one. While technocracy and totalitarianism have many similarities, there are some differences in perspective, which we will unravel here.
“I wish there was something else to talk about, but this is it,” Wood says. “This is the topic of the day. This is what people need to know and understand.
If we are going to fight back against this enemy, which previously has pretty much been unseen, we must recognize who we’re dealing with. Period. We cannot provide any defense or offense to push back on this unless we know who the enemy really is and what they’re thinking, what’s in their head.”
COVID Was Technocracy’s Coup D’état
While the COVID crisis sent most into a state of confusion, Wood was not surprised by the chain of events that eventually took place. He’d been following the climate change alarmism and the sustainable development agenda for a long time, and as soon as the same people who were promoting climate alarmism jumped on the COVID train, he knew they were connected, and that COVID was going to be used to promote the technocratic agenda.
The same flawed computer models used to convince us climate change will kill us all were also used to incite panic about the lethality of COVID. These computer models are basically rigged to say whatever they want them to say. According to climate change alarmists, mankind should have been wiped off the face of the earth 10 years ago. Yet here we are. The COVID models also failed, missing the mark by miles.
“At the time [in early 2020], I said this is technocracy’s coup d’état. They’re finally making their major global move to do what they said they were going to do for a long time. Now, they’re actually putting shoe leather to it and they’re making it happen, so I called it coup d’état early on,” Wood says.
Unfortunately, to quote Wood’s coauthor of previous books, Anthony Sutton, only 2% of people have critical thinking skills, 8% of people think they can think, and 90% would rather die than think. This willful ignorance explains why only 10% of a given population, on average, does not fall into mass formation hypnosis.
Wood, along with Dr. Judy Mikovits and Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, an international lawyer who cofounded the German Corona Investigative Committee — have formed the Crimes Against Humanity Task Force. The first event will be held in Tampa, FL with guest speaker, Michael Yeadon, Ph.D.
“We believe there is a great case to be made that, indeed, crimes against humanity have been committed in the same context and sense that they were discovered at the Nuremberg trials that produced the Nuremberg Code, which is now embedded in the legal system in every nation on earth, [including] our country and every state as well.
Medical experimentation is verboten, period, and yet it has happened anyway, with no informed consent along the way. People are getting sick and dying, the same old drill. What went wrong? We’re presenting this case to the American public in person, and I will say the dynamic of talking to a live audience today is a breath of fresh air for me, personally. I think everybody else would say the same thing.“
Creating a New Normal on Our Own Terms
While many resist this stance, I and Wood agree that the crisis is not over, and it’s not going to right itself. No. It’ll get worse, and things will never go back to the way they were. It’s important to realize that we shouldn’t want things to go back to the old normal, however. Because the old normal is what precipitated the many crises we’re currently facing.
We can fully expect that the partially failed vaccine passport will be replaced by digital identity, which will progress to a central bank digital currency (CBDC). Most central banks in the world will be rolling out CBDCs within the next three to five years.
Digital identity and CBDCs are a disaster racing toward us like a freight train, and it’ll be extremely difficult to get out of harms way. The past two years will seem like a picnic compared to what’s coming.
“If my hypothesis is true, January 2020 was the coup d’état that started this war in earnest, the hot war, if you will, versus the leading up to it. Lots of bad stuff happened from 9/11 through 2020 that we could point to and say, it looks like somebody’s orchestrating this, but it went into a hot war, literally, globally as well, in January 2020. Revolutions never stop with one attack. That’s obvious. I’m sure it’s self-evident.”
By Their Words and Actions, You Can Know Them
So, who instigated this global revolution? Who’s pulling the strings? Who’s the real enemy? It’s not the populace. It’s not even a specific nation. It’s a conglomerate of wealthy and influential people all over the world. But they have a shared philosophy, ideology and agenda. Wood explains:
“What’s going on is called The Great Reset of the planet. The Great Reset has become a catchphrase. Most people don’t have a clue what it means yet, but it’s promoted by the World Economic Forum (WEF), which is tightly interlinked and coupled with the United Nations.
This elite group of people represent in mix all of the people that were originally in the Trilateral Commission back in the 1970s. It’s the same kinds of people, the same agenda to transform the world into their vision, the way they think things ought to be. These are the people that have orchestrated this whole thing and they’re the ones that are pushing it right now.
It’s easy to identify most of the people involved in this. You can look at the Klaus Schwabs and the Bill Gateses [of the world], and the thousand companies that belong to the World Economic Forum. They all have CEOs, board members, et cetera, that are part of the World Economic Forum. It’s pretty easy to identify them today.
The idea of The Great Reset is complete transformation of society and individuals that live in this society. The World Economic Forum is boldly talking about both. They talk about this technocratic takeover on one hand, to reform society, that is the structures of society, the institutions, but they also talk about the restructuring of humanity itself.
That is, the merging of technology with the human condition, with the flesh, the changing of genetic code, Humanity 2.0, H+ is another term is used. This is mad scientist type of stuff. The average guy on the street has never been exposed to this.
It’s hard to get your head around how evil this whole thing is, and it’s all uninvited. Nobody asked for it, they just did it. That’s another thing that’s really important to understand: This didn’t just come out of the blue or fall out of the sky from outer space. This has been in the works for a very long time.”
Agenda 21 Laid the Groundwork
In 1992, Agenda 21 was created. That was the genesis of sustainable development. That’s where that doctrine was openly described. The Agenda 21 and the Biodiversity Convention that took place at the same time was the agenda for 21st century.
As explained by Wood, Agenda 21 was foundational in the sense that laid out all the events being rolled out and changes being implemented today. It’s just that no one was really paying attention to where things were headed, the ultimate implications of it all. Of course, those who did see the writing on the wall were discredited as “crazy conspiracy theorists.”
“There was a great book released in 1994 called ‘The Earth Brokers.’ The two authors were scholars. They were also the original environmental crowd. They weren’t on our side necessarily, but they went to the Agenda 21 conference in good faith, figuring there was going to be some negotiation to dial back the development that was messing with the Third World and try to get the planet back together.
They went hoping to turn some things around, and they came away from the Agenda 21 conference completely disillusioned … In that book, they criticized the Agenda 21 process. They started out by saying something like this: ‘We argue that USAID — the United Nations conference on economic development — has boosted precisely the type of industrial development that is destructive for the environment, the planet and its inhabitants.
We see how, as a result of USAID, the rich would get richer, the poor poorer, while more and more of the planet is destroyed in the process.’ What can we say, but ‘amen’ to that. Here we are today. It’s exactly what’s happened.”
