A message written to a trusted campaigning friend, who is struggling to accept that what is happening is intentional.
It is indeed a big step to go from legitimate criticism of allegedly incompetent politicians and industrialists to putting the pieces together in such a way that they can only point to intentionality. See what you think.
***
Dear X,
I find it impossible to try to put all the information together in such a way that the whole thing could even be benign or at least not entirely malignant.
That’s because, as I’m sure you’ve heard me say, I believe it’s evil!
I also had difficulty with it early on, with the argument “they must have known this!?”, etc. Once I allowed the possibility that all the bad things were intentional, I found everything else fell into place. Of course, that alone doesn’t prove it was intentional.
Some early indications of deliberateness are the coordinated responses of dozens of governments to the alleged pandemic: lockdowns, masking, mass testing of the source, the misapplication of PCR-based techniques to bulk testing of clinical samples, selective closures of businesses and schools, border restrictions, etc.
No country had any of this as a core part of its own pandemic preparedness plan.
Even the WHO’s scientific review of NPIs (non-pharmaceutical interventions) concluded that none worked and that the only changes worth anything were asking people with symptoms to stay home until they recovered and increasing the frequency of washing hands (because the route of transmission would initially be uncertain).
I argued at the time that the only way all countries could have adopted all these useless but harmful and expensive NPIs was if there was supranational coordination. I don’t know whether that was from the WHO, WEF, etc. Don’t know. But it is certainly illegal.
We now know that they knew that imposing these restrictions would not save anyone, but that the negative consequences would be devastating, even fatal, for some, who would no longer have access to the medical care they needed. Moreover, the use of furlough would of course be enormously damaging for governments that were already deeply in debt.
This is why millions still believe the absurd COVID lies.
I note that an American term, furlough, is widespread in public debate. In Britain we have never used that term before. No one commented on its arrival, which betrayed the leading role of the Americans.
Then there is the imposition of radically changed medical protocols.
Because of my long exposure to respiratory matters, I knew right away when they started panicking about needing 30,000 mechanical ventilators that something truly diabolical was going on. It is never appropriate to anesthetize, intubate, and ventilate a patient with an unobstructed airway and an intact chest wall.
Mechanical ventilation is certainly a wonderful, life-saving tool, but it carries serious risks for the vulnerable patient, in the form of ventilator-induced pneumonia, lung injury from the use of pressure to inflate the lungs, and much more.
The correct treatment would consist of an oxygen mask, a single, low dose of benzo, a cup of tea and a biscuit, and a caring hand on an arm.
Also in the US, many in this vulnerable condition received remdesivir and not full intravenous nutrition. In most cases it was only a matter of time before they died.
High doses of midazolam (a benzodiazepine) and morphine were used indiscriminately in nursing homes. Not only high doses, but also administered repeatedly to their elderly patients. The highest medical authorities in the country had told them to do this and so few questioned it.
My Ph.D. happened to be in this area, the effect of opiates on respiratory function. The discovery of multiple opiate receptors raised the possibility of inventing receptor-selective ligands that would relieve pain with reduced respiratory depression. Unfortunately, both are primarily mediated by mu opiate receptors, both centrally and in the periphery.
The combination of opiate agonists and benzodiazepines is contraindicated in patients unless closely monitored (for signs of respiratory depression).
That is not the case and is not possible in a nursing home. They too were murdered en masse.
Finally, community GPs were warned not to prescribe antibiotics in cases of Covid “because antibiotics cannot treat viral diseases”.
It is well known that what is commonly called a secondary bacterial infection results in deathin this situation. However, the data shows that antibiotic prescribing for suspected bacterial infections of the lungs fell by 50% and large numbers of people died avoidable deaths (and a rather gruesome ones at that).
It is not possible to look at all this evidence without concluding that this was intentional. What they have done is literally diabolical.
I’m still confused as to how it was done with so little opposition. I do know that from the late 1990s to the end of 2019, a series of simulations of global pandemics and bioterrorism scenarios were carried out, allowing the perpetrators to hone their skills in the responses and control measures imposed.
I believe some of these simulations were conducted in the field so that the emergency response teams could form and practice what most of them felt was appropriate given the fictional setup, although this is speculative.
Then we come to the “vaccines”.
Given my career in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry, I knew that it was impossible to produce a vaccine in less than 5-6 years if one wanted to demonstrate clinical safety and improve production to the usual high quality required to to create a precisely defined end product.
If the latter is not done, there is no point in doing the former, because what would otherwise be injected would not be what was used in the clinical tests.
In other words, if there was a need for a new vaccine, you would never even consider implementing such a program, because no pandemic in history has lasted even a fraction of the minimum time it takes for a safe and to create an effective new vaccine.
Yet they continued with it. This is also malicious, let alone the extraordinary lying, censoring and slandering of those who think differently.
Since my entire career has been based on the principles of “rational drug design” to design and test molecules, I could put myself in the shoes of the vaccine designers.
There are several obvious safety issues built into these products. One of these is the axiomatic induction of “autoimmune” responses, regardless of which antigen is chosen.
Next was the choice of antigen, where no one would choose the spike protein as it would most likely be directly toxic, it is subject to the fastest mutation (so a vaccine could lose its efficacy) and it is also the least different from human proteins (and thus could provoke bystander attacks on even somewhat similar self-proteins).
Yet the four protagonists all chose this antigen. What a coincidence! I would have called on my colleagues in the other companies to make sure we didn’t do that. This is because it would be highly undesirable to have common risks for all programs.
