Dr. Peter McCullough is under fire from the American Board of Internal Medicine (A.B.I.M.), who is threatening his medical license for “providing false and inaccurate information to patients”. Senator Ron Johnson has responded with a call for A.B.I.M. and Dr. McCullough to participate in an open hearing on Capitol Hill, and put it all on the table of public record.
Justin and Hailey Bieber, have both suffered recent health unusual health scares for young, healthy people. Were these conditions caused by the Covid shot? Del takes a look at the evidence.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) blasted NIAID Director Anthony Fauci for promoting booster jabs for children despite refusing to provide data proving their effectiveness, or their necessity.
The tense exchange happened during a Senate Health Committee hearing Thursday, where CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, Fauci and others hoped to procure more funding for the federal pandemic response.
“Dr. Fauci, the government recommends everybody take a booster over age five,” Sen. Paul told Fauci, who was interviewed via Zoom. “Are you aware of any studies that show reduction in hospitalization, or death for children who take a booster?”
“Right now, there’s not enough data that has been accumulated, Senator Paul, to indicate that that’s the case,” Fauci responded.
“So there are no studies – and Americans should all know this – there are no studies on children showing a reduction in hospitalization or death with taking a booster,” Sen. Paul summarized.
Paul went on to hypothetically ask if booster jabs produce antibodies, wouldn’t a never-ending litany of jabs make sense?
“If I give you 10, or if I give a patient 10 mRNA vaccines, and they make protein each time, or they make antibody each time, is that proof that we should give 10 boosters?” Paul asked.
“No. I think that is somewhat of an absurd exaggeration,” Fauci responded.
Sen. Paul shot back that the only data the Committee’s seen shows possible antibody effectiveness and only in older populations with risk factors, but “for younger folks there’s not.”
“But here’s the other thing,” Paul continued, “There are some risk factors for the vaccine… So the risk of myocarditis with a second dose for adolescent boys 12 to 24 is about 80 in a million. This is both from the CDC and from the Israeli study.”
“So, there is risk, and there are risks, and you’re telling everybody in America just blindly go out there, because we made antibodies… So, it is not an absurd corollary to say, ‘If you have 10.’ In fact, you probably make antibodies if you get a hundred boosters. All right? That’s not science, that’s conjecture and we should not be making public policy on it.”
Elsewhere during Thursday’s questioning, Paul asked Fauci if he personally “ever received a royalty payment from a company that you later oversaw money going to that company?”
“I don’t know as a fact, but I doubt it,” Fauci replied.
Paul went on to point out the “NIH continues to refuse to voluntarily divulge the names of scientists who receive royalties, and from which companies, over the period of time from 2010 to 2016.”
“Can you tell me if anyone on the vaccine approval committee’s ever received money from the people who make vaccines?” Paul asked.
“People who receive royalties are not required to divulge them even on their financial statement according to the Bayh–Dole Act,” Fauci shot back, clearly incensed.
“It’s all redacted and you can’t get any information on the 1,800 scientists who received royalties,” Paul concluded, as he was cut off by the Committee chair.
The exchange comes just one day after it was reported Fauci contracted coronavirus, despite being vaccinated and double-boosted.
Investigative Journalist with a popular Substack, Igor Chudov, explains his recent discoveries comparing the dramatic difference in Covid-19 death rates in both Portugal and South Africa, and what could be the cause.
Immune Dysfunction Expert, James Neuenschwander, joins Del to talk about the critical effect lockdowns and masking has had on our immune systems, particularly those of young people. Is there a direct link between the lack of exposure to germs and viruses in recent years and the current spike in deadly outbreaks of hepatitis and RSV?
Just like ‘Vaxxed’, this A grade documentary was successfully stopped from being aired on tv, by some jews who have lots to lose. After watching it, you can see why the jewish drug pushers would not want people to see this. This video could be said to be the precursor to Vaxxed. It includes Dr Andrew Wakefield and how he has cured many children who were Autistic, in addition to making the link between vaccines and neurological harm/damage.
Patrick Wood, a repeat guest, has spent decades studying technocracy — an invented economic system that the global cabal is currently trying to implement worldwide. He was recently interviewed by The Defender, the Children’s Health Defense newsletter. You will find that interview below. I would encourage you to watch because it provides a really good background of Wood and his work.
This conversation also ties in with an interview I recently did with professor Mattias Desmet, author of “The Psychology of Totalitarianism,” which will air in a few weeks, so be sure to keep an eye out for that one. While technocracy and totalitarianism have many similarities, there are some differences in perspective, which we will unravel here.
“I wish there was something else to talk about, but this is it,” Wood says. “This is the topic of the day. This is what people need to know and understand.
If we are going to fight back against this enemy, which previously has pretty much been unseen, we must recognize who we’re dealing with. Period. We cannot provide any defense or offense to push back on this unless we know who the enemy really is and what they’re thinking, what’s in their head.”
