MSNBC regular Malcolm Nance, who has spent 36+ years in US intelligence, told Zerlina Maxwell on Wednesday night that around 30% of the country are white extremists and they’re part of an “insurgency” that “we may have to fight.”
“Here is the United States — to characterize that to understand what kind of terrorism we might be dealing with, you have to label it as white extremism because we have 30% of the population of the United States who no longer believe in the democratic norms that we established in the founding of the country. Let’s just be honest about that. The January 6 uprising was an attempt to overthrow American democracy. And we have now learned from the hearing that Donald Trump intended to go there to march down to the well of the House of Representatives and essentially be crowned as a king,” [Nance said.]
Anchor Zerlina Maxwell asked, “You call what is happening an insurgency. We have heard that term in foreign wars recently in Iraq. Talk about why you apply the term insurgency to what you see here as a persistent and ongoing threat of domestic extremists?”
Nance said, “I was reading their forums. I was reading their own intelligence about what they intended to do. It was pretty clear at that point that they were going to try to either overthrow the government or they were going to settle in for a long-term series of destabilizing actions using a political party, the Republican party, as their political base and then using violence, threat of violent extremism as a way to manifest change in the street. So remove politics from the halls of power and change politics through violence on the street. This is called an insurgency. The insurrection that happened on January 6 that was one event. An insurgency is a chain of events. It’s common knowledge. A year and a half ago, when I was calling this an insurgency, people were saying, that’s crazy, this isn’t an insurgency, this isn’t like Iraq, it’s not like Libya, it’s not like Syria. Well, it is. And it’s well on its way. It’s closer to the beginnings of the Irish Republican Army. You know Irish Republicanism, where now the Republican Party is Sinn Fein, and it’s just a matter of seeing who comes up as the original Irish Republicans in this story and starts carrying out acts of violence to affect change. So we are well on our way to a multi-year campaign that we are already two years into this campaign where we may have to fight them. The ‘they’ in my title and the ‘they’ in my title is those who want to kill Americans are your neighbors.”
Here we have a US intelligence analyst, who has admitted previously to torturing hundreds of people on behalf of the DC regime, suggesting that white Americans who voted for Trump are part of a terrorist “insurgency” that needs to be put down with force and he’s preparing MSNBC viewers to fight (and presumably kill) their neighbors.
Back in April, Nance went over to western Ukraine to show his support for the Azov Battalion and joined the Ukrainian military’s foreign legion. He claimed he was fighting on the “frontlines.” He came back late last month and released his new book two weeks later.
“America is primed for a possible explosive wave of terrorist attacks and armed confrontations that aim to bring about a Donald Trump led dictatorship,” the description continues.
Three weeks ago, I wrote an article about Germany, highlighting a very large and consistent drop in births starting January this year, 9 months after vaccination of young people began, until March.
I found data on 2021 ABORTIONS in Germany, also showing an uncharacteristically large decline in abortions (accidental pregnancies). The abortion data is a completely independent confirmation of the declining fertility of Germans.
Births
We have new data for April — births dropped by 12% in 2022, compared to April of 2021.
Before I go further, I have to remind my readers: birth rates are always seasonal! Most parents prefer to make a “spring baby”, which often ends up with them making a “summer baby” because conception takes more time than expected. So, never compare adjacent months as they are guaranteed to have dramatic changes that are simply seasonality-driven, with differences very repeatable over the years. Only compare months of one year with the same months of another year, please.
The data comes from the German Bureau of Statistics. (if this link does not bring you to the exact page, select “population” and drill down to “births”). I summarized it for you:
You can see that births suddenly started dropping in Dec 2021, (going from +5% yoy in November to 1% in December, down to -10% in January and -13.28% in February. The suddenness and extent of this drop are unprecedented.
The data for April confirmed that the reduction in birth rate over the first three months is not a fluke and is continuing for the fourth month.
Abortions
Many people feel strongly about abortions. I understand. I am asking you to suspend your feelings for a moment and look at abortions like a demographer would.
Remember: abortions result from unplanned pregnancies! Aside from a relatively small amount of abortions happening due to fetal abnormalities, most abortions happen because the pregnancy was unexpected, unwanted, and accidental.
What this means is, absent large changes in the laws of the land, sudden increases or decreases in abortions happen only because of changes in fertility.
Live births may see increases or decreases because of changed desire to have children due to social factors. In the case of abortions, however, the pregnancy is ALMOST ALWAYS unplanned to begin with, so social factors like economic expectations have little to do with most abortions. Those abortions are only indications of fertility and desire to have unprotected sex.
How large is this effect? Between 1996 and 2021, abortions fell by an average of 1,452 abortions per year. In the year 2021, abortions fell by 5,352! The recent years prior to 2021 saw little change in abortions. Thus, the decline of 5,352 abortions in the year 2021 likely is due to the changed fertility of young people in Germany and shows a great decline in unplanned, accidental pregnancies. Abortions are never planned, remember!
Please recall that younger Germans in 2021 did not start vaccinations until about May or so. Thus, if vaccinations are the cause of lower fertility, their effect on pregnancies would not be seen until the second half of 2021.
Furthermore, since abortion is done after about a month into the pregnancy, you can add about a month and deal with about 5 months out of 12 in 2021, most affected by vaccinations. Thus, a 5% drop in abortions could roughly mean a 12% decline in fertility starting about July.
This is a rough, back-of-the-envelope calculation that indicates that abortion data largely agrees with the hypothesis that declines in birth rates are caused by vaccination, and not by social conditions.
The abortion story is not, as such, a proof of causation: it is a piece of evidence that agrees with my vaccination hypothesis, and strongly disagrees with the possibility that change in fertility is caused by social factors.
So we see that both abortions, as well as April birth data in Germany, coincide and suggest that vaccinations caused a large drop in fertility among the people of Germany.
The December 2020 resignation of Dr. Deborah Birx, White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator under Trump, revealed predictable hypocrisy. Like so many other government officials around the world, she was caught violating her own stay-at-home order. Therefore she finally left her post following nine months of causing unfathomable amounts of damage to life, liberty, property, and the very idea of hope for the future.
Even if Anthony Fauci had been the front man for the media, it was Birx who was the main influence in the White House behind the nationwide lockdowns that did not stop or control the pathogen but have caused immense suffering and continue to roil and wreck the world. So it was significant that she would not and could not comply with her own dictates, even as her fellow citizens were being hunted down for the same infractions against “public health.”
In the days before Thanksgiving 2020, she had warned Americans to “assume you’re infected” and to restrict gatherings to “your immediate household.” Then she packed her bags and headed to Fenwick Island in Delaware where she met with four generations for a traditional Thanksgiving dinner, as if she were free to make normal choices and live a normal life while everyone else had to shelter in place.
The Associated Press was first out with the report on December 20, 2020.
Birx acknowledged in a statement that she went to her Delaware property. She declined to be interviewed.
She insisted the purpose of the roughly 50-hour visit was to deal with the winterization of the property before a potential sale — something she says she previously hadn’t had time to do because of her busy schedule.
“I did not go to Delaware for the purpose of celebrating Thanksgiving,” Birx said in her statement, adding that her family shared a meal together while in Delaware.
Birx said that everyone on her Delaware trip belongs to her “immediate household,” even as she acknowledged they live in two different homes. She initially called the Potomac home a “3 generation household (formerly 4 generations).” White House officials later said it continues to be a four-generation household, a distinction that would include Birx as part of the home.
So it was all a sleight-of-hand: she was staying home; it’s just that she has several homes! This is how the power elite comply, one supposes.
The BBC then quoted her defense, which echo the pain experienced by hundreds of millions:
“My daughter hasn’t left that house in 10 months, my parents have been isolated for 10 months. They’ve become deeply depressed as I’m sure many elderly have as they’ve not been able to see their sons, their granddaughters. My parents have not been able to see their surviving son for over a year. These are all very difficult things.”
Indeed. However, she was the major voice for the better part of 2020 for requiring exactly that. No one should blame her for wanting to get together with family; that she worked so hard for so long to prevent others from doing so is what is at issue.
The press piled on and she announced that she would be leaving her post and not seeking a position at the Biden White House. Trump tweeted that she will be missed. It was the final discrediting – or should have been – of a person that many in the White House and many around the country had come to see as an obvious fanatic and fake, a person whose influence wrecked the liberties and health of an entire country.
It was a fitting end to a catastrophic career. So it would make sense that people might pick up her new book to find out what it was like to go through that kind of media storm, the real reasons for her visit, what it was like to know for sure that she must violate her own rules in order to bring comfort to her family, and the difficult decision she made to throw in the towel knowing that she has compromised the integrity of her entire program.