When formulated, the mRNA-based products both chose LNPs (highly toxic lipid nanoparticles) to encapsulate their message. Yet the industry knew that not only do these travel throughout the body, including the brain, but they also accumulate in the ovaries.
Yet, knowing this, companies and regulators went ahead and others exacerbated the toxicity risk by recommending these injections in pregnant women and children.
I was still slow to piece together all this evidence of carefully crafted damage. But I got there eventually and have been speaking in what many consider extreme terms ever since.
I fear we cannot hide from the reality that this is a global coup and deliberate mass murder.
Worse still, we see the advance of surveillance technology and legal powers to introduce digital ID & CBDC and eradicate cash. It is not difficult to imagine scenarios where showing a digital ID becomes mandatory.
All it takes is for the WHO to make up fake pandemics, for the pharmaceutical industry to produce billions of doses of fake mRNA-based vaccines, and for governments to insist that digital IDs only remain valid if you take these harmful injections, and there will be a near-perfect unacceptable means of depopulation.
They can do other things, too, but I think they’ll try this. We must continue to raise our voices and try to wake people up.
It only takes a large minority to say NO & these diabolical plans fail.
What: Assassination of Swedish diplomat Count Folke Bernadotte
Where: Jerusalem, Palestine
When: 17 September 1948
What happened?
In May 1948, as the war raged between the military forces of the budding Zionist state and the various Arab armies, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) appointed as UN mediator in Palestine, a Swedish diplomat named Count Folke Bernadotte.
As a member of Sweden’s royal family, Bernadotte had served as a diplomat during the Second World War Two, helping to free tens of thousands of prisoners held in Nazi Germany and having attempted to negotiate an armistice between the Nazis and the Allies.
He took that diplomatic experience into the conflict over the creation of the state of Israel on the land of Palestine in the late 1940s, conducting mediation efforts and helping to negotiate an initial truce in the conflict before that broke down shortly after.
His most notable contribution, however, was the peace plan he worked on during the summer of 1948, following his appointment as UN mediator, in which he first called for the establishment of a union between Transjordan (currently Jordan) and British Mandatory Palestine, operating with certain areas allocated to Jews or Palestinians.
Examples of that plan included Palestinians controlling territories in the Naqab – or Negev – desert, while the Galilee area would be controlled by the Jews. Some areas were to be freely accessible to both, such as Haifa and its port and the airport at Lod, now called Ben-Gurion Airport. As for Jerusalem, it would be an international city controlled by the UN.
This was rejected by all sides and prompted the conflict to resume once the truce’s validity ceased.
His second proposal was more of a complex and reconciliatory one, however, affirming the existence of the state of Israel while at the same time firmly supporting the Palestinian right of return, advocating that Palestinians expelled from their lands and properties during the Nakba should be allowed to return and reclaim them. Those who did not return, he said, should be repatriated, resettled and financially compensated.
“It would be an offence against the principles of elemental justice if these innocent victims of the conflict were denied the right to return to their homes while Jewish immigrants flow into Palestine, and, indeed, at least offer the threat of permanent replacement of the Arab refugees who have been rooted in the land for centuries,” he is quoted as stating in his proposal.
He submitted the ‘Bernadotte plan’ to the UN General Assembly on 16 September 1948, sparking fears amongst Zionist militants and paramilitary groups that the plan would actually be approved and implemented. The Stern Gang – or ‘Lehi’ – and its leadership, took decisive action to attempt to prevent its approval.
On 17 September, only a day after the proposal’s submission, four Lehi terrorists ambushed Bernadotte’s motorcade in Jerusalem’s Katamon neighbourhood, firing six rounds into the UN mediator and another 18 at Colonel Andre Serot, a French military officer who was sitting next to him. Serot was killed immediately, while Bernadotte was rushed to hospital and died shortly after.
What happened next?
Following the assassination, the new Israeli government finally declared Lehi a terrorist organisation, disarmed what remained of the group, arrested around 200 members and convicted some of the leadership.
Whatever condemnation there was from the Israeli side was short lived, however, as authorities granted a general amnesty to Lehi members prior to the first Israeli elections in January 1949. No members or leaders were charged with involvement in the assassination or convicted either.
In May 1949, the Israeli government even persisted in covering up the Stern Gang’s involvement in the killing, claiming in a report to the UN that no members had been tied to it. Despite that denial, several Lehi members eventually came forward over the years and admitted their involvement, after the statute of limitations for the murder expired in 1968.
Only in 1977, around nine years after that expiration, was the first public admission of the organisation’s assassination of Bernadotte actually made.
Despite that, leaders of Lehi had been allowed to enter and advance in Israeli politics, taking up prominent roles such as Yitzhak Shamir becoming the future Israeli prime minister, Natan Yellin-Mor becoming a future member of the Israeli Knesset, and Yehoshua Cohen – the actual killer of Bernadotte – becoming the bodyguard of Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion.
In 1980, Israel further expressed its pride in the terror organisation by instituting a military decoration named the Lehi ribbon, signifying an “award for activity in the struggle for the establishment of Israel”.
The assassination of the UN mediator also had diplomatic repercussions, with Sweden condemning and severely criticising Israel’s investigation into the murder, leading to the two countries suffering a fallout in relations.
Decades after Bernadotte’s assassination, however, his legacy remains one that is hailed as a standard of peace diplomacy during times of conflict. As with other UN efforts in occupied Palestine and the wider region, Bernadotte was instrumental in establishing much of the infrastructure of UN operations on the ground, and is considered to have laid the foundation for the UN Relief Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).