COVID Was Technocracy’s Coup D’état
While the COVID crisis sent most into a state of confusion, Wood was not surprised by the chain of events that eventually took place. He’d been following the climate change alarmism and the sustainable development agenda for a long time, and as soon as the same people who were promoting climate alarmism jumped on the COVID train, he knew they were connected, and that COVID was going to be used to promote the technocratic agenda.
The same flawed computer models used to convince us climate change will kill us all were also used to incite panic about the lethality of COVID. These computer models are basically rigged to say whatever they want them to say. According to climate change alarmists, mankind should have been wiped off the face of the earth 10 years ago. Yet here we are. The COVID models also failed, missing the mark by miles.
“At the time [in early 2020], I said this is technocracy’s coup d’état. They’re finally making their major global move to do what they said they were going to do for a long time. Now, they’re actually putting shoe leather to it and they’re making it happen, so I called it coup d’état early on,” Wood says.
Unfortunately, to quote Wood’s coauthor of previous books, Anthony Sutton, only 2% of people have critical thinking skills, 8% of people think they can think, and 90% would rather die than think. This willful ignorance explains why only 10% of a given population, on average, does not fall into mass formation hypnosis.
Wood, along with Dr. Judy Mikovits and Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, an international lawyer who cofounded the German Corona Investigative Committee — have formed the Crimes Against Humanity Task Force. The first event will be held in Tampa, FL with guest speaker, Michael Yeadon, Ph.D.
“We believe there is a great case to be made that, indeed, crimes against humanity have been committed in the same context and sense that they were discovered at the Nuremberg trials that produced the Nuremberg Code, which is now embedded in the legal system in every nation on earth, [including] our country and every state as well.
Medical experimentation is verboten, period, and yet it has happened anyway, with no informed consent along the way. People are getting sick and dying, the same old drill. What went wrong? We’re presenting this case to the American public in person, and I will say the dynamic of talking to a live audience today is a breath of fresh air for me, personally. I think everybody else would say the same thing.“
Creating a New Normal on Our Own Terms
While many resist this stance, I and Wood agree that the crisis is not over, and it’s not going to right itself. No. It’ll get worse, and things will never go back to the way they were. It’s important to realize that we shouldn’t want things to go back to the old normal, however. Because the old normal is what precipitated the many crises we’re currently facing.
We can fully expect that the partially failed vaccine passport will be replaced by digital identity, which will progress to a central bank digital currency (CBDC). Most central banks in the world will be rolling out CBDCs within the next three to five years.
Digital identity and CBDCs are a disaster racing toward us like a freight train, and it’ll be extremely difficult to get out of harms way. The past two years will seem like a picnic compared to what’s coming.
“If my hypothesis is true, January 2020 was the coup d’état that started this war in earnest, the hot war, if you will, versus the leading up to it. Lots of bad stuff happened from 9/11 through 2020 that we could point to and say, it looks like somebody’s orchestrating this, but it went into a hot war, literally, globally as well, in January 2020. Revolutions never stop with one attack. That’s obvious. I’m sure it’s self-evident.”
By Their Words and Actions, You Can Know Them
So, who instigated this global revolution? Who’s pulling the strings? Who’s the real enemy? It’s not the populace. It’s not even a specific nation. It’s a conglomerate of wealthy and influential people all over the world. But they have a shared philosophy, ideology and agenda. Wood explains:
“What’s going on is called The Great Reset of the planet. The Great Reset has become a catchphrase. Most people don’t have a clue what it means yet, but it’s promoted by the World Economic Forum (WEF), which is tightly interlinked and coupled with the United Nations.
This elite group of people represent in mix all of the people that were originally in the Trilateral Commission back in the 1970s. It’s the same kinds of people, the same agenda to transform the world into their vision, the way they think things ought to be. These are the people that have orchestrated this whole thing and they’re the ones that are pushing it right now.
It’s easy to identify most of the people involved in this. You can look at the Klaus Schwabs and the Bill Gateses [of the world], and the thousand companies that belong to the World Economic Forum. They all have CEOs, board members, et cetera, that are part of the World Economic Forum. It’s pretty easy to identify them today.
The idea of The Great Reset is complete transformation of society and individuals that live in this society. The World Economic Forum is boldly talking about both. They talk about this technocratic takeover on one hand, to reform society, that is the structures of society, the institutions, but they also talk about the restructuring of humanity itself.
That is, the merging of technology with the human condition, with the flesh, the changing of genetic code, Humanity 2.0, H+ is another term is used. This is mad scientist type of stuff. The average guy on the street has never been exposed to this.
It’s hard to get your head around how evil this whole thing is, and it’s all uninvited. Nobody asked for it, they just did it. That’s another thing that’s really important to understand: This didn’t just come out of the blue or fall out of the sky from outer space. This has been in the works for a very long time.”
Agenda 21 Laid the Groundwork
In 1992, Agenda 21 was created. That was the genesis of sustainable development. That’s where that doctrine was openly described. The Agenda 21 and the Biodiversity Convention that took place at the same time was the agenda for 21st century.
