Technology is a tool and a weapon. It may enhance and empower or disempower and enslave. A simple hammer can be a tool to construct a house or a weapon to bludgeon a man’s skull. As technology enhances, optimally, it would enhance the human condition. There is a delicate balancing between technological advancement and the wisdom to manage that advancement without causing destruction. Unfortunately, the wisdom to manage technological advancement often lags behind.
We are continuously told that there needs to be a balance between freedom and security. This of course is a false narrative, as once there is no freedom, there will be no security. If we examine what has been done in the name of security, it is astounding.
Our conversations are listened to and stored in databases, every keystroke on our keyboards is recorded, there are cameras on street corners, and the list goes on. All of this is in the name of security. The post 911 security state is something out of George Orwell’s 1984 where big brother is always watching you. It is clear that if you induce enough fear and hate, coupled with enough drugs and entertainment, people will willingly give up their liberty for a false sense of security. The result, of course, is that they will end up with neither.
So why am I suggesting we need a new government surveillance program?
The answer is simple. We don’t have one. Sure, we can file a FOI request. Maybe if we are lucky, we will get documents months later that is often heavily redacted information, and if we are really lucky, as a result, expose illegal activity. As was reported by Emerald Robinson, this of course recently happened, when it was discovered by Congress, that NIH scientists appeared to deliberately circumvent the law for the purposes of obstructing justice by using private emails, and even miss spelling words to avoid searches. These actions seem to indicate a criminal intent to obstruct justice.
I recently suggested in an interview on the Absolute Truth with Emerald Robinson that FOI requests are obsolete. To elaborate on that discussion, instead of FOI requests, we as civilians should be able to access government employee communications in real time whenever we want to. We should simply be able to look up one of our government employees and track all of their communications while they are working. We should also be able to track their phone conversations in real time and access transcripts of these conversations as they are occurring. This should all equally apply to government contractors.
It isn’t enough to be able to monitor their communications. We should also be able to watch what they are doing at all times in real time as well. As a civilian employer, you should be able to look up a government employee and watch what they are doing at all times while they are on the clock. For higher up level employees, you should be able to watch them after hours if they are meeting with other employees or government contractors. Body cameras would do the trick.
That’s right. Those cameras need to be turned around. If those cameras were monitoring in real time the employees in the prison where Epstein was held do you really think he would have committed suicide?
Of course, I am not excluding politicians or their interactions with each other or their staff. Politicians, government employees, and government contractors need to sacrifice their freedom for our security. Would the undeclared war on Russia have started, let alone escalated, if we as civilians were able to watch every conversation? Would we have ended up on the precipice of global war?
Imagine if every conversation of a war criminal like Fauci and other conspirators was on video. Global genocide would not be occurring. The people you know and love, would not be getting turbo cancers, strokes, heart attacks, autoimmune diseases, chronic fatigue, and neurological, problems to name a few.
Again, politicians sacrificing their freedom, is not merely for our freedom and security, it is for their security too. If we had constant monitoring of their activities, it is true they would not be able to make as much money in bribes, still, they are less likely to compromise themselves for blackmail purposes. The odds are that the typical politician’s blackmailable behavior will significantly decrease after the first real time escapades are viewed all over the place. I would maintain that physical intimidation will also decrease if there is constant monitoring of the typical politician. So, you see, if they sacrifice their freedom, it is clearly to maintain their safety as well. It is our duty to save the typical politician or government employee from themselves.
The reality is that we have created an upside down world with unfettered government that has become a direct threat to the people. The privacy of individuals and basic private property rights, and human rights in general have been kicked to the curb. Politicians and the government have been captured. A government that has secrets is inherently oppressive and contrary to the concept of a Constitutional Republic. Secret agencies and secret budgets are devastating to humanity.
Individual privacy and even communications are under attack. The idea that your private texts can be monitored, let alone censored from being sent, on its own should cause upheaval. Social media acting under the color of law censored medical information that could have saved countless lives over the past four years. So called hate speech laws are seeking to outlaw common sense. Canada’s laws preventing healthcare professionals from protecting children from gender mutilation are an example.
Maybe we should pass laws restricting the free speech of elected officials and government employees instead of limiting the free speech of us, the civilian employers?
Okay, maybe I am taking it a bit too far… The point is that the government, i.e. deep state, is an uncontrollable monster that must be reined in. Literally, the government is waging war against the people. The tightening noose of oppression will continue until we stop it. The deep state envisions a world, where most of us no longer exist, and for those that do remain, it will be a world transformed into the airport, degrading, humiliating, and exhausting.
Israel’s illegal control over the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza has for decades prevented the Palestinian people from exercising their right of self-determination and full and effective self-governance. UN Resolution 3246 calls for all States to recognise that that right applies to all peoples subjected to colonial and foreign domination, including the Palestinians.
The warning signs of genocide in Gaza had been there for all to see. But the lack of will on the part of UN members to implement 3246 not only let it happen but then failed to stop it even when its ferocity passed all comprehension.
When October 7 erupted the West attempted to airbrush the pre-existing conditions Israel had imposed on Gaza and pretended Hamas started the ‘war’. But 1,000 lawyers, scholars, and practitioners immediately sounded the alarm about “the possibility of the crime of genocide being perpetrated by Israeli forces against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip” and issued an open letter as early as 15 October.
For a start they reminded everyone that in 1982 the UN General Assembly condemned the massacre of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps as “an act of genocide”.
Pre-existing conditions in the Gaza Strip had prompted discussion on genocide before, with warnings given over the years that the siege of Gaza (from 2006 onwards) might amount to a “prelude to genocide” or a “slow-motion genocide”.
And since 2007, shortly after Hamas won the Palestinian elections, Israel had defined the Gaza Strip as an “enemy entity”.
Earlier in 2023 Israeli Minister of Finance Bezalel Smotrich called Palestinians “repugnant”, and “disgusting” and proposed “wiping out” the entire Palestinian village of Huwwara in the West Bank.
• In the short space of time between 7 October and 15 October (when the open letter was written), 2,329 Palestinians were killed and 9,042 Palestinians injured in Israeli attacks on Gaza, including over 724 children, huge swathes of neighborhoods, and entire families across Gaza were obliterated.
• Israel’s Defence Minister ordered a “complete siege” of the Gaza Strip prohibiting the supply of fuel, electricity, water, and other necessities. This intensifies an already illegal and potentially genocidal siege turning it into an outright destructive assault.
• The ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) stated that orders to evacuate, coupled with the complete siege, are incompatible with international humanitarian law. Almost half a million Palestinians have already been displaced and Israeli forces have bombed the only possible exit route that Israel does not control (the Rafah crossing to Egypt) multiple times.
• The World Health Organisation published a warning that “forcing more than 2000 patients to relocate to southern Gaza, where health facilities are already running at maximum capacity and unable to absorb a dramatic rise in the number of patients, could be tantamount to a death sentence”.
• In the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem, since 7 October, Israeli settlers backed by the IDF and police, have attacked and shot Palestinian civilians at point-blank range (as documented in the villages of a-Tuwani and Qusra), invaded their homes, and assaulted residents. Several Palestinian communities have already been forced to abandon their homes, after which settlers arrived and destroyed their property.
• Between 7 and 15 October, Al-Haq documented the killing by the Israeli military and settlers of 55 Palestinians in the West Bank with 1,200 injured there.
• Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant declared on 9 October: “We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly”, and afterward announced that Israel was moving to “a full-scale response” and he had “removed every restriction” on Israeli forces, also stating: “Gaza won’t return to what it was before. We will eliminate everything.”
• On 10 October, the head of the Israeli Army’s Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), Maj. Gen. Ghassan Alian, addressed a message directly to Gaza residents: “Human animals must be treated as such. There will be no electricity and no water, there will only be destruction. You wanted hell, you will get hell”.
• Israeli army spokesperson Daniel Hagari acknowledged the wanton and intentionally destructive nature of Israel’s bombing campaign in Gaza: “The emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy.”