The Plan to Own and Control All Life
“The Earth Brokers” also reviewed what they learned from the Biodiversity Convention, which ran parallel with the Agenda 21 conference. It had the same participants, just two different thought tracks brought together at the same conference.
“They wrote about the biodiversity convention, which has become incredibly important today to the United Nations. They said the convention implicitly equates the diversity of life, that is animals and plants, to the diversity of genetic codes. By doing so, diversity becomes something modern science can manipulate. It promotes biotechnology as being essential for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.
They redefined the term biodiversity, for one, but they also said the main stake raised by the biodiversity convention is the issue of ownership and control over biological diversity. The major concern was protecting the pharmaceutical and emerging biotechnology industries. That was their assessment.
To which, today, we can say, ‘Bingo!’ That is exactly what happened back then, and this is exactly the expression today that we see of the genetic takeover of life on planet earth. They’ve gotten the seeds, they’ve gotten the plants, they’ve gotten the animals.”
Today, the technocrats are also moving in on the human genetic code. Chief medical officer of Moderna, Tal Zaks, for example, has stated that Moderna, a developer of the mRNA COVID jab, is “hacking the software of life.” He described the human genetic code as an operating system, and if you can change that operating system by introducing a new line of code, or by changing a line of code, you can change how the operating system functions.
Since 1992, legislation has been created to protect Big Pharma. You could say the 1992 Agenda 21 was a pre-coup. They laid the groundwork back then to protect the pharmaceutical and emerging biotech industries they knew were coming. And, today, the very genetic makeup of mankind is up for grabs.
Origins of Technocracy
Technocracy dates further back than the 90s, however. Handwritten letters dating to the 1930s reveal some of the originators of the technocratic movement had gotten into an argument with the Hearst newspaper empire, and because of that, they forbade journalists to discuss them or the technocratic ideology. Hence, technocracy went underground and got sort of buried for a few decades. Wood explains:
“What happened was, Howard Scott, one of the cofounders of Technocracy Inc., was also the leader of the group at Columbia University when it was housed there in 1932. He had promoted himself as being a certified engineer and one of the intellectual guys that would fit in to Columbia University. He wasn’t from Columbia, but he was heading the [technocratic] movement there.
It was discovered, while he was there, that he was a complete fraud. He had no engineering degree at all. He was just a blowhard. He was a promoter — basically a con man — and Nicholas Murray Butler, the president of Columbia … flipped out, and drop-kicked Scott out of Columbia …
By the same token, Howard Scott was out working in the media like crazy, and he worked the Hearst empire to get articles about technocracy published all across the country.
When Randolph Hearst discovered, as Butler did, that he had been taken for a ride and that his media empire had been manipulated, he freaked out and sent out a telegram-type memo to every newspaper in the country, saying, ‘If anybody ever mentions technocracy again, you’re fired.’
Well, that took care of that. History books have a 25-year lag, typically. Historians don’t go back and analyze stuff from last year to write in history books. They go back 25 years and they look around and they read the newspaper articles and whatever, and try and figure out what happened. That’s how they write history.
Well, there’s this huge hole on the technocracy movement because it just got dropped out. All of a sudden, there’s no newspaper articles. It’s just like they disappeared into thin air. The big, highly credentialed scientist and engineers at Columbia who were crowing about technocracy the year before, now, all of a sudden, would not dare mention the word.”
Wood eventually discovered a major university archive at University of Edmonton in Alberta, where all of the leaders of the Canadian technocracy movement had combined their papers in the ’90s.
The documents were placed in a warehouse where they sat for years on end, until a catalog of them was finally published on the internet. It was a real jackpot. Wood and his wife drove to Edmonton and spent a week sifting through and copying materials. After that, it wasn’t very difficult to break down how the technocratic agenda had been moved forward and was being implemented.
Totalitarianism Versus Technocracy
While the outward expression of technocracy will appear as totalitarianism, the control center is not a dictator. Rather than a single person ruling by the decree, technocracy relies on control through technology and algorithm. This is a very important difference. In short, there are no people behind the curtain pulling strings. There’s no individual to blame or hold accountable.
The “dictator” is an algorithm. Looking at Google over the past couple of years, in particular, we can see this in action. We can also see it in the censorship of social media, and in the social credit system in China.
“The so-called artificial intelligence boom has created the possibility of controlling people by algorithm, rather than by political dictate,” Wood says. “There has been a battle between technocrats and governments ever since technocracy started. Back in the day, they hated government. They wanted to get rid of government. There is still that propensity today.
You see it at the World Economic Forum, you see it at United Nations. They want to dissolve the national governments of the world. Historically, fascism and communism have been instituted by national governments. These entities are on the hit list for technocracy. We saw this, by the way, just recently. There was a conference in Dubai, called the World Government Summit1 [March 29-30, 2022].
It was partly put on by the United Nations and there were a bunch of financial mucky mucks there. There was one in particular, Pippa Malmgren — she’s from America, but she’s in Great Britain — and she does financial wealth management services for the ultra rich.
She talked about the destruction of the fiat currency system, and she said, when it happens, there’s simply going to be a change-over. All the fiat currencies are going to go, and there’s going to be an implementation of digital currency. But she also made point that the nation state structures of the world are declining rapidly now. She saw, I guess, that the nation states are the target of destruction. They must go.”
This has been in the works for some time. Look at the European Union. While Europe has country borders, the EU member states have virtually no power to do anything anymore. They’re subservient to the EU’s wishes. “That’s why a lot of people in Europe call the EU a technocracy, they’re a bunch of technocrat elites — they’re unelected, they’re unaccountable,” Wood says.
Nobody can get to them and they’re making decisions for everybody else. So, while the nation states are still there in name, they’ve stripped of their sovereignty. The World Health Organization is now also in the process of stripping nations of their sovereignty through the so-called Pandemic Treaty, which will grant the WHO unprecedented power and influence to govern behind the veil of “global biosecurity.”
We also see the rule of technocracy in companies such as Google, which is meddling in the affairs of nations, oftentimes wielding more power over people than the state itself. So, it’s important to realize that the enemy is not a nation state.
Today’s enemy cannot be compared to anything that nation states have produced in the past, such as fascism, communism or socialism. This is an altogether brand-new entity. So, while technocracy feels like totalitarianism, today’s totalitarianism is an outgrowth of technocracy, and cannot be compared to any previous totalitarian regime.
“If you look at it in the context of the takeover genetic material on earth, this is the dangerous payload that we face. It’s not just the governance part of it. It’s not just the scientific dictatorship part of it, where people now can be manipulated in doing things that don’t want to do. We’re talking about the direct takeover of the human genome.