As explained by Wood, Agenda 21 was foundational in the sense that laid out all the events being rolled out and changes being implemented today. It’s just that no one was really paying attention to where things were headed, the ultimate implications of it all. Of course, those who did see the writing on the wall were discredited as “crazy conspiracy theorists.”
“There was a great book released in 1994 called ‘The Earth Brokers.’ The two authors were scholars. They were also the original environmental crowd. They weren’t on our side necessarily, but they went to the Agenda 21 conference in good faith, figuring there was going to be some negotiation to dial back the development that was messing with the Third World and try to get the planet back together.
They went hoping to turn some things around, and they came away from the Agenda 21 conference completely disillusioned … In that book, they criticized the Agenda 21 process. They started out by saying something like this: ‘We argue that USAID — the United Nations conference on economic development — has boosted precisely the type of industrial development that is destructive for the environment, the planet and its inhabitants.
We see how, as a result of USAID, the rich would get richer, the poor poorer, while more and more of the planet is destroyed in the process.’ What can we say, but ‘amen’ to that. Here we are today. It’s exactly what’s happened.”
The Plan to Own and Control All Life
“The Earth Brokers” also reviewed what they learned from the Biodiversity Convention, which ran parallel with the Agenda 21 conference. It had the same participants, just two different thought tracks brought together at the same conference.
“They wrote about the biodiversity convention, which has become incredibly important today to the United Nations. They said the convention implicitly equates the diversity of life, that is animals and plants, to the diversity of genetic codes. By doing so, diversity becomes something modern science can manipulate. It promotes biotechnology as being essential for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.
They redefined the term biodiversity, for one, but they also said the main stake raised by the biodiversity convention is the issue of ownership and control over biological diversity. The major concern was protecting the pharmaceutical and emerging biotechnology industries. That was their assessment.
To which, today, we can say, ‘Bingo!’ That is exactly what happened back then, and this is exactly the expression today that we see of the genetic takeover of life on planet earth. They’ve gotten the seeds, they’ve gotten the plants, they’ve gotten the animals.”
Today, the technocrats are also moving in on the human genetic code. Chief medical officer of Moderna, Tal Zaks, for example, has stated that Moderna, a developer of the mRNA COVID jab, is “hacking the software of life.” He described the human genetic code as an operating system, and if you can change that operating system by introducing a new line of code, or by changing a line of code, you can change how the operating system functions.
Since 1992, legislation has been created to protect Big Pharma. You could say the 1992 Agenda 21 was a pre-coup. They laid the groundwork back then to protect the pharmaceutical and emerging biotech industries they knew were coming. And, today, the very genetic makeup of mankind is up for grabs.
Origins of Technocracy
Technocracy dates further back than the 90s, however. Handwritten letters dating to the 1930s reveal some of the originators of the technocratic movement had gotten into an argument with the Hearst newspaper empire, and because of that, they forbade journalists to discuss them or the technocratic ideology. Hence, technocracy went underground and got sort of buried for a few decades. Wood explains:
“What happened was, Howard Scott, one of the cofounders of Technocracy Inc., was also the leader of the group at Columbia University when it was housed there in 1932. He had promoted himself as being a certified engineer and one of the intellectual guys that would fit in to Columbia University. He wasn’t from Columbia, but he was heading the [technocratic] movement there.
It was discovered, while he was there, that he was a complete fraud. He had no engineering degree at all. He was just a blowhard. He was a promoter — basically a con man — and Nicholas Murray Butler, the president of Columbia … flipped out, and drop-kicked Scott out of Columbia …
By the same token, Howard Scott was out working in the media like crazy, and he worked the Hearst empire to get articles about technocracy published all across the country.
When Randolph Hearst discovered, as Butler did, that he had been taken for a ride and that his media empire had been manipulated, he freaked out and sent out a telegram-type memo to every newspaper in the country, saying, ‘If anybody ever mentions technocracy again, you’re fired.’
Well, that took care of that. History books have a 25-year lag, typically. Historians don’t go back and analyze stuff from last year to write in history books. They go back 25 years and they look around and they read the newspaper articles and whatever, and try and figure out what happened. That’s how they write history.
Well, there’s this huge hole on the technocracy movement because it just got dropped out. All of a sudden, there’s no newspaper articles. It’s just like they disappeared into thin air. The big, highly credentialed scientist and engineers at Columbia who were crowing about technocracy the year before, now, all of a sudden, would not dare mention the word.”
Wood eventually discovered a major university archive at University of Edmonton in Alberta, where all of the leaders of the Canadian technocracy movement had combined their papers in the ’90s.
The documents were placed in a warehouse where they sat for years on end, until a catalog of them was finally published on the internet. It was a real jackpot. Wood and his wife drove to Edmonton and spent a week sifting through and copying materials. After that, it wasn’t very difficult to break down how the technocratic agenda had been moved forward and was being implemented.
