Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The Nutritional ‘Dark Matter’ in Your Food — And Why Synthetic Food Is So Dangerous

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | October 4, 2023

Do you know what’s in the food you eat? Remarkable as it may seem, 99% of the components making up whole food are a complete mystery.

As reported by New Scientist in July 2020:

“We know next to nothing about the vast majority of compounds in our diet … ‘Our understanding of how diet affects health is limited to 150 key nutritional components,’ says Albert-László Barabási at Harvard Medical School, who coined the term nutritional dark matter.

“‘But these represent only a small fraction of the biochemicals present in our food’ … The idea that food is a rich and complex mix of biochemicals is hardly news.

“Even the well-known macronutrients — proteins, carbohydrates and fats — are hugely diverse. There’s also a vast supporting cast of micronutrients: minerals, vitamins and other biochemicals, many of which are only present in minuscule quantities, but which can still have profound health effects.”

The official source of nutritional information is the USDA’s National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference.

It lists the composition of hundreds of thousands of foods, but it’s not as detailed as you might imagine.

In all, it details only 188 nutritional components, including 38 flavonoids, yet scientists estimate there are more than 26,000 different biochemicals in our food.

As noted by New Scientist : “With the USDA as your guide, 99.5% of the components in food are a mystery,” and as noted by Barabási, “It would be foolish to dismiss 99.5% of the compounds we eat as unimportant … We will not really understand how we get sick if we don’t solve this puzzle.”

Searching for nutritional ‘dark matter’

Disturbed by the information gap, an international team of researchers started working on a more comprehensive database a decade ago called FooDB, which as of 2020 contained information on some 70,000 nutritional compounds.

Yet even this database still has a long way to go. An estimated 85% of the nutritional components listed remain unquantified, meaning they know a food contains a particular component, but they don’t know how much.

The health implications of most compounds also remain largely unknown.

New Scientist notes:

“This is also true of individual micronutrients. ‘Consider beta-carotene,’ says Barabási. ‘It tends to be positively associated with heart disease, according to epidemiological studies, but studies adding beta-carotene to the diet do not show health benefits. One potential reason is that beta-carotene never comes alone in plants; about 400 molecules are always present with it. So epidemiology may be detecting the health implications of some other molecule.’

“Another probable cause is the effect of the microbiome on dark nutrients, says [FooDB founder David] Wishart. ‘Most dark nutrients are chemically transformed by your gut bacteria.’

“That’s probably why studies on the benefits of different foods give relatively ambiguous results. We don’t properly control for the variation in gut microflora, or our innate metabolism, which means different people get different doses of metabolites from their food.”

Processed foods are an even greater mystery

The reason I started with that background is because we know even less about the constituents of processed foods and synthetic foods that ignorantly claim to be “equivalents” to whole foods, such as “animal-free meats” or “animal-free milk.”

Food processing alone will often alter the composition of bioactive molecules in a food and hence the food’s impact on health, but today, processed foods also contain a wide array of synthetic chemicals that, prior to the modern era, were never part of the human diet.

As such, they pose incredible risks to long-term health and well-being. Processed foods may also have intergenerational effects.

In recent years, the idea that we can simply replace whole foods with synthetic, genetically modified or lab-grown alternatives that are wholly equivalent to the original food has taken root. In reality, that’s simply impossible.

How can scientists create equivalence when they don’t even know what 85% or more of the whole food they’re trying to replicate consists of?

Common sense will tell you they can’t. It might look, smell and even taste similar, but the micronutrient composition will be entirely different, and as a result, the health effects will be incomparable as well.

Animal-free equivalence is a PR fraud

Take cultured meat, for example. It’s said to be equivalent to real animal meat because it’s grown from animal cells. The cells are then grown in a nutrient solution inside a bioreactor until they become a meat-like slab.

Similarly, Bored Cow animal-free milk is a dairy alternative made with whey protein obtained through a fermentation process, plant-based fats (in lieu of milk fats), citrus fiber (for creaminess) and added vitamins and minerals.

Defenders of cultured meat insist that this product is not “fake meat” but “actual meat,” the only difference is that no animal had to be slaughtered to create it.

Cultured meat and other synthetic foods are also said to be more environmentally friendly. But nothing could be further from the truth.

Their impact is far more akin to that of the pharmaceutical industry than the food industry.

According to a recent “cradle-to-gate life cycle” analysis, the lab-grown meat industry produces anywhere from four to 25 times more CO2 than traditional animal husbandry.

Based on this assessment, each kilo of cultured meat produces anywhere from 542 pounds (246 kilos) to 3,325 pounds (1,508 kg) of carbon dioxide emissions, four to 25 times greater than that of conventional beef.

And this information is only provided to refute those who believe the global warming fallacy.

As noted by the authors, investors have poured billions of dollars into the animal cell-based meat sector based on the theory that cultured meat is more environmentally friendly than beef.

However, according to these researchers, that hype is based on flawed analyses of carbon emissions.

Cultured meat is also the epitome of ultra-processed food and therefore likely to cause health problems like those caused by other ultra-processed foods, such as obesity, cardiovascular diseases, Type-2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, cancer, mental health problems and increased all-cause mortality.

A paper published in the April issue of Animal Frontiers also warned that there are several implications of cell-based meat that need to be considered but aren’t, including the fact that cultured products are not nutritionally equivalent to the meats they’re intended to replace.

The claim that no animals are killed in the process is also false. At present, most cultured or cell-based meats are created by growing animal cells in a solution of fetal bovine serum, which is made from the blood of unborn calves.

In short, pregnant cows are slaughtered to drain the unborn fetus of its blood.

Is it safe to eat tumors?

There are also many unanswered questions surrounding safety. For example, to get the cell cultures to grow, some companies are using immortalized cells, which technically speaking are precancerous and/or fully cancerous.

(Other companies use embryonic stem cells or cells from living animals.)

The reason for using immortalized cells is that normally behaving cells cannot divide forever. Most cells will only multiply a few dozen times before they become senescent (old) and die.

This won’t work when your intention is to grow thousands of pounds of tissue from a small number of cells, hence they use immortalized cells that have no off switch for their replication and can divide indefinitely.

Meat substitutes cultured in this way could therefore be thought of as tumors, seeing how the flesh is entirely made up of precancerous or cancerous cells. Is it safe to eat tumors? We don’t know.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology biologist Robert Weinberg, Ph.D., has proposed that humans can’t get cancer from these cells because they’re not human cells and therefore cannot replicate inside your body.

However, there’s no long-term research to back this theory.

Dietary headaches to come

It’s also important to realize that the nutritional composition and safety of synthetic foods will vary depending on the brand.

When you’re dealing with beef, for example, the meat from one cow will be relatively identical to that of any other cow (one major exception being the way they’re raised and fed).

One wild-caught salmon is comparable to any other wild-caught salmon and each russet potato is more or less identical to every other russet potato.

However since each synthetic food brand uses proprietary ingredients and processes, no two will have identical composition or safety, so even if one is eventually proven safe and nutritious, those results cannot be applied to any other brand.

This variance has the potential to create major problems in the future when all sorts of foods have been replaced with synthetic non-equivalents.

How do you determine which cultured beef, chicken or salmon brand might be best for you? How will you devise a sensible diet plan when every food comes in myriad variations of varying composition and safety?

Synthetic foods pose unique food-safety hazards

Many synthetic food proponents claim lab-created food will bypass a host of food-safety problems, but the converse is far more likely to be true.

Sure, beef, for example, can be contaminated during processing, packaging, transport or storage, or during the cooking process.