Kiev’s pledge to hunt down Russian media figures echoes its infamous ‘Peacekeeper’ kill list and is a threat to all members of the profession, Dutch independent Journalist Sonja van den Ende told RT in an interview on Friday.
The warning came after American transgender Sarah Ashton-Cirillo, who currently acts as a spokesperson for the Ukrainian Military, issued a threat on Wednesday vowing to kill Russian “propagandists” and declared that “next week, the world will see a favorite Kremlin propagandist pay for their crimes.”
“It’s a threat to us all, to Western journalists, and all who are already on the Peacekeeper list, which is actually a kill list,” van den Ende said, adding that despite Kiev’s attempts to insist that the database only refers to trials, it’s clear that these are death threats, in light of the assassinations of Russian journalists Darya Dugina and Vladlen Tatarsky.
Van den Ende stressed that these threats are plain “terrorism” and pondered what the reaction would be if something like this were happening in Europe. “It would be terrorism. They would say ‘this is a crazy guy, or a woman.’ She’d be jailed or at least tried.”
Asked to explain why Western media has remained silent on Kiev’s blatant threats to kill journalists, the reporter stated that “the West has adopted an agenda to wipe out Russia,” noting that this has become clear to “everybody.”
It’s terrorism – independent journalist Sonja van den Ende on Kiev’s threats
As an example of this, the Dutch journalist pointed to when there was an attempt in the EU to shut down Ukraine’s Peacekeeper website. “They voted against it. At that time, they already had some sort of an agenda,” she said, pointing out that European leaders don’t care about what happens to Russian journalists or Western journalists working in Russia.
Ashton-Cirillo’s threats have been heavily condemned in Moscow, where Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova pledged to forward Kiev’s words to international organizations as an example of the terrorist nature of the Ukrainian regime.
Russian Investigative Committee chairman Alexander Bastrykin has also confirmed that he has already instructed his service to investigate and provide a legal assessment of Ashton-Cirillo’s statements.
On Thursday, however, Ashton-Cirillo attempted to backpedal on her statements, issuing an update on X (formerly Twitter). In it, the spokesperson explained that her threats referred to Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky’s so-called Ten-Step Peace Plan, which calls for “Russian war criminals and propagandists” to be “brought to justice” and only after Kiev restores its 1991 borders.
The repercussions of the US-led bombing of the former Yugoslavia with depleted uranium munitions are still felt in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnian Ambassador to Russia Zeljko Samardzija stated on Friday.
“Our stance [on shells] is absolutely clear – it has been 30 years since the bombings of Yugoslavia with [depleted] uranium and we still feel the consequences of this weapon. Our citizens continue to die today, while new citizens, children, are born with disabilities – the consequence of bombings with such munitions,” Samardzija told journalists.
Based on its own experience, Bosnia and Herzegovina “stands against the use of such shells,” the ambassador stressed.
“We are a small country and we do not get consulted a lot; nevertheless, we would like to express our opinion and it is as follows. Unfortunately, we have had a very bad experience and we got to fully experience the consequences of these shells,” Samardzija emphasized.
When asked if depleted uranium munitions are much more harmful than the usual ones, the ambassador responded: “they absolutely are,” explaining that their consequences are there to impact many generations to come.
On September 6, the US Defense Department announced a new $175 million military aid package for Ukraine that includes depleted uranium munitions for Abrams tanks, as well as air defense equipment and 155mm artillery shells.
In 1981, President Ronald Reagan signed a presidential “finding” under the National Security Act authorizing the CIA to conduct a nonlethal campaign to support democratic resistance to the communist Dergs and the CIA budgeted 500,000 dollars a year to help the Ethiopian People’s Democratic Alliance conduct a worldwide propaganda war against the Marxist government. This group was led by wealthy Ethiopian landowners who had fled their nation after the communists seized their property.
Reagan labeled Ethiopia a threat to the world, and was one of four nations he targeted for regime change. Reagan wanted to arm Ethiopian “freedom fighters” as part of the “Reagan Doctrine,” a concerted effort to roll back Soviet gains in the Third World, but the US Congress refused to provide funds. As a result, the CIA raised funds itself.
It is unknown if the CIA worked with its friends in Hollywood to create the 1985 “We Are the World – Live Aid” fundraiser, or just diverted the money flow. Most evidence comes from a March 3, 2010 report by Martin Plaut of the BBC that published evidence millions of dollars worth of aid for the Ethiopian famine were diverted to buy weapons by the Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front, a CIA backed group trying to overthrow the Ethiopian communist government. Rebel soldiers said they posed as grain merchants to receive cash they used to buy arms. The report cited a declassified CIA document saying aid was “almost certainly being diverted for military purposes.” One rebel leader estimated 95 of the 100 million dollars raised by the charity effort was used to buy weaponry.
“Ethiopian Famine Aid Spent on Weapons”; Martin Plaut, BBC; March 3, 2010; this is the “corrected” article from months later after the BBC editorial board reacted to threats for printing the truth; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/853…
Redacted News is proud to present “Peace, War and 9/11.” In this captivating documentary filmed six months before his passing, eminent scholar and lifelong peace activist Graeme MacQueen shares his final words on 9/11, the 2001 anthrax attacks, and the goal of abolishing war.
“Peace, War and 9/11” is a production of the International Center for 9/11 Justice. It is directed by Ted Walter and Richard Heap. Executive producers are Ted Walter and Marilyn Langlois. It is distributed by Questar Entertainment/Hipstr.