Totalitarianism Versus Technocracy
While the outward expression of technocracy will appear as totalitarianism, the control center is not a dictator. Rather than a single person ruling by the decree, technocracy relies on control through technology and algorithm. This is a very important difference. In short, there are no people behind the curtain pulling strings. There’s no individual to blame or hold accountable.
The “dictator” is an algorithm. Looking at Google over the past couple of years, in particular, we can see this in action. We can also see it in the censorship of social media, and in the social credit system in China.
“The so-called artificial intelligence boom has created the possibility of controlling people by algorithm, rather than by political dictate,” Wood says. “There has been a battle between technocrats and governments ever since technocracy started. Back in the day, they hated government. They wanted to get rid of government. There is still that propensity today.
You see it at the World Economic Forum, you see it at United Nations. They want to dissolve the national governments of the world. Historically, fascism and communism have been instituted by national governments. These entities are on the hit list for technocracy. We saw this, by the way, just recently. There was a conference in Dubai, called the World Government Summit1 [March 29-30, 2022].
It was partly put on by the United Nations and there were a bunch of financial mucky mucks there. There was one in particular, Pippa Malmgren — she’s from America, but she’s in Great Britain — and she does financial wealth management services for the ultra rich.
She talked about the destruction of the fiat currency system, and she said, when it happens, there’s simply going to be a change-over. All the fiat currencies are going to go, and there’s going to be an implementation of digital currency. But she also made point that the nation state structures of the world are declining rapidly now. She saw, I guess, that the nation states are the target of destruction. They must go.”
This has been in the works for some time. Look at the European Union. While Europe has country borders, the EU member states have virtually no power to do anything anymore. They’re subservient to the EU’s wishes. “That’s why a lot of people in Europe call the EU a technocracy, they’re a bunch of technocrat elites — they’re unelected, they’re unaccountable,” Wood says.
Nobody can get to them and they’re making decisions for everybody else. So, while the nation states are still there in name, they’ve stripped of their sovereignty. The World Health Organization is now also in the process of stripping nations of their sovereignty through the so-called Pandemic Treaty, which will grant the WHO unprecedented power and influence to govern behind the veil of “global biosecurity.”
We also see the rule of technocracy in companies such as Google, which is meddling in the affairs of nations, oftentimes wielding more power over people than the state itself. So, it’s important to realize that the enemy is not a nation state.
Today’s enemy cannot be compared to anything that nation states have produced in the past, such as fascism, communism or socialism. This is an altogether brand-new entity. So, while technocracy feels like totalitarianism, today’s totalitarianism is an outgrowth of technocracy, and cannot be compared to any previous totalitarian regime.
“If you look at it in the context of the takeover genetic material on earth, this is the dangerous payload that we face. It’s not just the governance part of it. It’s not just the scientific dictatorship part of it, where people now can be manipulated in doing things that don’t want to do. We’re talking about the direct takeover of the human genome.
This is an incredible thing, because that means, potentially, that our genome of humanity could be changed,” Wood warns.
Unintended Consequences Are Probable
Now, it’s quite possible, and indeed probable, that the orchestrators of this technocratic takeover are in over their heads and will end up self-destructing. They’re playing a game that has never been played before, so there’s no telling what unintended consequences might be initiated.
One such unintended consequence could be a world war, and if that happens, gene editing the human genome will become irrelevant, because the living standards of the whole world will be pushed back hundreds of years. Wood comments:
“No question about it — World War III or a world war is going to be triggered. It’s not in the best interest, for instance, for the World Economic Forum to have a world war. But that doesn’t mean it won’t happen either. So far, I think the Ukraine war is pretty orchestrated and scripted in many ways to the agenda of the World Economic Forum. But it doesn’t mean it couldn’t lose control and the thing just goes nuts.
If that happens, I don’t know where I’d put that on the doomsday clock. I’m not really sure, but it is definitely a possible outcome. If it does happen, it will spoil everything for everyone for a very long period of time. As the Bible says, it’ll take seven years to go through the countryside and bury all the radioactive bones. That’d be very ugly.
It might not be [a nuclear war]. But it could be. They have the technology. I mean, just look what they can do by launching these pandemics and these bioweapons … Another thing that can happen — and again, we’re talking about waves of attacks, things that could bring us down and bring about this Great Reset — is some type of a cyber attack.
This has been in the news a lot lately. A cyber attack could be a false flag operation, but it doesn’t really matter what it is, whether it is or isn’t [a false flag], but some big thing, like taking down the power grid, or taking down JPMorgan Chase and nobody can get their money out for a period of a week.
Something like that would, again, put the fear of God into everybody. We’ll be back to the fear and panic; we’ll do whatever you say to get safety, et cetera. It will perpetuate the takeover, the coup that we’re looking at. These are two possibilities, near-term, that are very real. We’ve got different scenarios right now, but we know where this group of technocrat actors are going.