• On 7 October, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Gazans would pay an “immense price” for the actions of Hamas fighters and asserted that Israel will wage a prolonged offensive that will turn parts of Gaza’s densely populated urban centers “into rubble”.
• Israel’s President emphasized that the Israeli authorities view the entire Palestinian population of Gaza as responsible for the actions of militant groups, and subject accordingly to collective punishment and unrestricted use of force: “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible.”
• Israeli Minister of Energy and Infrastructure Israel Katz added: “All the civilian population in Gaza is ordered to leave immediately. We will win. They will not receive a drop of water or a single battery until they leave the world.”
• On 12 October UN Special Rapporteurs condemned “Israel’s indiscriminate military attacks against the already exhausted Palestinian people of Gaza, comprising over 2.3 million people, nearly half of whom are children. They have lived under unlawful blockade for 16 years, and already gone through five major brutal wars, which remain unaccounted for”.
• UN experts warned against “the withholding of essential supplies such as food, water, electricity and medicines. Such actions will precipitate a severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where its population is now at an inescapable risk of starvation. Intentional starvation is a crime against humanity”.
• On 14 October the UN Special Rapporteur, on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, warned against “a repeat of the 1948 Nakba, and the 1967 Naksa, yet on a larger scale” as Israel is carrying out “mass ethnic cleansing of Palestinians under the fog of war”.
• The Palestinian population of Gaza appears to be presently subjected by the Israeli forces and authorities to widespread killing, bodily and mental harm, and unviable conditions of life – against a backdrop of Israeli statements that evidence signs of intent to physically destroy the population.
• Article II of the Genocide Convention provides that “genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, such as # Killing members of the group; # Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; # Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; # Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; # Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
• The Convention provides that individuals who attempt genocide or who incite genocide “shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals”.
• The International Court of Justice has clarified that “a State’s obligation to prevent, and the corresponding duty to act, arise at the instant that the State learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed. From that moment onwards, if the State has available means likely to have a deterrent effect on those suspected of preparing genocide, or reasonably suspected of harboring specific intent (dolus specialist), it is under a duty to make such use of these means as the circumstances permit”. (The many means available to the British Government include sanctions – readily applied to other delinquent nations – and withdrawal of favored-nation privileges, trade deals, and scientific collaboration).
• Competent elements of the United Nations, particularly the UN General Assembly, are required to take urgent action under the Charter of the United Nations appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide. Emphasis is on the General Assembly given that the Security Council is compromised by the US and UK (both permanent veto-holding members) sending military forces to the eastern Mediterranean in support of Israel.
• All relevant UN bodies, including the Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, as well as the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, are called on to immediately intervene, carry out necessary investigations, and invoke the necessary warning procedures to protect the Palestinian population from genocide.
Chock-full of hate
All this was quickly followed by the UK Lawyers’ Open Letter Concerning Gaza of 26 October 2023, which contained important warnings regarding international law — for example:
⦁ The UK is duty-bound to “respect and ensure respect” for international humanitarian law as set out in the Four Geneva Conventions in all circumstances (1949 Geneva Conventions, Common Art 1). That means the UK must not itself assist violations by others.
⦁ The UK Government must immediately halt the export of weapons from the UK to Israel, given the clear risk that they might be used in serious violations of international humanitarian law and in breach of the UK’s domestic Strategic Export Licensing Criteria, including its obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty.
So, within 3 weeks it was clear to everyone paying attention that the Israeli leadership, chock-full of hate, were set on a course of vicious and brutal genocide. Yet the following month John Kirby, the White House National Security Communications Advisor, dismissed claims that Israel was committing genocide and told everybody that “Israel is not trying to wipe the Palestinian people off the map. Israel is not trying to wipe Gaza off the map. Israel is trying to defend itself against a genocidal terrorist threat. So if we’re going to start using that word, fine. Let’s use it appropriately.”
Yes, and let’s use the term “right of self-defence” appropriately. In Gaza and the West Bank it only applies to the Palestinian resistance, not the belligerent illegal occupier.
Incredibly, we’re now entering the 9th month of the genocide in Gaza and it has gone from bad to much, much worse. And there is still no let-up. People worldwide have been watching day after day mainstream and alternative media reports, seeing for themselves the horrors endured even by children, and aghast at the wholesale and wanton destruction of the Palestinians’ homeland. They cannot believe how depraved, immoral and spineless the international community has become, and how paralysed the UN in allowing the slaughter to continue. They are especially sickened by the conduct of the so-called ‘major powers’ and by the lunatic Netanyahu whom their own politicians call ‘friend and ally’ who thinks he can still dictate what happens in Gaza after he eventually condescends to end the butchery.
If he thinks Israel can now grab Gaza by conquest he may be disappointed. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter expressly prohibits aggressive war and Article 5(3) of General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 1975 (which includes the definition of Acts of Aggression) nullifies any legal title acquired in this way. And 5(3) says “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations“.
In carrying through its genocidal assault on Gaza’s civilians and their homes, infrastructure and livelihoods Israel cannot possibly claim to abide by international law or honour their obligations under the Charter. And by encouraging Israel — and supplying the weaponry — neither can the US and UK.
And now we have Biden, Israel’s loony protector, setting ‘red lines’ which Israel must not cross while merrily carrying on with their genocide. But they are so elastic that, with US permission, the hateful maniacs can almost do as they please to satisfy their genocidal lust. Biden arrogantly overrules the red lines on war crimes and crimes against humanity that are already set out by international law.
This series began two years ago as the war in Ukraine progressed. Over time, interesting video clips surfaced that were ignored by our corporate media but posted at small, independent sites like “December1991”, which is linked below. These appeared after relevant episodes in this series were posted so I’ve grouped them in this episode.
In corporate America, hostile takeovers are commonplace. They occur when an aggressor—a larger corporation or rich individuals—seizes control of a smaller corporation without asking permission.
What few recognize is that the United States itself has been subjected to a hostile takeover. Since the aggressor, the illegitimate settler colony known as “Israel,” is much smaller than the US, the takeover has necessarily been surreptitious.
As of June, 2024, Israel’s gradual takeover of the US has become obvious and undeniable—a proverbial “elephant in the living room.” In this election year, all three major presidential candidates compete for Israel’s favor, even as the whole world recoils from the zionist genocide of Gaza. The Democratic incumbent, Joe Biden, supplies the butcher Netanyahu with all the weapons he needs to massacre tens of thousands of Palestinian women and children, uttering only occasional peeps of pro forma protest in a lame attempt to mollify his base.
Biden’s Republican challenger, Donald Trump, openly supports the genocide and calls on Israel to “finish the job” (of massacring Palestinians). Most bizarrely of all, the independent challenger Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who offers a refreshing alternative to mainstream approaches on other issues, has staked out the most pro-genocide position of the three.
Kennedy’s position is puzzling for many reasons. As the “alternative” candidate, he might be expected to take an alternative position on Palestine, especially since it would markedly enhance his slim chances of becoming president. Young Americans oppose genocide and side with Palestine, as the ongoing campus protests demonstrate. If RFK Jr. harnessed that youthful energy by reversing course and announcing his support for Palestine, he would immediately gain tens or even hundreds of thousands of enthusiastic youthful volunteers who would start ringing doorbells and promoting his candidacy, just as anti-Vietnam-war students did for his father in 1968.
Since polls show that most Democratic voters oppose Biden’s pro-Israel stance, and that American public opinion overall is following world public opinion in the direction of ever-stronger support for Palestine, RFK Jr. could conceivably win a plurality of votes, and the presidency, by leading that shift. Instead, he has chosen to doom his candidacy by echoing the ultra-genocidal ravings of his handler, Rabbi Schmuley Boteach.
Though Kennedy decries the corrupt forces that have taken over America, and denounces the coups d’état that killed his father (1968) and uncle (1963), he seemingly fails to recognize who was behind the takeover and the killings. Kennedy knows and openly states that his father was not killed by the hypnotized Palestinian patsy Sirhan Sirhan. He acknowledges Sirhan’s innocence and has worked to free him from prison. But the significance of the fact that the perpetrators chose a Palestinian to falsely take the blame apparently escapes him.