The recent and concerning collapse of the once revered scientific process in large parts of the climate change and medical community is detailed in a highly critical ‘open review’ paper from the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). Someday, charge the authors, there will need to be an inquiry into how so many scientific bodies abandoned core principles of scientific integrity, took strong positions on unsettled science, took people’s word for things uncritically, and silenced those who tried to continue the scientific endeavour.
Universities have abandoned their historical role of open and disinterested enquiry on behalf of humanity, and “should be sanctioned for this by revoking their charitable status”. Group-think that maintains prevailing fads and supresses dissent on behalf of alleged ‘consensus’ is the opposite of the central purpose of universities. Mainstream media have long been uncritical receptacles for alarmist ‘clickbait’ political scare stories, and this, it might be added, encourages self-promotion among aggressive publicity-hungry scientists. There are many errors and deceptions and much censorship, state the authors, blighting the complete story being told in an unbiased manner. Singling out the behaviour of state broadcaster the BBC, they note: “Any reasonable observer will wonder whether Ofcom [the state regulator] is asleep at the wheel, not requiring the BBC to correct the errors it has been made aware of by experts, nor return to some form of neutrality.”
The report is mainly written by Professor Michael Kelly, the former Prince Philip Professor of Engineering, Trinity Hall, Cambridge University, and Clive Hambler, Science Lecturer at Hertford College, Oxford. There is also economic input from Professor Roger Koppl from Syracuse University. The full GWPF report is due to be published in December and the paper is currently open for review, comments and contributions from other academics. The GWPF notes habitual attacks on its work from activists, and its ‘open review’ policy is explained here.
The realisation that genuine free speech and scientific enquiry is being replaced by strict politicised requirements to adhere to orthodoxy and pre-set narratives grows with every appalling ‘climategate’-style scandal. Regular readers will need little reminding of the recent retraction of the Alimonti et al. paper by Springer Nature following a year-long campaign by a small group of activist scientists and journalists. The paper, whose lead author was Professor of Physics Gianluca Alimonti, reviewed past weather trends and found no data to support the politically-termed ‘climate emergency’. World headlines have also been devoted to the astonishing story of Dr. Patrick Brown of Johns Hopkins University, who blew the whistle on his recent paper published in Nature on California wildfires. He said he wrote it according to the approved script boosting the role of ‘climate change’ and downplaying any natural causes and the horrendous role played by arsonists.
The full publication of the GWPF paper will add to the growing concern and alarm about the science advice given to governments and the media for onward distribution to the public. The corruptions involved in this process are seemingly built into the current system. Trillions of dollars now back the Net Zero collectivisation project across the world, and most scientists, largely paid for by politicians and wealthy green elites, are fully onboard the gravy train.
The GWPF authors aim to push back by maximising the diversity of advice, challenging advice through opposing ‘red’ teams, ensuring a reasonable level of accountability for scientists to discourage hype, and protecting scientists from career damage if they rationally disagree with mainstream views. Institutions should not take official positions on scientific issues, “since this stifles diversity of thought, freedom of speech and the reliability of advice”. Scepticism must be recovered as a respectful term for scientific behaviour from its present position as an insult, “and reinstated as a core duty of universities and learned societies”, demand the authors.
The authors are particularly dismissive of the role of computer models in the recent Covid pandemic and the promotion of climate change alarm. In the U.K., the “gross misuse” of Covid computer models in the absence of robust data to measure them against is noted. Along with a “paucity of challenge” to scientific advice, this may have contributed to “death tolls, economic decline and societal ills”.
On the climate side, the models have produced temperature forecasts two to three times higher than the actual data eventually showed. What is worse is that the results are getting more inaccurate. If the models were actually modelling the evolving climate, the gap would be narrowing. The inaccuracy is a “major embarrassment” and would not be tolerated in any other field of science, and certainly not in engineering. Separation of human-induced warming from natural temperature variation is far more difficult than that portrayed by the UN-funded Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC), since experimentation and replication is “simply not possible”. The inability to model significant parts of the atmosphere are “fatal flaws” in any system that is supposed to be predicting future climate change.
Yet, as regular readers will again recall, computer models play a vital part in promoting the unhinged Thermogeddon fantasies of people like the UN Secretary-General Antonio ‘global boiling’ Guterres. The UN-backed IPCC seems addicted to using computer models incorporating a ‘pathway’ of 5°C global warming within less than 80 years. Over 40% of its impact predictions are based on this forecast, despite an admission it is of “low likelihood”. According to a recent Clintel report, over 50% of clickbait climate science papers incorporate this pathway in a seemingly desperate attempt to attract the attention of activists writing in the mainstream media.
Chris Morrison isthe Daily Sceptic‘sEnvironment Editor.
The new film Seven (trailer above), directed by Dylan Avery, examines the story of the scientific study of World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) recently published by the University of Alaska Fairbanks. The study was led by structural engineering professor J. Leroy Hulsey and took nearly five years to complete. It evaluated the possibilities for destruction of WTC 7 using two versions of high-tech computer software that simulated the structural components of the building and the forces that acted upon it on September 11th.
After inputting worst case conditions, and painstakingly eliminating what didn’t happen, Hulsey and his team of engineers came to the following conclusions.
“The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.”
These peer-reviewed conclusions directly contradict the findings of the U.S. government’s final investigation into WTC 7 as reported by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
Seven documents the journey of Professor Hulsey and his team from their introduction to the subject and the related evidence to the final publication of their report in March of this year. It is an interesting story and important for several reasons. First, it shows what an objective group of engineering science professionals will find if they look closely at the destruction of WTC 7. Additionally, it provides a great example of what one concerned citizen can do to make a great difference in shedding light on the truth of the events of September 11, 2001.