But in cultured meat, every ingredient and processing step brings with it the potential of contamination and any of the hundreds of ingredients could have toxic effects, alone or in synergy.

Indeed, an in-depth analysis of the available evidence by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and a World Health Organization expert panel, published in May, concluded there are at least 53 potential health hazards associated with lab-grown meat.

Among them are the possibility of contamination with heavy metals, microplastics, nanoplastics and chemicals, allergenic additives, toxic components, antibiotics and prions.

What’s more, some of the ingredients that go into synthetic biology like cultured meat are regulated as “non-detectable manufacturing aids,” and you won’t even know what they are. Israeli startup Profuse Technology, for example, has developed a growth media supplement that massively encourages protein growth.

As reported by Food Navigator Europe in an article titled, “Cultivated Meat ‘Breakthrough’: Media Supplement Achieves Full Muscle Maturation on Scaffold Within 48 Hours,” the supplement reduces the time to grow filets and steaks by 80% and augments the protein in the final product by a factor of five.

An unsustainable model

The cultured meat process also produces toxic biowaste — a problem that doesn’t exist in conventional agriculture and food processing. In the video above, Alan Lewis, vice president of government affairs for Natural Grocers, reviews what goes into the making of synthetic biology.

The starting ingredients are typically cheap sugars and fats derived from genetically engineered corn and soy, grown in environmentally destructive monocultures with loads of herbicides, pesticides and synthetic fertilizers.

As a result, they’re loaded with chemical residues. Hundreds of other ingredients may then be added to the ferment to produce the desired end product, such as a certain protein, color, flavor or scent.

The most often used microorganism in the fermentation process is E. coli which has been gene-edited to produce the desired compound through its digestive process.

The microorganism must also be antibiotic-resistant since it needs to survive the antibiotics used to kill off other undesirable organisms in the vat.

As a result, antibiotic-resistant organisms also become integrated into the final product, and the types of foodborne illness that might be caused by gene-edited antibiotic-resistant E. coli and its metabolites are anyone’s guess.

In addition to the desired target metabolite, these gene-edited organisms may also spit out non-target metabolites with unknown environmental consequences and health effects. But that’s not all. Once the target organisms are extracted, what’s left over is hazardous biowaste.

While traditional fermentation processes, such as the making of beer, produce waste products that are edible by animals, compostable and pose no biohazard, the biowaste from these synthetic biology ferments must first be deactivated and then must be securely disposed of. It cannot go into a landfill.

Protect your health by avoiding ‘frankenfoods’

Making food that requires genetically modified organisms inputs and produces more CO2 than conventional farming and hazardous biowaste to boot is hardly a sustainable model.

But then again, synthetic biology and processed foods are not being pushed out of true concern for sustainability.

If that was the goal, everyone would be looking at regenerative agriculture where every part of the system supports and sustains other parts, thereby eliminating the need for chemical inputs, radically reducing water needs while optimizing yields.

No, synthetic biology is pursued because it is a formidable control mechanism. Those who own all the synthetic food production will control the world in a very literal sense. To learn more about this plot for control, see “The Fake ‘Food as Medicine’ Agenda.”

In short, the globalists already own and control most of the carbohydrates grown in the world today. By replacing real animal foods with patented lab-made protein alternatives, they’ll have unprecedented power to control the world’s population.

It’ll also grant them greater control over people’s health. It’s already known that the consumption of ultra-processed food contributes to disease, and the benefactor of ill health is Big Pharma.

The processed food industry has spent many decades driving chronic illness that is then treated with drugs rather than a better diet. Synthetic foods will likely be an even bigger driver or chronic ill health and early death.

The fact is, fake meat and dairy cannot replace the complex mix of nutrients found in grass-fed beef and dairy, and it’s likely that consuming ultra-processed meat and milk alternatives may lead to many of the same health issues that are caused by a processed food diet.

So, if you want to really protect your health and the environment, skip pseudo foods that require patents and stick to those found in nature instead.

October 7, 2023 Posted by | Environmentalism, Progressive Hypocrite, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

Christian Drosten: “I’ve Had Three Doses of the Vaccine and Been Infected Twice”

BY ROBERT KOGON | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | OCTOBER 7, 2023

Does anyone still remember the days when COVID-19 vaccines were reputed to do what other vaccines do – namely, prevent people from getting infected – and hence we were all taught to speak of exceptional ‘breakthrough infections’ when the unexpected, nonetheless, came to pass?

Well, Germany’s ‘state virologist’ Christian Drosten apparently does not remember them either. Drosten is a member of the German Government’s ‘Corona Expert Council’ and is treated as the absolute authority in Germany for all things COVID-19-related. He also, purely coincidentally, developed the notoriously hyper-sensitive COVID-19 PCR testing protocol, which would go a long way to create the COVID-19 pandemic based on the innumerable ‘asymptomatic cases’ it would go on to detect.

Drosten has given a new interview to the German weekly paper Die Zeit on the solemn occasion of the awarding of this year’s Nobel Prize in Medicine to Drew Weissman and Katalin Kariko, two scientists who contributed to developing the mRNA technology underlying the most widely-used COVID-19 vaccines in the West. Drosten praises the decision to award the prize to the mRNA pioneers – “the technology has proven its significance thanks to the authorisation for COVID-19” – and goes on to note that “I’ve had three doses of the vaccine and been infected twice”.

Three doses and he still got infected twice? Well, why does he agree with the Nobel Committee awarding the prize to Weissman and Kariko then?

Drosten’s remark is apparently supposed to help explain why he will not be getting the new ‘variant-adapted’ COVID-19 jab this autumn or donning a facemask when out and about: since, namely, he already has adequate immunity to fend off the virus – not, it seems, thanks to his previous vaccine doses but due to having caught the bug despite them!

Further on in the interview, Drosten makes this assumption explicit. Thus, asked whether the public has to be concerned about new, more highly transmissible Covid variants, Drosten replies:

Two years ago, higher transmissibility due to new mutations always also meant that more people got seriously ill. Simply because immunity against serious outcomes was not yet complete. By now, the overwhelming majority have built up immune defences by way of infections which are directed against the whole virus, not only against the spike protein from the vaccine. Infections were required for this.

So, Drosten now speaks (and it is not the first time) as if the idea all along was for people to get the vaccine and the virus. He adds, however, that vaccination was still worthwhile, since, he claims, it reduced the severity of the illness when people got infected. Mind you, he has just said that “complete immunity” even against severe disease is only achieved via infection.

The somewhat bewildering position adopted by Drosten is, by the way and not surprisingly – he is not referred to as Germany’s ‘state virologist’ for nothing – also the official German Government position. The official recommendation of the Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO) of the German public health authority is that everyone over 18 years of age should have acquired a “basic immunity” by way of at least three “antigen contacts”, either in the form of vaccine doses or infections. The STIKO, however, insists that at least two of these “contacts” should have taken place by way of vaccination, thus suggesting that vaccine-induced immunity is somehow superior to natural immunity, whereas Drosten’s remarks clearly suggest the contrary.

In its latest recommendation on the new ‘variant-adapted’ jab, moreover, the STIKO notes that “the majority of the population has already been vaccinated multiple times and has acquired good basic immunity thanks to having had SARS-CoV-2 infections in addition”. This is why, incidentally, the STIKO only recommends the adapted jab for persons over 60 and members of other ostensibly high-risk groups, but not for anyone else. But the tenor is exactly the same as in Drosten’s remarks, as if getting vaccinated and then getting sick had been the plan all along.

Well, for Drosten’s and the STIKO’s benefit, the below comes directly from the European Medicines Agency summary document on what is by far the most-widely used COVID-19 vaccine in the EU: BioNTech’s mRNA-based ‘Comirnaty’.