In his blockbuster book, Brothers, David Talbot presents convincing evidence that Robert F. Kennedy was murdered because he was about to become president—and use the power of his office to bring to justice the killers of his brother, President John F. Kennedy. So, who were those killers? Michael Collins Piper’s Final Judgment makes a strong case that David Ben Gurion, the Israeli Prime Minister who resigned under pressure from JFK, and Israel’s CIA mole James Jesus Angleton, were the ringleaders. The motive: Prevent JFK from shutting down Israel’s nuclear program, and insert Israel’s asset Lyndon B. Johnson into office to oversee the 1967 land-grab war.
Anyone who doubts that Johnson was an Israeli asset needs to read Peter Hounam’s Operation Cyanide: How the Bombing of the USS Liberty Nearly Caused World War III. Hounem discovered evidence that then-President Johnson scrambled US nuclear bombers on highest-level alert more than one hour before the USS Liberty was attacked by Israel on June 8, 1967. Then when the ship miraculously stayed afloat, radioed for help, and identified its attackers as Israelis, the President of the United States issued a treasonous order: “I want that goddamn ship going to the bottom. No help. Recall the wings.”
Most Americans have no idea that Israel attempted to sink the unarmed US spy ship USS Liberty and murder its crew of 293 sailors so the attack could be falsely blamed on Egypt. Nor do they realize that the zionists succeeded in killing 34 sailors and wounding 171. Even less do they know that the sitting US president was complicit and yearned for the death of every one of those 293 American servicemen.
Why don’t more Americans know about the USS Liberty massacre? A draconian cover-up, in which surviving sailors were told to keep quiet or bad things would happen to their families, persisted for decades. Simultaneously the mainstream media published a smattering of ludicrous assertions that the Israelis had attacked the ship by accident. Those were rare exceptions to a general blackout on the topic.
Why would the media cover up such a sensational story? That question raises an even more basic one: Who controls the media? The president who followed Johnson, Richard M. Nixon, knew, but was afraid to talk about it in public. Privately, he discussed the matter with friends and advisors like the Rev. Billy Graham, who told Nixon that powerful Jews “are friendly to me because they know that I’m friendly with Israel. But they don’t know how I really feel about what they are doing to this country.” “You must not let them know,” Nixon replied.
“This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country’s going down the drain” Graham continued. Nixon: “Do you believe that?” Graham: “Yes, sir.” Nixon: “Oh boy. So do I. I can’t ever say that, but I believe it.”
Today, as we approach the 57th anniversary of Israel’s massacre of American sailors aboard the USS Liberty, the United States of America has gone even further down the drain than it was in 1972, when Nixon’s conversation with Graham took place. Today, anyone who mentions the extraordinary power of America’s 2% Jewish minority, specifically its organized lobby groups and sway over media, finance, politics and organized crime (which are not mutually exclusive categories) will be viciously smeared, their careers and reputations ruined by a group so powerful that it has prohibited any mention of its power.
Some try to avoid the smears by speaking of the “zionist lobby” rather than the “Jewish lobby.” But the distinction is largely semantic. Virtually all of the power of organized Jewry supports zionism, including every one of the 50 groups represented at the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Since the zionist entity defines itself as the “Jewish state” and its presumptive citizens as all Jews on Earth, regardless of where they live, calling its American contingent “the Jewish lobby” is reasonable and accurate—just as Irish-Americans who lobby for Ireland, albeit without the power of their Jewish counterparts, are an “Irish lobby.”
Others prefer the term “zionist” because it includes so-called Christian zionists like Billy Graham. But as the tapes of his conversations with Nixon show, Graham’s professed zionism was insincere. The only reason Graham pretended to support Israel was the same reason Nixon pretended to support Israel: Both men were terrified by the power of the Jews. And while there are, no doubt, some sincere Christian zionists, they are mere useful idiots in the quintessentially Jewish project of building an ever-expanding, ever-more-powerful Jewish state representing not just Israel’s Jewish citizens, but all the Jews of the world.
Looking back on the 1967 war and its context, including the USS Liberty massacre, one is struck by the Jewish state’s willingness to engage in risky and reckless behavior. Normally, if a small nation of just a few million people murdered a sitting US president, as Israel did in 1963, it might expect to be scrubbed from the face of the Earth. “Oy vey, if we get caught!” Israeli leader Golda Meir was reported to have said shortly after the JFK assassination. Meir also said, on two occasions, that Israel would destroy the world with nuclear weapons rather than accept military defeat. (The source for both statements was Meir’s personal friend, former lead Mideast BBC correspondent Alan Hart.)
Today, the zionist entity is still taking enormous risks—and pushing the world toward nuclear Armageddon. Its genocide of Gaza has cast it as the enemy of all humanity. Its repeated attacks on regional countries, and its assassinations of Iran’s top generals and suspected assassination of the Iranian president and foreign minister, have brought the Muslim East, and the world, to the proverbial precipice. And its complete death grip on power in America has destroyed the American republic and is driving the now-fascist US empire to destruction.
Like the brave soldiers on the wounded USS Liberty, who cobbled together makeshift communications equipment after the zionists had bombed their antenna, and managed to broadcast a message revealing the identity of their attackers, we need to piece together what is left of our Enlightenment-era free communications network and use it to inform the world who the enemy really is.
Iran, Russia and China have called on the West to end “the endless cycle of escalation” and restore the nuclear deal that was agreed with Tehran in 2015.
The three nations issued a joint statement to coincide with a meeting of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), currently underway in the Austrian capital, Vienna.
Tehran, Moscow and Beijing continue to support the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JPCOA) agreed with Iran in 2015, even though “the US illegally and unilaterally withdrew from this agreement and imposed unilateral and illegal sanctions and applied the policy of maximum pressure against Iran,” read a statement shared by Iranian news agency Tasnim on Wednesday.
The JCPOA, which was signed by Iran, China, France, Germany, Russia, the UK, and the US administration of President Barack Obama, envisaged Tehran scaling down its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of international restrictions.
However, in 2018, then-US President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew Washington from the landmark agreement, calling it “the worst deal ever.” The move prompted Iran to renege on some of its commitments under the JCPOA and return to enriching uranium.
In recent years, Iran, Russia and China have taken part in nine meetings in Vienna aimed at reviving the agreement. However, France, Germany, the UK, and the US have chosen a different path, “ignoring the common goal of resuming JCPOA implementation because of their own political considerations,” the statement claimed.
Revising the JCPOA would be a “win-win” for all sides, Iran, Russia, and China argued. Among other things, it would answer most of the questions the international community has regarding “Iran’s peaceful nuclear program” and would provide the IAEA with more extensive tools to monitor and verify Tehran’s activities in the field, they stated.
“It is time for Western countries to show political will, stop the endless cycle of escalation… and take the necessary step to revive the JCPOA,” the statement added. It is still possible to salvage the agreement and Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing are fully prepared to do this, the document stressed.
On Tuesday, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Mohammad Eslami, said the country is “currently in the phase of reduction of commitments” under the JCPOA. Tehran is doing so because the other signatories have failed to fulfill their obligations, he explained.
US President Joe Biden’s vision of peace for Ukraine does not mean having that country as part of the US-led military bloc, according to his interview with Time magazine, published on Tuesday.
Biden sat down with Time’s editor in chief and Washington bureau chief at the White House on May 28, speaking about his policy on Ukraine, China, Israel and election-related matters.
“Peace looks like making sure Russia never, never, never, never occupies Ukraine. That’s what peace looks like. And it doesn’t mean NATO, they are part of NATO,” Biden said, when asked about the endgame in Ukraine.
“It means we have a relationship with them like we do with other countries, where we supply weapons so they can defend themselves in the future,” he added. “But it is not, if you notice, I was the one when – and you guys did report it at TIME – the one that I was saying that I am not prepared to support the NATOization of Ukraine.”