One slogs through her entire book only to find this incredible fact: she never mentions this. The incident is missing entirely from her book.
Instead at the moment in the narrative at which she would be expected to recount the affair she says almost in passing that “When former vice president Biden was declared the winner of the 2020 election, I’d set a goal for myself—to hand over responsibility for the pandemic response, with all its many elements, in the best possible place.”
At that point, the book skips immediately to the new year. Done. It’s like Orwell, the story, even though it was reported for days in the world press and became a defining moment in her career, is just wiped out from the history book of her own authorship.
Somehow it makes sense that she would neglect to mention this. Reading her book is a very painful experience (all credit to Michael Senger’s review) simply because it seems to be weaving fables on page after page, strewn with bromides, completely lacking in self awareness, punctuated by revealing comments that make the opposite point of what she is seeking. Reading it is truly a surreal experience, astonishing especially because she is able to maintain her delusionary pose for 525 pages.
Recall that it was she who was tasked – by Anthony Fauci – with doing the really crucial thing of talking Donald Trump into green-lighting the lockdowns that began on March 12, 2020, and continued to their final hard-core deployment on March 16. This was the “15 Days to Flatten the Curve” that turned into two years in many parts of the country.
Her book admits that it was a two-level lie from the beginning.
“We had to make these palatable to the administration by avoiding the obvious appearance of a full Italian lockdown,” she writes. “At the same time, we needed the measures to be effective at slowing the spread, which meant matching as closely as possible what Italy had done—a tall order. We were playing a game of chess in which the success of each move was predicated on the one before it.”
Further:
“At this point, I wasn’t about to use the words lockdown or shutdown. If I had uttered either of those in early March, after being at the White House only one week, the political, nonmedical members of the task force would have dismissed me as too alarmist, too doom-and-gloom, too reliant on feelings and not facts. They would have campaigned to lock me down and shut me up.”
In other words, she wanted to go full CCP just like Italy but didn’t want to say that. Crucially, she knew for sure that two weeks was not the real plan. “I left the rest unstated: that this was just a starting point.”
“No sooner had we convinced the Trump administration to implement our version of a two-week shutdown than I was trying to figure out how to extend it,” she admits.
“Fifteen Days to Slow the Spread was a start, but I knew it would be just that. I didn’t have the numbers in front of me yet to make the case for extending it longer, but I had two weeks to get them. However hard it had been to get the fifteen-day shutdown approved, getting another one would be more difficult by many orders of magnitude. In the meantime, I waited for the blowback, for someone from the economic team to call me to the principal’s office or confront me at a task force meeting. None of this happened.”
It was a solution in search of evidence she did not have. She told Trump that the evidence was there anyway. She actually tricked him into believing that locking down a whole population of people was somehow magically going to make a virus to which everyone would inevitably be exposed somehow vanish as a threat.
Meanwhile, the economy was wrecked domestically and then all over the world, as most governments in the world followed what the US did.
Where did she come up with the idea of lockdowns? By her own report, her only real experience with infectious disease came from her work on AIDS, a very different disease from a respiratory virus that everyone would eventually get but which would only be fatal or even severe for a small cohort, a fact that was known since late January. Still, her experience counted for more than science.
“In any health crisis, it is crucial to work at the personal behavior level,” she says with the presumption that avoidance at all costs was the only goal. “With HIV/AIDS, this meant convincing asymptomatic people to get tested, to seek treatment if they were HIV-positive, and to take preventative measures, including wearing condoms; or to employ other pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) if they were negative.”
She immediately hops to the analogy with Covid. “I knew the government agencies would need to do the same thing to have a similar effect on the spread of this novel coronavirus. The most obvious parallel with the HIV/AIDS example was the message of wearing masks.”
Masks = condoms. Remarkable. This “obvious parallel” remark sums the whole depth of her thinking. Behavior is all that matters. Just stay apart. Cover your mouth. Don’t gather. Don’t travel. Close the schools. Close everything. Whatever happens, don’t get it. Nothing else matters. Keep your immune system as unexposed as possible.
I wish I could say her thought is more complex than that but it is not. This was the basis for lockdowns. For how long? In her mind, it seems like it would be forever. Nowhere in the book does she reveal an exit strategy. Not even vaccines qualify.
From the very beginning, she revealed her epidemiological views. On March 16, 2020 at her press conference with Trump, she summarized her position: “We really want people to be separated at this time.” People? All people? Everywhere? Not one reporter raised a question about this obviously ridiculous and outrageous statement that would essentially destroy life on earth.
But she was serious – seriously deluded not only about how society functions but also about infectious disease of this sort. Only one thing mattered as a metric to her: reducing infections through any means possible, as if she on her own could cobble together a new kind of society in which exposure to air-born pathogens was made illegal.
Here is an example. There was a controversy about how many people should be allowed to gather in one space, as in home, church, store, stadium, or community center. She addresses how she came up with the rules:
The real problem with this fifty-versus-ten distinction, for me, was that it revealed that the CDC simply didn’t believe to the degree that I did that SARS-CoV-2 was being spread through the air silently and undetected from symptomless individuals. The numbers really did matter. As the years since have confirmed, in times of active viral community spread, as many as fifty people gathered together indoors (unmasked at this point, of course) was way too high a number. It increased the chances of someone among that number being infected exponentially. I had settled on ten knowing that even that was too many, but I figured that ten would at least be palatable for most Americans—high enough to allow for most gatherings of immediate family but not enough for large dinner parties and, critically, large weddings, birthday parties, and other mass social events.
She puts a fine point on it: “if I pushed for zero (which was actually what I wanted and what was required), this would have been interpreted as a ‘lockdown’—the perception we were all working so hard to avoid.”
What does it mean for zero people to gather? A suicide cult?
In any case, just like that, from her own thinking and straight to enforcement, birthday parties, sports, weddings, and funerals came to be forbidden.
Here we gain insight into the sheer insanity of her vision. It is nothing short of a marvel that she somehow managed to gain the amount of influence she did.
Notice her above mention of her dogma that asymptomatic spread was the whole key to understanding pandemic. In other words, on her own and without any scientific support, she presumed that Covid was both extremely fatal and had a long latency period. To her way of thinking, this is why the usual tradeoff between severity and prevalence did not matter.
She was somehow certain that the longest estimates of latency were correct: 14 days. This is the reason for the “wait two weeks” obsession. She held onto this dogma throughout, almost like the fictional movie “Contagion” had been her only guide to understanding.
Later in the book, she writes that symptoms mean next to nothing because people can always carry around the virus in their nose without being sick. After all, this is what PCR tests have shown. Instead of seeing that as a failure of PCR, she saw this as a confirmation that everyone is a carrier no matter what and therefore everyone has to lock down because otherwise we’ll deal with a black plague.
Somehow, despite her astonishing lack of scientific curiosity and experience in this area, she gained all influence over the initial Trump administration response. Briefly, she was godlike.
But Trump was not and is not a fool. He must have had some sleepless nights wondering how and why he had approved the destruction of that which he had seen as his greatest achievement. The virus was long here (probably from October 2019), it presented a specific danger to a narrow cohort, but otherwise behaved like a textbook flu. Maybe, he must have wondered, his initial instincts from January and February 2020 were correct all along.
Still, he very reluctantly approved a 30-day extension of lockdowns, entirely on Birx’s urging and with a few other fools standing around. Having given in a second time – still, no one thought to drop an email or make a phonecall for a second opinion! – this seemed to be the turning point. Birx reports that by April 1, 2020, Trump had lost confidence in her. He might have intuited that he had been tricked. He stopped speaking to her.
It would still take another month before he would fully rethink everything that he had approved at her behest.
It made no difference. The bulk of her book is a brag fest about how she kept subverting the White House’s push to open up the economy – that is, allow people to exercise their rights and freedoms. Once Trump turned against her, and eventually found other people to provide good advice like the tremendously brave Scott Atlas – it was five months later when he arrived in an attempt to save the country from disaster – Birx turned to rallying around her inner circle (Anthony Fauci, Robert Redfield, Matthew Pottinger, and a few others) plus assembling a realm of protection outside of her that included CNN reporter Sanjay Gupta and, very likely, the virus team at the New York Times (which gives her book a glowing review).