This is an incredible thing, because that means, potentially, that our genome of humanity could be changed,” Wood warns.
Unintended Consequences Are Probable
Now, it’s quite possible, and indeed probable, that the orchestrators of this technocratic takeover are in over their heads and will end up self-destructing. They’re playing a game that has never been played before, so there’s no telling what unintended consequences might be initiated.
One such unintended consequence could be a world war, and if that happens, gene editing the human genome will become irrelevant, because the living standards of the whole world will be pushed back hundreds of years. Wood comments:
“No question about it — World War III or a world war is going to be triggered. It’s not in the best interest, for instance, for the World Economic Forum to have a world war. But that doesn’t mean it won’t happen either. So far, I think the Ukraine war is pretty orchestrated and scripted in many ways to the agenda of the World Economic Forum. But it doesn’t mean it couldn’t lose control and the thing just goes nuts.
If that happens, I don’t know where I’d put that on the doomsday clock. I’m not really sure, but it is definitely a possible outcome. If it does happen, it will spoil everything for everyone for a very long period of time. As the Bible says, it’ll take seven years to go through the countryside and bury all the radioactive bones. That’d be very ugly.
It might not be [a nuclear war]. But it could be. They have the technology. I mean, just look what they can do by launching these pandemics and these bioweapons … Another thing that can happen — and again, we’re talking about waves of attacks, things that could bring us down and bring about this Great Reset — is some type of a cyber attack.
This has been in the news a lot lately. A cyber attack could be a false flag operation, but it doesn’t really matter what it is, whether it is or isn’t [a false flag], but some big thing, like taking down the power grid, or taking down JPMorgan Chase and nobody can get their money out for a period of a week.
Something like that would, again, put the fear of God into everybody. We’ll be back to the fear and panic; we’ll do whatever you say to get safety, et cetera. It will perpetuate the takeover, the coup that we’re looking at. These are two possibilities, near-term, that are very real. We’ve got different scenarios right now, but we know where this group of technocrat actors are going.
We understand their mindset, their philosophy, if you will. I hate to even call it that, but what is in their head? There’s no passion, there’s no compassion, there’s no love, there’s no mercy, there’s no grace, there’s nothing like that. It’s a completely inhuman endeavor to capture mankind into a scientific dictatorship, the likes of which the world has never seen before.”
Preparing Can Help Ease Your Anxiety
The Boy Scouts motto is “Be prepared,” and that is what I would encourage everyone to strive for at this time. Another motto to embrace would be “Hope for the best and prepare for the worst.” Prepare as best you can for any and every contingency. If you can, get out of the big cities and big urban areas. Rural areas where you can build community is your safest bet.
Prepare for sustained food shortages with long-term food storage. Secure a potable water source. Stock up on medical remedies. Prepare for supply chains of all kinds to fail and stock up accordingly. Transition out of fiat currency, either by spending it on things you’ll need in the future, or buying physical gold and silver.
Prepare for energy shortages, rolling blackouts and the complete shut-down of the power grid. Importantly, don’t rely on high-tech solutions. Include low-tech manual backups in your preps. If the thought of all of this scares you, remember that taking action is the best remedy. Knowing you’re prepared will ease a lot of anxieties.
Why Free Speech Is on the Chopping Block
Free speech is a universal concept. Everyone, everywhere, have a mind and want to express themselves without being censored or canceled for their views. Free speech is now under attack worldwide, and the truly massive attack on free speech began at the same time as the coup d’état started. This is because silencing dissent is required for the full takeover to occur.
“These technocrat transhumanist revolutionaries must destroy free speech at the same time that they take over the world, because they have to control the narrative,” Wood explains. “The attacks on free speech right now are absolutely legendary, off the charts, everywhere on the planet.
If Mattias Desmet is right, and I feel absolutely certain that he is, because I can read a history book as easy as anybody, when free speech is effectively silenced, that is when the killing of the scapegoat begins. It’s always the scapegoat that gets killed first. There may be other groups that get mixed in, but the people who are the scapegoat are the ones that will be attacked by the mass formation psychosis crowd.”
Eventually, the totalitarian regime will devour its own. It’ll kill its own leaders in the name of the greater good. But in the meantime, it’ll start by culling various scapegoats, one group after another.
“Original technocracy from the 1930s, was defined in their own magazine, which was called ‘The Technocrat Magazine.’ They defined themselves in 1938 as ‘the science of social engineering.’ That was what they said about themselves.
Technocracy is the science of social engineering and they talked incessantly in their literature about Pavlov and BF Skinner and how they could control people and mold people to the economy, to the utopia that they wanted to build.
They’ve had since 1938, at the very least, to think about how to develop the science of social engineering to be used against humanity. I don’t think we need to even think about it any further.
We can feel it today. It’s right in our face, every day. They’re using these techniques against the people of the world to manipulate them, to hypnotize them, to push them into mass formation psychosis. Somebody at the top knows exactly what they’re doing with this. That’s my point.”
And, again, tech companies like Google and Facebook play central roles in that effort. I look at Google as the Skynet of the Terminator series. They’re probably the worst offender of all the technology companies that are accelerating this. They the champions of social engineering. They own DeepMind, the most sophisticated artificial intelligence company on the planet, and they’re clearly using it for nefarious purposes. That said, they’re certainly not alone.
Action Plan Moving Forward
In closing, we need to give careful thought to how we might slow down, block or at least limit the devastation that’s been planned for us. At the top of that list, aside from preparing yourself and your family with the essentials for life, is to buck the narrative.
“Anytime you feel like you’re being given a role to play, just refuse to play that role,” Wood says. “I don’t care what it is, just don’t do it. If they say, ‘You need to wear a mask because blah, blah, blah — don’t wear a mask. Just don’t play the role they give you.’
I know, but there’s a lot of personal choice here. You got to make a personal decision on what it’s worth to you to do it. I personally haven’t worn a mask yet. It’s cost me. I haven’t flown an airplane for a long time. I didn’t go a lot of places.
It’s important to keep your mouth open, not shut. We need to reestablish human connection again. This has been denied us with all the social distancing and lockdowns and everything else. Get in touch with people. It hurts, I realize, for a lot of people, because relationships have been burned between children and parents and brothers and sisters. Get over it, deal with it.
You have to get out and reconnected with people again, because the future of humanity is in those connections.
Just don’t argue with them. If you love them, love them anyway, in spite of where they are. But it’s also important to get with like-minded people and spend time developing deeper relationships with people. Guys have lost the ability to have best friends, almost universally across the country.