Biden then argued that the West is “on a slippery slope for war if we don’t do something about Ukraine,” and that if Kiev falls then “you’ll see Poland go, and you’ll see all those nations along the actual border of Russia, from the Balkans and Belarus, all those, they’re going to make their own accommodations.”
According to Biden, he approved the release of intelligence about the Russian “invasion” of Ukraine “to let the world know we were still in charge. We still know what’s going on.”
“We are, we are the world power,” the 81-year-old Democrat told Time. As proof, he pointed to the June 2021 summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Switzerland, where the Russian leader allegedly said he wanted to see “the Finlandization of NATO.”
“I told him, he’s gonna get not the Finlandization [of NATO but], the NATOization of Finland. And everybody thought, including you guys, thought I was crazy,” Biden said. “And guess what? I did it. I did it. And we’re now the strongest nation.”
In December 2021, Russia sent the US and NATO two draft security treaties, seeking a pledge that Ukraine would never join the US-led bloc, among other things. In January 2022, Washington and Brussels snubbed Moscow’s proposal, insisting that NATO has an “open door” policy not subject to outside veto. The Russian military operation in Ukraine began a month later.
Today, the largest protest against the World Health Organization (WHO) began, with an opening speech by Kazuhiro Haraguchi, a former Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications in Japan and a current member of the House of Representatives. The massive gathering aimed to highlight several critical issues, as Haraguchi delivered a powerful and heartfelt address that resonated with many.
Haraguchi began by addressing the grief and loss felt by countless individuals and families due to the pandemic. With a deep sense of sincerity, he extended his condolences and took responsibility for the failings of those in power. “I apologize to all of you. So many have died, and they shouldn’t have,” he said. His words reflected a deep empathy and regret for the preventable tragedies that have occurred, setting a somber yet resolute tone for the event.
One of the key points in Haraguchi’s speech was his criticism of the ban on Ivermectin, a drug developed by Dr. Satoshi Omura, which he believed could have played a significant role in combating the pandemic. Haraguchi questioned the motives behind the ban, suggesting that economic interests were prioritized over public health. “Why? Because they are cheap. They don’t want it because it will interfere with the sales of the vaccines,” he argued. This statement drew loud applause from the crowd, many of whom felt that corporate profits had taken precedence over human lives.
Haraguchi then shared a deeply personal story about his own health struggles. After receiving vaccines, he developed a severe illness, specifically a rapidly progressing form of cancer. “This time last year, I had neither eyebrows nor hair. Two out of the three supposed vaccines I received were lethal batches,” he revealed. This candid account of his battle with cancer, which included significant physical changes like hair loss, struck a chord with the audience. He recounted an incident where his appearance became a point of distraction in the Diet, with an opponent focusing more on his wig than the issues at hand.
Adding to the conversation, Haraguchi disclosed that he was not the only member of Japan’s National Diet to suffer adverse effects from vaccines. He mentioned that three of his colleagues had been severely affected, with some even hospitalized. “They are falling to pieces, some hospitalized. But they don’t speak up,” he explained. This revelation underscored a broader issue: the reluctance or inability of public figures to discuss their personal health challenges openly.
Haraguchi was particularly passionate about the attempts to silence those who question current policies and government actions. He recounted a recent incident where he was banned from speaking on Channel 3 after an interview with its president. “The other day, I spoke with the President of Channel 3, and I was banned. They are trying to silence our voices,” he stated. This attempt to censor dissenting voices highlighted a critical concern about freedom of speech and expression. Haraguchi urged the audience to remain steadfast in their resolve, saying, “They are trying to block our freedom, our resistance, our power. But we will never lose.”
In the conclusion of his speech, Haraguchi issued a rallying call for action. He urged the people to stand united in challenging the government and its questionable decisions. “Let’s overthrow this government,” he proclaimed, emphasizing the need for change and accountability. He called on legislators to continue fighting for the people’s lives and freedoms, “Let’s make it happen,” he concluded.
The protest that is happening right now (31st May 2024), which aims to draw tens of thousands of participants, marked a significant moment in the global discourse about pandemic management and health policies. Haraguchi’s speech, filled with personal anecdotes and strong criticisms, resonated deeply with the attendees.
Dr. Michael Nehls, Physician and Molecular Geneticist, returns to The HighWire with shocking stats on vitamin D’s proven health effects on COVID-19 patients and how health regulators world wide censored this life saving information from the public from the early days of the pandemic. He also discusses lithium orotate, and how it may be helpful in treating those suffering from and at risk for the debilitating conditions of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.
We continue our coverage from last week, following the shocking revelation that NIH officials were purposely communicating in methods to avoid FOIA’s. Following these discoveries made through Senior Advisor to the Deputy Director of NIAID, David Morens, testimony in Congress and emails, we now know that Francis Collins and other senior officials at NIH used encrypted non-governmental email accounts, and replaced letters of scientists with symbols to avoid having to disclose their communications to the public. All eyes are on Tony Fauci who is set to testify publicly this Monday for the first time since this scandal broke.
In 2019 the World Health Organization listed “vaccine hesitancy” as one of the top ten threats to global health.
“The reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines,” this multi-billion-dollar agency explained, “threatens to reverse progress made in tackling vaccine-preventable diseases.”
According to the WHO: “Vaccination is one of the most cost-effective ways of avoiding disease—it currently prevents 2-3 million deaths a year, and a further 1.5 million could be avoided if global coverage of vaccinations improved.”
In 2019 a lot of people believed this to be true, shaking their heads in dismay at “those crazy antivaxxers.”
Five years later there’s a shift happening.
More people than ever before—especially those in healthcare professions—are starting to do their own research, use their own human brains to think about things that they always took at face value, and change their minds about vaccines.
“Many of us have learned about the vaccine industry”
According to a peer-reviewed article published last week in Nature’s Scientific Reports, there has been a “global rise in vaccine hesitancy.”
One of my readers, Beth, would likely agree.
“Yes, the best thing to happen in all this covid nonsense is that many of us have learned more about the vaccine industry,” Beth wrote in a comment on an article I wrote about how people were bribed to get COVID-19 vaccines. “I’m a nurse, and won’t get another.”
An M.D. colleague of mine, who has been squarely pro-vaccine his entire career, has started to change his mind about vaccines.
The reason?
He’s spending most of every day in his clinical practice treating mainstream patients who are suffering from severe adverse reactions to the vaccines they’d been so eager to get.
After seeing the reactions for himself, he did something he did not used to do as a busy clinician in private practice: he started looking beyond the CDC’s recommendations and reading scientific studies for himself.
Several studies he read, and alternative news articles about them, left him with so much cognitive dissonance that he almost decided to quit medicine for good.
Vaccine studies that should give you pause
Three of these peer-reviewed scientific studies about COVID-19 vaccine safety caught his attention:
1) A 2022 study by Italian scientists that showed that 94 percent of vaccinated patients who went to the doctor with subsequent health problems presented with abnormal blood. The three Italian scientists who examined freshly drawn blood of more than a thousand patients noted that though they had no clear explanation for their findings, they were so unusual that they felt the need to alert the medical community.
2) A 2022 study published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology by an international team of researchers that included an MIT senior scientist and one of the world’s foremost and most respected cardiologists, presented evidence that the mRNA vaccines impaired type 1 interferon signaling, which has diverse—and sometimes devastating—consequences to human health, including a “causal link” to neurodegenerative disease, myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia, and cancer.
3) An extended analysis conducted by a team of nine experts from Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and several other elite universities that found that COVID-19 booster shots for young people actually caused many more serious adverse events for every one (1) theoretical COVID-19 infection-related hospitalization they prevented. Among the team of scientists that published this paper was Dr. Salmaan Keshavjee, M.D./Ph.D., the director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Global Health Delivery. The paper concluded that, given efficacy and safety concerns, mandating COVID-19 vaccines for college students was unethical.