Recall that for the remainder of the year, the White House was urging normalcy while many states kept locking down. It was an incredible confusion. The CDC was all over the map. I gained the distinct impression of two separate regimes in charge: Trump’s vs. the administrative state he could not control. Trump would say one thing on the campaign trail but the regulations and disease panic kept pouring out of his own agencies.
Birx admits that she was a major part of the reason, due to her sneaky alternation of weekly reports to the states.
After the heavily edited documents were returned to me, I’d reinsert what they had objected to, but place it in those different locations. I’d also reorder and restructure the bullet points so the most salient—the points the administration objected to most—no longer fell at the start of the bullet points. I shared these strategies with the three members of the data team also writing these reports. Our Saturday and Sunday report-writing routine soon became: write, submit, revise, hide, resubmit.
Fortunately, this strategic sleight-of-hand worked. That they never seemed to catch this subterfuge left me to conclude that, either they read the finished reports too quickly or they neglected to do the word search that would have revealed the language to which they objected. In slipping these changes past the gatekeepers and continuing to inform the governors of the need for the big-three mitigations—masks, sentinel testing, and limits on indoor social gatherings—I felt confident I was giving the states permission to escalate public health mitigation with the fall and winter coming.
As another example, once Scott Atlas came to the rescue in August to introduce some good sense into this wacky world, he worked with others to dial back the CDC’s fanatical attachment to universal and constant testing. Atlas knew that “track, trace, and isolate” was both a fantasy and a massive invasion of people’s liberties that would yield no positive public-health outcome. He put together a new recommendation that was only for those who were sick to test – just as one might expect in normal life.
After a week-long media frenzy, the regulations flipped in the other direction.
Birx reveals that it was her doing:
This wasn’t the only bit of subterfuge I had to engage in. Immediately after the Atlas-influenced revised CDC testing guidance went up in late August, I contacted Bob Redfield… Less than a week later, Bob [Redfield] and I had finished our rewrite of the guidance and surreptitiously posted it. We had restored the emphasis on testing to detect areas where silent spread was occurring. It was a risky move, and we hoped everyone in the White House would be too busy campaigning to realize what Bob and I had done. We weren’t being transparent with the powers that be in the White House…
One might ask how the heck she got away with this. She explains:
[T]he guidance gambit was only the tip of the iceberg of my transgressions in my effort to subvert Scott Atlas’s dangerous positions. Ever since Vice President Pence told me to do what I needed to do, I’d engaged in very blunt conversations with the governors. I spoke the truth that some White House senior advisors weren’t willing to acknowledge. Censoring my reports and putting up guidance that negated the known solutions was only going to perpetuate Covid-19’s vicious circle. What I couldn’t sneak past the gatekeepers in my reports, I said in person.
Most of the book consists of her explaining how she headed a kind of shadow White House dedicated to keeping the country in some form of lockdown for as long as possible. In her telling, she was the center of everything, the only person truly correct about all things, given cover by the VP and assisted by a handful of co-conspirators.
Largely missing from the narrative is any discussion of the science gathering outside the bubble she so carefully cultivated. Whereas anyone could have noted the studies pouring out from February onward that threw cold water on her entire paradigm – not to mention 15 years, or make that 50 years, or perhaps 100 years of warnings against such a reaction – from scientists all over the world with vastly more experience and knowledge than she. She cared nothing about it, and evidently still does not.
It’s very clear that Birx had almost no contact with any serious scientist who disputed the draconian response, not even John Iaonnidis who explained as early as March 17, 2020, that this approach was madness. But she didn’t care: she was convinced that she was in the right, or, at least, was acting on behalf of people and interests who would keep her safe from persecution or prosecution.
For those interested, Chapter 8 provides a weird look into her first real scientific challenge: the seroprevalence study by Jayanta Bhattacharya published April 22, 2020. It demonstrated that the infection fatality rate – because infections and recovery was far more prevalent than Birx and Fauci were saying – was more in line with what one might expect from a severe flu but with a much more focused demographic impact. Bhattacharya’s paper revealed that the pathogen eluded all controls and would likely become endemic as every respiratory virus before. She took one look and concluded that he had unnamed “fundamental flaws in logic and methodology” and “damaged the cause of public health at this crucial moment in the pandemic.”
And that’s it: that’s Birx grappling with science. Meanwhile, the article was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology and has over 700 citations. She saw all differences of opinion as an opportunity to go on the attack in order to intensify her cherished commitment to the lockdown paradigm.
Even now, with scientists the world over in outrage, with citizens furious at their governments, with governments falling, with regimes toppling and anger reaching a fevered pitch, while studies pour out by the day showing that lockdowns made no difference and that open societies at least protected their educational systems and economies, she is unmoved. It’s not even clear she is aware.
Birx dismisses all contrary cases such as Sweden: Americans could not take that route because we are too unhealthy. South Dakota: rural and backwater (Birx is still mad that the brave Governor Kristi Noem refused to meet with her). Florida: oddly and without evidence she dismisses that case as a killing field, even though its results were better than California while the population influx to the state sets new records.
Nor is she shaken by the reality that there is not one single country or territory anywhere on the planet earth that benefitted from her approach, not even her beloved China which still pursues a zero-Covid approach. As for New Zealand and Australia: she (probably wisely) doesn’t mention them at all, even though they followed the Birx approach exactly.
The story of the lockdowns is a tale of Biblical proportions, at once evil and desperately sad and tragic, a story of power, scientific failure, intellectual insularity and insanity, outrageous arrogance, feudalistic impulses, mass delusion, plus political treachery and conspiracy. It is real-life horror for the ages, a tale of how the land of the free became a depostic hellscape so quickly and unexpectedly. Birx was at the center of it, confirming all of your worst fears right here in a book anyone can buy. She is so proud of her role that she dares to take all credit, fully convinced that the Trump-hating media will love and protect her perfidies from exposure and condemnation.
There is no getting around Trump’s own culpability here. He never should have let her have her way. Never. It was a case of fallibility matched by ego (he has still not admitted error), but it is a case of enormous betrayal that played off presidential character flaws (like many in his income class, Trump had always been a germaphobe) that ended up wrecking hope and prosperity for billions of people for many years to come.
I’ve tried for two years to put myself in that scene at the White House that day. It’s a hothouse with only trusted souls in small rooms, and the people there in a crisis have the sense that they are running the world. Trump might have drawn on his experience running a casino in Atlantic City. The weather forecasters come to say a hurricane is on the way, so he needs to shut it down. He doesn’t want to but agrees in order to do the right thing.
Was this his thinking? Perhaps. Perhaps too someone told him that China’s President Xi Jinping managed to crush the virus with lockdowns so he can too, just as the WHO said in its February 26 report. It’s also difficult in that environment to avoid the rush of omnipotence, temporarily oblivious to the reality that your decision would affect life from Maine to Florida to California. It was a catastrophic and lawless decision based on pretense and folly.
What followed seems inevitable in retrospect. The economic crisis, inflation, the broken lives, the desperation, the lost rights and lost hopes, and now the growing hunger and demoralization and educational losses and cultural destruction, all of it came in the wake of these fateful days. Every day in this country, even two and a half years later, judges are struggling to regain control and revitalize the Constitution after this disaster.
The plotters usually admit it in the end, taking credit, like criminals who cannot resist returning to the scene of the crime. This is what Dr. Birx has done in her book. But there are clearly limits to her transparency. She never explains the real reason for her resignation – even though it is known the world over – pretending like the entire Thanksgiving fiasco never happened and thus attempting to write it out of the history book that she wrote.
There is so much more to say and I hope this is one review of many because the book is absolutely packed with shocking passages. And yet her 525-page book, now selling at a 50% discount, does not contain a single citation to a single scientific study, paper, monograph, article, or book. It has zero footnotes. It offers no go-to authorities and displays not even a hint of humility that would normally be part of any actual scientific account.
And it nowhere offers an honest reckoning for what her influence over the White House and the states foisted on this country and on the world. As the country masks up yet again for a new variant, and is gradually being groomed for another round of disease panic, she can collect whatever royalties come from sales of her book while working at her new gig, a consultant to a company that makes air purifiers (ActivePure). In this latter role, she makes a greater contribution to public health than anything she did while she held the reins of power.
Jeffrey A. Tucker is Founder and President of the Brownstone Institute and the author of many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press and ten books in 5 languages, most recently Liberty or Lockdown. He is also the editor of The Best of Mises.
Forgive the grim opening to this, but children are now taught about masturbation at school aged 3-6. And parents are being told these lessons are compulsory.
Not “grooming”. Not “sexualising children”. Not “insanely creepy & inappropriate”. Compulsory.