Comirnaty was authorised to prevent COVID-19, not to prevent severe outcomes. If it does not prevent COVID-19, it failed.

Robert Kogon is the pen name of a widely-published journalist covering European affairs. Subscribe to his Substack and follow him on X.

October 7, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment

Primodos: another example of MHRA’s failure to “put patients first”

UK took 20 years to withdraw drug after harms were first made known

Health Advisory & Recovery Team | October 4, 2023

Most people are aware of Thalidomide, many are aware of Valproate, but there are several other drugs that have caused birth defects in children that are less well known including Debendox, Carbimazole and Primodos.

Primodos families achieved a main house parliamentary debate on 7th September led by Yasmin Qureshi. Whilst the House was not well attended, every single MP in the Chamber was on the side of the families and little effort was made to defend Government and regulator action.

Yasmin Quereshi explained:

“Children were born with serious deformities due to the hormone pregnancy test drug Primodos, which was taken by expectant mothers between 1953 and 1975”

“The UK regulator first received a warning about the drug in 1958. A definitive study was published in 1967, which linked birth defects to the synthetic hormones in Primodos. Baroness Cumberlege concluded that Primodos should have been removed from the market in 1967. The UK regulator failed in its duty of care to women: Primodos was eventually withdrawn in 1978, 20 years after the first warning.”

Finland, Sweden, Holland and Norway banned the use of hormone pregnancy tests at least 7 years earlier by 1971. MPs passionately recounted many stories of harm caused to their constituents, including Allan Dorans who explained the impact on Nan’s daughter Michelle in 1975, 4-5 years after it was withdrawn in other countries.

Why is the UK always so late to act on medicine harm?

You may say “that was 50 years ago”, things have changed, but MHRA’s lack of action on AstraZeneca covid vaccines resulted in patient deaths as recently as 2021. If anything, the MHRA’s recent transformation from “From watchdog to regulator” (as proclaimed by June Raine) is making things worse. As was pointed out several times during the debate, Primodos was 40 times the strength of the contraceptive pill, this is a risk a lay person can understand, why didn’t the regulator?

Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg stated “The drug was used in South Korea and Germany as an abortifacient. It was used to procure abortions.” Why would MHRA allow a drug that is used overseas for abortions, as a pregnancy test? It would be reasonable to assume there could be a risk of miscarriage. Why did MHRA reject Professor Carl Heneghan’s (director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford University) report showing “a clear association” between Primodos and several forms of malformation? Why hasn’t MHRA taken the actions recommended by the Cumberlege report? The yellowcard system is clearly not fit for purpose and is resulting in unnecessary harm to patients.

The Perseus Group believes that a large part of the problem is that medicine safety doesn’t follow the best practice safety management practices of other safety critical sectors like aviation or nuclear. For example, MHRA does not set safety thresholds for the number of deaths/injuries which is allowed before a medicine is suspended. Previous Inquiries, such as the Cumberlege Inquiry, do little or nothing to improve the fundamentals of MHRA’s safety management because there is no input from those involved in managing safety in other safety critical sectors.

The Government committed to take action on Primodos after the Cumberlege report (if fact Primodos was a key driver resulting in the commissioning of the report), but they have limited that action to pelvic mesh and Valproate. The Patient Safety Commissioner role was created to close the gap but again her scope has been limited to mesh and Valproate. Primodos families have been fighting for decades for redress but the system is against them, they have been failed by the Government, the legal system and the regulator.

There are dozens of medicine and medical device victim groups (antidepressants, morning sickness medicines, vaccines etc) fighting their own battles for justice, what is the underlying theme?

A regulator failing to do their duty to keep people safe, influenced by pharmaceutical companies and defended by the Government.

Esther McVey stated “Sadly, Primodos is not an isolated case, and we have seen many examples over the years of our regulatory bodies failing to keep patients safe from new medicines and medical devices. In 2013, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency listed 27 medicines that had been withdrawn on safety grounds. The average time they were on the market was 11 years. I wonder how many times we will allow history to repeat itself. There have been reports and reviews calling for reform, and back in 2004 the Health Committee undertook an inquiry into the influence of the pharmaceutical industry. It noted, of drug companies, the ‘closeness that has developed between regulators and companies’”

Of MRHA’s 16 board members, 6 have Declarations of Interest relating to healthcare companies including pharmaceutical giants such as Sanofi, AstraZeneca and Pfizer. Pharmaceutical companies have been given immunity for several medicines by the Government, incentivizing them to support the pharmaceutical companies position rather than the victims. Pharmaceutical companies already have deep pockets, why are the Government willing to support them rather than those harmed?

Sitting from the outside, I see many victim groups fighting their individual battles in silos. Imagine their power if they all came together as a single voice demanding reform of MHRA? 22 MPs spoke in the Primodos debate, every single one of them wanting justice for the victims. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Maria Caulfield has agreed to meet with families and review the findings of the Cumberlege report, so this looks like a small step forwards for this group or at least a little more hope.

Do we now have the critical mass to demand reform of MHRA? If everyone came together, could we get a regulator that prioritises patient safety over pharmaceutical company profits?

Will the media start joining the dots?

October 6, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Facebook Censors Report On Study About Covid Vaccine mRNA Found in Breast Milk

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | October 6, 2023

Facebook has once more found itself at the helm of controversy regarding the censorship of accurate information concerning COVID-19. This is not the maiden voyage of the social media giant into the tempestuous waters of information control; earlier this year, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg conceded to having stifled truthful content about the pandemic at the behest of establishment voices.

His admission followed on the heels of both the US government and the World Health Organization declaring the curtain call on the COVID-19 public health emergency. This prompted Meta to retrench its medical “misinformation” policy, albeit the platform seemingly persists in its endeavor to silence certain narratives.

As reported by Public, the latest instance of censorship came to light when Facebook initiated a fact-check, labeled, and curtailed the visibility of an article titled “Covid Vaccine mRNA In Breast Milk Shows CDC Lied About Safety.” The scrutiny led by Facebook was not aimed at debunking the veracity of the article but instead was targeted at what it deemed as “missing context.”

The article, based on a recent Lancet study, brought to the public’s attention evidence of trace amounts of vaccine mRNA in breast milk, a finding that contradicts previous assurances by the CDC.

Despite the fact that these women were side-stepped in the original vaccine trials, they were given the green light for vaccination, based on the CDC’s now-questionable advice.

Facebook’s audit extrapolated the “context” that pregnant women ought to proceed with vaccination, thereby sidelining the primary discourse of the article which was to shed light on the misleading information dispersed by the CDC.

The methodology employed by Facebook in this instance extends beyond a mere examination of facts. By reducing the spread of the article, the platform effectively stifles a critical examination of the claims made by government health authorities, thereby undermining the public’s right to be informed and to engage in crucial discourse.

Facebook’s ongoing dalliance with censorship, especially of critical health-related information, raises significant questions about the role of social media platforms in the contemporary information ecosystem. The unfurling narrative underscores the necessity for a transparent, decentralized, and accountable framework for information dissemination, one that is immune to undue influence and serves the collective endeavor for truth.

October 6, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

The High Stakes in the Legal Battle for Free Speech

Brownstone Institute | October 6, 2023

The ongoing war between the US Security State and the First Amendment is perhaps the most underreported development of the 21st century. Now, Missouri v. Biden may bring it to the Supreme Court.

Just two decades ago, the internet promised liberation as dictatorships would cave to the emerging swell of information. That was the hope, at least.