We understand their mindset, their philosophy, if you will. I hate to even call it that, but what is in their head? There’s no passion, there’s no compassion, there’s no love, there’s no mercy, there’s no grace, there’s nothing like that. It’s a completely inhuman endeavor to capture mankind into a scientific dictatorship, the likes of which the world has never seen before.”
Preparing Can Help Ease Your Anxiety
The Boy Scouts motto is “Be prepared,” and that is what I would encourage everyone to strive for at this time. Another motto to embrace would be “Hope for the best and prepare for the worst.” Prepare as best you can for any and every contingency. If you can, get out of the big cities and big urban areas. Rural areas where you can build community is your safest bet.
Prepare for sustained food shortages with long-term food storage. Secure a potable water source. Stock up on medical remedies. Prepare for supply chains of all kinds to fail and stock up accordingly. Transition out of fiat currency, either by spending it on things you’ll need in the future, or buying physical gold and silver.
Prepare for energy shortages, rolling blackouts and the complete shut-down of the power grid. Importantly, don’t rely on high-tech solutions. Include low-tech manual backups in your preps. If the thought of all of this scares you, remember that taking action is the best remedy. Knowing you’re prepared will ease a lot of anxieties.
Why Free Speech Is on the Chopping Block
Free speech is a universal concept. Everyone, everywhere, have a mind and want to express themselves without being censored or canceled for their views. Free speech is now under attack worldwide, and the truly massive attack on free speech began at the same time as the coup d’état started. This is because silencing dissent is required for the full takeover to occur.
“These technocrat transhumanist revolutionaries must destroy free speech at the same time that they take over the world, because they have to control the narrative,” Wood explains. “The attacks on free speech right now are absolutely legendary, off the charts, everywhere on the planet.
If Mattias Desmet is right, and I feel absolutely certain that he is, because I can read a history book as easy as anybody, when free speech is effectively silenced, that is when the killing of the scapegoat begins. It’s always the scapegoat that gets killed first. There may be other groups that get mixed in, but the people who are the scapegoat are the ones that will be attacked by the mass formation psychosis crowd.”
Eventually, the totalitarian regime will devour its own. It’ll kill its own leaders in the name of the greater good. But in the meantime, it’ll start by culling various scapegoats, one group after another.
“Original technocracy from the 1930s, was defined in their own magazine, which was called ‘The Technocrat Magazine.’ They defined themselves in 1938 as ‘the science of social engineering.’ That was what they said about themselves.
Technocracy is the science of social engineering and they talked incessantly in their literature about Pavlov and BF Skinner and how they could control people and mold people to the economy, to the utopia that they wanted to build.
They’ve had since 1938, at the very least, to think about how to develop the science of social engineering to be used against humanity. I don’t think we need to even think about it any further.
We can feel it today. It’s right in our face, every day. They’re using these techniques against the people of the world to manipulate them, to hypnotize them, to push them into mass formation psychosis. Somebody at the top knows exactly what they’re doing with this. That’s my point.”
And, again, tech companies like Google and Facebook play central roles in that effort. I look at Google as the Skynet of the Terminator series. They’re probably the worst offender of all the technology companies that are accelerating this. They the champions of social engineering. They own DeepMind, the most sophisticated artificial intelligence company on the planet, and they’re clearly using it for nefarious purposes. That said, they’re certainly not alone.
Action Plan Moving Forward
In closing, we need to give careful thought to how we might slow down, block or at least limit the devastation that’s been planned for us. At the top of that list, aside from preparing yourself and your family with the essentials for life, is to buck the narrative.
“Anytime you feel like you’re being given a role to play, just refuse to play that role,” Wood says. “I don’t care what it is, just don’t do it. If they say, ‘You need to wear a mask because blah, blah, blah — don’t wear a mask. Just don’t play the role they give you.’
I know, but there’s a lot of personal choice here. You got to make a personal decision on what it’s worth to you to do it. I personally haven’t worn a mask yet. It’s cost me. I haven’t flown an airplane for a long time. I didn’t go a lot of places.
It’s important to keep your mouth open, not shut. We need to reestablish human connection again. This has been denied us with all the social distancing and lockdowns and everything else. Get in touch with people. It hurts, I realize, for a lot of people, because relationships have been burned between children and parents and brothers and sisters. Get over it, deal with it.
You have to get out and reconnected with people again, because the future of humanity is in those connections.
Just don’t argue with them. If you love them, love them anyway, in spite of where they are. But it’s also important to get with like-minded people and spend time developing deeper relationships with people. Guys have lost the ability to have best friends, almost universally across the country.
Women are better at having best friends, but they’ve been denied best friends because everything’s been broken up. Get embedded in a local church and start going to these home fellowships, whatever, where people are meeting face to face and just talk to them …
We have a lot of answers and a lot of tangible things we can help people with. You need to do it, be prepared to do it. When you have the opportunity, open your mouth and help them out. At least, give them some hope, because right now the other side wants you to have no hope. They want to strip all hope away from you so that you will turn to the government or turn to the technocrats for help.