Women are better at having best friends, but they’ve been denied best friends because everything’s been broken up. Get embedded in a local church and start going to these home fellowships, whatever, where people are meeting face to face and just talk to them …
We have a lot of answers and a lot of tangible things we can help people with. You need to do it, be prepared to do it. When you have the opportunity, open your mouth and help them out. At least, give them some hope, because right now the other side wants you to have no hope. They want to strip all hope away from you so that you will turn to the government or turn to the technocrats for help.
We need to help people with this whole hope business and not to sell hopium, as some people call it, but to give them some tangible help on what they can do right now to put up a defense around their own body, around their own mind or whatever it might be …
This is where we are as a world today — we, on the non-mass formation psychosis side, we’re all in. Whether anybody else recognizes that as immaterial, but we are all in this. This is the most important civilizational, existential thing that we’ll ever deal with in our lifetime.
It really is that important. It’s not something we can just say, ‘Well, it’s just another problem,’ kind of like, ‘We had problems with Jimmy Carter.’ No, it’s not that kind of problem. This is a bigger existential threat that we’re facing right now.
We must be dead serious. But there’s hope, I will say. And until it’s over, it’s not over. We can make a difference and we need to try. We just can’t throw up our hands and say there’s no point trying, I’m going to go home and get drunk. Klaus Schwab told you, with his own lips, that by 2030 you will own nothing and you will be happy. They’re trying to make it happen. Yes, they are.
One of the reasons, by the way, that the World Economic Forum has met with the United Nations to speed up the agenda, closer on this side of 2030, is because of the mounting resistance around the world to the agenda. I’m convinced of this. I’ve been watching this since the beginning.
Americans can’t have 500,000 people in the street protesting anything, that doesn’t happen here. That’s just not our culture. But not Europe, at the drop of a hat, you’ll get a 100,000 people in the street, all screaming and banging pots and pans and hollering and carrying signs.
I know they see these massive hordes of people that are saying, essentially, ‘Hell, no’… This has to have an impact on them. I think that’s one reason they’re trying to accelerate the program right now and make it happen faster.
To me, that’s just kind of a little bit of a sign of resistance is working, and this to me, this ought to tell the resistance to double down — double down right now on whatever it is you’re doing. Do twice as much as you did last week or last month and continue to put the pressure on it.”
On Friday, the FDA released its risk benefit assessment of Moderna’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) application to inject mRNA into kids 0 to 17 years old. I’ve been reading it for the past two days and here are the things that stood out to me.
I. Introduction, a shell game to hide the bad data
The risk benefit document for Moderna is 190 pages single-spaced. It was released two business days before the June 14-15 VRBPAC meeting. A similar risk benefit assessment for Pfizer’s EUA application for kids under 5 will be released tomorrow (just 24 hours before the meeting). This guarantees that NONE of the members of the VRBPAC will have read either of these documents prior to the meeting — which is exactly what the cartel wants.
One of the ways that Moderna and the FDA rig the game is by adding endless layers of complexity to hide how bad the data really is. This should have been four separate documents — Moderna in adolescents 12 to 17, Moderna in kids 6 to 11, Moderna in kids 2 to 5, and Moderna in kids 6 months to 23 months. Looked at individually, the shot fails in each of these four age groups. But by lumping them together it creates noise that makes it difficult to understand what’s going on.
Another really pernicious thing that Moderna does is to further subdivide these populations into eight different subpopulations (Randomization Set, Full Analysis Set, Immunogenicity Subset, Per-protocol Immunogenicity Subset, Per-protocol Set for Efficacy, Modified Intent-to-treat Set, MITT1 Set, Safety Set, Solicited Safety Set).
See what they did there? The public just wants to know — does the product work and what are the side effects? By dividing the data into eight subcategories involving four different age groups now you have to wade through 32 different tables to try to make sense of what happened in the clinical trial.
They do something similar with the adverse events by dividing it across five tables x four age groups = 20 adverse event tables in all.
Subdividing the data in this way also allows Moderna to eliminate or hide data that it does not like. This is what people call “massaging the data” and it is unethical and a violation of scientific norms. We’ll return to this topic below.
II. No actual health benefits so Moderna/FDA use the immunobridging trick
The risks of Covid-19 are so low in the childhood population that there were ZERO severe cases of Covid-19 in either the treatment or the control group.
Therefore, the number needed to vaccinate, to prevent a single severe case of Covid-19 in the childhood population is infinity. (Technically it’s undefined because you cannot divide by zero, but you take my point). The FDA and CDC guidance documents for how to write a risk benefit assessment state that one must provide a number needed to treat, the absolute risk reduction, and the relative risk reduction. Moderna just skipped all that because the cartel makes its own rules.
Moderna is in a race against natural immunity. But natural immunity has already won because 74.2% of kids had natural immunity by February — so by now the number is probably closer to 100%. The God-given immune system in kids has already done its part to stop the pandemic and now the FDA wants to mess that up to enrich the cartel and keep the pandemic going forever.
So how does Moderna/FDA claim that this shot was “effective”? They use an unethical statistical trick called “immunobridging.”
It makes me mad that I even have to explain it because it’s such junk science. But we all need to know exactly how the FDA rigged the process so that we can explain to the jury at Nuremberg 2 why these monsters should be convicted so here goes:
Remember, the Moderna shots produced NO reductions in severe outcomes because the risk of Covid-19 in this age group is infinitesimally small (see studies: here, here, here, and here). So Moderna ignored the actual health outcomes and switched to looking at antibodies in the blood. In the process, they engaged in two egregious sleights of hand:
First, Moderna claims that the sample size for each of the four subgroups of children is about 3,000. But when it came to looking at antibodies in the blood, Moderna threw out about 90% of the sample and only looked at the bloodwork of about 300 kids in each age group. No explanation was given for the criteria they used to exclude 90% of the sample from their analysis. We know that up to 30% of kids have no antibody response at all to Covid-19 shots so perhaps they actually started with a much larger sample and then threw out the data that showed no effect from the shot?
The second sleight of hand is that “no placebo recipients were included in the Immunogenicity Subset” (p. 26). Do you realize how huge this is? This is no longer an RCT at all — they did not include the bloodwork from anyone in the placebo group. So the study cannot rule out the possibility that the increase in antibody levels was not from the vaccine at all but could have been from natural immunity. Just astonishing.
After these sleights of hand, Moderna then compares the antibody levels in the blood of about 10% of the children against the antibody levels in a sample of about 300 adults ages 18 to 25 enrolled in a previous clinical trial. If the antibody levels are similar (which they are), Moderna claims, ‘And therefore it will prevent disease in the future in kids!’