“There’s no question China has been trying to crack down on the internet,” President Clinton said in 2000. “Good luck. That’s sort of like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.”

That optimism did not come to fruition. Instead of Westernizing the Orient, technology laid the foundation for the US Security State to pursue unprecedented social control.

At first, the conflict appeared to be between rank-and-file military members and transgressive cyber actors. Julian Assange and Edward Snowden seemed like mere hackers, not harbingers for the impending suspension of American liberty.

The battle suddenly became a civilizational struggle in 2020. A highly efficient technocracy declared war against the Bill of Rights. The US Security State shut down American society, eradicated due process, and captured the public health apparatus. The CIA bribed scientists to cover up the origins of Covid, and the Department of Homeland Security dictated what Americans could and could not see in their newsfeeds. The FBI helped banish the country’s oldest newspaper from Twitter for reporting on its preferred candidate’s son.

When Clinton made his “Jell-O” comment, few of us could imagine that we’d live in such a country. We trusted our courts and our elected government to protect us. We thought the rule of law was sacrosanct. We were wrong.

Now, however, the judiciary has the opportunity to reclaim the First Amendment from the tyranny of the Security State in Missouri v. Biden.

Missouri v. Biden and the CISA Injunction

Tuesday, the Fifth Circuit reinstated an injunction against CISA, an agency in the Department of Homeland Security, that prohibits its agents from colluding with social media companies to promote censorship of any kind.

The case demonstrates how far the United States has strayed from its former free speech ethos. CISA held ongoing meetings with social media platforms to “push them to adopt more restrictive policies on censoring election-related speech,” according to the Fifth Circuit. This included criticism of lockdowns, vaccines, and the Hunter Biden laptop. Through a process known as “switchboarding,” CISA officials dictated to Big Tech platforms what content was “true” or “false,” which became Orwellian euphemisms for acceptable and prohibited speech.

CISA’s leaders reveled in their usurpation of the First Amendment. They overturned hundreds of years of free speech protections, appointing themselves the arbiters of truth. Without freedom of “election-related speech,” we no longer live in a democracy. They pursued a faceless dictatorship.

They sought to eradicate dissent surrounding the policies that they imposed. CISA had been responsible for dividing the workforce into categories of “essential” and “nonessential” in March 2020. Hours later, the order became the basis for the country’s first “stay-at-home” order, a process that quickly spiraled into a previously unimaginable assault on Americans’ civil liberties.

CISA betrayed the country’s founding principle. A group of unelected bureaucrats hijacked American society without ever having a vote cast in their names. They disregarded the First Amendment, due process, and elected government in their pursuit of power.

The Framers understood that liberty relied on the free flow of information. They were well aware of the dangers of widespread lies and an incendiary press corps, but tyranny presented a far greater risk to society. Government could not be trusted to wield power over the minds of men, so they enshrined freedom of press, worship, and speech in our Constitution.

The Security State unwound those liberties. White House officials used the power of the federal government to suppress dissent. The Biden Administration launched an interagency attack on free speech. The Covid regime’s coup d’etat continued unimpeded until Judge Terry Doughty’s July 4 injunction.

Now, the Fifth Circuit has remedied its previous error by reinstating the injunction against CISA. The case may now head to the Supreme Court, where the Justices would have the opportunity to dismantle the technocratic censorship operation at the heart of the Covid response.

The war is far from won. Julian Assange remains in jail alongside terrorists for publishing news reports that undermined the Security State’s deceit surrounding the War on Terror. Edward Snowden is banished from his homeland for exposing the lies of James Clapper.

President Biden’s “misinformation” crusade shows no signs of retreat entering the 2024 election cycle. Social media is still censored. Your Google results are still gamed at the behest of powerful state actors.  YouTube has proudly announced that it will censor content based on the diktats of the World Health Organization. Say the wrong thing on LinkedIn and you are toast.

Among the large players, only X, formerly known as Twitter, is eschewing routine takedowns of speech deemed oppositional to regime priorities. That is truly only because one man had the means to buy and the drive to liberate it from the Censorship Industrial Complex, for now.

Tuesday’s decision reaffirmed what the Supreme Court called the “bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment” in 1989: “that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

Rebuilding from the wreckage of Covid will require reclaiming those fundamental pillars of American society. The freedom to speak was not the first right earned by a people in revolt against ancient-world forms of statism but it might be the most essential. That’s why it is instantiated in the very first amendment to the Bill of Rights.

If the regime can control the public mind, they can control everything else too. A loss here is a loss everywhere.

October 6, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | Leave a comment

Anatomy Of A Protection Racket

Money, Medicine, And Madness

By David Marks | Report From Planet Earth | October 5, 2023

Few who consider the recent history of medicine are surprised by the heavy-handed tactics of health regulatory agencies and the attempt by international organizations to dominate the formation of medical policies.

Recent developments are a culmination of practices implemented over many years, that have been and continue to be — strikingly apparent.

The ethos of modern healthcare is exemplified in an anecdote about Dr. Max Gerson when he first came to the United States. Dr. Gerson was a respected physician in Europe, who had great success in treating arthritis, tuberculosis, and cancer with diet. He escaped from Nazi Germany just as his knowledge and techniques were being hailed as effective and revolutionary. Dr. Gerson’s reputation preceded him, and many doctors were seeking his opinion and assistance — until he was confronted by the mentality of the American medical establishment.

Dr. Gerson was called to New York as a consultant for a wealthy industrialist who had arthritis. He had successfully treated the patient’s brother-in-law in Europe. In a Park Avenue penthouse, he joined the house physician and another consulting specialist to see the patient. After the examination, the three physicians retired to discuss the case. Dr. Gerson proceeded to explain the treatment for arthritis he had so successfully used in Europe, then described the manner in which he expected the patient to recover. There was an awkward pause. Finally, one of the other doctors said, “Dr. Gerson, you don’t understand. This man is a wealthy member of the W.R. Grace family. They own steamship lines, banks, chemical companies, and so on. You don’t cure a patient like this, you treat him.”

This simple, insidious message drives most aspects of the medical world. The motivation to keep people healthy is completely undermined by the permeation of profiteering throughout a deeply corrupted industry that depends on the vulnerability of the suffering.

Dr. Gerson’s conclusion that most illness is related to poor diet — and thus correctible, particularly in the early stages of disease — continues to be minimized and ridiculed.

The Confidence Game

There are certainly well-meaning and brilliant physicians; some nobly struggle to practice outside the constraints of conventional wisdom and financial incentives. Most attempt to do the best they can for their patients. But most are thwarted by the theft of their moral compass; their compassion has been hijacked by the greed of corporate interests that have taken healthcare into a destructive realm.

Practitioners and clinics are cornered into using a narrow set of profitable, yet ineffective treatments in changing the course of disease.

Doctors with the best motivation are powerless against the assault from corporate forces. Even if they have the will to cure someone, the structure of the business manipulates them into seeing patients as their source of income. An inextricable relationship with pharmaceutical companies provides an endless supply of products that treat symptoms rather than supporting immunity and good health.

Discussions of the true causes of illness and what is needed to cure them are outlawed. Anyone who strays outside the corporate guidelines is deemed dangerous and a quack — and threatened with losing their license to practice medicine.

Within this restricted environment, all traces of fair compensation have disappeared from healthcare. There is no other service or product that doesn’t provide some estimate of pricing in advance; a model for compensation has no equal. Those with acute or chronic conditions enter the doors of a doctor’s office or hospital without a clear opportunity to ask what they will need to pay. And this happens — with no guarantee that they will be helped — while defenseless against a hurried and fearful dynamic.