This doctor had previously testified in favor of allowing state officials to bar unvaccinated or partially vaccinated children from attending public school, private school, and daycare. The bill he supported, thankfully, was not passed into law.
Why would he have supported taking medical freedom and vaccine choice away from parents?
I choose to believe that nearly all doctors have human health and their patients’ wellbeing at the forefront of their minds.
Yes, doctors like the respect they get from being medical doctors.
Sure, they love the money and the houses they can buy with it, the vacations they can take, and the elite colleges they can afford to send their children to.
But most doctors also care, deeply, about the people who come to them for help.
This doctor once believed that by protesting against allowing unvaccinated and partially vaccinated children to attend school he was helping make America a healthier, happier place.
In his mind—programmed by four years of medical training, a residency, continuing education courses, most if not all of his colleagues, the billboards he passed on the highway on his commute to the office every day, the advertising he saw on TV, and the news channels he tuned into several times a day—vaccines were synonymous with health.
And the more vaccinated a child, the healthier.
You don’t know what you don’t know.
Screenshot of educational material about over-vaccination produced by the National Vaccine Information Center, a non-profit based in Washington, D.C., that was founded by a parent whose child was severely and irreversibly vaccine-injured based
And he admitted, in a confessional tone of voice, that before COVID he probably wouldn’t have cared anyway.
Most doctors, before COVID, never filed a VAERS report
He didn’t believe in vaccine adverse events, had never filed a VAERS report, and had always dismissed patients’ concerns that the problem their child experienced right after being vaccinated as an “unfortunate coincidence.” In his mind, bad vaccine reactions simply didn’t exist.
Reading a book about safety, efficacy, and necessity issues related to vaccines would have been like reading a book about the safety of broccoli or the efficacy of drinking water to hydrate the body.
Though he does not know, he has now filed over a dozen VAERS reports to alert the CDC. To date, no one at the CDC has responded to any of his reports.
Staying in the closet
This doctor has over a thousand families in his practice. He employs another medical doctor, a nurse practitioner, and front-end staff.
For the past three plus years he’s chosen to work quietly from behind the scenes, trying to gently educate his mainstream allopathic-minded patients about his new vaccine safety concerns without alienating them.
While the world needs more medical doctors to speak publicly about the vaccine safety concerns and the adverse events they’re seeing firsthand, this doctor is afraid to come out of the closet. He accepts insurance, has a diverse patient population, and doesn’t want to lose his license.
These mRNA vaccines have proven their worth as money makers, allowing pharmaceutical executives to buy luxury real estate and put their newly minted billions into off-shore bank accounts.
The more people get vaccinated, the more money everyone in the industry makes.
There’s nothing wrong with making money.
But becoming rich at the expense of our children’s health and continuing to promote a toxic so-called preventative despite clear evidence that the harms outweigh the benefits is antithetical to the practice of medicine.
Still, as Beth so eloquently pointed out, the good news about this COVID nonsense is that more Americans than ever before are becoming aware of medical malfeasance. We may be on the cusp of a collective shift: a new national awareness about the importance of avoiding toxins, individualizing medicine, and thinking for ourselves.
I’ve described Cartel Medicine as predatory many times, but what am I really describing?
I’m describing its Nature.
The same as if I was describing the Nature of a Wolf.
A wolf sees me as prey because that is its Nature.
I am trying to understand what IT is, why it behaves the way it does, and I’m trying to help others orient themselves correctly to this creature.
Its Nature is to eat, to feed, to prey.
We are the Prey.
The “clothing” for this Nature are the Doctors.
The well intentioned, naïve sheep that are poured into The Academy to be “educated” by the most sophisticated indoctrination technology the world has ever seen.
They emerge, shiny and sparkling with their white coats that coincidentally are a similar color to that of a sheep’s coat.
The Wolf manages to perpetually drape itself with a constantly renewed Sheep’s Clothing.
The Sheep don’t understand their purpose.
Dr Robert Mendelsohn understood their purpose more than anyone else I have read so far, and to our eternal loss only got to write three books about it.
This stack is about the Wolf and how it preys on mothers and newborns via the assault on breastfeeding and the industrial propaganda of the Baby Formula Cartel.
We will start with an excerpt from Mendelsohn’s masterpiece Male Practice.
We will then look at a Q&A drawn from a chapter of Your Baby, Your Way, by Jennifer Margulis.
And I will end with a Q&A based on four Mercola articles.
With thanks to all three of these giants.
Male Practice by Dr Robert Mendelsohn
Chapter 23 – “I Know What’s Best for Your Child.”
A mother is doubly victimized by Modern Medicine. In addition to the abuses she suffers, she must also worry about what a doctor may do to her child. Creative diagnosis and the harmful intervention that often follows isn’t limited to adults. Doctors will practice it on any available victim, regardless of size.
The damage inflicted on children begins, as noted earlier, when silver nitrate drops are placed in their eyes. It continues throughout childhood in an endless succession of useless examinations, worthless medications, and needless surgery that serve only to make pediatricians rich.
The child’s health is often placed at risk shortly after birth when the doctor discourages breast-feeding and urges the mother to raise her baby on formula milk. There is virtually no medical or physical reason, short of a bilateral mastectomy, why doctors should urge substitution of nutritionally deficient formula for a perfect food like mother’s milk. Breast-feeding may be impractical for some working mothers, of course, but that doesn’t explain why doctors seem so determined to deny the benefits of breast-feeding to all the rest. Many aspects of obstetrical intervention mitigate against breast-feeding and, if these are not sufficient to discourage the mother, pediatricians always seem able to find another excuse. They tell her that her breasts are too small, her milk is too thin, or that she has a cold and should stay away from the baby.
I blame three factors for the failure of doctors to urge that mothers breast-feed their children. First, they learn nothing about nutrition in medical school and are actually taught that formula is just as good as mother’s milk. Second, this belief is reinforced by the misleading medical journal advertising purchased by the formula manufacturers. It stops just short of citing women as defective because their breasts aren’t calibrated and encased in tin. Finally, I believe doctors oppose breast-feeding for the same reason they oppose natural childbirth. It denies them too many lucrative opportunities to intervene.
Rather than discouraging breast-feeding, conscientious doctors should be doing everything they can to promote it because of its enormous importance to both mother and child. It strengthens the bond between them in a way that no amount of holding and hugging will achieve. It stimulates hormones that reduce postpartum bleeding and discomfort and causes the uterus to contract more rapidly to its normal size. It gives the mother sensual pleasure. It helps protect her from cancer of the breast.
Breast-feeding also stimulates the production of prolactin by the pituitary gland, which enhances maternal behavior. It also has a tranquilizing effect (without drugs) that helps the mother adjust to the pressures of having a new baby in the home. The prolactin also suppresses production by the ovaries of the hormone that triggers ovulation, thus providing natural birth control for a much longer time.
The baby benefits because breast-feeding provides it with nourishment superior to that supplied by formula milk. It provides better bone maturation and intellectual development. It protects the child from asthma and other hereditary allergies. Because nursing babies are not locked into rigid feeding schedules they eat when they are hungry. This makes them less prone to the digestive upsets seen in babies who are allowed to cry until the clock says mother can shove a bottle in their mouths. There is even evidence that the resulting avoidance of emotional disturbances and the breast-fed baby’s closer bond to its mother reduce the danger of hypertension later in life.
One of the most important benefits that the baby receives from mother’s milk is protection from infectious diseases that the mother has fought off through her well-developed immune system. The bottle-fed baby is much more likely to suffer a nightmare of illnesses that include diarrhea, colic, gastrointestinal and respiratory infections, meningitis, asthma, hives, other allergies, pneumonia, eczema, obesity, arteriosclerosis, dermatitis, growth retardation, hypocalcemic tetany, neonatal hypothyroidism, necrotizing enterocolitis, and sudden infant death syndrome. Babies raised on canned formula milk may also be affected by ingesting too much lead.