A few problems with that claim:
The Moderna study only measured antibody levels two months after the second dose — the time period when the antibody levels are at their peak (what Berenson calls “the happy valley”). But real world experience with these vaccines shows that any efficacy quickly wanes to zero by six months and then goes NEGATIVE after that.
The second problem, and this is unresolvable and instantly disqualifying for Moderna, is that at the April 6, 2022, meeting of the FDA’s “expert advisory committee” one member after another acknowledged that there are no “correlates of protection” for these vaccines. What that means in plain English is that you cannot use antibodies (or B-cells, T-cells, or any other proxy) to predict whether someone is immune or not.
Eric Rubin, who serves on that committee and is also the editor of the NEJM stated it bluntly, “We know what kind of antibody response can be generated, we just don’t know if it works.” You can watch it yourself on video:
The third problem is that the Moderna study was completed back in mid-2021 — when the original Wuhan and Alpha strains were prevalent. Since then, the Omicron variant has entirely replaced the original strains and real world data show that both Moderna and Pfizer shots are not effective against the Omicron variant. So in spite of all of the chicanery (discarding 90% of the sample, immunobridging, claiming correlates of protection that are not valid) Moderna cannot show any evidence that this shot will be effective against SARS-CoV-2 as it exists now.
III. It’s all harms
Let’s talk about harms from this shot (and remember, it’s all harms in this population because the shot made no difference on real world health outcomes). And there, things get really weird really fast.
The median study follow-up duration was just 53 days after dose 2. After that they wiped out the control group. Here’s how they justified it:
Following authorization of an alternative COVID-19 vaccine for this age group on May 10, 2021, participants in the study were permitted to unblind to study treatment. Crossover vaccination with mRNA-1273 of participants initially randomized to placebo began in October 2021. (p. 26)
For each age category, Moderna spreads the adverse events across 5 different tables to increase the noise to hide the signal. But the bottom line is that the adverse events are off the charts.
In the adolescent population 99.2% of vaccine recipients reported at least one adverse reaction after any injection with 25.3% reporting a reaction that was Grade 3 or higher. (p. 54).
Holy sh*t those numbers are high. Grade 3 means: unable to return to work or school the next day because the person is so sick.
A different FDA staffer must have written the summary statements for the other three age groups because they don’t say it this plainly but the adverse event rates are similar across all of the children.
This adverse event data is so high it’s disqualifying.
But then things get even weirder — the adverse event rates in the placebo group were also very high in many, but not all, categories. Moderna used this to say, ‘well yes, the adverse event rate in the treatment group was higher than anything anyone has ever seen before but the rates were also somewhat high in the placebo group and so therefore nothing-to-see-here(TM).’
My strong suspicion in that Moderna rigged the placebo. Why wouldn’t they — the FDA has no regulations concerning the contents of placebos (see Golomb 1995 and Golomb et al. 2010). The dirty little secret of the vaccine program is that manufacturers almost always use rigged placebos to create an artificially high “background rate” to hide adverse events. The brilliant quant Jessica Rose made a similar observation yesterday in her analysis of the FDA risk benefit document:
I still have a very strong suspicion that these ‘placebos’ are not saline and rather empty LNPs. [Lipid nanoparticles — the delivery vehicle that Moderna uses to get mRNA into the cell. An “empty LNP” would be the nanoparticles without the mRNA antigen.]
I’m almost certain this is what Moderna did. In the 2- through 5-year-old age group 37.5% of placebo recipients reported unsolicited adverse events as compared with 40% of vaccine recipients (see p. 139). A number that high in the placebo group would have been impossible if Moderna had used an inert saline placebo.
IV. The way that the FDA rigged the myocarditis data is absolutely sinister
I know that this article is already long but I need to flag one more essential point.
FDA review of the Moderna mRNA shot in adolescents has been held up for a year because the Moderna shot causes myocarditis in this age group — particularly in boys.
So I was curious to see how the FDA would attempt to get around this. And it’s all right there on pages 19 and 20. It’s one of the most chilling things I’ve ever read. The FDA’s argument goes like this:
‘Yes, by spring and summer of 2021 there were already seven high quality studies from around the world showing that mRNA shots increase myocarditis risk. By fall of 2021, the reports continued to come in from the U.K., Europe, Canada, and Nordic countries showing a 2x to 7x increased risk of myocarditis from mRNA shots. Yes, the CDC’s own study of the Vaccine Safety Datalink showed a 2x higher risk of myocarditis from Moderna shots. By May of 2022, we have additional studies from the U.K., Denmark, several Nordic countries, Italy, and France showing a 3x to 7x increased risk of myocarditis from the Moderna shot.’
In all, the FDA cited TWENTY-SIX STUDIES showing that mRNA shots in general, and Moderna in particular, increase the risk of myocarditis.
‘But not to worry!’ the FDA announces in the 4th paragraph in this section. The FDA, CDC, and Kaiser Permanente put their fixers on the case in February and March of this year and made the safety signal shrink down to a more manageable 7% to 50% increased risk of myocarditis and even those results were massaged to make sure that they were not statistically significant, so, nothing-to-see-here(TM). It was the same fixers who they always use — Tom Shimabukuro and John Su — whose entire job is making vaccine safety signals disappear. Those guys are absolutely going to hell.
‘So that’s that,’ the FDA announces. ‘Just ignore those 26 high quality studies from around the world showing an increased risk of myocarditis. Our fixers laundered the data for Moderna so we’re all good.’
V. What is to be done
Children’s Health Defense just launched an excellent 1-click call to action that I highly encourage you to do (and please share it with all of your friends).
Up until Monday night (June 13) at 11:59 p.m. eastern time you can officially register your profound displeasure with the FDA by submitting a formal comment (here) — look for the blue Comment button in the upper left corner of the website. 129,397 comments have already been received — let’s see if we can get that number above 140,000.
If you want to write to public health political appointees, FDA staff, and VRBPAC members, all of their email addresses are here:
Please be polite but let them know that they absolutely must vote NO on the EUA applications from Moderna and Pfizer.
VI. Conclusion
The FDA risk benefit document in connection with the Moderna mRNA shot in kids is dishonest. The public health establishment has abandoned science, logic, reason, rationality, empathy, health, and medicine. The FDA is more than happy to sacrificechildren in order to ingratiate themselves further with the cartel. The proposal to expand the Moderna EUA to kids 0 to 17 is a crime against humanity.
We are absolutely going to win this fight, either in the short term or in the long term. These shots will eventually be withdrawn from the market because they do not work and they cause catastrophic harms. The members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee can save themselves a lot of misery (and additional criminal charges at Nuremberg 2.0) by rejecting these applications from Moderna and Pfizer this week.