The integrity of any healthcare system can be evaluated by whether or not it takes advantage of those who are suffering — and further appraised by the devotion of the necessary time and effort to give lasting support to individual patients.

Suffering Means Profits

People with illness or pain are hostages to the medical establishment. Most who are in physical or mental agony easily give up their autonomy to authorities who apply symptomatic solutions that often suppress illness.

Pharmaceutical interests and government agencies have steadily displayed how their merger has little to do with the well-being of individuals. The muted reaction of the public to this damaging corruption exposes the culmination of a conditioned response that has been developing for decades.

The ability to choose one’s preferred methods of prevention and treatment had been diminishing long before the global efforts to enforce isolation, masking, and vaccination. The doctor-patient relationship has been manipulated and defiled by the same, increasingly powerful economic and political forces.

This ethical depravity of modern medicine has become more apparent in recent years. The increasingly restrictive economic structure that doctors work within is a symptom of this degradation — most obvious during a public health crisis.

Those who dominate the sales of drugs rely on a simple concept: The greater the threat of severe symptoms or death, the narrower the scope of treatment is deemed appropriate and viable, with more potential for profits.

This skewed prioritization has allowed the largest part of gargantuan healthcare profits to be pocketed during the last few weeks of a patient’s life.

Whether for acute, chronic, or infectious diseases, the general public blindly embraces the orders of agencies and doctors who inform them of their vulnerability and the need for medicine. They are simply threatened; drug protocols must be strictly followed, or pandemonium will ensue. Seemingly incontestable facts and decrees overwhelm any personal discretion.

This unprecedented plethora of harmful actions causes incalculable damage to society. A consortium of drug pushers and authoritarian leaders have created an endless war on disease, coercing physicians to peddle their potions — while lifting them from pedestals to the pulpit of supreme medical arrogance.

Poison

Long before the advent of vaccine injuries, an untold number of medical problems were caused by prescribed drugs. These iatrogenic disorders continue to be a leading cause of suffering, hospitalizations, and death.

Within any medicine chest in America, a hideous picture is revealed. The addiction to pharmaceuticals is so entrenched that a good diet, fresh air, balanced living, and restful sleep are minimized and overwhelmed by bogus and suppressive products.

The height of this dehumanizing sales effort has been the description of some narcotics as non-addictive; causing the deaths and destruction of millions of lives.

The flagrant marketing of noxious medications to the ill is only surpassed by the mandating of untested drugs for healthy people. No hawking is necessary; vaccines are hailed as an unassailable defense against sickness and death. Whereas other medications require patients to be diagnosed to sell a product, vaccines can be dispensed to those who have no symptoms, merely using the threat of disease to push inoculation. The government has ensured that while they are experimental, liability is diminished.

That they are described as free is a staggering lie. The inverse is true; inoculations have a special status as a commodity with unrivaled profitability as they can be forced on anyone, particularly when distributed by governments — whose revenues come from taxpayers.

This corruption is relentless. The marketing of vaccines to those who receive no benefit and are likely to suffer subtle or life-changing damage has no limitations. Without the restraint of any truth, the definitions of vaccine and adverse reaction have been changed to maximize proceeds and diminish liability.

This boundless world of profiteering has allowed the vaccination of healthy infants and children; an unmatched, abominable, unforgivable crime.

The illicit behavior of the heavy-handed forces in the medical establishment only becomes more apparent. The recent escalation in threats to streamline and mandate public health policy overtly confirms the blind faith that has been given to an industry that has lost the ability to care for patients and nurture self-healing.

The same foundations, corporations, and organizations that pretend to have humane priorities have consistently promoted poisonous pharmaceuticals and repressed all forms of natural and alternative medical care. This is simply because preventative and remedial methods have minimal cost and lasting effects — and return responsibility for good health to the individual.

The eradication of personal medical autonomy has been a priority of the forces of pharmaceutical interests and corporate medicine for well over a century. The dispensing of poisonous medications is a critical element of this disastrous scheme.

Conclusion: This Is Organized Crime

It is no secret that money is the primary driver of the pharma and medical industries; monopolizing healthcare is the priority of investors. This obvious defect of modern medicine in facing human suffering and disease is rarely discussed. Within the ceaseless debate about overhauling the healthcare bureaucracy, few dare to mention how orientation toward profits has completely corrupted the ethics of medicine.

Almost every challenge and crisis in healthcare has been engendered by the relentless effort to diminish the availability of rival products or treatments. An industrial competitive mindset has been applied to promoting lucrative symptomatic drugs and therapies. The profits from a vast range of prescribed pharmaceuticals that impact symptoms rather than causes — are only exceeded in damaging effects by unnecessary and dangerous inoculations — distributed by the same criminal racket.

As the proceeds of the medical and pharmaceutical industries increase directly with the threat or escalation of disease, complicit authorities show no concern for engendering a healthy world.

Although personal health and general welfare are invoked as reasons to follow medical orders or join the cult of the vaccinated, there is a spurious insistence to accept instructions without question or doubt. This militaristic state of healthcare remains unchecked. Rather than providing safeguards and supporting wellness, ultimatums demanding toxic treatments are sabotaging the vitality of those who fearfully obey coercive dictates.

Reasons for compliance are explicitly described by the enforcers — you need our protection, or else — anyone who doesn’t obey is threatened, degraded, and ridiculed for not surrendering to the edicts of the mafia-like, medical-industrial complex.

The abhorrent means of extortion of an organized crime protection racket are now the standard practices of the pharmaceutical industry and their cronies; government agencies and doctors are their enforcers. This reckless atmosphere allows associated criminal activity, including the engendering of disease through negligent oversight of toxic causes and experimentation with pathogens.

The insidious machinations of a criminal consortium reveal the pernicious influence of money on medical policy and practice. Until this primary failure in providing support for the suffering is recognized and addressed, human health will continue to deteriorate.

October 5, 2023 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Fifth Circuit Expands Injunction Against Government Online Censorship To Include CISA

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | October 4, 2023

A ruling on Tuesday by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit marks a leap for the safeguarding of free speech within the social media arena. This decision sees the addition of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to a preliminary injunction in the ongoing legal contest of Missouri v. Biden.

Initially, a host of prominent agencies, including the White House, US Surgeon General’s office, CDC, and the FBI were barred from manipulating social media platforms in a manner that obstructs constitutional freedoms of speech.

The fight against censorship is far from novel, with the tale of Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff, and Aaron Kheriaty, and Ms. Jill Hines circulating in the public domain for several years. Their experiences of being censored and throttled on social media platforms form an integral part of a broader governmental agenda to curb free speech for independent thinkers and intellectuals.

This latest ruling by the Fifth Circuit punctuates a series of preceding actions, including its September 8 ruling upholding an earlier order by District Judge Terry Doughty. Doughty’s order on Independence Day caused shockwaves by banning government officials from using their offices to manipulate social media companies into surrendering the First Amendment rights of citizens.

This persistent governmental interference has been described by Judge Doughty as perhaps “the most massive attack against free speech in United States history.” Indeed, it beautifully mirrors a dystopian reality, where a government body, akin to an Orwellian Ministry of Truth, suppresses intellectual discourse and emulation.

The suppression campaign under the Biden administration is far from prejudiced; it has methodically targeted any view conflicting with government narratives. Subjects like natural immunity to Covid-19, vaccine efficacy, origins of the virus, and the effectiveness of mask mandates have become taboo, leading to a wilful silence of experts and common citizens alike.

Such tactics have seen CISA act as a bridge between third parties, flagging potentially problematic content. Having regular interactions with social media platform representatives, they have exploited their authoritative position by pushing them to adopt practices aligned with their censorship agenda.