Not long ago the American Academy of Pediatrics finally discovered the virtues of breast-feeding and took a strong position in favor of mother’s milk. With an enthusiasm usually reserved for products of the pharmaceutical labs, it said that “Human milk is nutritionally superior to formula,” and it urged all elements of the medical profession to encourage breast-feeding.
That’s mildly encouraging, but I’m not so naive as to believe that the Academy’s recommendations will prevail. Hospital personnel don’t like breast-feeding because it involves more work for them and upsets their routine. Pediatricians don’t like it for the opposite reason. It means less work and fewer office call fees for them. When babies are breast-fed, pediatricians are hard put to justify their existence. There are no diets to juggle and the babies enjoy a natural immunity to most ailments. There’s nothing more useless than a doctor who has nothing to treat.
Your Baby, Your Way by Jennifer Margulis
Chapter 7 – Bottled Profits: How Formula Manufacturers Manipulate Moms
Question 1: What are some of the physical and emotional benefits of breastfeeding for mothers?
Breastfeeding provides numerous physical and emotional benefits for mothers. Physically, breastfeeding helps the uterus contract and return to its pre-pregnancy size, reduces postpartum bleeding, and helps women lose pregnancy weight more easily. Emotionally, breastfeeding releases the hormones oxytocin and prolactin, which promote feelings of bonding, relaxation, and well-being. The skin-to-skin contact during breastfeeding also enhances the emotional connection between mother and baby.
Question 2: How does breastfeeding impact the bonding experience between mother and baby?
Breastfeeding facilitates a strong bonding experience between mother and baby. The close physical contact, skin-to-skin touch, and eye contact during breastfeeding sessions create an intimate and nurturing environment. The release of oxytocin, known as the “love hormone,” during breastfeeding promotes feelings of attachment and affection. Mothers who breastfeed often report feeling a deep sense of connection and satisfaction in providing nourishment and comfort to their babies.
Question 3: What are the long-term health benefits of breastfeeding for women?
Breastfeeding offers several long-term health benefits for women. Studies have shown that women who breastfeed have a lower risk of developing breast cancer, ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes later in life. Breastfeeding also helps with natural child spacing, as exclusive breastfeeding can delay the return of ovulation and menstruation.
Question 4: Despite the known benefits, how do breastfeeding rates in the United States compare to other industrialized countries?
Despite the well-established benefits of breastfeeding, the United States has one of the lowest breastfeeding rates among industrialized countries. While 77% of American women initiate breastfeeding, only 36% are exclusively breastfeeding at three months postpartum. This means that out of the 4.3 million babies born in the United States each year, only 1.5 million are still being nursed at three months of age.
Question 5: What factors contribute to the low breastfeeding rates in the United States?
Several factors contribute to the low breastfeeding rates in the United States. These include insufficient support and education from healthcare providers; aggressive marketing practices by formula companies; and cultural attitudes that may view breastfeeding as inconvenient or embarrassing. Additionally, the medicalization of childbirth and common hospital practices that separate mothers and babies after delivery can hinder the initiation and establishment of breastfeeding.
Question 6: How can medical interventions during labor and delivery impact a woman’s ability to breastfeed?
Medical interventions during labor and delivery can significantly impact a woman’s ability to breastfeed. Procedures such as induction of labor, epidural analgesia, and cesarean section can lead to prolonged labor, delayed skin-to-skin contact, and separation of mother and baby, all of which can interfere with the initiation of breastfeeding. Medications used during labor may also cause drowsiness in the newborn, making it more difficult for the baby to latch on and feed effectively.
Question 7: What role do pediatricians and other medical professionals play in undermining breastfeeding?
Pediatricians and other medical professionals can undermine breastfeeding by providing inaccurate information, encouraging unnecessary supplementation with formula, or failing to offer adequate support to breastfeeding mothers. Some healthcare providers may lack sufficient knowledge about breastfeeding and its challenges, leading them to recommend formula supplementation prematurely. Additionally, the influence of formula company marketing on medical professionals can lead to a bias toward formula feeding over breastfeeding.
Question 8: How do formula companies use misleading advertising to promote their products?
Formula companies use various misleading advertising tactics to promote their products. They often make claims that their formula provides benefits similar to breast milk, such as promoting brain development, eye health, and immune function, despite the lack of scientific evidence to support these claims. Formula advertisements may also depict unrealistic and idealized images of formula-fed babies, suggesting that formula feeding is a superior or more convenient choice for mothers.
Question 9: What tactics do formula companies employ to undermine breastfeeding and increase their sales?
Formula companies employ several tactics to undermine breastfeeding and increase their sales. These include providing free formula samples to new mothers in hospitals, which has been shown to decrease breastfeeding rates; offering coupons and discounts on formula products; sponsoring parenting events and baby fairs; and marketing directly to pregnant women and new mothers through advertisements, websites, and social media. Formula companies also partner with hospitals and healthcare providers to distribute promotional materials and samples, effectively endorsing their products.
Question 10: How do formula companies influence nurses and other medical professionals?
Formula companies influence nurses and other medical professionals by providing free samples, gifts, and educational materials that promote their products. They may offer sponsored continuing education courses, conferences, and workshops that present information biased toward formula feeding. Formula representatives often develop personal relationships with nurses and hospital staff, providing meals, gift baskets, and other incentives. This subtle influence can lead healthcare professionals to view formula as an acceptable or even preferred alternative to breastfeeding.
Question 11: How do professional medical organizations, like the AAP, receive funding from formula companies, and what is the potential impact of this relationship?
Professional medical organizations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), receive funding from formula companies through sponsorships, grants, and donations. In the five years following the AAP’s endorsement of exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life, formula manufacturers donated more than $6.7 million to the organization. This financial relationship raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the influence of formula companies on the AAP’s policies and recommendations regarding infant feeding practices.
Question 12: What are the neurological advantages of breastfeeding for babies?
Breastfeeding offers several neurological advantages for babies. Breast milk contains essential nutrients, such as long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (DHA and ARA), that are crucial for brain development. The act of breastfeeding also provides important sensory stimulation through skin-to-skin contact, which promotes optimal brain development. Studies have shown that breastfed infants have higher scores on cognitive and developmental tests compared to formula-fed infants, and these benefits may extend into childhood and adulthood.
Question 13: How does breast milk composition compare to cow’s milk and infant formula?
Breast milk is a dynamic, living substance that adapts to the changing needs of the growing infant. It contains a perfect balance of nutrients, including proteins, fats, carbohydrates, vitamins, and minerals, as well as immune-boosting components such as antibodies, white blood cells, and enzymes. In contrast, cow’s milk and infant formula are static, processed products that cannot replicate the complexity and adaptability of human milk. While formula attempts to mimic the composition of breast milk, it lacks many of the bioactive components and living cells found in human milk.
Question 14: How have breastfeeding rates in Norway changed over time, and what factors contributed to these changes?
Breastfeeding rates in Norway have undergone significant changes over time. In the 1960s, breastfeeding rates reached an all-time low, with only one out of five Norwegian babies being breastfed at three months of age. This decline was largely attributed to the medicalization of childbirth and hospital practices that discouraged breastfeeding. However, with the rise of mother-to-mother support groups and changes in hospital policies, breastfeeding rates began to increase in the 1980s. Today, Norway has one of the highest breastfeeding rates in the industrialized world, with nearly 100% of mothers initiating breastfeeding and 80% still breastfeeding at six months postpartum.
Question 15: What policies and practices have been implemented in Norway to support breastfeeding?
Norway has implemented several policies and practices to support breastfeeding. These include paid maternity leave, which allows mothers to stay home and breastfeed their infants for an extended period; restrictions on the marketing of infant formula, in accordance with the International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes; and the establishment of the National Resource Center for Breastfeeding, which provides education and support to healthcare professionals and parents. Norwegian hospitals also prioritize skin-to-skin contact between mother and baby immediately after birth, encourage rooming-in, and provide lactation support to new mothers.
Question 16: How do infant mortality rates in the United States compare to those in Norway, and what role does breastfeeding play in this difference?