Call it a conspiracy all you want, there is a very dark, heavy agenda at play & this is part of it…
So is the gender confusion indoctrination…
And the virus fear indoctrination & misplaced sense of responsibility…
And the climate fear indoctrination, manipulation & guilt-bashing…
And the ‘need’ for a ‘convenient’ cashless society indoctrination…
And the ‘be kind’ at all costs indoctrination…
And the ‘fear to stand against the norm, however fucked up it is because the herd will leap on you like an angry pack of pre-programmed hyenas & you’ll deserve everything that’s coming to you’ indoctrination…
And the war propaganda indoctrination…
And all the rest of the horsecrap we’re being bombarded with from all directions.
It’s all coming into schools for a reason. More & more. It’s not even covert or insidious anymore.
They have drag queens looking like plastic sex dolls reading stories to 4-year-olds & parents who are too ‘kind & liberal’ to say get the fuck away from my child.
They have people injecting children with experimental drugs created by known criminals to ‘save’ the elderly who’ve already had 5 of the bloody things.
They have teachers regurgitating government fear-porn to children because ‘it’s just what’s on the curriculum.’
Kids being dressed up in whatever colours are in keeping with the latest propaganda push. Doesn’t matter what you or they think, as long as it’s in keeping with ‘the done thing’.
Has ‘the done thing’ ever been louder?
Has going against it ever been less popular?
Have we ever been more mindlessly obedient & afraid to question authority?
And if so, where did we learn that?
I often wonder what it will take for this to end. To cause the snap.
Will it be when someone’s child allows themselves to be raped because they didn’t want to offend? Particularly if the perpetrator happened to be from a fashionable minority group?
Or because they’d grown up in a world where the adults automatically did what they were told & had gradually allowed the word ‘no’ to devolve out of their collective vocabulary.
Because ‘just’.
Because ‘science’.
Because ‘be kind’.
Because ‘authority’.
Because ‘why would they do that?’
Like there’s anything kind about what’s quietly happening to our children whilst we continue to act out our Oscar worthy performances of ‘everything’s normal here on planet Earth’.
Pretending.
Every. Single. Day.
It’s all been planned for such an eerie length of time. The effort that’s been put into it beyond comprehension. Which feeds right into the hands of the, ‘Oh come on… Really?’ groupthink.
Like it could possibly be that sinister. Surely it’s ‘just’ coincidence after coincidence. Or whatever they said on the news.
Drip. Drip. Drip. Wear us all down. They need us to become so fatigued that we stop.
We stop talking. We stop feeling. We stop trying.
I see this now. A lot. It’s what I’ve felt too. Like we’re waiting for something. Like this toxic steamroller of doom will just turn around & leave us all alone.
Because why?
Because it all got too weird. The weird became the norm.
We don’t even know if the weird is seen, let alone seen as weird. And if it’s seen as weird then where the fuck is the normal reaction to weird? Where are the wtf-ometers? Did they break? Were they removed?
We appear to be either in blissful ignorance, defiant denial or stuck in ‘we tried’ defeated apathy. I’ve certainly been in & out of the latter.
But whilst we’re waiting, denying, giving up or pretending, we’re rolling over & letting them do this to our children.
This bullshit they’re throwing at us via the media, which we have the power to turn off. They’re throwing it into schools like never before. Straight into their maleable minds, setting them up for life. They don’t have the power to turn it off.
The buck stops with us.
I know this kind of talk is a stuck record. I’m well aware it’s mostly unwelcome. I realise it can be incredibly triggering. But I don’t want to be a part of the tide of apathy that allowed the counter-narrative to be drowned out.
I’m aware that many people feel home educating isn’t possible even if they wanted to do it. Our own indoctrination of what’s necessary, important or what we’re capable of, still so firmly etched into our brains.
But please, just remember how many things they intimidated & manipulated us into believing were ‘necessary’, ‘compulsory’ or ‘for the greater good’ in 2020, when they were clearly anything but.
So many things are more possible & positive than we’re led to believe. So often what’s seen negatively for bucking the trend turns out to be the best thing we could ever have done.
Look how they utilised our herd mentality against us. Knowing we’d rather lose our freedoms & integrity than our social status. What a test run to see what they can get away with before we make a stand.
They played us for fools. And now, on behalf of our children, they’ve mind-numbed us into what appears to be a total dissolution of what was an already alarmingly weak line in the sand.
Hijacking our compassion with an endless stream of Trojan horses for us to jump all over whenever they flick the switch. Laughing at us whilst we literally cheer on our own demise, in our blind eagerness to ‘do the right thing.’
Their right thing.
They’re bulldozing their way in because we’re letting them. Still trusting & obeying those we claim to despise & distrust.
We’re like the participants of Milgram’s conformity experiment, where people sat quietly & obediently in a room filling with smoke just because everyone else in the room, who knew it was an experiment, was ignoring the smoke. They could barely even see the paper in front of them. They presumably knew the dangers of smoke. But the vast majority just sat there.
Waiting. Ignoring. Denying. Pretending. Allowing.
People have warned for a long time they’re coming for the kids. Now they’ve quite clearly arrived & we need to be in the way.
Not just parents, any adults. Enough of the self-sacrifice for granny, inverted responsibility bullshit. How about granny making a stand for the kids?
How about we shift our focus onto the job we’re here to do, which is to look after the young. Stand in the way.
You don’t see lions in the wild cowering to the side of their young, worrying what others will think of them, pretending not to notice the massive threat looming right in front of them, laughing at the ones pointing it out & letting it walk right on up to their offspring to do whatever the hell it wants.
Ours may not be such an obvious physical attack (apart from the toxic injections). It’s arguably more dangerous than that, because to some it’s invisible & to many it’s deniable. Unseen until it’s too late & the damage has been done.
They’re worming their vicious, poisonous tendrils into the minds of our children. Because when they have their minds, they have everything.
Ultimate control. The narcissist’s dream.
We can look the other way all we want, but we are in a psychological war; ultimately a spiritual war with huge physical implications too, & our children are being heavily targeted.
So question it, challenge it, call it out.
Flag it up, talk about it, join forces.
Make a noise. Poke the norm.
Be inconvenient.
Walk away, do your own thing & tell others about it. Set up an alternative.
Whatever you feel like doing, do it.
Just don’t be scared to stand against it.
None of these agenda driven indoctrinations are normal & none of them are remotely ok. They are incredibly harmful, and so is our apathy, denial & silence.
OCCUPIED JERUSALEM – Member of Hamas Political Bureau, Harun Nasser al-Din, said that the archive records and documents and rental contracts conclusively prove the ownership of Palestinian families of the land allocated by Israel for the US embassy in Occupied Jerusalem.
Israel displaced its owners during the Nakba and forcibly confiscated their property in 1950, he clarified in a statement issued Friday.
As US President Joe Biden makes his first visit to the region as US President, Nasser al-Din called for cancelling the plan and returning the lands to their owners.
“We stress that confiscating this land under the so-called Absentees’ Property Law is a continuation of the ethnic cleansing of our people in Occupied Jerusalem,” he added.
Being involved with the Israeli occupation in the seizure of this land, the US administration is actually violating the rights of the legitimate owners of these lands, he continued.
Dear colleagues at the WHO, I think the time has come to admit that the mass vaccination program that you have been proposing in an attempt to put an end to the COVID-19 pandemic has been a complete failure. At the beginning of this year, I’ve been urging you to open a scientific debate on the potential risks of mass vaccination with these vaccines – in the midst of a pandemic. I’ve never received a response to that request. But shortly thereafter one of the most renowned vaccinologists on this planet wrote me an email saying; ‘vaccinating with these vaccines would only breed new variants. But that it wouldn’t make sense for me to go against the mainstream because nobody would listen to me anyway, and hopefully that second-generation vaccines would solve the problem.’
So, I wanted to let you know that it is not because you are the WHO, that you can afford to ignore the opinion of people who have long-standing expertise – in all of the different disciplines involved in this pandemic: virology, immunology, vaccinology, evolutionary biology, epidemiology, zoonoses, etc. Whereas, some of us have been predicting that mass vaccination with these vaccines in the midst of a pandemic would inevitably lead to the expansion of more infectious variants, your leading scientists have been preaching the simplistic mantra that the more we vaccinate the less the virus will replicate, and the lower the likelihood that new variants will emerge. Now, the consequences of these simplistic and erroneous viewpoints is that today we are dealing with dominant circulation of Omicron, the most infectious SARS-CoV-2 variant that we have seen so far, and probably the most infectious virus that we have seen so far.