We need to help people with this whole hope business and not to sell hopium, as some people call it, but to give them some tangible help on what they can do right now to put up a defense around their own body, around their own mind or whatever it might be …
This is where we are as a world today — we, on the non-mass formation psychosis side, we’re all in. Whether anybody else recognizes that as immaterial, but we are all in this. This is the most important civilizational, existential thing that we’ll ever deal with in our lifetime.
It really is that important. It’s not something we can just say, ‘Well, it’s just another problem,’ kind of like, ‘We had problems with Jimmy Carter.’ No, it’s not that kind of problem. This is a bigger existential threat that we’re facing right now.
We must be dead serious. But there’s hope, I will say. And until it’s over, it’s not over. We can make a difference and we need to try. We just can’t throw up our hands and say there’s no point trying, I’m going to go home and get drunk. Klaus Schwab told you, with his own lips, that by 2030 you will own nothing and you will be happy. They’re trying to make it happen. Yes, they are.
One of the reasons, by the way, that the World Economic Forum has met with the United Nations to speed up the agenda, closer on this side of 2030, is because of the mounting resistance around the world to the agenda. I’m convinced of this. I’ve been watching this since the beginning.
Americans can’t have 500,000 people in the street protesting anything, that doesn’t happen here. That’s just not our culture. But not Europe, at the drop of a hat, you’ll get a 100,000 people in the street, all screaming and banging pots and pans and hollering and carrying signs.
I know they see these massive hordes of people that are saying, essentially, ‘Hell, no’… This has to have an impact on them. I think that’s one reason they’re trying to accelerate the program right now and make it happen faster.
To me, that’s just kind of a little bit of a sign of resistance is working, and this to me, this ought to tell the resistance to double down — double down right now on whatever it is you’re doing. Do twice as much as you did last week or last month and continue to put the pressure on it.”
The events at the capitol have less to do with the Left vs Right and more to do with Us vs Them. Get ready for more censoring of the internet and shunning of people from society. We are now entering the beginning stages of the Chinese system of censorship. In two short years, social media companies went from promising a one time exception to ban Alex Jones to banning Donald Trump, the sitting President of the United States. It looks like that slippery slope was pretty steep. If you thought cancel culture was bad before, just wait to see what is coming. The attack on the Capitol will inevitably become just another attack on your rights.
A growing number of young healthy adults are mysteriously dying. Watch Jefferey Jaxen and Del try to make sense of, what is now being called, “Sudden Adult Death Syndrome” (SADS).
The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) is overwhelmed and understaffed with the amount of injury claims being filed from the Covid-19 Vaccines. The program is now on life support and is on the verge of collapse.
The CDC has walked back it’s initial recommendation to mask for Monkeypox, which triggered a firestorm of criticism from the medical and scientific communities.
The lecturer in the featured video, Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., produced the 2014 Australian Catalyst documentary, “Heart of the Matter: Dietary Villains,” which exposed the cholesterol/saturated fat myths behind the statin fad and the financial links which lurk underneath.
The documentary was so thorough that vested interests actually convinced ABC TV to rescind the two-part series.1 The Australian Heart Foundation, the three largest statin makers (Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme) and Medicines Australia, Australia’s drug lobby group, complained2 and got the documentary expunged from ABC TV.
Cholesterol and saturated fat have been the villains of heart disease for the past four decades, despite the many studies showing neither has an adverse effect on heart health.
The entire food industry shifted away from saturated fat and cholesterol, ostensibly to improve public health, and the medical industry has massively promoted the use of cholesterol-lowering statin drugs for the same reason. Despite all of that, the rate of heart disease deaths continues to be high.3 That really should tell us something.
Statins Are a Colossal Waste of Money
Since the release of Demasi’s documentary, the evidence against the cholesterol theory and statins has only grown. As noted in an August 4, 2020, op-ed by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, a general practitioner with the British National Health Service:4
“New research shows that the most widely prescribed type of drug in the history of medicine is a waste of money. One major study found that the more ‘bad’ cholesterol was lowered, the greater the risk of heart attacks and strokes.
In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, almost every other medical condition has been shoved onto the sidelines. However, in the UK last year, heart attacks and strokes (CVD) killed well over 100,000 people — which is at least twice as many as have died from COVID-19.
CVD will kill just as many this year, which makes it significantly more important than COVID-19, even if no one is paying much attention to it right now.”
According to a scientific review5 published online August 4, 2020, in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, lowering LDL is not going to lower your risk of heart disease and stroke. “Decades of research has failed to show any consistent benefit for this approach,” the authors note.
Since the commercialization of statin drugs in the late ’80s (lovastatin being the first one, gaining approval in 19876), total sales have reached nearly $1 trillion.7,8 Lipitor — which is just one of several brand name statin drugs — was named the most profitable drug in the history of medicine.9,10 Yet these drugs have done nothing to derail the rising trend of heart disease.