Infant mortality rates in the United States are significantly higher than those in Norway. A baby born in the United States is almost twice as likely to die in infancy compared to a baby born in Norway. Breastfeeding plays a crucial role in this difference, as it has been shown to reduce the risk of infant death, particularly from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and necrotizing enterocolitis. Norway’s high breastfeeding rates and supportive policies contribute to its lower infant mortality rates, while the United States’ low breastfeeding rates and lack of support for breastfeeding mothers may contribute to its higher infant mortality rates.
Question 17: What are the financial costs of formula feeding compared to breastfeeding?
Formula feeding is significantly more expensive than breastfeeding. The cost of formula for an infant for 12 months is estimated to be around $2,366, while the cost of breast milk is essentially zero. In addition to the direct cost of formula, there are indirect costs associated with formula feeding, such as increased healthcare expenses due to the higher rates of illness and infection among formula-fed infants. Breastfeeding, on the other hand, provides significant cost savings for families and the healthcare system as a whole.
Question 18: What is the purpose of the National Resource Center for Breastfeeding in Norway?
The National Resource Center for Breastfeeding in Norway is an academic center that aims to promote and support breastfeeding through research, education, and information dissemination. The center, overseen by Dr. Gro Nylander, uses scientific evidence to provide accurate and up-to-date information about breastfeeding to healthcare professionals, parents, government agencies, and the media. By serving as a centralized resource for breastfeeding information and support, the National Resource Center for Breastfeeding plays a crucial role in maintaining Norway’s high breastfeeding rates and ensuring that both healthcare providers and parents have access to reliable, evidence-based guidance on breastfeeding practices.
Question 19: How do Norwegian hospitals support breastfeeding and minimize the use of formula?
Norwegian hospitals implement several practices to support breastfeeding and minimize the use of formula. These practices include encouraging skin-to-skin contact between mother and baby immediately after birth, promoting rooming-in (keeping the baby in the same room as the mother), and allowing babies to breastfeed on demand. Norwegian hospitals also avoid giving newborns supplemental feedings of formula or sugar water, which can interfere with the establishment of breastfeeding. If a baby does require formula for medical reasons, it is given via alternative methods, such as a syringe or spoon, rather than a bottle, to avoid nipple confusion and maintain the baby’s ability to latch and breastfeed effectively.
Question 20: What are some of the potential dangers of supplementing breastfed babies with sugar water or formula in the early days of life?
Supplementing breastfed babies with sugar water or formula in the early days of life can pose several potential dangers. First, it can interfere with the establishment of a healthy milk supply, as the baby’s suckling stimulates milk production. If a baby receives supplemental feedings, they may not nurse as frequently or effectively, leading to decreased milk production. Additionally, sugar water can cause digestive issues, such as stomach discomfort and diarrhea, while formula can alter the gut microbiome and increase the risk of infections and allergies. Supplementation can also disrupt the natural bonding and attachment process between mother and baby, as well as undermine the mother’s confidence in her ability to nourish her child.
Question 21: What are some of the risks associated with formula feeding, as highlighted by product recalls and contamination incidents?
Formula feeding carries several risks, as evidenced by product recalls and contamination incidents. In recent years, there have been several instances of formula being recalled due to contamination by harmful substances, such as insects, larvae, and bacteria. These contaminants can cause serious health issues in infants, including gastrointestinal distress, infections, and even life-threatening illnesses. Additionally, formula products have been recalled for issues such as off-odors, unusual consistencies, and the presence of foreign objects. These incidents highlight the importance of strict quality control in formula manufacturing and the potential dangers of relying on a processed, artificial product to nourish infants.
Question 22: How do the profits of major formula companies compare to the cost of formula for families?
The profits of major formula companies are substantial, particularly when compared to the cost of formula for families. In 2011, Abbott Laboratories, the maker of Similac, reported global sales of $38.9 billion, while Mead Johnson Nutrition, the manufacturer of Enfamil, reported $3.7 billion in sales. Nestlé, the company behind Gerber formula, earned $10.1 billion in profits in the same year. In contrast, the average cost of formula for a family over a 12-month period is estimated to be $2,366. This disparity highlights the significant financial burden that formula feeding places on families, while formula companies continue to generate substantial profits.
Question 23: What is the estimated cost savings in healthcare if American women followed the AAP breastfeeding guidelines?
If American women followed the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) breastfeeding guidelines, which recommend exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life and continued breastfeeding for at least one year, the potential cost savings in healthcare could be significant. According to one study, if 90% of U.S. families followed the AAP guidelines, the country could save $13 billion in healthcare costs annually. These savings would be primarily due to the reduced incidence of illness and infection among breastfed infants, as well as the long-term health benefits for both mothers and children.
Question 24: How many infant deaths could potentially be avoided if American women breastfed according to recommendations?
If American women breastfed according to the recommendations set forth by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the World Health Organization, a significant number of infant deaths could potentially be avoided. One study estimated that if 90% of U.S. families followed the AAP breastfeeding guidelines, approximately 900 infant deaths could be prevented annually. This reduction in infant mortality would be largely attributed to the protective effects of breastfeeding against sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), necrotizing enterocolitis, and other life-threatening conditions. By increasing breastfeeding rates and duration, the United States could make substantial progress in improving infant health outcomes and reducing preventable infant deaths.
Formula weakens the baby, versus breastfeeding, and makes them less resilient to the assault of vaccination. So, it’s an indirect relationship rather than a direct causal one.
Questions and Answers based on these four Mercola articles:
Question 1: What percentage of infant formula health and nutrition claims are supported by clinical trial evidence, according to a 2023 study?
According to a study published in February 2023, only 26% of the infant formula products surveyed attempted to support their health and nutrition claims with a clinical trial or a review. Of these, only 14% used clinical trials in humans, and 90% of those trials carried a high risk of bias due to missing data or conclusions that were not supported by the data.
Question 2: How have infant formula marketing techniques influenced families, scientists, and policy makers, as discussed in the 2023 Lancet Series on breastfeeding?
The 2023 Lancet Series on breastfeeding called for greater regulation over the “predatory” nature of the infant formula industry’s marketing campaigns aimed at new mothers. These marketing techniques and strategies have influenced families, policy, and science, often portraying commercial milk formula products as solutions to common infant health and developmental challenges in ways that systematically undermine breastfeeding.
Question 3: How is the grocery industry aligning with Big Pharma through apps like Albertsons’ “Sincerely Health,” and what are the potential implications for consumers in terms of limiting their freedoms?
Grocery store conglomerate Albertsons has entered the digital health space with its app “Sincerely Health,” which encourages customers to connect data from wearable monitoring devices and track their prescriptions, grocery store purchases, and vaccination appointments. This merger between Big Food and Big Pharma uses tracking technology to gather details about consumers’ activities, potentially leading to a database of private health decisions that could be used against individuals during future public health emergencies or to limit their access to food based on their medical history.
By gathering and analyzing this data, companies and government entities may create detailed profiles of individuals’ health status, medical history, and purchasing habits. This information could then be used to restrict access to certain products or services based on a person’s health profile or vaccination status. For example, unvaccinated individuals or those with specific medical conditions could be denied access to certain foods or be subject to higher prices. Such practices could lead to discrimination and infringe upon personal freedoms and privacy rights, ultimately limiting consumer freedoms in various ways.
Question 4: What are some of the evidence-based benefits of breastfeeding for both mother and baby?
Breastfeeding offers numerous evidence-based benefits for both mother and baby. For mothers, breastfeeding is associated with a lower risk of developing Type 2 diabetes, ovarian or breast cancer, and high blood pressure, as well as reduced stress and improved sensitivity to their infant’s needs. Breastfed infants have a lower risk of obesity, asthma, ear infections, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), and necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in preterm infants. Breastfeeding also promotes cognitive development and socio-affective response in children.
Question 5: How do most commercial infant formulas compare to breast milk in terms of nutritional composition and added ingredients?
Most commercial infant formulas are nutritionally inferior to breast milk and contain questionable added ingredients. While breast milk contains hundreds of unique substances, including over 100 different types of fats and complex sugars called oligosaccharides that nourish healthy gut bacteria, infant formulas are primarily composed of processed sugars, dried skim milk, and refined vegetable oils. Many formulas also contain synthetic vitamins, inorganic minerals, excessive protein, and harmful contaminants like glyphosate and perchlorate.
Question 6: What was the controversy surrounding the U.S. delegation’s opposition to the World Health Assembly’s resolution to encourage breastfeeding in 2018, and what specific actions did they take?
In 2018, the World Health Assembly introduced a nonbinding resolution to encourage breastfeeding and emphasize its health benefits. The U.S. delegation opposed this resolution, demanding the removal of language that called on governments to “protect, promote and support breastfeeding.” They threatened countries with trade sanctions and the withdrawal of crucial military aid if they did not reject the resolution. Additionally, the American delegation insisted on adding the phrase “evidence-based” to references to breastfeeding initiatives, which critics saw as an attempt to undermine these programs. The international response was one of shock and dismay, with many delegates expressing astonishment at the U.S. government’s aggressive tactics to prioritize the interests of the infant formula industry over global public health.
Question 7: How has the infant formula industry’s marketing influenced the perception and prevalence of breastfeeding over time?
The infant formula industry’s aggressive marketing practices have negatively influenced the perception and prevalence of breastfeeding over time. Following the development of manufactured infant formula, mothers were told that breastfeeding was unnecessary and that formula offered greater freedom for busy moms. The promotion of the idea that breastfeeding in public is shameful also contributed to the decline in breastfeeding rates, as more mothers opted for bottle-feeding to avoid social stigma.
Question 8: What are the potential dangers associated with soy-based infant formulas, and why are they considered among the worst options for babies?
Soy-based infant formulas are considered among the worst options for babies due to the potential dangers associated with their high levels of phytoestrogens, such as genistein. These formulas have been linked to a number of troubling side effects, including altered age of menarche in girls, uterine fibroids, endometriosis, tumors, disrupted thyroid and reproductive function, inhibited testosterone in boys, and autoimmune diseases. The estrogen content in soy formulas can be equivalent to at least five birth control pills per day, posing significant risks to infant development.
Question 9: What are some healthy alternatives for mothers who cannot breastfeed, and how do homemade formulas compare to commercial options?
For mothers who cannot breastfeed, healthy alternatives include using donated breast milk from a trusted source or making homemade infant formula using high-quality, organic ingredients. Homemade formulas, such as those based on raw cow’s milk or liver, can provide a more nutritious option compared to commercial formulas. These homemade recipes often include essential nutrients like lactose, whey, probiotics, acerola powder, cod liver oil, and coconut oil, while avoiding the processed sugars, synthetic vitamins, and harmful additives found in many commercial products.
Question 10: How can predatory marketing practices by infant formula companies undermine breastfeeding efforts and contribute to suboptimal infant nutrition?
Predatory marketing practices by infant formula companies can undermine breastfeeding efforts and contribute to suboptimal infant nutrition in several ways. These practices often portray infant formula as a superior alternative to breast milk, making unsubstantiated claims about its ability to solve common infant health and developmental challenges. By promoting the idea that formula is a convenient and effective substitute for breastfeeding, these marketing tactics can discourage mothers from breastfeeding, leading to lower breastfeeding rates and depriving infants of the unique benefits of breast milk.
Question 11: What are some of the unique components of breast milk that provide benefits for infants, and how do these differ from the ingredients found in commercial formulas?
Breast milk contains several unique components that provide benefits for infants, many of which are not found in commercial formulas. One example is the presence of over 150 different oligosaccharides, which are complex sugars that nourish healthy gut bacteria and support the development of a strong immune system. Breast milk also contains antibodies that provide passive immunity to the infant, as well as growth factors and hormones that promote optimal development. In contrast, commercial formulas are primarily composed of processed sugars, dried skim milk, and refined vegetable oils, lacking the diverse array of beneficial components found in breast milk.
Question 12: How do the added sugars and other questionable ingredients in many commercial infant formulas contribute to health risks for babies?
Excessive sugar consumption, particularly in the form of processed corn syrup, has been linked to an increased risk of obesity, diabetes, and metabolic disorders later in life. Other concerning ingredients, such as genetically modified organisms (GMOs), synthetic vitamins, and harmful contaminants like glyphosate and perchlorate, may negatively impact infant health and development. These ingredients can disrupt the gut microbiome, contribute to inflammation, and expose infants to potentially toxic substances during a critical period of growth and development.
Question 13: How have societal attitudes and marketing campaigns influenced the perception of breastfeeding in public, and what impact has this had on breastfeeding rates?
Societal attitudes and marketing campaigns have significantly influenced the perception of breastfeeding in public, often portraying it as shameful or indecent. Formula companies have promoted the idea that bottle-feeding is a more convenient and socially acceptable alternative, contributing to the stigmatization of public breastfeeding. This negative perception has led to lower breastfeeding rates, as many mothers feel discouraged from breastfeeding in public spaces for fear of judgment or legal consequences. In some cases, women have faced fines or charges of public indecency for breastfeeding in public, further reinforcing the idea that it is an unacceptable practice. As a result, many mothers have opted for formula feeding, even when they may have preferred to breastfeed, leading to suboptimal infant nutrition and health outcomes.
Question 14: What are the specific hormonal and developmental risks associated with the high levels of phytoestrogens found in soy-based infant formulas?
The high levels of phytoestrogens, particularly genistein, found in soy-based infant formulas pose several specific hormonal and developmental risks. These phytoestrogens can mimic the effects of estrogen in the body, leading to potential disruptions in endocrine function and development. Some of the risks associated with soy formula include altered age of menarche in girls, increased risk of uterine fibroids, endometriosis, and tumors, disrupted thyroid function, and inhibited testosterone in infant boys, which may impede appropriate male development. Additionally, exposure to high levels of phytoestrogens in infancy has been linked to an increased risk of autoimmune diseases and reproductive issues later in life.
Question 15: What are some of the key differences between the composition of breast milk and commercial infant formulas, and how do these differences impact infant health and development?
There are several key differences between the composition of breast milk and commercial infant formulas that can significantly impact infant health and development. Breast milk contains a unique blend of nutrients, including easily digestible proteins, healthy fats, and complex sugars called oligosaccharides that support the growth of beneficial gut bacteria. It also contains antibodies, growth factors, and hormones that promote optimal immune function and development. In contrast, commercial formulas are typically made from processed ingredients, such as corn syrup, refined vegetable oils, and synthetic vitamins and minerals, which may be harder for infants to digest and absorb. Formula also lacks many of the beneficial compounds found in breast milk, such as antibodies and growth factors, which can leave infants more vulnerable to infections and developmental issues. Furthermore, the high sugar content and lack of complex oligosaccharides in many formulas can disrupt the development of a healthy gut microbiome, increasing the risk of obesity, diabetes, and other chronic health conditions later in life.
Most cultures have a long-standing prohibition against gloating at an untimely death, even of a sworn enemy, and deep down that prohibition serves a very important function of preserving a sense of shared humanity amidst entrenched hatred and polarizing differences. The catastrophic death of the Iranian president and his team in a helicopter crash elicited solemn condolences from much of the world, except for the West. What values are endorsed by this act of dancing on the grave? To discuss this, Oksana is joined by Mohammad Morandi, a political analyst and professor at the University of Tehran.
By Kit Klarenberg | Mint Press News | January 28, 2025
Ever since Tel Aviv’s 1948 creation, much has been said and written about ‘Greater Israel’ – the notion Zionism’s ultimate end goal is the forcible annexation and ethnic cleansing of vast swaths of Arab and Muslim lands for Jewish settlement, based on Biblical claims this territory was promised to Jews by God. The mainstream media typically dismisses this concept as antisemitic conspiracy theory, or at most the fringe fantasy of a minuscule handful of extremist Israelis.
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 