So, given the fact that we are now dealing with a number of variants that are circulating and a multitude, of course, of sub-variants, and that infection rates are going through the roof, and that also we are already most likely having a number of animal populations that are serving as a reservoir for the virus, the likelihood that viral variants are now recombining and building reassortments within one and the same host is becoming increasingly likely. So, what that means is that it will become increasingly difficult to trace the origin of new variants, and that it will be even more challenging to predict the characteristics of those new variants in terms of infectiousness, in terms of virulence, pathogenicity, and also in terms of resistance to vaccinal antibodies or to vaccines in general.
But what is very clear is that if those new variants are to survive on a background of high population-level immune pressure, then those variants will need to be more infectious – like, for example, the Omicron variant. The Omicron variant, however, is offering a very nice opportunity, because Omicron has acquired a substantial level of resistance to the vaccinal antibodies, and that means that the vaccinal antibodies are less likely to outcompete the innate antibodies, which is very good news, because we know that innate antibodies can protect against SARS-CoV-2. This has been repeatedly reported in the literature. We also know that innate antibodies can be trained, and therefore they can even improve their recognition and protection against the virus. Innate antibodies can be trained just like other innate immune effectors can be trained, by repeated exposure to what we call pathogen-associated molecular patterns. This is, in fact, nicely shown by the data published by the UK Health Security Agency, previously Public Health England – where they have shown that basically with aging and also with more exposure to the pathogen, the number of cases in the unvaccinated people was dramatically reduced, and even to an extent such that vaccine efficacy, or we should say, in the population, vaccine effectiveness, would become negative. There is also increased evidence, or increasing evidence, that training of innate antibodies as a result of natural infection can enhance the abrogation of the infection, and that training of adaptive immunity – particularly the induction of T-cell memory, also as a result of natural infection – can enhance the abrogation of disease.
Thanks to the increased resistance of Omicron to vaccinal antibodies, the innate antibodies are set free and can now enable the vaccinees to eliminate the virus, to control viral transmission, and to lead to a dramatic decrease in the viral infection rate, just like healthy unvaccinated people are doing. So, in other words, the resistance to Omicron means, in fact, that we are freeing up a huge capacity of sterilizing immunity in vaccinees because the vaccinees are, in fact, regaining full functionality of their innate immune antibodies. That, of course, will lead to herd immunity because herd immunity requires that you induce a type of immunity that can sterilize the virus, that can dramatically diminish transmission. This would also mean: by freeing up this huge capacity of sterilizing immunity in the vaccinees – after certainly a very important incline of infectious cases – we would have a rapid decline of this wave. And we would also have a rapid decline of disease cases, and even more importantly and more dramatically, of severe disease. Now we know with (moderate) disease, when you recover from disease, you develop acquired immunity, which is long-lived and will protect you. And the few cases of severe disease, we have, of course, to treat – that is what we’ve always said.
It is important to realize that, in fact, Omicron is more or less serving, indeed, as a live attenuated vaccine, and that this is a unique opportunity. The fact that we free up the sterilizing capacity in the vaccinees, thanks to the increased level of resistance of Omicron to the vaccinal antibodies – those are no longer capable of outcompeting the innate antibodies – we may have a unique opportunity to achieve herd immunity, or to start building herd immunity. And so, it is very, very important that we leave people alone, and that we leave the children alone, and that we let the virus spread. And so, we shouldn’t have any vaccination against this Omicron variant, and we shouldn’t have lockdowns.
If we are now going to vaccinate against Omicron, we are going to take away this window of opportunity for the population to generate herd immunity, thanks to freeing up our innate antibodies. And what we are going to do is in fact we would build against antibodies, against the spike protein of Omicron, and particularly against the receptor-binding domain of this Omicron spike protein.
We know that this receptor-binding domain has already undergone a number, or several, important mutations. So, if we put again full pressure on this domain, there is a high likelihood that we are now going to promote variants that will be able to use a receptor that is different from ACE-2 to enter into the cell. And we know that SARS-CoV-2 can do that because it has already been described that SARS-CoV-2 can use receptors other than ACE-2 to enter into the cell. But so far this way of entering – this alternative way of entry into the cell – has not been the preferred way for the virus for entering the cells. But it would only take probably one or two mutations for the virus to make these alternative receptors the preferred receptors for viral entry.
By doing mass vaccination against Omicron, we may be putting enough immune pressure on viral infectiousness to give variants that are capable of entering into the cell through an alternative receptor – to give them a competitive advantage, and so, to provide them with a fitness advantage so that they can now become dominant in the population. What this means is pretty catastrophic, because this would mean that basically we end up with a situation where we have antibodies that still strongly bind to the virus, to the receptor binding domain, but that can no longer neutralize the virus because the virus is now using another domain to enter into the cell, a domain which is different from the domain that is blocked by the antibodies.
Such a situation is in fact, a textbook example, for how you provoke antibody-dependent enhancement of the disease. So, this would mean that such a situation, the virus covered with strongly binding antibodies but not being able to neutralize the virus, would basically lead, or would be similar, to a situation where the virus has acquired a higher level of virulence. This would be – this situation would really, really, really be at risk of provoking the kind of disastrous consequences that I have been warning against at the beginning of this year. And we know that industry is already gearing up for mass vaccination against Omicron. And, as this, according to my humble opinion, could potentially be – with a high likelihood – a real disaster. We must prevent such a thing from happening.
So in order to – or I would say unless – unless immediate action is taken to prevent this, it is clear that decision-makers in your organization, the WHO, will be held responsible, accountable, and liable for the dramatic consequences that this biological experiment on human beings could possibly entail. So I hope that this time you will take my warning very seriously into consideration.
I have reported time and again about the insanity behind the vaccine’s approval for children, now from 6 month’s to 5 years. Every time the evildoers need to slash off another slab of meat from the body of humanity they raise the overall pain and suffering a few notches.
This is their final slash—you can’t get much younger than 6 months (unless they will want to vaccinate foetuses, but soon there won’t be any of those around to vaccinate.)
Rather than focus on the heinous act of approving an experimental injection to children who have no say in the matter, and if they did, wouldn’t even begin to comprehend the implications, I am going to focus instead on the efforts of “the agenda” to convince children and their parents it is a good idea to let the hairy monster into their beds so they can be raped by the tentacles of corporate greed and the unconscionable ugliness of human evil.
Sorry for the harshness of such a description. In my opinion it isn’t harsh enough.
I don’t think there is anything more abhorrent in the human playbook of evil than the effort to convince a child to hurt itself in order for the perpetrator of such a crime to benefit. What could be worse? Using the innocence of a child to cause harm for anyone’s benefit is at the top of Satan’s list (or whatever other name you want to give a human’s propensity to sink deeply into the shadowy muck of the dark side).
Come on people, pay attention!
(This demand is not for my readers as I am sure you all are in agreement with this presentation—unless you accidentally stumbled on this article, if so, pay attention.)
There is nothing any of you can say that will justify this tactic of coercing children to “be a superhero” or “be like Elmo” and take this jab “for humanity’s sake.” Nothing. No matter how you twist it all up to support your argument, you simply are wrong. This is evil; this is hateful, hurtful, repugnant, disgusting, and unconscionable. Try me with your argument; give me your best shot.
You can’t do it. There is nothing you can say that will get you out of this.
Again, dear shrew, it is not you this is aimed at. We are warriors for the cause; I am speaking with you here, not to you. If you have any friends or family who might benefit from this lecture, please share. I doubt if it will do much good, but we must keep trying.
Here is what I am talking about.
I will certainly not cover the dozens of examples of using a child’s innocence as a weapon to coerce them to put pressure on their parents and caregivers to be vaccinated. I will only site a few situations I have come across to make my point. If you want further details, or wish to see these examples in the broader context of their situations, of course Google search them or otherwise find the information. The details don’t really change anything, nor does the specific context. These tactics are evil at their core, regardless.
Let me start with the effort to push kids into vaccination through superhero coercion, “be a superhero” is the basic theme of this style of coercion. Bus banner ads, ads in schools, on social media, everywhere you might find a kid. “You aren’t good enough as you are, here is your chance to be better, be a superhero!” So kids, who have it hard enough in today’s cultural climate desperately trying to establish their own personal identity, have to be bludgeoned (by the authority figure “bully”) to go “this path—our path” to be “ok.” Granted, I have not seen any slogans that blatantly say “you aren’t good enough as you are” but clearly any effort in showing kids they can be “better” by identifying with a bigger than life fantasy “superhero” doesn’t need to spell it out.