Lowering Cholesterol Does Not Show a Beneficial Impact
According to a press release announcing the BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine review, the analysis found that:11
“… over three quarters of all the trials reported no positive impact on the risk of death and nearly half reported no positive impact on risk of future cardiovascular disease.
And the amount of LDL cholesterol reduction achieved didn’t correspond to the size of the resulting benefits, with even very small changes in LDL cholesterol sometimes associated with larger reductions in risk of death or cardiovascular ‘events,’ and vice versa. Thirteen of the clinical trials met the LDL cholesterol reduction target, but only one reported a positive impact on risk of death …”
In their paper,12 the study authors argue that since dozens of randomized controlled trials looking at LDL-cholesterol reduction “have failed to demonstrate a consistent benefit, we should question the validity of this theory.”
They also cite the Minnesota Coronary Experiment,13 a double-blind randomized controlled trial involving 9,423 subjects that sought to determine whether replacing saturated fat with omega-6 rich vegetable oil (corn oil and margarine) would reduce the death rate from heart disease by lowering cholesterol.
It didn’t. Mortality and cardiovascular events increased even though total cholesterol was lowered by 13.8%. For each 30 mg/dL reduction in serum cholesterol, the death risk rose by 22%. In conclusion, the Evidence-Based Medicine study authors note that:14
“In most fields of science the existence of contradictory evidence usually leads to a paradigm shift or modification of the theory in question, but in this case the contradictory evidence has been largely ignored, simply because it doesn’t fit the prevailing paradigm.”
Deception Through Statistics
If lowering cholesterol doesn’t reduce mortality or cardiovascular events, there’s little reason to use them, considering they come with a long list of adverse side effects. Sure, there are studies claiming to show benefit, but many involve misleading plays on statistics.
One common statistic used to promote statins is that they lower your risk of heart attack by about 36%.15 This statistic is derived from a 2008 study16 in the European Heart Journal. One of the authors on this study is Rory Collins, who heads up the CTT Collaboration (Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration), a group of doctors and scientists who analyze study data17 and report their findings to regulators and policymakers.
Table 4 in this study shows the rate of heart attack in the placebo group was 3.1% while the statin group’s rate was 2% — a 36% reduction in relative risk. However, the absolute risk reduction — the actual difference between the two groups, i.e., 3.1% minus 2% — is only 1.1%, which really isn’t very impressive.
In other words, in the real world, if you take a statin, your chance of a heart attack is only 1.1% lower than if you’re not taking it. At the end of the day, what really matters is what your risk of death is the absolute risk. The study, however, only stresses the relative risk (36%), not the absolute risk (1.1%).
As noted in the review18 “How Statistical Deception Created the Appearance That Statins Are Safe and Effective in Primary and Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease,” it’s very easy to confuse and mislead people with relative risks.
Statins Sabotage Your Health
A stunning review of statin trials published in 2015 found that in primary prevention trials, the median postponement of death in those taking statins was a mere 3.2 days. While potentially extending life span by 3.2 days, those taking statins are also at increased risk for:
Diabetes (if taken for more than two years, your risk for diabetes triples)
Dementia, neurodegenerative diseases and psychiatric problems such as depression, anxiety and aggression
Musculoskeletal disorders
Osteoporosis
Cataracts
Heart disease
Liver damage
Immune system suppression
Oftentimes statins do not have any immediate side effects, and they are quite effective, capable of lowering cholesterol levels by 50 points or more. This is often viewed as evidence that your health is improving. Side effects that develop over time are frequently misinterpreted as brand-new, separate health problems.
Crimes Against Humanity
The harm perpetuated by the promotion of the low-fat, low-cholesterol myth is so significant, it could easily be described as a crime against humanity. Ancel Keys’ 1963 “Seven Countries Study” was instrumental in creating the saturated fat myth.19,20
He claimed to have found a correlation between total cholesterol concentration and heart disease, but in reality this was the result of cherry picking data. When data from 16 excluded countries are added back in, the association between saturated fat consumption and mortality vanishes.
In fact, the full data set suggests that those who eat the most saturated animal fat tend to have a lower incidence of heart disease, which is precisely what other, more recent studies have concluded.
Procter & Gamble Co.21 (the maker of Crisco22), the American Heart Association and the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) all promoted the fallacy for decades, despite mounting evidence that Keys had gotten it all wrong.
The AHA was issuing stern warnings against butter, steak and coconut oil as recently as 2017.23 That same year, Procter & Gamble partnered with University Hospitals Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute to promote heart health by lowering cholesterol.24
CSPI was also instrumental in driving heart disease skyward with its wildly successful pro-trans fat campaign. It was largely the result of CSPI’s campaign that fast-food restaurants replace beef tallow, palm oil and coconut oil with partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, which were high in synthetic trans fats linked to heart disease and other chronic diseases.