This has led the Fifth Circuit Court to reassess their previous position. Contrary to their September ruling which stated that communication between CISA and social media companies was constitutional, they now acknowledge that CISA had crossed the line of mere information sharing and actively influenced content moderation policies, leading to the demotion and removal of posts.

While the court order stands, a 10-day stay allows the government to seek permission for a review of the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

October 5, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Group Behind ‘Disinformation Dozen’ Has Ties to Hollywood, Corporate Dems

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | October 3, 2023

The latest series of revelations by investigative journalist Paul D. Thacker concerning the organization responsible for creating the list of the “Disinformation Dozen” confirm connections to more dark money sources and to key political and Hollywood figures.

In an article published Monday in Tablet Magazine and on his Substack, Thacker also revealed the organization — a nonprofit called Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) — received anonymous donations of upwards of $1 million and hired a lobbying firm.

Prior to coming up with its “Disinformation Dozen” list, Thacker said, CCDH was part of a campaign to silence independent media and prominent political opponents.

CCDH has since turned its attention to attacking X (formerly Twitter) and its owner, Elon Musk, and supporting the recent passage of a sweeping new censorship bill in the U.K.

According to Thacker, the influence of CCDH and its founder and CEO, Imran Ahmed, on the Biden administration, policymaking circles and mainstream and social media is disproportionately large for a small organization founded and managed by a non-American — raising questions about who, or which entities, are backing CCDH.

Those questions led by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) to subpoena CCDH in late August. Jordan gave CCDH until Sept. 29 “to produce its communications with the executive branch related to content moderation, the accuracy or truth of content, and the deletion or suppression of content.”

CCDH responded to the subpoena on Sept. 29, claiming it “produced all documents and communications” which were requested. Notably, the letter came on the letterhead of a law firm representing CCDH, instead of from the organization directly, while the publicly viewable online version of the letter does not include the accompanying documents.

‘Disinformation Dozen’ list led to censorship of Kennedy, others

In March 2021, CCDH drafted a report and accompanying list of the so-called “Disinformation Dozen,” which included Robert F. Kennedy Jr., chairman on leave of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), Dr. Joseph Mercola, and Ty and Charlene Bollinger, founders of The Truth About Vaccines and The Truth About Cancer websites.

The report claimed, “Just twelve anti-vaxxers are responsible for almost two-thirds of anti-vaccine content circulating on social media platforms,” and concluded social media “platforms must act” against these individuals.

The White House and social media platforms including Twitter and Facebook used the report to censor the individuals on the list.

In one example, White House spokesperson Jen Psaki cited the CCDH report during a July 2021 press briefing to pressure Facebook into censoring the accounts in question. “There’s about 12 people who are producing 65% of anti-vaccine misinformation on social media platforms,” Psaki claimed.

Legacy media outlets such as NPR, The Guardian and others also cited the report, in an attempt to discredit the people on the list.

Thacker, writing for Tablet, said Twitter specifically took action against Kennedy after it received the “Disinformation Dozen” list — and was subjected to White House pressure:

‘“COVID-19 misinfo enforcement team is planning on taking action on a handful of accounts surfaced by the CCDH report,’ a Twitter official wrote on March 31. One account they eventually took action against belonged to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is now running against Joe Biden for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president.”

CCDH provides White House with ‘powerful weapon to use against critics’

“What, then, do we know about the CCDH?” Thacker wrote Monday in Tablet. “In effect, it seems, the organization provides the White House with a powerful weapon to use against critics including RFK Jr. and Musk, while also pressuring platforms like Facebook and Twitter to enforce the administration’s policies.”

“While few journalists have bothered to investigate the opaque group, the available evidence paints a picture that is likely different from what many in the public would expect of a ‘public interest’ nonprofit,” Thacker added.

As part of his July investigation leading to the release of the CCDH-related “Twitter Files,” Thacker was unable to discover who funds and supports the organization. He told The Defender in July that he believed CCDH was a “dark money” group.

Kennedy, testifying at a July 20 hearing organized by the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, also called CCDH a “dark money” group.

A subsequent investigation by GreenMedInfo’s Sayer Ji was able to trace some of the organizations that financially support CCDH, including several U.K.-based nonprofits affiliated with legacy media organizations, the U.K. government and major philanthropic organizations such as the Open Society Foundations and the Ford Foundation.

Yet, unanswered questions about CCDH and Ahmed remained for Thacker, who wrote on Substack:

“How did some guy from London with no D.C. political experience get noticed by the White House and attract so much media attention? Where does he come from? What’s his background? Where does he get his money? Who is behind this?”

As part of his latest investigation, Thacker wrote that he “lucked into finding a critical, anonymous donor who dropped $1.1 million into CCDH’s coffers.”

A search of the 2021 tax filings of the Schwab Charitable Fund — a donor-advised fund that allows anyone to donate anonymously — revealed a $1.1 million donation to CCDH.

This represented “around 75% of all the funds they took in that year,” Thacker wrote on Substack.

Writing for Tablet, Thacker added, “According to tax records, Ahmed began to run CCDH from D.C. in 2021, and CCDH took in $1.47 million in their very first year operating in the United States.”

‘CCDH functions as an arm of the corporate wing of the Democratic Party’

This was not the only interesting insight into CCDH’s operations. Thacker also discovered CCDH’s chairman is Simon Clark, a former senior fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP).

According to Thacker, CAP is a “D.C. think tank aligned with the corporate arm of the Democratic Party.” It was founded by John Podesta, who chaired Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign against Donald Trump. And yes, CAP has close ties to the Biden administration,” Thacker wrote.

Clark was also a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensics Lab, Thacker wrote in Tablet. In a previous “Twitter Files” release, investigative journalist Matt Taibbi reported that the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab was funded by various U.S. government agencies and defense contractors and “remains a central piece in the ‘censorship-industrial complex.’”

Thacker quoted Mike Benz, a former U.S. State Department official who runs the Foundation for Freedom Online, a free-speech watchdog. Benz told Thacker the Atlantic Council is “one of the premier architects of online censorship” and has, in recent years, “had seven CIA directors on its board of directors or board of advisers.”

“One might conclude that CCDH functions as an arm of the corporate wing of the Democratic Party, to be deployed against the perceived enemies of corporate Democrats, whether they come from the left or the right,” he added.

CCDH spent $50,000 to lobby Congress on COVID ‘misinformation’

Thacker also uncovered ties between CCDH, Ahmed and Hollywood.

“Go a little deeper and you find the other members of the [CCDH] board,” Thacker wrote on Substack, adding, “The one who caught my attention is Aleen Keshishian.”

Keshishian, who is also an adjunct professor at USC’s School of Cinematic Arts, lists clients including actor Mark Ruffalo, who according to Thacker, “tweets support” for CCDH.

Her other clients include Jennifer Aniston, Selena Gomez and Natalie Portman.

“Ahmed’s connections to Hollywood actors could account for some of the money he has raised from anonymous sources, as wealthy celebrities sometimes wish to keep their political donations hidden from fans,” Thacker wrote in Tablet.

Unusual for a nonprofit, CCDH also hired a PR and lobbying firm, Lot Sixteen, to work on its behalf.

“Very few activist groups have the financial means to hire private lobby shops — even those with an established presence on Capitol Hill — but during a few quarters of 2021 and 2022, CCDH paid Lot Sixteen $50,000 to lobby congressional offices on COVID-19 misinformation and ‘preventing the spread of misinformation and hate speech online in social and mainstream media,’” Thacker wrote.