Let’s just jump over the legal ramifications of all of this. Believe it or not there are laws forbidding such blatantly unethical coercion targeting young people incapable of even understanding a lick of informed consent. No one seems to think any of that ethical and legal stuff to be relevant. That’s right. Laws and ethics don’t matter much when you are about to be gobbled up by some unseen virus monster. “Quick! Get some kids on the altar so we can slash their hearts out as a sacrifice to the Boogeyman Dark Virus Monster, he is going to kill us all!!” If you want to read a bit more about this check it out here.
And how about Elmo? Elmo is the Sesame Street children’s icon, which is supposed to be an eternal 3 1/2 year old. He recently succumbed, supposedly voluntarily, to the jab. If Elmo can do it, we all can do it, yea Elmo! —The most selfless red puppet in the world… oops, I mean Muppet™. Get it?
A quote from the paediatrician that Elmo visits in the PSA:
“I learned that Elmo getting vaccinated is the best way to keep himself, our friends, neighbours and everyone else healthy and enjoying the things they love.”
Oh, please. Sorry, as we all know, that is unadulterated BS, not to mention unscientific, and also untrue. What else? Propaganda? Sure, throw that in for good measure.
Probably the most egregious example of this child coercion was the “Make a Wish” foundation’s effort to force kids into compliance by announcing their effort to ease the pain of terminally ill children was only available to those who are vaccinated.
Granted, due to pressure, they have rescinded this “rule” but come on, really? Terminally ill children need to vaccinate? Sure they do, “to save others” not so unfortunate as to be facing death… well, maybe not.
“Make-A-Wish Foundation is requiring Wish kids, their siblings (and other family members), and “any minors participating in the Wish” to be fully vaccinated before having their wishes granted.”
Nice.
You folks that don’t agree with what I am saying here have your argument put together yet? Like, vaccination is good for the little ones because it prevents Covid, which is raging? Where did you get that one? Your own eyes? Your own experience? I don’t think so.
There is nothing like that going on out there (maybe later when vaccinated people, due to destroyed immune systems, are dropping like flies and unvaccinated people are burying their vaccinated loved ones or visiting them in hospitals).
You heard it because the same people telling you all this other garbage wants you to hear it. And believe it.
Are you going to say we need herd immunity? Or that vaccinating babies is “just the right thing to do to help the community,” really? Since when has sacrificing children been the right thing to do for the community? Oh right, they used to do that to keep the bogeyman away back in cave-man days.
Well, I guess that makes sense then. The mainstream media certainly has told us about a whole bunch of invisible boogeymen. Sure, just like in the old days, we can correlate certain bad things with Covid… people HAVE died and gotten sick… but has that really been because of this new Covid Boogeyman? Could be, but really as bad as they have said? Think.
Going back to the point of this article, to condone these techniques to get kids to take this thing is unconscionable. I don’t care if people are dying on the street from this virus (they aren’t) a civil, and moral, human being does not use shame, fear, and “wanting to belong” as a tactic to get children to comply—to anything medical without clear informed consent. Ever.
Although in my opinion it is immoral and unethical to lie, manipulate and coerce parents to vaccinate their children, it is a special kind of evil to target little children as the focus of your efforts for compliance using their innocence as a tool. This is what pedophiles do, and it is wrong in every way imaginable.
I will conclude with this ubiquitous statement: There is no reason to give this vaccine to anyone, and certainly no reason to give it to children.
I could go on with all the scientific reasons, but everyone has their own brand of science so what I say will not matter. And to be honest, the REAL reasons not to vaccinate your children are not based on science, they are based on those other things that seem to be in shorter and shorter supply these days—compassion, soul, love, and simply being human.
It is just wrong to sacrifice children for any reason. Even if the world was indeed going down in flames due to some out of control virus (it isn’t) parents shouldn’t risk their children and offer them to the boogeyman as some sort of compensation.
Maybe people don’t believe they are “sacrificing” them, but they are certainly putting them at risk. It is clear the vaccines do not work as they say they do, and it is clear they are not 100% safe (if parents don’t know this they have been living under a rock and shouldn’t even have children in the first place).
Children do not need this and they do not need to take the risk. Regardless of what Elmo says.
Todd Hayen is a registered psychotherapist practicing in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He holds a PhD in depth psychotherapy and an MA in Consciousness Studies. He specializes in Jungian, archetypal, psychology. Todd also writes for his own substack, which you can read here
Magnesium is the fourth most abundant element in your body,1 and one of the seven essential minerals we can’t live without.2 It’s necessary for the healthy functioning of most cells, but especially your heart, kidneys and muscles. Low levels of magnesium impede cellular metabolic function and deteriorate mitochondrial function.
As it is also required for the activation of vitamin D, deficiency may hamper your ability to convert vitamin D from sun exposure and/or oral supplementation. Unfortunately, deficiency is common and research shows even subclinical deficiencies may jeopardize your health.
If you’ve recently had a blood panel drawn, you may assume it would reveal a magnesium deficiency. However, only 1% of magnesium is distributed in your blood, which means a blood test is not useful to determine whether you are deficient at the cellular level.3 Recent research confirms optimal levels of magnesium are necessary for your heart4 and kidney health.5
Magnesium Deficiency Affects the Vast Majority
Statistics show that at least 50% of Americans are deficient in magnesium, with some estimations going as high as 75% overall, and as many as 84% of postmenopausal women being deficient in it.6,7,8 Other scientists believe the deficiency affects the vast majority of individuals based on current dietary habits, saying:9
“[B]ecause of chronic diseases, medications, decreases in food crop magnesium contents and the availability of refined and processed foods, the vast majority of people in modern societies are at risk for magnesium deficiency.”
The recommended daily allowances (RDA) for magnesium are based on age, gender and pregnancy status.10 Although it may be difficult to pinpoint the exact percentage of individuals who suffer from magnesium deficiency, data do demonstrate subclinical levels of magnesium contribute to a number of widespread health problems.
The number who suffer from deficiency increases with an aging population as the elderly tend to consume less and don’t efficiently absorb magnesium from what is eaten.11
Digestive disorders, such as Crohn’s disease and celiac, may also affect magnesium absorption.12 Individuals who suffer from Type 2 diabetes13 or use diuretics may lose more magnesium through their urine.14
As the number of people suffering Type 2 diabetes is growing, and the age at which the condition arises is getting younger,15 the number who are also at risk for magnesium deficiency is also rising. Type 2 diabetes is associated with a number of health conditions also linked to magnesium deficiency, including heart disease and kidney disease.
Magnesium Integral to Arterial Health
Magnesium is required for energy production and is a cofactor in more than 300 enzyme systems that regulate biochemical reactions, including muscle and nerve function, and blood pressure regulation.16 Magnesium also helps regulate your blood vessels and helps prevent calcification known as coronary artery calcification (CAC).
CAC is an indicator of advanced atherosclerosis, a common predictor of cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease.17 In 1948, researchers undertook a nearly 70-year-long heart study under the direction of the National Heart Institute.
The Framingham Heart Study18 became a joint project of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute and Boston University with the objective to identify factors contributing to cardiovascular disease.
Magnesium Is Necessary for Optimal Heart and Kidney Health
Researchers19 recently examined data of magnesium intake in those free of cardiovascular disease at the beginning of the Framingham Heart Study and followed them over a period of 11 years.
They found a strong association between higher self-reported magnesium intake and lower calcification in the coronary arteries, which translates to lower risk of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease.
The researchers believe this may play a role in magnesium’s protective association in stroke and fatal coronary artery disease. The data also revealed a lower risk of abdominal aortic calcification,20 also associated with cardiovascular disease.21 A second study22 analyzed the associated risk of hypomagnesemia with diabetes and hypertension, which can contribute to a decline in kidney function.
The hypothesis was that subclinical levels contributed to a decline in glomerular filtration rate. Researchers engaged over 2,000 participants from the Dallas Heart Study. During a median follow-up of seven years, researchers evaluated glomerular filtration rate, biochemical parameters, C-reactive proteins and the prevalence of hypertension and diabetes.
The results led the researchers to conclude subclinical levels of magnesium were independently associated with decline in glomerular filtration rates indicating declining kidney function.23
Magnesium is a natural calcium antagonist and has several effects on vasodilation, regulation and changes in metabolism enhancing atherosclerotic changes in arterial stiffness, likely in part contributing to heart and kidney disease.24
Magnesium for Your Bone and Muscle Health
Magnesium contributes to the structural development of bone, and adult bone contains nearly 60% of the total magnesium in your body.25 As it is involved in bone formation, subclinical levels may contribute to the development of osteoporosis.