As late as 1988, CSPI praised trans fats, saying “there is little good evidence that trans fats cause any more harm than other fats” and that “much of the anxiety over trans fats stems from their reputation as ‘unnatural.'”25
CSPI and AHA Omit Their Role in Heart Disease Epidemic
Today, you’ll have to dig deep to unearth CSPI’s devastating public health campaign. In an act of deception, they erased it from their history to make people believe they’ve been doing the right thing all along. Their historical timeline26 of trans fat starts at 1993 — the year CSPI decided to change course and start supporting the elimination of the same trans fat they’d spent years promoting.
Similarly, the AHA conveniently omits saturated fat and cholesterol from its history of “lifesaving” breakthroughs and achievements.27 It makes sense, though, considering the AHA’s and CSPI’s recommendations to swap saturated fat for vegetable oils and synthetic trans fat never resulted in anything but an epidemic of heart disease.
The idea that the harms of trans fats were unknown until the 1990s is simply a lie. The late Dr. Fred Kummerow started publishing evidence showing trans fat, not saturated fat, was the cause of heart disease in 1957. He also linked trans fat to Type 2 diabetes.
The Truth About Saturated Fat
In addition to the more recent studies mentioned earlier, many others have also debunked the idea that cholesterol and/or saturated fat impacts your risk of heart disease. For example:
•In a 1992 editorial published in the Archives of Internal Medicine,28 Dr. William Castelli, a former director of the Framingham Heart study, stated:
“In Framingham, Mass., the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person’s serum cholesterol. The opposite of what … Keys et al [said] …”
•A 2010 meta-analysis,29 which pooled data from 21 studies and included 347,747 adults, found no difference in the risks of heart disease and stroke between people with the lowest and highest intakes of saturated fat.
•Another 2010 study30 published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that a reduction in saturated fat intake must be evaluated in the context of replacement by other macronutrients, such as carbohydrates.
When you replace saturated fat with a higher carbohydrate intake, particularly refined carbohydrate, you exacerbate insulin resistance and obesity, increase triglycerides and small LDL particles, and reduce beneficial HDL cholesterol. According to the authors, dietary efforts to improve your cardiovascular disease risk should primarily emphasize the limitation of refined carbohydrate intake, and weight reduction.
•A 2014 meta-analysis31 of 76 studies by researchers at Cambridge University found no basis for guidelines that advise low saturated fat consumption to lower your cardiac risk, calling into question all of the standard nutritional guidelines related to heart health. According to the authors:
“Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats.”
Will Saturated Fat Myth Soon Be Upended?
Nina Teicholz, a science journalist, adjunct professor at NYU’s Wagner Graduate School of Public Service and the executive director of The Nutrition Coalition, is the author of “The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet,” which reviews the many myths surrounding saturated fat and cholesterol.
In an interview I did with Dr. Paul Saladino and Teicholz, they reviewed the history of the demonization of saturated fat and cholesterol, starting with Keys, and how the introduction of the first Dietary Guidelines for Americans in 1980 (which recommended limiting saturated fat and cholesterol) coincided with a rapid rise in obesity and chronic diseases such as heart disease.
Teicholz also reviewed a paper32 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, published online June 17, 2020, which actually admits the long-standing nutritional guideline to limit saturated fat has been incorrect. This is a rather stunning admission, and a huge step forward. As noted in the abstract:
“The recommendation to limit dietary saturated fatty acid (SFA) intake has persisted despite mounting evidence to the contrary. Most recent meta-analyses of randomized trials and observational studies found no beneficial effects of reducing SFA intake on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and total mortality, and instead found protective effects against stroke.
Although SFAs increase low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol, in most individuals, this is not due to increasing levels of small, dense LDL particles, but rather larger LDL which are much less strongly related to CVD risk.
It is also apparent that the health effects of foods cannot be predicted by their content in any nutrient group, without considering the overall macronutrient distribution.
Whole-fat dairy, unprocessed meat, eggs and dark chocolate are SFA-rich foods with a complex matrix that are not associated with increased risk of CVD. The totality of available evidence does not support further limiting the intake of such foods.”
Title says it all, wait til you see the data! – we finally have the full Central Statistics Office data, published from the Govt for 2020 and 2021 – revelations abound! Graham Neary’s CSO Data: https://we.tl/t-kqccozGUT5
NOTE: My extensive research and interviewing / video/sound editing and much more (including expensive travel to enable these media appearances!) does require support – please consider helping if you can with monthly donation to support me directly, or one-off payment: https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_…
1. “There is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our enemies, not just in ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience. They are our neighbors here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred meters away, there are people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to a different galaxy.” Israeli president Moshe Katsav. The Jerusalem Post, May 10, 2001
2. “The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more”…. Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time – August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post, August 30, 2000
3. ” [The Palestinians are] beasts walking on two legs.” Menahim Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, “Begin and the Beasts”. New Statesman, 25 June 1982.
4. “The Palestinians” would be crushed like grasshoppers … heads smashed against the boulders and walls.” Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988
5. “When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle.” Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York Times, 14 April 1983.
6. “How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to.” Golda Maier, March 8, 1969.
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