The concerned citizen, who was barely mentioned in the film, is John Thiel, a nurse anesthetist from Alaska. In 2010, Thiel began a 3-year process of looking for an engineer to conduct an honest scientific investigation into the destruction of WTC 7. Thiel was not a structural engineer, but he knew that the official reports on the destruction of that building were false and he wanted to do something about it. Ten years later, after contacting 150 engineers, finally finding and gaining Hulsey’s commitment to do it, and persuading Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth to get involved, Thiel’s persistence paid off.
Seven also features comments from some brave engineers who have spoken out in the past about WTC 7. This includes fire protection engineer Scott Grainger, structural engineer Kamal Obeid, civil engineer and AE911Truth board director Roland Angle, and mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti. All these men make powerful statements in the film about NIST’s failures and omission of evidence.
The film reviews much of the evidence and how it was treated by the initial ASCE/FEMA building performance study and by NIST. It discusses circumstantial evidence including the suspicious tenants of WTC 7 (e.g. the CIA, the Secret Service, the DOD, and the SEC) and foreknowledge about the collapse of the building. It reviews the inexplicable “predictions” of WTC 7’s collapse by media giants CNN and BBC, both of which reported the collapse before it actually happened.
However, the strength of the film is in exposing the viewer to scientific facts and evidence as described by credible experts like Hulsey, Angle, Grainger, Obeid, and Szamboti. This includes the samples of steel exhibiting intergranular melting and sulfidation that the New York Times originally called “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation” but that were ignored in the NIST reports. It includes the fact that no tall building had ever collapse primarily from fire and that the fires in WTC 7 were ordinary and were fed by only 20-minutes of fire load in any given area. The film also highlights concerns about the lack of scientific integrity in NIST’s manipulation of model parameters like the coefficient of expansion of steel and the omission of shear studs on the WTC 7 floor assemblies.
The film is only 45 minutes long and focuses largely on the evidence related to Hulsey’s study. It does not include some facts and evidence about WTC 7 that have been pointed out in the past. For example, it does not detail NIST’s history of failed hypotheses, like the diesel fuel tank hypothesis or the claim that the design of the building contributed to the collapse. It also doesn’t mention that the new WTC 7 was completed in 2006, when NIST was stating it had no idea what happened to the first one.
In the film, Professor Hulsey comes across as very credible and driven by the desire for an objective approach that gives the public an understanding of what happened to WTC 7. His comments about building his study on a clear palate, using pure science, ring true. Avery tells Hulsey’s story simply, without engulfing the viewer in unanswered questions.
Overall, Seven is an excellent presentation for people with a scientific mindset. As John Thiel wrote to me, “Any engineer or scientist with a basic understanding of physics, who does not suffer from cognitive dissonance, should easily be convinced of the truth after watching this video.” I agree.
If people want to help reveal the truth about WTC 7, and therefore about 9/11, they should share this film with every scientist and engineer they know. It is available on multiple streaming platforms, including Amazon Prime, iTunes, Vudu, Google Play, and Microsoft. As a society, our understanding of the crimes of 9/11 continues to be crucial to our understanding of what is going on today.
It’s unacceptable that officials haven’t had to substantiate the biggest mass casualty event in New York’s history. Until they do, I’m not buying this all-cause death curve.
See this? It’s INSANE.
It’s 37,469 New Yorkers dying in two and a half months — a mortality increase equivalent to almost more than eight 9/11 events. A ridiculous 20,000 deaths list COVID-19 as underlying cause, including a suspiciously high number of younger adults who died in hospitals.
Unlike 9/11, we don’t know who all died.1Investigative journalism and public burial records for Hart Island (where unclaimed decedents and city burials go) have aggregated less than 10% of names of New Yorkers who are purported to have passed away in spring 2020.
Unlike with the city’s historical archives for 1855-1949, we cannot review digitized proof of death for each decedent.
Unlike Chicago & Milwaukee, New York has no public database that shows individual deaths processed by the medical examiner’s office.
Unlike in Massachusetts & Minnesota, death certificates are not subject to FOI request and have not been obtained under public records disclosure laws.
Unlike in Ohio, the release of death certificate data is not being litigated.
So we’re left with numbers in reports and Excel spreadsheets, records sent to the feds and protected in CDC WONDER, and no real proof that this number of people died on the days they are alleged to have died.
Sorry, but I’m not buying what this ⬆️ is trying to sell.2
The steepness of the daily death curve simply doesn’t work.
Viruses aren’t bombs – including pathogens with the infection fatality ratio of influenza at most. A “spreading” risk-additive pathogen doesn’t show up in mortality data overnight. 3
There would be signs and signals. Yet, we see none and are asked to believe that government officials were prescient enough to catch the virus “just in time”.
Elsewhere, I’ve spelled out many of the deadly iatrogenic policies implemented all at once. But the scale of deaths in hospitals plagues me. Whether we’re talking ED visits or inpatient admissions at “epicenter” and high-death hospitals, the city simply did not have the patient intake to make the numbers make sense. Consider: peak census for COVID-positive inpatients is reportedly ~15,000. The number of inpatient deaths that cite COVID as underlying cause in that time is… ~15,000. 🤔 [CORRECTION, 9/11/23: I misread the state’s presentation of the census. Peak COVID inpatient census was 12,184, which makes the 14,704 inpatient deaths in the spring that attribute underlying cause to COVID even MORE ridiculous.]
How do you lose [more than] the peak COVID census equivalent in 11 weeks with record-low intake???