Research26 has found women with osteoporosis have lower serum magnesium levels than those without osteoporosis or osteopenia. Magnesium is also fundamental for physical performance.27 Just as it contributes to heart muscle contraction, skeletal muscles also require magnesium to relax muscle cramping and it is a cornerstone for circulatory health.
Magnesium is also important in energy regulation and plays a role in oxygen delivery and uptake in muscle. The relationship between magnesium and circulation also affects your brain. Dr. Maiken Nedergaard, co-director of the University of Rochester Center for Translational Neuromedicine, commented on the energy supply needed by the brain:28
“Our brains require a tremendous amount of energy and in order to meet this demand the flow of blood must be precisely choreographed to ensure that oxygen is being delivered where it is needed and when it is needed. This study demonstrates that microvessels in the brain play a key role in reacting to spikes in demand and accelerating the flow of blood to respond to neuronal activity.”
Although the brain is just 2% of your body weight, it uses nearly 20% of your oxygen supply in metabolic processes,29 remaining remarkably constant despite changes in mental and motor activities. Magnesium facilitates processing in the neural networks and is used to keep the blood-brain barrier healthy.30
Magnesium has proven to be essential for learning, concentration and memory and enables the brain’s plasticity, or its ability to adapt to challenges.31 Additionally, maintaining optimal levels of magnesium has proven effective in reducing the number of attacks and the number of days per month you may experience a migraine.32
In a comparison against valproate sodium, a medication used to help prevent migraine headache attacks, a randomized, controlled, double-blind study indicated 500 milligrams (mgs) of magnesium per day was an effective prophylaxis, similar to the effectiveness experienced by those taking valproate sodium, without side effects.
Anxiety disorders affect up to 13% of the population in the U.S.33 The condition may be debilitating, and like other mental disorders, it exists on a spectrum. Low levels of magnesium have been associated with increasing levels of noradrenaline, leading to a higher heart rate and blood pressure.
Conversely, optimal levels of magnesium may decrease the release of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), responsible for the controlled release of cortisol. Essentially, this means the release of fewer stress hormones and the modulation of the ones released.34
Optimal levels of dietary intake are also inversely associated with anxiety and depression.35 In an outpatient clinic treating 126 adults with mild to moderate symptoms, researcher found supplementation with magnesium chloride for six weeks resulted in clinically significant improvements in depression and anxiety without side effects.36
Higher Magnesium Intake Lowers Risk of Vitamin D Deficiency
Vitamin D levels below 20 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL) or 50 nanomoles per liter (nmol/L) have repeatedly been shown to raise your risk of a number of health conditions, including depression and Type 2 diabetes. According to the most recent research, a vitamin D level between 60 and 80 ng/mL (150 and 200 nmol/L) appears to offer the greatest protection against cancer and other chronic diseases.37
Adequate vitamin D levels may also help prevent or treat dry eye syndrome,38 macular degeneration,39 neurological diseases,40 fractures41 and obesity.42 Adequate levels of vitamin D also lower your mortality risk associated with heart disease,43 and may lower your risk of mortality from all causes.44
However, without adequate levels of magnesium, any vitamin D supplementation may be ineffective,45 as magnesium is required for the activation of vitamin D, and vitamin D may trigger vascular calcification if magnesium and vitamin K2 levels are not optimal.46 Higher levels of magnesium may actually lower your risk of vitamin D deficiency by allowing for the activation of more vitamin D.47
Magnesium — Supplementation and Natural Sources
One of the biggest culprits behind deficiencies is processed foods, which unfortunately has become a staple in the American diet. Some of the magnesium rich foods you may add to your diet include:48,49
Seeds and nuts, such as pumpkin seeds, sesame seeds, cashews and raw almonds
Fatty fishes like wild-caught Alaskan salmon
Dried seaweed or agar
Brussels sprouts
An interesting number of factors may affect your ability to absorb magnesium from your foods. Herbicides like glyphosate act as agricultural chelators, effectively obstructing the uptake of minerals from the soil in many foods grown today. As a result, it may be quite difficult to find truly magnesium-rich foods. Cooking and processing further depletes magnesium.
Meanwhile, certain foods may actually influence your body’s absorption of magnesium. High levels of sugar intake may trigger excretion of magnesium through your kidneys, “resulting in a net loss,” according to Dr. Danine Fruge, associate medical director at the Pritikin Longevity Center in Florida.50
When it comes to oral supplementation, my personal preference is magnesium threonate, as it appears to be the most efficient at penetrating cell membranes, including your mitochondria and blood-brain barrier. Other effective ways to boost your magnesium level include:
•Taking Epsom salt (magnesium sulfate) baths, as the magnesium will effectively absorb through your skin.
•Using a topical solution — I prepare a supersaturated solution of Epsom salt by dissolving 7 tablespoons of the salt into 6 ounces of water and heating it until all the salt has dissolved. I pour it into a dropper bottle and then apply it to my skin and rub fresh aloe leaves over it to dissolve it.
This is an easy and inexpensive way to increase your magnesium and will allow you to get higher dosages into your body without having to deal with its laxative effects.
Magnesium can be taken with or without food. If you’re also taking calcium, take them together. If you exercise regularly, consider taking your calcium and magnesium in a ratio of one part calcium to two parts magnesium with your pre-workout meal.
While the ideal ratio of magnesium to calcium is thought to be 1-to-1, most people get far more calcium than magnesium from their diet, so your need for supplemental magnesium may be two to three times greater than calcium.
Two-and-a-half years ago, the Grand Poobahs of global vaccinology admitted — in behind-closed-door confessions caught on camera at the World Health Organization (WHO) — that public and professional confidence in vaccines was “wobbly,” and deservedly so.
As the gathered experts conceded, the glaring inadequacies of vaccine safety science and the dysfunctional safety monitoring systems that permit routine “obfuscation” of serious adverse events were understandable reasons for public distrust.
At the time, it seemed as though such momentous disclosures would presage a death knell for vaccine “business as usual” — but then along came COVID-19, and with it, the instant memory-holing of the WHO’s stunning admissions.
Rather than finally address the self-confessed vaccine disaster, public health officials and global leaders — ranging from presidents to private-sector employers to top military brass to central bankers — used COVID-19 as an opportunity to double down in the opposite direction, forcibly stuffing the “vaccine hesitancy” genie back in the bottle with ethically untenable vaccine mandates.
After 18 months of force-feeding the COVID-19 jabs, however, manufacturers are now discarding tens of millions of doses “amid sagging demand.”
In some respects, this could be construed as evidence of policy failure, but the fact is that the COVID-19 shots accomplished a significant goal for the parties that pushed them, launching a renewed vaccine gold rush that — with growing emphasis on voguish, biotech-reliant biopharmaceuticals — seems likely to extend well beyond the COVID-19 era.
As the head of Bayer’s pharmaceuticals division observed in late 2021, mRNA vaccine technology and other forms of cell and gene therapy — for all of their by now well-documented and even species-threatening dangers — have crossed over both the regulatory and public palatability threshold.
Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson (J&J), AstraZeneca, Sanofi and Eli Lilly — some of major players in the biopharma space — are actively prioritizing “strategic alliances” and “collaborations to expand their [biopharmaceutical] product portfolios.”
Meanwhile, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are poised to roll out, at breakneck speed, approvals and recommendations for whatever new childhood and adult vaccines are sent their way.
In short, using technologies both “conventional” and new, a multipronged effort is afoot to jump-start and ensure a frenzied vaccine-palooza.
The mRNA pipeline
Having succeeded in foisting COVID-19 mRNA injections on an initially unsuspecting public, manufacturers and government agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are now salivating at the prospect of an endless series of mRNA vaccines.
It is no coincidence that the mRNA jabs in the works target some of the very conditions being reported as COVID-19 vaccine adverse events, a neat “create-a-problem, develop-a-drug-to-manage-the problem” trick that accounts for many other drugs already on the market.
In the pipeline are mRNA vaccines for the following:
Cancer: Researchers are conducting dozens of clinical trials to test “mRNA treatment vaccines in people with various types of cancers.” Dr. Ryan Cole, a pathologist, described the dramatic surge in endometrial and other cancers following the rollout of COVID-19 shots.
Shingles: Cole and others also noted the uptick of shingles in COVID-19 vaccine recipients. Moderna in March announced its development of an mRNA shingles vaccine, as well as mRNA vaccines for herpes and cancer.