Covid Infections Increase For First Time In Two Months
The HuffPo goes on to explain in more detail…
The jump is thought to have been caused by increases in cases compatible with the original Omicron variant BA.1 and the newer variants BA.4 and BA.5, according to the Office for National Statistics.
All the articles cite the Office of National Statistics (ONS) talking about Omicron and seem to consider this an explanation.
None of them mentions the fact the UK’s Health Security Agency (UKHSA) literally changed the definition of a Covid “case” back in February, making it almost inevitable cases would go up.
It’s all detailed in this post from the UKHSA site, helpfully titled “Changing the COVID-19 Case Definition”.
The article explains that the UKHSA will be moving on from the traditional meaning of “cases”, and instead counting what they call “case episodes”.
Meaning that, up until now, one person repeatedly testing positive for “Covid” throughout the pandemic was considered one “case”:
Until now, COVID-19 cases have been reported at the individual level: every positive test taken and reported by one person has been considered part of a single case record, initiated by their first positive test.
But from now on different positive tests of the same person will be considered separate “cases” as long as they are 90 days apart:
Positive test results that are 90 days apart (regardless of negative tests in between) will be considered as a separate episode of infection, and therefore the person is counted as a case more than once.
The supposed justification for this decision is “waning immunity” and the Omicron variant causing spikes in “reinfections”:
Although reinfections were initially very rare, we have seen the number rising slowly over the last two years, as immunity from prior infection wanes and new variants emerge. During the Omicron variant wave, the number and proportion of people being reinfected with SARS-CoV-2 has increased.
However, the inevitable consequence of this decision will be to make the case numbers go up. The press not including this in their story about the rising case numbers is – at best – astonishing incompetence.
In fact, making case numbers go up is literally the only impact it will have.
The UKHSA goes out of its way to point this out, highlighting that the change will have no effect at all on how they monitor infections, since they already treat new positive tests as new cases for the purpose of contract tracing, and have been doing so all along:
contact tracing has undertaken a very safe practice of following all positive cases, regardless of whether they were possible reinfections or cases of prolonged infection.
So, in short, whether or not the change is scientifically justified, it is a purely aesthetic one that will have no impact on anything, except to make case numbers look bigger.
And, of course, it’s not scientifically justified.
They have already stretched the meaning of “cases” well past its breaking point by defining anyone who tests positive as a “Covid case” whether or not they have any symptoms.
Now every single person who, over the past two years, tested positive on the useless PCR testsand was declared a “case”, can test positive again on the same useless PCR and be declared a new case.
Clearly, this further torturing of statistics is about maintaining the flagging “pandemic” narrative.
Allowing people to become more than one “case” means the ever-increasing numbers of people rejecting the vaccines, masks and hysteria can be countered by the steadily dwindling number of NPCs who still religiously take Covid at face value.
It’s a desperation move. One that, hopefully, people will see right through.
I once did a talk on this subject at Spain’s Royal Institute of Science during the first global warming panic, but I did a lousy job.
Now, at the time of our second global warming panic (the coronadoom panic waning and needing replacement), I shall try again.
Here is how The Science happens; in particular, how vast over-certainties are generated yet still become “the debate is over”. We’ll use global warming as our example, but this works for any The Science.
Let’s start with a typical The Science pronouncement: “Because of the climate crisis, coffee production in Africa will decrease, which is why our political solutions need to be put in place.”
There are hundreds, even thousands, of statements like this, provided by an army of academics and Experts. They are characterized easily: everything bad will wax because of “climate change” and everything good will wane; good coming from “climate change” is impossible; only bad can arise.
While it is logically possible that slight changes in the average weather will cause only misery, and do no good whatsoever, it is scarcely likely. Indeed, it is absurd and proves “climate change” is part superstition, part scam, part bad science. We address the last part today.
Our archetype statement has three parts: 1) the threat of “climate change”, 2) the bad event, and 3) the promise of “solutions”. We are meant to take the thing as a whole, as if the whole were as certain as the most certain part. Rather, as more certain than the most certain part. Those who demand you follow The Science intend that the string builds in certainty as more items add to it, in a kind of successive reinforcement. Just look at all those Experts who agree!
But that certainty adds is impossible. As is not possible.
All three parts of the statement have their own uncertainties attached to them. If we consider the statement as a whole, then these uncertainties must be multiplied, more or less, resulting in a whole that is vastly more uncertain than any individual part.
Anybody with any familiarity with probability will see this instantly. But for those who aren’t as familiar, consider this scenario: “This coin will come up heads, I’ll roll greater than a 3 on this die, and draw an eight of hearts from this deck.”
Never forget! All probabilities are conditional, meaning we have to supply evidence from which to calculate them. Here, I’ve chosen common evidence sets. We have to assume these for each of the three parts of this scenario. For the coin flip, we’ll use “Here is an object which when flipped can show only heads or tails”. From that we deduce the chance of heads is 1/2.
And so on for the others. We get 1/2 for the flip, 1/2 for the die roll, and 1/52 for the card draw, all assuming standard evidence. For the entire scenario to be true, we need get all three. The probabilities multiply: 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/52 = 1/208, which is about 0.005.
But if the statement could be painted as dealing with “climate change”, and not gambling, we’d be asked to consider the probability the statement is true is at least 1/2. Or even more because of all the “corroborating evidence” from different Experts. After all, 97% of gambling scientists agree.
I picked these examples because I think they’re in the same ballpark as our coffee “climate change” scenario, though the evidence sets are trickier. Let’s step through each of the parts of the scenario to see how statements like this should be tackled.
1) The threat of “climate change”. I take this to mean Expert models predicting “large” “climate change” are accurate or the climate changes on its own, for reasons (at least in part) other than encoded by Experts in their models. Given Experts have been predicting weather doom since the 1970s, first that it would be too cold, then that it would be too hot, then that it would just be too different, and they’ve been wrong every time so far, I’m not too keen on Expert models. But I also figure that the earth’s climate has been both hotter and cooler, wetter and drier, sunnier and cloudier in the past, so it can be so again.
There is no numerical value for the probability that can be deduced from this evidence. It is too vague. But that doesn’t mean it is not useful. If pressed for a number, it is not too far, in my mind based on this evidence, from 50-50.
2) The bad event. Maybe coffee production in Africa would decrease under changed weather, or maybe it wouldn’t. Saying it will decrease is the result of another model by Experts. Who haven’t done at all well with agriculture forecasts.
Again, no numerical probability can be deduced. But I’m feeling generous, so call it 50-50 again. (Really, I believe it’s less, but I don’t want to change our example.)
3) The promise of “solutions”. Expert “solutions” here would be twofold: stopping the climate from changing, and ameliorating reductions in coffee production given the climate has changed in a direction to harm production.
This one is even trickier because some of the same evidence is used in (3) and in (1); namely, that about Experts’ climate models. This makes the multiplication trick strictly wrong.
However, it’s not too far off, either, especially because Expert “solutions” for complex situations stink, stank, stunk. That one in fifty two is being generous.
The end result is I’m not worried about “climate change”, not nearly as worried as I’d be about adopting Expert “solutions”, which in my estimation would only make things worse, or much worse.
Now it may have occurred to you that any of these tripartite statements may itself be unlikely, but given there are many hundreds (or thousands) of these, and we take all of them together, isn’t it likely that one of them might be true?
Sure, yes. But so what? It’s still true that any singular one is unlikely. We can’t go for the “solutions” to protect for all because one of them might be needed. That’s pure Safety First! thinking. Beside, that there are hundreds upon hundreds of such statements points more towards “climate change” being a superstition or scam. Those hypotheses better explain the observations.
Incidentally, the peer-reviewed paper about coffee production decreasing in Africa was from 2012. “The models show a profoundly negative influence on indigenous Arabica.” Since then, Arabica coffee has only increased, year upon year. Until 2020, when the coronadoom “solutions” hit and killed economies the world over.
THE BBC has been accused of institutional alarmism about climate change in a report published by Net Zero Watch. It reveals the BBC’s persistent exaggeration and false information when it comes to climate and weather-related news.
The study, written by me, reveals that the BBC has been forced to correct a dozen items of false claims and fake news in climate-related coverage after receiving complaints in recent years.
It shows that it has become common practice for BBC reporters to publicise exaggerated and often misleading weather-and climate-related stories in order to hype up the potential risks from global warming.
Persistent misrepresentation by BBC journalists in climate news coverage is fuelling the corporation’s institutional alarmism.
Institutional alarmism is a form of hyped and exaggerated news reporting that is deeply embedded in the BBC. It manifests itself as unbalanced, one-sided coverage of climate risks that go uncorrected by the BBC’s in-house fact checkers.
In 2020, the BBC’s director general warned that the problem posed by disinformation online was increasingly serious and that the BBC would need to work harder than ever to expose fake news and separate fact from fiction.
Since then the corporation has set up a team of fact checkers, a BBC-wide Anti-Disinformation Unit and a Climate Misinformation team. Yet none of these teams of fact checkers noticed or addressed the long list of false news stories that were corrected by the BBC only after lengthy and protracted complaint procedures.
The dossier includes the following examples of fake news:
• The three complaints upheld last year against the BBC’s Climate Editor, Justin Rowlatt, two of which concerned a Panorama episode devoted to global warming;
• Claims that the number of floods around the world has increased 15-fold since 2005;
• A BBC News report that the population of African penguins was declining rapidly because of climate change;
• Repeated claims that new onshore wind farms were ‘banned’ in the UK;
• False statements about ‘record’ temperatures;
• A BBC Two broadcast, which wrongly alleged that the reindeer population in Russia was declining because of climate change;
• Repeated claims that hurricanes were becoming more frequent and powerful;
• A World at One broadcast which asserted that sea levels in Miami were rising at ten times the global rate.
Most of the claims were so obviously and ridiculously false that it is hard to see how they made it through the BBC’s editorial process. This of course raises further questions. Is the BBC so entrenched in its own version of climate change that it believes its own propaganda, just as the Soviets did? Or do the editors and various layers of management simply not care whatever lies are published?
The above list is merely the tip of the iceberg. Many other falsehoods occur without being challenged, or where complaints are simply ignored, such as news items about how weather is getting more extreme, Victoria Falls drying up, droughts in California, starving polar bears and many more. One BBC News report baldly stated that the number of weather disasters had increased five-fold in the last 50 years – a patently absurd claim, which the organisation responsible for the database explains is actually due to better data reporting.
One of the most egregious examples of bias came in Sir David Attenborough’s documentary three years ago, Climate Change – The Facts. Despite the title, the hour-long programme had little to do with facts, more to do with propaganda. It made several highly questionable assertions, such as that ‘storms, floods, heatwaves and sea level rise are all getting rapidly worse as a result of climate change’. The documentary provided no data to back up these claims, nor did it offer the views of scientific experts who do not agree.
Often BBC reports are just outright propaganda, with the opinions of Greenpeace, WWF and the Green Party being given prominence but with very little mention of alternative views. Last year’s coverage of the proposed Cumbria coal mine by Roger Harrabin, the BBC’s Environmental Analyst, was a classic example of this.
At other times, the reporting is just silly. For instance, last summer the BBC gave prominent coverage to a report which claimed that the impact of global warming was likely to lead to ‘impaired’ performances at the Tokyo Olympics. This flew in the face of the fact that many Olympics in recent years have taken place in much hotter climes, such as Los Angeles, Atlanta and Athens.
The sheer weight of evidence presented in this paper suggests that bias is now endemic in the BBC’s climate reporting. All the factual errors noted could easily have been avoided with a bit of basic research. Is this carried out and the results ignored if they don’t agree with the BBC’s agenda? Or is the corporation’s output just made up and printed anyway without checks? Either way, this is journalism at its shoddy worst. Who is editing this fake reporting? Why are they not insisting on accurate reporting? Where are the highly paid executives who let all of this continue?
The topic of climate change, Net Zero and the total transformation of society which is demanded to achieve it is of crucial importance for the future of the country. The public deserve all the facts, not just the warped version offered by the BBC.
You can read the report, ‘Institutional alarmism – the BBC’s disastrous climate complaints’,here.
A growing number of young healthy adults are mysteriously dying. Watch Jefferey Jaxen and Del try to make sense of, what is now being called, “Sudden Adult Death Syndrome” (SADS).
The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) is overwhelmed and understaffed with the amount of injury claims being filed from the Covid-19 Vaccines. The program is now on life support and is on the verge of collapse.
The CDC has walked back it’s initial recommendation to mask for Monkeypox, which triggered a firestorm of criticism from the medical and scientific communities.
COVID vaccine mandates are necessary because the protected need to be protected from the unprotected by forcing the unprotected to use the protection that didn’t protect the protected.
Then the only thing that can prevent the vaccinated from being more at risk of COVID infections is getting boosters every few months.
But the boosters can damage your immunity, as noted by Marco Cavaleri, one of the top officials at the European Medicines Agency who, according to Bloomberg,
“warned that frequent Covid-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune response and may not be feasible. Repeat booster doses every four months could eventually weaken the immune response…”
Scientists are probably working on a solution for the “too many boosters” problem, but have not succeeded yet.
Meanwhile, “trust the science,” and “trust the experts.” I am sure they will come up with something.
Apparently the stance against doctors who work according to their Hippocratic oath and the medical code of ethics is being tightened internationally.
The enforcement of masks is an important goal in order to be able to continue the pandemic, as is known from internal protocols of the Israeli Ministry of Health or statements by the Austrian Director of Public Health. Masks have become a sign of submission while at the same time renouncing fundamental rights.
Even in Switzerland, which is known to be more liberal with the measures and had already lifted many random measures in mid-February, completely disproportionate action was taken against doctors. On social media, users likened the raid to how police would normally respond to a terror threat.
This is already happening in Germany, as the criminal judgment against Dr. Ronald Weikl showed. In Germany, such an act would be less surprising in view of the many house searches, even against judges who had issued “unwanted” judgements, also in connection with masks for children.
The regional court of Passau, Germany is expected to pass a verdict against the “mask doctor” Weikl for writing blank exemption certificates against the mask requirement.
“Whether it was a matter of issuing false health certificates, which is punishable under §278 of the German Criminal Code (StGB), as alleged by the prosecution, or only of medical certificates, for which §278 (StGB) does not apply at all,” noted the Children’s Health Defense Fund.
Weikl acted in the best interest of his patients, his lawyer explained and this should not have led to an indictment due to the lack of a criminal act on his part. The legal principle of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege applies, which means that one cannot be punished for doing something that is not prohibited by law – showing concern for his patients and especially children.
The law in Switzerland expressly provides for exceptions to the mask requirement. However, some authorities and the public prosecutor’s offices obviously do not care. For months there has been a veritable witch hunt against doctors who are critical of the measures.
Like Weikl, the Bern psychiatrist Dr. medical Ruke Wyler had issued mask certificates for her patients. The practice of the psychiatrist, who had only fulfilled her medical duty, was stormed in a heavy and a completely disproportionate police operation.
The scientific network Aletheia reported on the raid on the doctor’s practice. Critical doctors who question Corona measures to protect their own patients are being addressed and sanctioned, both abroad and in Switzerland.
Under the supervision of armed police officers wearing bulletproof vests, her computer hard drive was confiscated and patient files were taken away. People who wanted to support the doctor were asked to leave the building under threat of violence.
The Aletheia network said they were extremely concerned about these developments. Doctors who had issued mask certificates for the benefit of their patients did so because, after a thorough study of the data, they had come to the conclusion that wearing masks would be of no benefit, would be only harmful, first and foremost for children.
The medical certificates issued by the doctor could in no way be deemed to be incorrect since there has been no examination by the police or the public prosecutor’s office; this is a matter for medical expertise and the professional code of conduct for physicians. Medical professionals are free from directives, especially from non-physicians.
The vast majority of Corona measures are based on the narrative of the epidemiologically relevant asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2, which has long beenrefuted. This means that all non-pharmacological measures that go beyond hygiene and self-isolation for sick people (antisocial distancing, masks in public spaces, isolation, quarantine, contact tracing, school closures and curfews) are ineffective and harmful for asymptomatic people who were previously considered healthy.
Last week Serena Wylde reported for TCW on the lawsuit that the whistleblower Brook Jackson has filed against Pfizer which she feared would be thrown out. Today she updates us on the case.
IT TAKES a special type of person to stay the course as a whistleblower. Dismissal from employment, vilification and isolation are just a few of the prices to pay. But Brook Jackson, the clinical trial regional director who has been battling against Pfizer since 2020 to bring facts to light, is not bowing to intimidation.
Having brought a case against the corporate goliath in January 2021 under the False Claims Act, Jackson was under a gagging order, and her lawyers warned her not to break it as ‘the government would come after her’. But break it she did when in September of 2021 she sent copious amounts of evidence to the British Medical Journal. At this point her attorneys from Berg and Androphy withdrew from the case, leaving her without counsel.
In February of this year the case was finally unsealed and, as reported here last week, Pfizer has filed a motion to have it thrown out. Its argument is essentially that the purchasing party – the US government – of its contract to supply 100million doses of injections in exchange for $1.9billion of US taxpayers’ money, tacitly agreed to the use of fraudulent data. Under this tortuous reasoning, it would appear to be relying on an interpretation that, as both contracting parties were complicit in the sham clinical trials, no breach of contract has occurred.
Some time back we learnt that the Covid-19 injection manufacturers had been granted immunity by governments against civil damages for injury and deaths caused by their products.
But what about criminal responsibility?
An important question must surely be how the law defines intent when it comes to inflicting harm? If a medical practitioner administers an inappropriate and toxic drug to a patient knowing it has the potential to cause harm, including death, is not a resulting fatality classed as a homicide?
As one physician-scientist explained during Republican Senator Ron Johnson’s Expert Panel Discussion on Covid-19 vaccine injuries, held on November 2, 2021, ‘Pfizer don’t do science. They do business. And the Food and Drug Administration know and enable this.’
All eyes are now on the judge, who has granted discovery about any issue related to Pfizer’s motion to dismiss the case. Jackson’s lawyer, Robert Barnes of Barnes Law LLP, says: ‘This is probably the biggest whistleblower False Claims Act case in the history of the United States.’
There is an interview with Robert Barnes at the end of the article which you can see here.
By Kurt Nimmo | Another Day in the Empire | April 20, 2026
In 2025, Alex Karp, the CEO of government and military tech contractor Palantir, published The New York Times best-seller, The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West. The Wall Street Journalpraised the book as a cri de coeur, a passionate appeal “that takes aim at the tech industry for abandoning its history of helping America and its allies,” while Wired praised the book as a “readable polemic that skewers Silicon Valley for insufficient patriotism.”
On April 18, 2026, Palantir posted twenty-two points to social media summarizing the book. In addition to taking Silicon Valley to task for insufficient patriotism, advocating a role for AI in forever war, and denouncing the “psychologization of modern politics,” the Palantir post on X declares: “National service should be a universal duty. We should, as a society, seriously consider moving away from an all-volunteer force and only fight the next war if everyone shares in the risk and the cost.”
National conscription, a form of involuntary servitude, and the wars it portends, is good for business, especially for corporations within the orbit of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the national security state. Palantir fits comfortably within this amalgamation. … continue
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.
Aletho News
Aletho News 