The only way that starts to work is if a whole lotta people who were already in the hospital as of March 1 were tested for COVID and died, with their deaths attributed to the “novel virus,” and the public made to believe it was spread that killed those people.
Since third-party witnesses were banned from healthcare settings, and the public hasn’t compelled proof of what went on inside those settings, officials can apparently claim whatever they want and get away with it.
I, for one, want certainty that the deaths actually happened on the days they are claimed to have happened. It seems silly to dissect what caused the deaths if the deaths haven’t truly been substantiated.
Could there be fraud?
People ask me about the “F” word – fraud – and I’ve come to the unfortunate conclusion that YES, we could be looking at a fraudulent all-cause death curve.
Based on everything I’ve obtained & reviewed in the past 15 months – including some things I haven’t yet written or spoken about publicly (but will) – I’m concerned that one or more of the following could have occurred in/with New York City:
Deaths that actually occurred before mid-March were pushed forward into the excess death period – anywhere from several weeks before several months or more.
Deaths that occurred in later April 2020 and/or thereafter in 2020 were “pulled back” into the excess death period.
Some deaths that occurred in one place of death (at home, in nursing home facilities) were double-counted as hospital deaths.
A portion of deaths that occurred in hospice facilities at some point are in the hospital inpatient death numbers, thanks to the March 23, 2020 executive order that afforded dual-certification to hospice beds as hospital inpatient beds.
Fabricated death certificates are in the data. This is less likely, but a potential scenario would involve sudden “dumps” of certificates and/or records that list only U07.1 as underlying cause with nothing else listed (i.e., incomplete death certificates).
Any of these could have involved holding death certificates for later processing and part of what was behind thousands of “probable” COVID deaths the city added between April 14 and June 1, 2020.
If fraud isn’t in the mix – and the deaths legitimate in every way – then officials should have no problem releasing the records to back up their assertions.
We’ve been lied to about everything in this mess.
I want proof.
1 Memorialized in March 2021, but without disclosure of names.
2 This data was obtained from NYC DOHMH and differs somewhat from federal data. I wrote about the differences here.
The first victim of what became known as Covid-19 was ‘Patient Zero’, whose case was recorded on December 26, 2019, in Wuhan, China. He was admitted to hospital with respiratory symptoms including fever, dizziness and a cough. Patient Zero was relatively young and without significant health problems, yet he was subjected to a battery of tests, including genetic sequencing of fluid from his airways. We are told this led to the discovery of a new coronavirus subsequently dubbed SARS-CoV-2. As described in the seminal paper in Nature from February 3, 2020, the clinical features of the illness of the alleged Patient Zero, from whom the genome of the ‘novel virus’ was said to have been sequenced, are quite typical of regular bacterial pneumonia. Given that he showed no unusual symptoms, clearly this was not a routine medical response to what looks like a typical respiratory infection.
This is not all that is odd about the narrative. Have you ever read much discussion of pneumonia vaccines? Researchers have found that a purported preventive of one of the major causes of bacterial pneumonia, the pneumococcal vaccine, is sometimes given to the elderly and vulnerable. Researchers who have looked at the interaction between bacterial pneumonia and SARS-CoV-2 have found that bacterial pneumonia vaccination reduced the risk of Covid-19 by a statistically significant margin.Buthow can a vaccine for a bacterium reduce the risk from a virus?
Research into the etiology of community-acquired pneumonia concludes that it is often observed that viral species colonise the nasopharynx of patients after they have contracted bacterial pneumonia, suggesting that sequential pneumonia infection followed by viral infection, or parallel infection, where the infections occur together, are both possible. However, the default operating assumption in the medical literature and in practice is the opposite: viral followed by bacterial infection, and since 2020 with SARS-CoV-2 identified as the ‘novel’ root cause.
These research results suggest that the actual burden of risk to patients is not SARS-CoV-2 at all but bacterial pneumonia and that SARS-Cov-2 is secondary to bacterial pneumonia, or it masks bacterial pneumonia, not the other way around. Given this, might it be the case that bacterial pneumonia is acquired in the community rather than in hospital, and that the signal of viral infection follows bacterial pneumonia infection? And if so why was the focus on a virus and not on the perennial risk of bacterial pneumonia?
Many of the frightening images circulated in the media in spring 2020 were from ICUs showing patients being treated on ventilators. It was claimed that people were dying of acute respiratory distress caused by SARS-CoV-2 while being ventilated. Ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) is a well-known condition in which ventilated patients have a significantly higher chance of dying after contracting ‘secondary’ pneumonia during ventilation. Many patients dying of VAP in spring 2020 were recorded as having died from SARS-CoV-2.
High rates of ventilator-induced pneumonia are acknowledged by the authorities but their use continues to be defended as necessary. Even Anthony Fauci admitted that ventilation was overused. This overuse of ventilation was accompanied by changes in protocols, delays in admission and changes to medication and testing. Given that most people suffering death by ‘Covid-19 with respiratory symptoms’ died in ICUs, blaming these deaths on SARS-CoV-2 seems unscrupulous. The observational data is heavily confounded, and these deaths are just as likely to have involved, inter alia, bacterial infection and changes in treatment protocols as by detected or undetected pathogens.
In a 2008 article in the Journal of Infectious Diseases (on the Spanish Flu pandemic), Anthony Fauci concluded: ‘Prevention, diagnosis, prophylaxis, and treatment of secondary bacterial pneumonia, as well as stockpiling of antibiotics and bacterial vaccines, should also be high priorities for pandemic planning.’