Other forms of immune suppression: With numerous indications that COVID-19 shots are reprogramming the immune response, officials and manufacturers are dusting off HIV as the supposed bogeyman. Moderna and NIH are partnering in mRNA vaccine clinical trials for HIV. This would represent a particular coup for Dr. Anthony Fauci, who over four decades has found development of an HIV vaccine to be “a daunting scientific challenge.”
Heart attacks: Cardiac problems are among the few COVID-19-vaccine-related adverse events grudgingly acknowledged by manufacturers and the FDA. In the U.K., researchers are investigating the use of “exactly the same technology as the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines to inject micro RNAs to the heart,” claiming they can get whatever heart cells survive after a heart attack to proliferate.
COVID and influenza: Manufacturers also are gearing up for a new generation of mRNA-based flu shots and mRNA combination vaccines which, they promise, will “protect against several different infections at the same time, such as influenza, COVID-19 and other respiratory infections.”In the meantime, CDC just recommended that seniors (aged 65 years or older) receive “enhanced” flu shots — either high-dose, adjuvanted or recombinant — in lieu of “standard-dose unadjuvanted, inactivated vaccines.” Adjuvanted influenza vaccines feature a new generation of “smart” vaccine adjuvants designed to ensure even the most mediocre vaccine sends recipients’ immune systems into overdrive.
For babies — something old, something new
In June, the FDA reaffirmed its long-standing allegiance to an agenda of guaranteed harm when it authorized emergency use COVID-19 shots for infants as young as 6 months old.
After the conflict-of-interest-riddled FDA advisors’ 21-0 vote, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) commented, “[I]n balancing the risk to rewards here, all the risks are to the innocent children and all of the billion-dollar rewards go to the government-protected pharmaceuticals.”
Seizures and psychosis are already being reported as adverse events in the under-5 age group.
In decrying FDA’s decision to give COVID-19 shots to tots, some dissenters waxed nostalgic about the perceived “rigor” of the pre-COVID-19 vaccine approval process, seemingly amnesiac about the FDA’s lengthy history of regulatory capture and business-friendly shortcuts.
As a reminder, at least two-thirds of the vaccines approved by the FDA from 2006 through late 2020 benefited from “flexibility in the evidence required for approval,” resulting in accelerated approvals.
This “turn-a-blind-eye” pattern also held sway in the FDA’s and CDC’s recent decisions to pile on two more options to the childhood schedule, options that will do nothing to improve the safety of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV) that have been injuring children for decades.
First, on June 3, the FDA approved GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK’s) Priorix, an MMR vaccine initially launched in Europe in the late 1990s.
GSK developed Priorix using the MRC-5 cell line (derived from the lung tissue of a male fetus aborted at 14 weeks).
A 2020 analysis by the Italian association CORVELVA of a version of Priorix that also contains a varicella component found that the amount of DNA in the vaccine was “well above the allowed threshold,” and that continuous use of the cell line over time resulted in “vaccines containing progressively more and more modified human genetic material, that is dangerous for the health of the vaccinees themselves.”
The FDA’s go-ahead for Priorix shatters Merck’s position as the sole U.S. purveyor of MMR vaccines. Previously, FDA showed no sign of being troubled by Merck’s monopoly, despite the pharmaceutical behemoth being dogged by “a slew of controversies” that included whistleblower allegations of MMR-related fraud and undeniable evidence of a link with autism.
Moreover, as Children’s Health Defense Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. pointed out in late 2019, when the FDA belatedly began to “tee up” Priorix as a replacement for Merck’s scandal-ridden MMR-II, rather than use an inert placebo to test Priorix, the FDA allowed GSK to use MMR-II as the comparator!
Even these sham clinical trials, Kennedy noted, had “horrifying” results. Within 42 days, nearly 50% of recipients of both manufacturers’ formulations experienced adverse events, with over 10% ending up in the emergency room. By six months, almost 4% of recipients had been diagnosed with a “new onset chronic disease.”
To date, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has received more than 37,000 adverse event reports for Priorix and another 11,000-plus for the varicella-containing version — with 58% and 79% of adverse events, respectively, occurring in the under-two age group that will now receive the jabs in the U.S.
Following the nominal slap on the wrist for Merck’s MMR-II, the FDA and CDC also offered Merck some good news, approving on June 17 and then recommending — for routine use in infants and children 6 weeks to 2 years of age — the company’s 15-valent PCV15 (brand name “Vaxneuvance”) as an interchangeable alternative to Pfizer’s Prevnar 13 (PCV13).
The CDC stopped short of issuing a “preferential recommendation” for PCV15, however. Admitting to “certain uncertainties, including concerns related to potentially higher reactogenicity” — with “reactogenicity” defined as the “state of being able to produce adverse reactions” — the CDC leaves it up to the hapless infants who receive Vaxneuvance to discover the shots’ “higher reactogenicity” for themselves.
Even without the addition of Vaxneuvance to the schedule, pneumococcal conjugate vaccines — with ingredients like aluminum and polysorbate 80 — have shown themselves plenty capable of wreaking havoc on the health of the infants expected to get four doses by the time they are 12 to 15 months old.
Eager to add even more injections to the childhood vaccine schedule, the industry is also eyeing as a potential cash cow a pediatric (and adult) mRNA vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).
In 2019, 30 candidate RSV vaccines were in the pipeline, and in 2021, the FDA fast-tracked an mRNA-based RSV vaccine developed by Moderna.
HPV downsizing — getting HPV shots into young people by any means necessary
The competition between Merck and GSK is also fierce where human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines are concerned.
In the U.S., Merck’s Gardasil (and later, Gardasil 9) handily beat out GSK’s Cervarix, which is no longer available to American youth — but with 100 or more countries having added HPV jabs to their national vaccination schedules, much more than the U.S. market is in play.
Data suggest HPV vaccine coverage in the U.S. starts out relatively high, with an estimated 66% of 13- to 17-year-olds getting a first dose, but the percentage completing the series (an additional one to two doses) drops off to 49%.
Worldwide, acceptance of HPV vaccines is even lower — for girls, global coverage is estimated at about 15% of those in the target age range.
Undoubtedly, one of the reasons for the global public’s lukewarm stance on HPV vaccination is the occurrence of serious adverse autoimmune reactions that have left many recipients, both female and male, disabled for life.
Merck is mired in lawsuits (with attorneys, including Kennedy) alleging it knowingly concealed Gardasil-associated adverse events.
Rather than re-evaluate — as some researchers have strongly urged — the adverse event profile that, until COVID-19 shots, made HPV vaccines some of the most dangerous on the market, agencies like the National Cancer Institute (NCI) are instead beginning to argue in favor of single-dose HPV vaccination (either Cervarix or Gardasil 9).
Punting to a one-dose regimen would, NCI officials disingenuously say, “simplify the logistics of vaccination, which could allow more girls [and boys] worldwide to be vaccinated.”
Monkeypox profiteering
As Rob Verkerk, Ph.D., reported last month, the suspected case definition of monkeypox is broad enough to include anyone with a common cold — or with post-COVID-19-vaccine immune suppression — who has a shingles rash.
Verkerk’s counsel is to worry about “what the WHO and collaborating institutions, governments and corporations are up to,” rather than succumb to fear-mongering about monkeypox itself.
In the U.S., what the government is “up to” is ordering more than 4 million doses of monkeypox vaccine — a whitewashed smallpox vaccine linked to heart inflammation — and formulating a “national monkeypox vaccine strategy,” including a protocol aimed at the vaccine’s use in children.
In other words, with a “COVID-19 corporatocracy playbook” that, in Verkerk’s words, “is now well and truly oiled,” corporate and government leaders of ill intent appear to believe they can continue to play the vaccine game indefinitely, using “fear and manipulated science to engender support for the global control of health.”
By Alan Mosley | The Libertarian Institute | April 22, 2026
Palantir CEO Alex Karp’s book, The Technological Republic, is a clarion call for Silicon Valley to abandon its consumer trinkets and rush headlong into the arms of the military-industrial complex. According to Karp, America’s future depends on wielding hard power through technology—arming soldiers, AI-weaponry, and mass surveillance systems—rather than on the “soft” influence demonstrated by free markets and liberty-first principles. The book claims that “the survival of the American experiment depends on the technological revitalization of the military-industrial complex” and urges the country’s engineering talent to focus on national defense. Karp and his co-author, Nicholas Zamiska, argue that tech bros should “grow up” and start killing America’s enemies before they kill us. … 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 