Thacker told The Defender that even large and well-established nonprofit groups such as Greenpeace and Public Citizen have not hired PR firms to work on their behalf.

“None of those groups that I’m aware of, the longest-established groups in D.C., have ever had the money to hire a private lobby shop like CCDH did. It’s just bizarre,” he said, adding that this is because CCDH is “a political campaign designed to look like a grassroots public-interest organization.”

Thacker said he contacted Lot Sixteen and “asked them how they confirmed that Imran Ahmed was compliant with FARA [Foreign Agents Registration Act],” noting that “This guy’s a foreigner. No one knows where his money comes from. How do they know his money’s not coming from overseas and he’s not in violation of foreign lobbying laws?”

“They didn’t get back to me,” Thacker said. “My guess is they didn’t do due diligence.” He also told The Defender that while CCDH “lists only four or five employees” on its website, “if you go on LinkedIn, there’s about 20 other people working for him.

“What nonprofit does not list all their employees? It’s just bizarre,” Thacker said.

CCDH ‘rarely disclose funders’

According to Thacker, CCDH and associated groups have operated in secrecy and under multiple identities for several years.

“Ahmed’s history is hard to track,” he wrote for Tablet. “The two groups he has run — Stop Funding Fake News [SFFN] and CCDH — seem to pop up out of nowhere, switch addresses, rarely disclose funders, omit naming all employees, and feature websites that change names or disappear from the internet.

“While Ahmed eventually acknowledged in 2020 that he helped launch both [groups] … his involvement remained hidden for some years. Stop Funding Fake News started in February 2019 claiming to be a ‘social movement’ too frightened to name its own grassroots activists,” Thacker added.

Thacker said that by searching archived versions of CCDH’s website on the Internet Wayback Machine, he was able to find out more information about the organization.

“One of the first things I ran across was reports about CCDH incorporating in the U.K. back in 2018,” said Thacker who looked up their filings in England to find their address and who was on their board. “One of CCDH’s first directors is a guy named James Morgan McSweeney,” he wrote on Substack.

According to Thacker, McSweeney “is a power broker in UK politics, and a top staffer to Keir Starmer, who is now the head of the British Labour Party. So CCDH is not really some disinterested, public nonprofit, it’s a political campaign by British Labour.”

Writing for Tablet, Thacker said that CCDH “registered in late 2018 in London, first as Brixton Endeavours Limited” and when it incorporated, its “only director was a staffer for Keir Starmer.” The group also “shared an address with an organization that supported Starmer,” while Damian Collins, a member of the Tory Party, later joined as an officer.”

Thacker wrote on Substack that CCDH, SFFN and Ahmed have often operated as “political operative[s] for conservative members of the British Labour party,” including on behalf of Starmer, to help “destroy the Left in the United Kingdom.”

Starting in 2019, SFFN “claimed some very sizable left-wing scalps in London, mostly by lobbing vague accusations of fake news at political enemies. The group helped to run Jeremy Corbyn out of Labour Party leadership while tanking the lefty news site Canary, after starting a boycott of their advertisers,” Thacker wrote in Tablet.

In one instance, SFFN claimed that they convinced 40 major brands, including Adobe, Chelsea FC, eBay and Manchester United, to stop placing their advertisements on the websites of such news outlets, a tactic SFFN called “demonetizing.” They also claimed that they were “educating” advertising agencies.

“Essentially, SFFN and [CCDH] were front groups created by conservatives in Labour for an internecine battle against leftists in their own party. The Canary reported that CCDH’s address linked the group back to Keir Starmer’s people,” Thacker wrote on Substack. SFFN reports were also cited in the British Parliament.

Having accomplished this, SFFN “became moribund, rarely tweeting from their social media account,” Thacker wrote in Tablet, noting that this did not matter as Ahmed “pivoted his focus” to the U.S., where his list of “‘disinformation’ targets just happened to be critics of the Democratic Party establishment” — including Kennedy.

“Just as he had done for the Labour Party, Ahmed used the CCDH to attack as ‘conspiracy theorists’ and ‘anti-vaxxers’ various critics of the Biden arm of the Democratic Party,” Thacker wrote.

Association with Democrat-affiliated groups helped CCDH’s ‘unusual’ ascent

According to Thacker, CCDH now primarily operates in the U.S., based out of a virtual office that hundreds of D.C. nonprofits list as their residence. This is despite the fact that CCDH is still based in the U.K.

The site lists CCHD as a broad nonprofit devoted to “Civil Rights, Social Action, Advocacy / Research Institutes and/or Public Policy Analysis (NTEE).” It lists Ahmed as CEO with a 2021 base salary of $126,333 and Simon Clark from the Center for American Progress, the think tank of the corporate Democrats, as chair of the board.

According to Thacker, the prominent ascent of CCDH and Ahmed in U.S. policy and media circles is unusual.

“I want to point out how odd it is that a British political operative is now running a partisan campaign in the United States. This rarely happens,” Thacker wrote on Substack. “For a variety of complex reasons, British political operatives don’t come to the United States, Americans go to England [and other countries].”

“It doesn’t happen,” Thacker told The Defender. “That was my question from the beginning. This guy is quoted from the White House podium, has all these Congressmen sending letters on his behalf, who has appeared in front of Congressional hearings run by Democrats when they had the House of Representatives.”

“Probably what it is, is Simon Clark from the Center for American Progress,” Thacker said. “That’s the think tank for the corporate Democrats. That’s probably his entryway.”

Writing for Tablet, Thacker said, “One rumor that came up often in the dozen or so conversations” he had “with people who have observed Ahmed for years, is that he works for British intelligence,” although this has not yet been confirmed.

Thacker told The Defender that Ahmed and CCDH have played “the same game” in the U.S. and U.K., except that “instead of it being directly ‘Republicans are bad, these people are good,’ they find some way that they can say, ‘aha, hate!’ So, it’s taking this idea and rebranding it for political purposes.”

Writing in Tablet, Thacker said that “Ahmed’s story is critical to understanding the new push for censorship under the guise of combating hate.”

‘Obsession’ with Kennedy, Musk, vaccines

Having become fully embroiled in U.S. politics, Thacker said that Ahmed and CCDH have developed an “obsession” with figures such as Kennedy and with issues such as COVID-19 vaccines — receiving broad media coverage in the process.

Writing for Tablet, Thacker said, “After Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced he was running against Biden for the Democratic nomination and appeared on Joe Rogan, Ahmed told the BBC, “He’s working really hard to keep people from knowing he’s a hardcore anti-vaxxer.”

Thacker told The Defender that “every one of these ‘disinformation experts’ out there — I don’t care if they’re a fact-checker, a think tank, a journalist, an academic, they’ve all done work on elections and on vaccines. So, they’re all election ‘experts’ and vaccine ‘experts.’ How you become an expert in both, I don’t know, but that’s what they are.”

“It’s a complete and total obsession,” Thacker added. “There’s not a single ‘disinformation’ expert out there who I’ve not seen do something on vaccines. They’re obsessed … why, out of all the things that you can target, why do you target vaccines? I can only think that there’s some kind of funding behind it, where that funding comes from, what it’s about. That’s the only reason that makes sense to me.”

Thacker also said “it’s just bizarre” that someone like Ahmed can come in and be obsessed about vaccines and not have a single tweet criticizing Pfizer or Moderna. “He’s not found any problems with the Biden administration’s vaccine policies. Not one … Ahmed appears where the corporate Democrats need expertise.”

Musk recently became a new target for CCDH and Ahmed. Writing in Tablet, Thacker said, “Ahmed is now trying to drive away Elon Musk’s advertisers on X, this time based on dubious claims that the … site is a playground for racists,” including claims made in interviews with The New York Times, the Financial Times and The Guardian.