Regardless of whether such stockpiles of antibiotics were created, community antibiotic prescriptions were reduced dramatically in spring 2020. Recall that in spring 2020 people were told to self-isolate if they suffered Covid symptoms. This would therefore buy time for pathogens to multiply and for a more severe condition to develop, which might subsequently be harder to manage. Many people would have presented late to ICU, with incipient or lingering pneumonia (perhaps from the previous normal flu season), disguised as Covid-19, and may have been left untreated with antibiotics until their condition deteriorated further.
A reluctance to perform bacteriological investigations in ICUs (and expose staff to a supposedly deadly pathogen) may have been a further contributory factor. Patients would therefore have suffered higher levels of respiratory distress than would have been seen historically. The lateness of presentation to ICU, and the very late administration of antibiotics, may have failed to save them from a (detected or undetected) bacterial pneumonia infection.
Conflating pneumonia and Covid-19 repeats an official longstanding tactic of conflating the attribution of influenza and pneumonia. There is evidence to suggest that a reduction in the public’s perceived threat of flu may have prompted the pharmaceutical industry to attempt a rebranding of the threat along with a new suite of marketable products to respond to that threat.
In contrast to the evidence presented above, physicians in Toledo, Spain, administered antibiotics to Covid-19 patients during spring 2020, contrary to official guidance. This resulted in zero hospitalisations or deaths in their care homes after they started routine administration. The resulting mortality over spring 2020 was approximately 7 per cent versus 28 per cent in other comparable care homes (and the 7 per cent died before they started routine antibiotic use).
A (pneumonia) hypothesis, that a proportion of Covid-19 deaths in 2020, specifically those with associated respiratory symptoms, were caused by bacterial pneumonia, and that bacterial pneumonia may have been the primary, not the secondary, infection, starts to look rather strong. It matters because it challenges received wisdom about the true causative agent of the deaths resulting from the ‘pandemic’ – a bacterium or a virus, both or neither? It also brings into question how the agent was spread and, most significantly, it challenges how and if the illness was appropriately treated.
Further confirmation that bacterial pneumonia, not Covid, is the real danger has come from two groups of doctors who have had 100 per cent success using antibiotics to treat ‘Covid’.
In allegorical terms it is akin to a scene from an Agatha Christie novel: SARS-CoV-2, a bystander used as a decoy, is found guilty of the crime with ventilation as his accomplice, but the actual criminal, who has got off scot-free, is in fact bacterial pneumonia (undetected until the denouement). In other words, SARS-CoV-2 has been framed.
This article is based on Whodunnit? (unabridged)by Professor Martin Neil, Jonathan Engler, Dr Jessica Hockett and Professor Norman Fenton.
There are “no significant radiological consequences” to the use of depleted uranium ammunition, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi has declared. Russia insists that Grossi is “not telling the whole story.”
“From a nuclear safety point of view there are no significant radiological consequences” to the use of this ammunition, Grossi told reporters during a briefing on Monday.
“Maybe in some very specific cases, people near a place that was hit with this kind of ammunition, there could be contamination,” he continued, adding that “this is more of a health issue of a normal nature than a potential radiological crisis.”
Depleted uranium is used to make the hardened cores of certain armor-piercing tank and autocannon rounds. Although it is not highly radioactive, uranium is still a toxic metal, and this metal is turned into a potentially hazardous aerosol when a depleted uranium round strikes its target.
US forces utilized depleted uranium tank shells during the 1991 Gulf War, reportedly causing a spike in birth defects, autoimmune disorders, and cancer cases in Iraq over the following decades. NATO also used depleted uranium in its 1999 air campaign against Yugoslavia. Earlier this year, Serbian Health Minister Danica Grujicic described the carcinogenic consequences of this ammunition on the Serb population a “horrible and inhumane experiment.”
The UK began supplying Ukraine with depleted uranium tank shells in March, while the US announced last week that it would send depleted uranium ammunition for its M1 Abrams tanks, which are expected to arrive in Ukraine in the coming weeks.
By focusing on the issue from a nuclear safety point of view, Grossi was being deliberately disingenuous, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova wrote on Telegram on Monday.
“Mr. Grossi is, of course, right in saying that there are no significant radiological consequences from the standpoint of ‘nuclear safety,” she wrote. “It’s likewise obvious, though, that he is not telling the whole story.”
Zakharova pointed out that depleted uranium releases “extremely toxic aerosols” when ignited and vaporized. “Perhaps this is beyond Mr. Grossi’s expertise as head of the IAEA,” she concluded. “This question should be addressed to chemists, who will tell us about the harmful effects of heavy metal accumulation on the environment and human health.”
Russian forces claim to have destroyed at least one warehouse in Ukraine containing British depleted uranium shells. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned last week that the West will ultimately be responsible when this ammunition “inevitably” contaminates Ukrainian land.
Wouldn’t you think that if the Government wanted to “make the U.K. a world-leader in 5G” that its ministers would know some basics about how the regulatory organisation they follow, the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), arrived at its recommendations for safe exposure?
Recently I wrote to my MP, Rishi Sunak, to alert him to my situation in needing to avoid radio-frequency radiation (RFR) or electromagnetic fields (EMF), due to health damage I sustained 20 years ago when I lived 15 metres from a mobile phone mast. Before, dear reader, you tell me that my conclusion is pure speculation, let me tell you that this likely explanation only occurred to me after the death of a second neighbour from motor neurone disease and after months of my suffering with flu-like symptoms and heavily swollen neck glands, followed by health problems, with which I will not bore you.
Anyway, Mr. Sunak, very diligently, put my concerns to two ministerial colleagues, while telling me in the meantime that he proposed to blanket the U.K. with the fastest wireless coverage available. My reply to the latter remark was as follows:
1.The Government purportedly stands by the results of the Stewart Report 2000 and states here “adults should be able to make their own choices about reducing their exposure should they so wish, but be able to do this from an informed position”. How will this be possible if the country if blanketed? Smart devices, phone masts and WiFi are now everywhere where there are people. Will you inform people where coverage is lightest, if they wish to reduce exposure? Will you make sure that non-smart transactions are always possible? Will you ensure that some areas will always have landlines and are smart meter and smart camera free? And so on.
2. If the country is blanketed, what happens to the rights of those disabled by electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) in terms of section 6 of the Equality Act? A case has already been won in the U.K., where a local authority has been mandated to provide RFR/EMF free education for a child with EHS.
Be that as it may, when the ministerial replies arrived, I was genuinely shocked by the level of ignorance they betrayed.
Steve Barclay, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care wrote: “The ICNIRP guidelines apply to the whole population, including children and people of varying health status, which may include particularly susceptible groups or individuals.”
Some exposure scenarios are defined as outside the scope of these guidelines. Medical procedures may utilise EMFs, and metallic implants may alter or perturb EMFs in the body, which in turn can affect the body both directly and indirectly… As medical procedures rely on medical expertise to weigh potential harm against intended benefits, ICNIRP considers such exposure managed by qualified medical practitioners, as beyond the scope of these guidelines. (emphasis mine)
In other words, these guidelines do not apply to anyone with a metal implant or anyone undergoing a medical procedure utilising EMFs. That is a large population group. It is left to doctors to advise on this, but, in fact, in the U.K. doctors are not trained in the health effects of non-ionising radiation. And the implication of this statement is that ICNIRP has no medical expertise. Indeed on examining the profiles of ICNIRP members, I have not found anyone with a medical qualification.
But even more alarming is this statement by Sir John Whittingdale OBE, the Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure:
The ICNIRP… guidelines… are based upon a large amount of research carried out over many years.
This is nonsense, I am afraid. The guidelines are based on behavioural studies of eight rats and five monkeys, which were irradiated for up to an hour and also by measuring heating effects on a plastic model of a man’s head. Criticisms of the methodology used for deciding the guidelines have been made by the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) in a recent article and by James Lin, a highly qualified ex-member of ICNIRP, who laid out his objections in the IEEE Microwave magazine.
In actual fact, far from being the basis of the guidelines, the opposite is true. Studies on the biological health effects of EMFs are largely dismissed by ICNIRP with the comment “more research needs to be done”.
Sir John went on to state:
Reviews carried out by the independent Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation (AGNIR) found no convincing evidence that radiofrequency field exposures below guideline levels cause health effects.
He did not mention that this review was carried out back in 2012 and was discredited by Dr. Sarah Starkey who found that the report omitted and distorted scientific evidence leading to wrong and misleading conclusions. She also pointed out how many personnel had dual roles and conflicts of interests by being in more than one of these regulatory bodies at the same time.
And indeed, since that time, there have been two very large animal studies (the NTP study and the Ramazzini study) showing a link between RFR and cancer as well as a large epidemiological review In 2019 by an international expert team led by Canada’s most senior cancer epidemiologist Professor Tony Miller, reporting human epidemiological evidence linking human breast and brain tumours, male reproductive outcomes and child neurodevelopmental conditions to RFR exposures. It also found compelling evidence of carcinogenesis, especially in the brain and acoustic nerve, as well as the breast, from strong RFR exposures to previous generations of mobile phone transmissions.
AGNIR was disbanded in 2017 and its remit adopted by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE). Unfortunately COMARE has never produced a report on the health effects of non-ionising (radio-frequency) radiation, because our Government has never asked it to do so, according to an email sent to me by its secretariat.
What a contrast to the U.S. New Hampshire Commission, which gathered a large group of experts together and conducted a thorough investigation into the health effects of RFR a couple of years ago.
In June this year, at a conference at the Royal Society of Medicine in London, its findings were described with great clarity by Professor Kent Chamberlain, the Professor Emeritus of the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of New Hampshire. His talk included a discussion of the methods used to set the ICNIRP safety exposure guidelines, a review of the peer-reviewed literature on adverse health effects of RFR and the highlighting of key findings, such as the increased risk of cancer if you live within 1,000 metres of a mast.
The Royal Society of Medicine conference was organised by the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) and was based around an important paper, examining the 14 false assumptions of those creating the ICNIRP safety guidelines. I introduced the expert speakers in a previous DS article and they include Dr. Erica Mallery-Blythe, Professor Kent Chamberlain, Professor James Lin and Professor John Frank in an event ably introduced by David Gee, who co-authored Late Lessons, Early Warnings for the European Environmental Agency.
Short written highlights, presentation slides and videos of the event are now available to view on an ICBE-EMF webpage and I’d say that these are essential viewing and reading for anyone interested in this subject and particularly for our Government ministers and their researchers.
Just when will our Government do its due diligence? And how certain do we need to be about causation before exercising caution and catering for those who already know they are affected by RFR exposure?
New research suggests that four billion people globally will be overweight in 2050. This trend can be traced back to the ‘low-fat, high-carb’ guidelines first issued in the 70s, and should prompt a major U-turn on dietary advice.
A recent report from the Potsdam Institute predicts that by 2050 there will be four billion overweight people in the world, with one-and-a-half billion of them obese. This is not entirely surprising. The world has been getting fatter for years, and things do not seem to be slowing down.
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 