“Once again, these efforts have been uncritically amplified in the press and in a letter to Musk from House Democrats that reiterates Ahmed’s claims, and cites him and CCDH,” Thacker wrote in Tablet.

These attacks led Musk and X to sue CCDH and Ahmed in July, accusing them of making false and misleading claims about hate speech on the platform, and illegally accessing the computers of Brandwatch, a company that works with Twitter — a potential violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

In response, MSNBC published an Aug. 1 op-ed by Ahmed, claiming CCDH “has been at the forefront of cataloging and reporting on the hate proliferating on the platform owned by Elon Musk.”

“All of his targets just happen to be the people who the corporate Democrats don’t get along with, so that’s Elon Musk right now,” Thacker told The Defender, noting that Ahmed and CCDH have not targeted other social media platforms to the same extent.

Yet, Ahmed continues to enjoy a platform in the establishment media. Thacker told The Defender this is “because none of those reporters have bothered to look into his background in the U.K. or to look at where his money’s coming from, or to look at what’s inside the [Musk/X] lawsuit against him. It plays into their weird obsession with Musk.”

In parallel, CCDH board member Damian Collins “led a series of inquiries” in the British parliament “into ‘disinformation’ and ‘fake news’ on social media,” helping promote the “Online Safety Bill,” intended to purge online “disinformation,” Thacker wrote in Tablet.

“When Collins held hearings on the bill — which was passed into law just weeks ago — the first person to give testimony in support of online bans was Imran Ahmed,” Thacker added.

On Substack, Thacker previewed more reports about CCDH and Ahmed he will soon release, including regarding ties “to Peter Hotez, an American physician, an ardent proponent of Anthony Fauci and cheerleader in the national media for vaccines and Biden administration pandemic policies.”

“I hope this helps people understand how to do their own digging into dark money groups,” Thacker wrote on Substack.

In Tablet, he wrote that Ahmed has “been a servant to the power of political parties who deployed him and the CCDH to weaponize the charge of hate speech and misinformation against their enemies.”

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

October 5, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | 1 Comment

The Real Anthony Fauci – The Movie

Watch at Bitchute

“2022 The Real Anthony Fauci – Everyone Deserves To Know The Truth. Different experts make a stand against today’s putatively criminal and harmful health system, focusing on Anthony Fauci and his role in the shaping of the AIDS and COVID-19 epidemics.”

THE REAL ANTHONY FAUCI: Movie based on the 2021 RFK jr book “The Real Anthony Fauci”.

Written and directed by Kala Mandrake
Production: Jeff Hayes Films

October 5, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | , , , | 2 Comments

Why are we so afraid of 1918?

What really happened that created this phantom behemoth?

Health Advisory & Recovery Team | October 4, 2023

Every time someone tries to whip up a frenzy about a new bug the 1918 influenza pandemic will be referenced. People will say there were a huge number of deaths including of the young and therefore you must be terrified. But what if this whole story was not what it seems?

The novel virus lie

1918 influenza did not spread like a tsunami as if everyone was susceptible. It came in 3 waves affecting 11% of the population each time. The deaths were spread over two years.

Similarly, seasonal influenza infect 5-15% of the population with each wave as does SARS-CoV-2.

The huge number of deaths

Kate Bingham trotted out the line that 50 million people died of the 1918 flu. (She also threw in that 20 million had died of COVID for good measure when the official figure is 6 million).

But 50 million is a lie.

Wellcome Trust would claim it was too low. In fact they claim the total was a stratospheric 100 million.

There were 1.8 billion people, of whom 600 million were infected. If 100 million really did die, that would mean an infection fatality rate of 1 in 6! If 50 million died, it would be an infection fatality rate of 1 in 12. Both are ludicrous claims that do not match with reality.

The consensus from every reasonable measure is that 1-3% of the infected died. This figure was based on extrapolating backwards from hospital fatality rates – people a hundred years ago were already very good at recording deaths and statistics.

Based on a mortality rate of 1-3% the deaths would have amounted to 6-18 million, still bad, but a fraction of the claim.

Estimates at the time were in that range. The US estimated 675,000 deaths from a population of 103 million. That means 0.65% of the population died.

The estimates for global mortality were exaggerated right from the start. China and Japan did not have the same problem as the West. However, when calculating global mortality it was assumed such places had fared as badly or worse than the USA and Europe. Consequently, modelling from 1920 already exaggerated deaths to 20 million globally.

Deaths in the young

Importantly there was more than one way to die in 1918. Some developed a viral pneumonia and then a bacterial pneumonia and then died. But there were unusual deaths in the young – unlike other pneumonias.

The second way to die was to develop a blue tinge – “heliotrope cyanosis” and then to die quite rapidly with haemorrhagic wet lungs. This is not the typical picture for a viral death.

Some have suggested other causes e.g. war related chemical exposure. There were huge movements of poorly nourished troops living in unsanitary conditions and thinking this was not a factor is surely naive. At the time there was a belief that influenza was a bacterial disease and a variety of bacterial based “vaccines” were concocted and injected during the second two waves. Whether that contributed to the harm is uncertain, other vaccines result in a temporary immune deficit to fight off infection, but it certainly couldn’t have helped. But aspirin toxicity is the most compelling argument.

Aspirin was new and was presented as the saviour drug. It was widely given in toxic doses of 8 to 31 grams per day, far beyond today’s maximum recommended dose of around 4 grams. It is now known that high doses can lead to lung damage, fever, seizures and death. The more fever the more aspirin would be given.

This story epitomises the problem:

1918 was a story of iatrogenic harm (harm caused by medics). And yet it is being used to promote yet more iatrogenic harm. Do not be scared of 1918. It did not happen the way it was presented.

When looking at the bigger picture, 1918 does stand out as a bad year for deaths – as bad as 20 years before but better than almost every year preceding that.

The people exaggerating the claims about it all have something to gain from doing so. That’s how the deaths rose from 20 million (which assumed higher mortality in China and Japan than USA!) to 50-100 million. Stop believing them!

October 4, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

“NOBODY IS SAFE!”

Matt Orfalea | May 20, 2023

@0rf

October 4, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment

CDC Recommends Everyone Getting Flu and COVID-19 Shots Together Despite No Safety Data

BY ROBERT KOGON | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | OCTOBER 2, 2023

The U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) is recommending for everyone six months of age and older to get vaccinated against both flu and COVID-19 this autumn, and in a new ‘Check-In with Dr. Cohen‘ video, CDC Director Mandy Cohen even suggests you can make life simple and get the shots at the same time. See the below screen shot.

In a would-be humorous ad featuring American football star Travis Kelce on doing ‘Two Things At Once,’ Pfizer is likewise promoting the idea of topping up the annual flu shot with a COVID-19 shot.

Note that the ad contains a caption which states, “The CDC recommends getting your COVID and FLU SHOTS at the same visit if you’re due for both” (capitalisation in original).

But is it safe to get the Covid and flu shots at the same time?

Well, neither the CDC nor the manufacturer know. An August 30th BioNTech press release on the EU’s authorisation of Pfizer and BioNTech’s “XBB.1.5-adapted” COVID-19 vaccine includes the following paragraph in the ‘Important Safety Information’ section.

Interactions with other medicinal products or concomitant administration of COMIRNATY, COMIRNATY Original/Omicron BA.1 or COMIRNATY Original/Omicron BA.4-5 with other vaccines has not been studied.

Apparently, this is “important safety information” which has not reached Mandy Cohen and the CDC.

October 3, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | 2 Comments

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »