Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 380

Hidden History: The Indian Nationalists Ambedkar, Bose and Jinnah

Dr Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar

Episode 30 Nationalists Ambedkar, Bose and Jinnah

A History of India

Michael Fisher (2016)

Film Review

In this lecture, Fisher profiles three of India’s nationalist leaders who are often whitewashed out of history because they opposed Gandhi politically and philosophically.

Dr Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar

Ambedkar played a major role in Indian independence by serving as the chair of its constitution writing committee its first law minister.

Born in 1891 in Mhow in western India, Ambedkar was a Mahar, a slightly higher level of Untouchable assigned to clearing ditches and enforcing decrees.* Mahars sometimes received grants of land for their services and sometimes worked as tenant farmers. Ambedkar’s male relatives had improved their status by enlisting in the Indian National Army as supply clerks (Mahars weren’t allowed to serve as infantry or cavalry). This enabled his father to send Ambedkar to school, even though he was required to sit in a separate room and use a separate water supply. Ambedkar would be the first in his family to graduate from secondary school.

Following his graduation from Bombay university, he received a scholarship from the principality of Baroda to study at Columbia University. After earning his doctorate in 1927, he completed a law degree at Grey’s Inn and a second doctorate from London School of Economics.

He returned to India to work as an administrator for the princely state of Baroda. After facing discrimination, he quit to became a political activist, using his law degree to further the rights of Untouchables in court actions. After working briefly with Gandhi to win Untouchables the right to access Hindu temples, the two parted ways over the best strategy for winning their full equality. Ghandi wanted them to first gain social acceptance by keeping their homes cleaner and imitating the behavior of higher caste Indians.

He opposed Ambedkar’s campaign to create separate Untouchable electorates (where only Untouchables could vote or stand for office), similar to those the British creating for Muslims. In fact, he embarked on a fast until death until Ambedkar agreed to abandon his campaign. In 1932 the two signed the Poona Pact, agreeing to campaign for 18% of India’s voting districts to be limited to Untouchable candidates with the proviso that the entire district would be eligible to vote.

Months before his death, Anbedkar renounced Hinduism and its caste system to covert to Buddhism, as did millions of his Untouchable followers.

Subha Chandra Bose

Born in 1897 into the Kayaths (administrative) Jat in in Bengali, Bose successfully passed the Indian Civil Service Exam in 1919, but refused to join the ICS. Joining the Indian National Congress, he vigorously opposed many of Gandhi’s anti-industrialization policies. He believed it essential for India to embrace modern science and manufacturing to end its economic dependence on the UK and increase living standards for India’s poor.

He also opposed Gandhi’s passive resistance to British rule, organizing violent paramilitary activities against the British that landed him in jail 11 times.

After he became Indian National Congress president in 1938, Gandhi used his influence to force Bose to resign. One World War II started, the latter traveled to Germany to record radio broadcasts for Hitler calling for violent revolution in India. After the formation of the Quit India movement in 1942 led to massive domestic unrest, Hitler helped him organize British Indian Army troops captured in North Africa into the Free Indian Army (aka the Indian National Army). The German and Japanese subsequently transported him by submarine to Singapore, where British officers abandoned 70,000 British Indian Army troops when the Japanese invaded the island. Bose organized 40,000 of them to invade India on behalf of the Indian National Army. After they were joined by by Indian POWs the Japanese captured in Burma, Bose declared himself the prime minister of the provisional Indian government. Hi Indian National Army invaded a few regions of eastern India, surrendering to the British National Army in 1945.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah

Descended from a long line of Hindu mercantile families who had converted to Islam, Muhammad Ali Jinnah was born in Gujjarat in 1876. Married at 16, he left his wife and family in 1893, to train as a barrister in London. On his return to India, he became an extremely prosperous (and the only Muslim) member of the Bombay bar. At 29, he became one of the few Muslims to join the Indian National Congress.

In 1913, seven years after its founding he also joined the Muslim League. After three years, he was elected permanent president. He continued his membership in the Indian National Congress and they held joint sessions in 1915-16, to draw up the Lucknow Pact, a HIndu-Muslim power sharing agreement.

After the INC (under Gandhi’s influence), adopted a number of Hindu religious symbols, Jinnah reigned from the INC in 1920. In 1929, he returned to Britain to practice law in 1929.

Thanks to British political reforms allowing one-sixth of India to vote in provincial elections, the Muslims of Bombay elected Jinnah (in abstentia) as their representative to the Central Legislative Assembly. After the INC renounced the Lucknow Pact, declaring Muslims were underserving of power sharing, his supporters urged him to return to India to become the sole voice of the Muslim League.

In 1939, the Muslim League supported the Viceroy of India’s declaration of war against Germany. Because he failed to consult with the Hindu majority, the INC categorically denounced it. This led to the jailing of many Hindu antiwar activists during World War II.

*The lowest level of Untouchables processed human waste and engaged in leather tannin (a process that involved soaking animal hides in urine).

Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/366254/366229

Bill Gates Promotes ‘Net Zero’ as Climate Fix — Critics Call It a ‘Financial Scam’

By W. Aaron Vandiver

In an interview with The Defender, environmental activist and food sovereignty advocate Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., said the growing “net zero” movement promoted by Bill Gates and other globalists is a scam allowing polluters to buy credits instead of reducing emissions, enabling land grabs and corporate control.

Bill Gates is known as one of the world’s leading proponents of “net zero.” The tech billionaire said that reaching “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050 will be “the most difficult challenge humanity has ever taken on” and “the most amazing thing humanity has ever done.”

Shifting the world’s greenhouse gas emissions from today’s 52 billion tons to net zero over the next three decades, according to Gates, means “we need to find better ways to do pretty much everything” from the “food we eat” to the “buildings we live in,” because “[v]irtually every human activity produces greenhouse gas emissions.”

But when Gates refers to “net zero,” he does not mean actual zero, as in no emissions.

Adding the word “net” into the equation for redoing “virtually every human activity” substantially changes the meaning of “zero.”

And Gates has helped convince most countries of the world to add that small, poorly understood, seemingly harmless word “net” into their climate change pledges.

So what, exactly, does net zero emissions mean to Gates and others who share his ambitions?

Ecological activist Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., told The Defender:

“‘Net zero,’ as Bill Gates admits in his book, ‘How to Avoid a Climate Disaster,’ is not about polluters stopping their pollution. It is about polluters getting new profits by creating new markets for fake techno-fixes like geoengineering and fake food, and new forms of land grab through ‘carbon offsets.’

[…]

The future implications of net zero are far-reaching. The worldwide push for net zero has turned “carbon credits” into globally traded financial instruments, giving big corporations and billionaires a kind of “license to pollute.”

The global “carbon market” has established new ways for economic elites to grab land, profit from dubious technologies and attempt to corner the market on literally any activity that produces carbon, potentially encompassing “virtually every human activity,” in Gates’ words.

History of net zero and its potential for abuse

The concept of net zero existed primarily in academic papers and reports until it was incorporated into the 2015 Paris Agreement, at the urging of powerful advocates. Since then, the world’s commitment to “net” zero has exploded.

[…]

The Paris Agreement has led to the emergence of a global “carbon market” in which governments and private actors buy and sell credits by funding activities that reduce or avoid carbon emissions, or those that remove carbon from the atmosphere.

Removal credits can be obtained through technological methods of removal such as “direct air capture” — a technology as yet unproven at scale — or through land-based methods such as the preservation of forests and sequestering of carbon in farmland soil.

Big emitters that obtain credits can use them to “offset” their emissions, so they don’t actually have to make any cuts.

[…]

“The former Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, now heads the U.N. Net Zero initiative,” Shiva said, “which is being described as ‘changing the plumbing of the whole financial system forever.’”

With this kind of financial power behind it, the global drive for net zero has taken off since the 2015 Paris Agreement. By 2019, countries covering one-sixth of the global economy had made net zero pledges, and by 2021, net zero pledges covered nine-tenths of the global economy.

In July, Gates said the next U.N. climate conference — COP28, to be held Nov. 30-Dec. 12 — “will be a critical opportunity for the world’s leaders to come together and take real steps to accelerate our path to net-zero carbon emissions.”

#COP28 will be a critical opportunity for the world’s leaders to come together and take real steps to accelerate our path to net-zero carbon emissions. https://t.co/8EYri4XNbw

— Bill Gates (@BillGates) July 26, 2023

‘Largely worthless’ carbon offsets and ‘dangerous’ geoengineering

Estimates are that the market for “carbon credits” could be $100 billion by mid-century.

Carbon credits have come under greater scrutiny in the last few years, however, as big corporations have bought large amounts of them in a public-relations effort to improve their environmental reputations. Critics call this “greenwashing.”

Research on offsets shows “the large majority are not real or are over-credited or both,” Barbara Haya, Ph.D., director of the Berkeley Carbon Trading Project, concluded.

[…]

President Joe Biden’s signature climate change law, the Inflation Reduction Act, was a financial “bonanza for the carbon capture industry,” according to Time, even though technological methods of “carbon capture” have never been proven to be economically feasible at scale.

Geoengineering — directly manipulating the Earth’s climate — is another potential source of carbon credits. Some startups are already trying to market geoengineering carbon credits with various schemes like spraying chemicals into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight or sequestering carbon in seagrasses.

While geoengineering is considered to be dangerous and premature at best, the White House nevertheless issued a report in June recommending that some forms of geoengineering should be studied, and mentioning the possible future involvement of “private actors.”

Buying up carbon credits — a ‘global gold rush’

In contrast to speculative and unproven technological methods of carbon removal, land-based carbon capture in forests and farmlands can sequester carbon on a significant scale.

With the race to acquire available carbon credits by 2050, there is a huge financial incentive for big players in the global economy to buy up land capable of producing carbon credits in a sort of global “gold rush.” Only those who own the limited number of land-based credits will be able to claim the right to emit greenhouse gases.

The global rush for land-based carbon credits was predicted by when the goal of net zero was first introduced. Some environmental activists were concerned the less-developed countries of the global south would be targeted.

Those predictions have turned out to be accurate.

The African nation of Liberia just announced it is conceding about 10% of its land — over 2 million acres of forest — to a company from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) called Blue Carbon LLC. This “transfer of pollution rights,” as the parties refer to it, will allow the UAE to “meet its climate commitments.” (UAE will be the site of the U.N.’s CoP28 later this year.)

Blue Carbon is in similar talks with Zambia and Tanzania.

Last year, Nigeria granted access to over 4 million acres of land to a U.S.-based company, African Agriculture Inc. The company plans to plant trees and then sell the carbon credits to high emitters.

Critics call deals like this “carbon colonialism,” because land-based carbon-credit schemes take land access away from local people and grant it to foreign governments and international financial interests. Moreover, the environmental benefits are often overblown.

In July, French President Emmanuel Macron traveled to Papua New Guinea to promote both a large conservation project and a $10 billion Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) investment in the country by French energy giant TotalEnergies.

A TotalEnergies executive claimed the carbon credits from the conservation project would be used to “offset” emissions from the LNG project.

The land rush for “carbon credits” is not limited to developing countries — it’s been making its way into industrialized Western countries.

“Scotland is on the global frontlines of The Great Net-Zero Land Grab,” reads one headline about multinational corporations and investment funds that have been pouring money into rural Scottish land, including the country’s carbon-rich peatlands.

In the Netherlands, despite fierce resistance from farmers, the Dutch government has been moving forward with plans to expropriate up to 3,000 farms to meet the country’s climate goals.

Dutch farmers are being targeted for a land grab, Shiva said.

Perhaps not coincidentally, in 2021, the Dutch bank Rabobank established the first pilot projects of the Rabo Carbon Bank. This followed a report that year by the European Commission laying out profitable strategies for “carbon farming.”

According to Rabo Carbon Bank’s CEO Barbara Baarsma, “the market potential is enormous.”

The drive to shut down farms can only be understood within the larger context of this potentially “enormous” global carbon market, with its voracious demand for land-based carbon credits.

A single oil company, Shell, would need land 3 times the size of the Netherlands for its net zero plans, according to some estimates.

The land-based credits that could be generated by shutting down thousands of Dutch farms could eventually be bought by investors, and then credited to big polluters elsewhere within the global market who could use them to “offset” their continuing emissions.

This dynamic may help explain why Gates bought 250,000 acres of U.S. farmland in recent years, a subject of much speculation as people wonder why Gates made himself America’s biggest “farmer.” Such a huge amount of land could position him to take advantage of the global carbon market.

As net-zero land grabs push out small and medium-sized food producers, people like Gates who are heavily invested in high-tech food companies that purport to be climate-friendly — fake meat producers, for example — are able to seize market share and take further control of the food supply.

Shiva said net-zero land grabs help bring about the vision of a high-tech food future promoted by Gates and Silicon Valley investors: “farming without farmers” and “food without farms.”

Food is Gates’ “new empire,” according to Shiva. His plans include “controlling land, controlling seeds, destroying real food to replace it with lab food, and eliminating farmers from farming altogether,” using patented seeds and various “climate-smart” technologies.

How far can the abuse of ‘net zero’ be taken in the future?

Beyond land grabs and dubious techno-fixes, the attempt by economic elites to corner the market on carbon credits has additional implications for the future.

In a future in which each individual citizen may have a personal carbon allowance — an idea that has been floated by some activists, politicians and international institutions — allowing carbon credits to be bought and sold would give economic elites a way to buy up the future “consumption rights” of everyone else.

[…]

Decentralizing is key to upending net zero

[…]

Small farmers using ecological methods stand in contrast to the billionaires and big corporations using net zero as an excuse to grab land and profit from carbon credits, controlling the food supply using industrial methods that are harmful to the environment and human health.

The key to an authentic, grassroots, ecologically sensible response to their efforts is to decentralize power, Shiva and other critics of net zero have suggested.

Financial schemes like net zero that pretend to address climate change, but in reality allow the top 1% to concentrate power over farmland and food, profit from dubious technologies, and exercise financial control over human activities that produce carbon — “virtually every human activity,” in Gates’ words — must be rejected.

A “shift from globalization driven by multinational corporations to progressive localization of our economies has become an ecological and social imperative,” Shiva wrote, “to protect both people’s lives and the environment.”

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/bill-gates-net-zero-financial-scam-vandana-shiva/

EMF Exposure: 30 Years of Research

 

[image error]

Joel M Moskowitz PhD

The preponderance of research published from 1990 through July 2023 has found significant effects from exposure to radio frequency radiation as well as to extremely low frequency and static electromagnetic fields. 

Dr. Henry Lai, Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington, Editor Emeritus of the journal, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, and an emeritus member of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of EMF, has compiled summaries of the research on the biological effects of exposure to radio frequency (RFR) and extremely low frequency (ELF) and static electromagnetic fields (EMF). His set of abstracts which cover the period from 1990 to July 2023 constitute a comprehensive collection of the research.

Dr. Lai reports that the preponderance of the research has found that exposure to RFR or ELF EMF produces oxidative effects or free radicals, and damages DNA. Moreover the preponderance of RFR studies that examined genetic, neurological and reproductive effects has found significant effects. Among hundreds of studies of RFR, 70% to 89% reported significant effects. Among hundreds of studies of ELF and static fields, 74% to 91% reported significant effects.

Currently, there are about 2,500 studies in Dr. Henry Lai’s collection of research on the effects of exposure to RFR and static or ELF/static fields EMF. The abstracts for these studies can be downloaded by clicking on the links below.

Government and scientists who receive industry funding for their research often claim that research on the effects of exposure to EMF is inconsistent, and that more research is needed before health warnings are issued or regulatory exposure limits are strengthened.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization classified radio frequency radiation (RFR) “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B). The IARC plans to review RFR again by 2024 because most peer-reviewed studies published in the past decade found significant evidence that RFR causes genotoxicity. Thus, the IARC will likely re-classify RFR to either “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A) or “carcinogenic to humans” (Group 1) at the next expert review.

Cell phones and other wireless devices also produce static and extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields. ELF was classified by the IARC as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) a decade before RFR received this classification.

The evidence for DNA damage has been found more consistently in animal and human (in vivo) studies than in studies of cell cultures (in vitro).

Summary of Results (July 2023)

Radio frequency radiation (RFR)

89% (n=297) of 333 RFR oxidative effects (or free radical) studies published since 1997 reported significant effects including 96% (n=89) of 92 studies with a SAR (specific absorption rate)  ≤ 0.40 W/kg.

70% (n=312) of 448 RFR genetic effects studies published since 1990 reported significant effects including 79% (n=103) of 131 studies of gene expression.

76% (n=322) of 423 RFR neurological studies published since 2007 reported significant effects.

82% (n=262) of 317 RFR reproduction and development studies published since 1990 reported significant effects. Among the studies that reported significant effects, 51 studies used an exposure with a SAR ≤ 0.40 W/kg and 31 studies had a SAR ≤  0.08 W/kg.

Extremely low frequency (ELF) and static electromagnetic fields

91% (n=282) of 311 ELF/static EMF oxidative effects (or free radical) studies published since 1990 reported significant effects.

84% (n=282) of 337 ELF/static EMF genetic effects studies published since 1990 reported significant effects including 95% (n=168) of 177 studies of gene expression.

91% (n=310) of 339 ELF/static EMF neurological studies published since 2007 reported significant effects.

74% (n=62) of 83 ELF/static EMF reproduction and development studies published since 1990 reported significant effects.

Links to download each set of abstracts

   RFR = radio frequency electromagnetic fields

   ELF = extremely low frequency or static  electromagnetic fields

RFR Oxidative Effects studies

RFR Genetic Effects studies

RFR Neurological Effects studies

RFR Reproduction / Development studies

ELF Oxidative Effects studies

ELF Genetic Effects studies

ELF Neurological Effects studies

ELF Reproduction studies

Intermediate Frequency studies

List of 55 static / ELF low flux density studies that found effects

—

Feb 4, 2023 (Updated Aug 4, 2023)

Effects of Radio Frequency Radiation Exposure on Free Radical-Related Cellular Processes (290 studies)

Dr. Henry Lai, Professor Emeritus, Department of Bioengineering, University of Washington

This document contains abstracts for 332 studies published since 1997 that assessed the effects of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure on free radical-related cellular processes.

See pages 180-207 for the Table that summarizes key details about each study.

Summary

Of the 332 studies published from 1997- August, 2023, 297 (89%) studies reported significant effects; 36 (11%) studies found no significant effects.Change in cellular free radical status is a consistent effect of radiofrequency radiation.Effects can occur at low specific absorption rates (SAR) or power density of exposure. See 82 studies marked LI for low intensity (less than or equal to 0.4 W/kg); 79 LI studies found effects.Effects have been reported at different frequencies, exposure duration, and modulations, and in many different biological systems, cell lines, and animal species. These data support the assertion that “Radiofrequency radiation affects cellular free radical processes.”Most of the studies are live animal (in vivo) studies with long-term exposure, e.g., daily exposure up to months.Some studies used mobile phones or RFR-emitting devices for exposure (see Table). The SAR and characteristics of RFR in these studies are not well defined. However, these studies should not be overlooked because they represent real-life exposure scenarios. Waveform modulations of radiofrequency radiation during wireless communication usage probably play an important role in biological effects. They are not revealed in studies that used a simple form of radiation (e.g., continuous-wave or GSM) and spatially uniformed fields. Researchers in bioelectromagnetics should realize that the perfect RFR exposure system simulating real life exposures simply does not exist.

Click on the following link to download the 207-page document (pdf): Link

Via https://www.saferemr.com/2018/02/effects-of-exposure-to-electromagnetic.html

Nationwide Cellular Network Connects Election Equipment Giving Federal Government Access to Precinct Election Systems

Guest post by David and Erin Clements via Joe Hoft

A growing majority of Americans know the 2020 election was fraudulent. Many analysts who have been studying election integrity have concluded that there had to be a two-way connection between local election electronics (electronic poll pads, tabulators, election management systems, voter databases, etc.) and a centralized data collection system responsible for monitoring and manipulating the election. Fingers have rightly been pointed at all-inclusive election management software, the Albert Sensor system, Scytl and Edison, and the Election Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC).

[…]

While experts could understand the functional capabilities of how these programs manipulate elections at the county and state levels, one area of mystery remained.  Experts could not fully explain how systems within individual precincts which are supposedly “air-gapped” were adding votes in real-time – such as KnowInk poll pads in Texas that added hundreds of votes to the 2022 midterm election after the polls had closed.  To accomplish election fraud at individual polling places, it is necessary to have an air-interface with the supposedly “air-gapped” equipment networked at the polling place.

A year-long research project led by an election integrity investigator from Utah, Sophie Anderson, and communications engineer, Dr. Charles Bernardin, has uncovered the mechanism that is being used to connect our election equipment at polling places across the nation.

[…]

WHAT IS FIRSTNET?

The idea of a national cellular network dedicated to public safety was hatched in the wake of 9/11 when congested cell networks proved to be a bottleneck for first responders. In 2012, Congress created the First Responder Network Authority under the Department of Commerce to oversee the build-out of “FirstNet.” The original intent provided by its sponsors was that FirstNet would serve police, fire, and EMT services.  However, the scope was soon expanded to include all “critical infrastructure” – which included water, energy, and transportation infrastructure. (https://www.digi.com/solutions/by-technology/firstnet ).

Curiously, just days before Barack Obama left office, his administration’s Department of Homeland Security used the specter of “Russian interference” in the 2016 election as an excuse to declare election systems to be a part of that critical infrastructure.  As a result, the stage was set to roll election systems into FirstNet.

The original plan to build FirstNet was to create a separate network with nationwide coverage that used a dedicated cellular band portion known as Band 14. Years and billions of dollars later, AT&T had built out the FirstNet Band 14 network with the coverage shown in the map below.

AT&T’s FirstNet Band 14 Coverage

[…]

Almost instantly, FirstNet’s coverage increased from pockets of the country to cover most of the population and its voting locations as shown in the map below. This coverage assures electronic poll pads, election management systems, and tabulators with internet connection capabilities could be connected as “critical infrastructure” to the FirstNet network and given priority service, regardless of the presence or quality of local wired internet service.

Areas where FirstNet has ability to preempt existing cellular networks (source (https://www.nperf.com/en/map/5g))

THE PUSH TO CONNECT ELECTION SYSTEMS TO FIRSTNET

Just because the FirstNet cellular network was now available to be used for election systems, didn’t mean all local jurisdictions would connect. Some of them would need to be pushed. Coincidentally, public discussion of using the Election Assistance Commission’s (EAC) influence to push election jurisdictions nationwide to connect to FirstNet took place at a two-day Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Board of Advisers meeting in April 2019. The full transcript of the meeting is here.

[…]

The Board’s expectation of the need to deal with unprecedented national shelter in place orders during a presidential election amounts to an unbelievable prophetic foresight of what would occur leading up to, and during the 2020 election.   A similarly dark prophetic exercise called Event 201 was held by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health and Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Gates Foundation where bureaucrats practiced controlling narratives during a “hypothetical” worldwide pandemic that would soon take over the planet in reality.

[…]

Ivey-Soto wanted the electronic poll pads (which have full access to the voter registration database and voter turnout) and the systems that transmit the election results to be connected to the FirstNet network. Fellow board member, Gema Howell, immediately latched on to Ivey-Soto’s idea of using preemption privileges to connect election equipment to the internet. The board lamented their lack of authority to force jurisdictions to connect to FirstNet. But they decided to use their leverage and connections in the federal government to push the use of the FirstNet cellular network for election systems.

EVIDENCE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ARE CONNECTED TO FIRSTNET

There is a lot of hard evidence that the EAC Board of Advisors successfully carried out Daniel Ivey-Soto’s vision to connect the nation’s polling places to the FirstNet cellular network.

DALLAS COUNTY

For example, there is the official network diagram for election sites in Dallas County, Texas (shown below). The diagram shows both the electronic pollbooks and the tabulators connected to a cellular network with a two-way connection between the router at the polling place and the cellular network itself, which is connected to a central county data center.

Network diagram from Dallas County public presentation showing tabulators and pollbooks connected to a cellular network

The priority cellular services provided by Verizon to the Dallas County elections office was the subject of a May 2020 discussion hosted by Hans Olsen, former Department of Homeland Security employee. The goal of the talk was to explain how they “securely” connected election equipment to the cellular network during the March 2020 Primary election.  They also heavily advertised Cradlepoint modems which are used prolifically by public safety and critical infrastructure customers to connect to FirstNet.

Slide from Dallas County public presentation on using Cradlepoint modems to connect polling sites to cellular networks

[…]

The researchers believe the priority cellular network referenced in this talk is actually FirstNet. According to Dr. Bernardin, “The environment for the Government’s intrusion is partially determined by the IT people when they configure the router at the voter center… the IT manager sets up the private network with Wi-Fi protected access and a firewall. The router can be set to randomize the MAC address to keep the network from being identified, but the randomization can be shared with trusted people. The router provides a private, two-way connection between the election equipment and the FirstNet cellular network. Once this two-way connection is established, FirstNet can monitor real-time data that is passing through the election equipment – including who is turning out and how they are voting. This data can be remotely changed by a man-in-the-middle operating on the FirstNet network. In fact, the election results can be entirely fabricated with this clandestine configuration, and nobody would know.”

FLORIDA

Citizen researchers in St. Johns County, Florida coordinated with each other to document the Wi-Fi networks that were active at fifteen of the polling locations across their county. They discovered that a single cellular network that had been named “LetTheDogOut!” was serving all 15 voting locations in St. Johns County during the 2022 midterms.

Screenshot of Cellular Wi-Fi Network serving St. Johns County, Florida

This evidence indicates that St. Johns County was using a similar priority network setup as Dallas County, Texas, and that service was part of the nationwide “public safety” network.

[…]

SECRECY AND VULNERABILITY

[…]

Shockingly, according to Senator Ron Wyden, FirstNet is also exempt from congressional oversight. In a letter published in April 2023, Wyden stated concerns about the security of the FirstNet network and the likelihood that it could be hacked by bad actors:

[…]

INFRASTRUCTURE TO STEAL ELECTIONS

[…]

Revelations from the Snowden documents suggest that AT&T’s relationship with the federal government continues with the installing of surveillance equipment for the NSA in at least 59 domestic sites. Shortly after the corrupt election system failed to deliver the presidency to Hillary Clinton in 2016, even the Brennan Center for Justice expressed concern that the NSA was too cozy with our domestic communications infrastructure – a topic they are silent on now.

Does infrastructure exist that could change election results electronically in real-time without noticeable delay? Yes – such a thing could be facilitated at the national level by the FirstNet cellular network. All the players surrounding the deployment of FirstNet into elections are already on the suspect list of bad actors of every election integrity researcher as well being part of the group of people who were caught illegally censoring Americans who know 2020 was not a legitimate election.

[…]

Network diagram showing how FirstNet could be misused to interfere with election infrastructure

[…]

Via https://joehoft.com/bombshell-exclusive-nationwide-cellular-network-connects-election-equipment-and-gives-federal-government-access-to-election-systems-at-the-precinct-level/

Roundup Weed Killer Called Out as Bee Killer

Dr Mercola

Story at-a-glance

According to researchers at the University of Texas at Austin, glyphosate may kill bees by altering the bacterial composition in the bees’ guts, making them more prone to fatal infectionsResearchers call for improved guidelines for glyphosate use, as current guidelines assume bees are not harmed by glyphosate-based herbicidesRoundup reduces beneficial bacteria in the colon of female rats. Regardless of the dose — 0.1 ppb, 400 ppm or 5,000 ppm — the animals’ gut bacteria underwent significant changesGlyphosate’s primary mode of action is that it shuts down amino acid synthesis, followed by inhibition of protein synthesis necessary for plant growth. This also causes the plant to be more susceptible to soil microbes, including pathogensRoundup, dicamba and 2,4-D promote antibiotic resistance by priming pathogens to more readily become resistant to antibiotics; all three herbicides increase antibiotic-resistance of E. coli and salmonella specifically

Use of glyphosate, a weed killer registered in 130 countries, has risen exponentially since the introduction of genetically engineered (GE) glyphosate-resistant crops. Between 1974 — the year glyphosate entered the U.S. market — and 2014, glyphosate use increased more than 250fold in the U.S. alone. Today, an estimated 300 million pounds are applied on U.S. farmland annually.

In 2018, globally, nearly 5 billion pounds (over 2 billion kilograms) of glyphosate were applied to farm crops each year.1 While GE crops were the catalyst for this tremendous surge in usage (since they were specifically designed to encourage farmers’ use of glyphosate), the chemical has also become a popular tool for desiccating non-GE grains and legumes, and that has also spurred its use.

About 70 different commonly consumed food crops are sprayed with glyphosate, so just because a food is not genetically engineered does not mean it’s free of glyphosate. As previously discussed in many articles, glyphosate and glyphosate-based weed killer formulations such as Roundup have been linked to a wide variety of human health consequences, including:

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma2Impairing your body’s ability to produce fully functioning proteins3Inhibiting the shikimate pathway (found in gut bacteria)Interfering with the function of cytochrome P450 enzymes, required for activation of vitamin D and the creation of nitric oxide

Chelating important minerals4

Disrupting sulfate synthesis and transport5Interfering with the synthesis of aromatic amino acids and methionine, resulting in folate and neurotransmitter shortages6Disrupting your microbiome by acting as an antibiotic7Impairing methylation pathways8Inhibiting pituitary release of thyroid stimulating hormone, which can lead to hypothyroidism9,10

Alas, humans are not the only species suffering the effects of this widespread use of glyphosate. According to researchers at the University of Texas at Austin, glyphosate may also kill bees by altering the bacterial composition in the bees’ guts, making them more prone to fatal infections.11,12,13,14,15,16,17

Glyphosate Implicated in Bee Die-Offs

For years, researchers have struggled to pinpoint the reasons behind dramatically dwindling bee populations. This certainly isn’t the first time a pesticide has been implicated. Previous findings have shown neonicotinoid pesticides are particularly harmful to bees and other valuable insects such as butterflies.

In April 2018, the European Union banned the use of neonicotinoids as a result of such findings.18 Glyphosate, however, has long been considered harmless by U.S. regulators. This misconception is now crumbling in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. Not only is glyphosate harmful to humans and mammals; insects, microbes and even the plants themselves are harmed in various ways.

According to the authors of this study,19 “bees rely on a specialized gut microbiota that benefits growth and provides defense against pathogens,” and “Exposing bees to glyphosate alters the bee gut community and increases susceptibility to infection by opportunistic pathogens.” Erick Motta, a graduate student at University of Texas at Austin and lead author told Science Daily:20

“We need better guidelines for glyphosate use, especially regarding bee exposure, because right now the guidelines assume bees are not harmed by the herbicide. Our study shows that’s not true … It’s not the only thing causing all these bee deaths, but it is definitely something people should worry about because glyphosate is used everywhere.”

How Glyphosate Kills Bees

Glyphosate works by targeting an enzyme called 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) in the shikimate pathway, found in plants and certain microorganisms. This EPSPS enzyme is found in most of the gut bacteria in bees, which is how they become susceptible to the toxic effects of the weed killer.

[…]

Bayer Dismisses Findings

As you’d expect, Bayer — which now owns Roundup after acquiring Monsanto earlier this year — issued a statement21 dismissing the findings, saying “No large-scale study has ever found a link between glyphosate and honey bee health issues,” and Motta’s paper “does not change that.”

[…]

Glyphosate Shown to Affect Microbiome in Rats

Other research22 has shown the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup reduces beneficial bacteria in the colon of female rats. In fact, regardless of the dose — 0.1 part per billion (ppb), 400 parts per million (ppm) or 5,000 ppm — the animals’ gut bacteria underwent significant changes.

The study was conducted by Gilles-Éric Séralini, a French molecular biologist who has spent years researching GE food and the impact glyphosate has on human health.23

He is perhaps best known for his 2012 lifetime feeding study linking GE corn and Roundup to cancer. While pressure from Monsanto initially led to the retraction of Séralini’s study in November 2013, it was later republished in the Environmental Sciences Europe journal.24

In this rat study, some species of bacteria were found to be highly resistant to Roundup and the reason for this turned out to be because they do not have the EPSPS gene that glyphosate targets.

They also found that “these gut microbiome disturbances showed a substantial overlap with those associated with liver dysfunction in other studies.” According to Séralini, “The acceptable levels of glyphosate residues in food and drinks should be divided immediately by a factor of at least 1,000 because of these hidden poisons.”25

Glyphosate Also Impacts Plant Nutrition

Glyphosate’s primary mode of action is that it shuts down amino acid synthesis, followed by inhibition of protein synthesis necessary for plant growth. As a result, the plant dies. However, this also causes the plant to be more susceptible to soil microbes, including pathogens.

The reason for this is because the amino acids are also building blocks for other compounds that have defensive functions against soil pathogens. As a result, the plant becomes more susceptible to attack and infection by microorganisms in the soil.

Glyphosate also acts as a mineral chelator, and minerals such as zinc, copper and manganese, which are essential cofactors in many plant enzymes. Chelating or removing these minerals from the plants is largely responsible for impairing their protein synthesis as the enzymes involved in syntheses require the minerals to function. This then opens the plant up to attack.

Now, since glyphosate becomes systemic when applied to the plant, meaning the chemical is integrated into every cell of the plant, it also ends up passing through the roots into the soil. That’s in addition to that coming into contact with the soil surface during application. Once the glyphosate is in the soil, it acts as an antibiotic and a chelator, making valuable minerals unavailable to the plant.

While that’s bad enough, as this affects the nutrient content of the food, nutrients also become unavailable to the beneficial microorganisms living in the rhizosphere. What’s more, if the minerals are bound to glyphosate in the plant, there’s no way for your body to dissociate that bond to make the nutrients available when you eat it. Instead, those minerals will simply be excreted back out, or stored in your body right along with the glyphosate.

Roundup Creates Antibiotic Resistance

In 2015, researchers also discovered that commonly used herbicides promote antibiotic resistance by priming pathogens to more readily become resistant to antibiotics.26 Roundup, dicamba and 2,4-D were all found to increase the antibiotic-resistant prowess of E. coli and salmonella specifically.

The researchers speculate that this effect is caused by turning on a set of genes in the bacteria that activate porins, proteins that create toxic compounds that essentially “immunize” the bacteria to the antibiotic, thereby rendering it more resistant to the drug. Importantly, this change was found to occur at concentrations commonly found on farm fields, lawns, gardens and public parks.

A 2017 study27 published in the journal Microbiology set out to determine which of the ingredients in the commercial formulations were the cause of this effect, and results showed it’s the active ingredients — including glyphosate — that are to blame.

[…]

While the concentration of glyphosate necessary to induce antibiotic resistance is lower than that typically found as residue on food, adults could probably reach the level that causes antibiotic resistance by eating large amounts of food with low levels of residue, while children could also be at risk, according to the researchers.28

Heather Hendrickson, senior lecturer in molecular bioscience at Massey University, told the Genetic Literacy Project, “The message from the paper is clear, we need to reconsider our use of herbicides in light of the effect that they are having on the microbial world.”29

Monsanto Sued for Misleading Consumers

Monsanto’s main argument for Roundup’s safety has been that glyphosate (the active ingredient) works by targeting the EPSPS enzyme, found in plants but not people or animals. Alas, researchers have clearly demonstrated that glyphosate affects more than just plants, and the reason for this is because this enzyme also exists in microbes, including bacteria found in soil and the intestines of not only humans but also animals and even some insects.

“Aside from a probable cancer link, Roundup’s effect on gut bacteria also suggests the chemical may play a significant role in digestive issues, obesity, autism, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, Parkinson’s disease, liver diseases and many other chronic health problems. And, as revealed in the featured bee study, the chemical may also play a role in the bee die-offs experienced around the globe over the past decade.”

Since the company has refused to set the record straight, the Organic Consumers Association and Beyond Pesticides have sued Monsanto for false and misleading labeling.30 The lawsuit was filed in April 2017. Monsanto filed a motion to have the case dismissed, saying the label is accurate because “the enzyme targeted is not produced by the human body or found in human cells,” but U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly rejected the motion.

In his May 1, 2018, ruling, Kelly stated, “The court concludes that Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded a claim that the statement at issue was false or misleading,” and that “defendants cannot dispute that the label’s statement that the enzyme at issue is ‘found in plants, but not in people’ is, at least on one reading, literally false.”

[…]

Via https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/08/15/glyphosate-kills-bees.aspx

Pfizer Hiding How COVID Jab Damages the Heart

Dr. Joseph Mercola

Story at-a-glanceAugust 3, 2023, the Australian Senate held a COVID hearing. Sen. Gerard Rennick asked Dr. Krishan Thiru, Pfizer’s Australian medical director, to explain the mechanism of how the mRNA COVID shot causes myocarditis. Thiru, however, kept talking in circles rather than answering the questionEither Pfizer has no idea how the shot damages the heart, which raises serious questions about the company’s scientific qualifications, or they do know but refuse to admit it, for fear of liabilityPfizer appears to have sponsored campaigns to push for the jab to be mandated, at least in the U.S., thereby maximizing the potential damage along with profitsAccording to Marc Girardot, the bolus theory can explain how and why the mRNA COVID shots damage the heart and other organsSeveral other theories and hypotheses have also been proposed, including molecular mimicry, immune response to mRNA, dysregulated cytokine expression, ACE2 suppression, endothelial damage, lipid nanoparticles triggering syncytia formation and impeding the electrical conduction of the heart, and more

August 3, 2023, the Australian Senate Education and Employment Committee1 held a COVID hearing in which Sen. Gerard Rennick asked Dr. Krishan Thiru, Pfizer’s Australian medical director, to explain the mechanism of how the mRNA COVID shot causes myocarditis.2

Thiru, however, kept talking in circles rather than answering the question. Rennick valiantly tried, without success, to redirect him back to the question at hand, which was: Does Pfizer understand how the shot is causing damage to the heart?

How are you calling it safe without understanding the risk? ~ Sen. Gerard Rennick

The take-home here is that either a) Pfizer has no idea how the shot damages the heart, which raises serious questions about the company’s scientific qualifications or b) they do know but refuse to admit it, because if they do, it creates liability. As noted by Rennick, how can Pfizer say the shot is safe if they don’t understand the risk?

Pfizer Sponsored Groups Calling for Jab Mandates

Pfizer has not only insisted its COVID jab is safe and effective, and that side effects like myocarditis are vanishingly rare (despite athletes and young people dropping from heart problems at rates never seen before), the company also appears to have sponsored campaigns to push for the jab to be mandated, at least in the U.S., thereby maximizing the potential damage along with profits.

According to investigative reporter Lee Fang,3 Pfizer financed a long list of U.S. groups that lobbied for COVID jab mandates, including consumer groups, medical groups, public health organizations as and civil rights organizations. In the video above, UnHerd reporter Florence Read interviews Fang about his findings. Notable recipients of Pfizer funding just prior to or during the jab rollout included:4

The Chicago Urban League, which accepted a $100,000 donation from Pfizer to promote “vaccine safety and effectiveness.” Unlike other corporate donations, this one was not publicly disclosed on the League’s website.The National Consumers League, which received $75,000 from Pfizer earmarked for “vaccine policy efforts.” As noted by Fang, Andrea LaRue, an NCL board member, also happens to be a “highly paid contract lobbyist to Pfizer, focused on vaccine policy,” and this conflict of interest also was not disclosed.The Immunization Partnership, which received, but did not disclose, a $35,000 donation from Pfizer for “legislative advocacy” in 2021, the same year they lobbied against Texas legislation to prevent vaccine passports and vaccine mandates for municipal workers.The American Pharmacists Association, American College of Preventive Medicine, Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy, American Society for Clinical Pathology, and the American College of Emergency Physicians, all of which signed a letter5 in support of Biden’s unconstitutional jab mandate for employers with 100 or more employees, after receiving grants from Pfizer.The National Hispanic Medical Association, which worked with a public relations firm to distribute “press release and media placements” that “called on employers of essential workers to mandate COVID-19 vaccines.” They also lobbied in favor of Biden’s vaccine mandate — all after receiving $30,000 from BIO, a vaccine industry lobby group that represents Pfizer and Moderna.The American Academy of Pediatrics, which received several specialized grants from Pfizer in 2021. State chapters also received Pfizer grants earmarked for vaccine policy lobbying efforts.Who Are These Institutions Working For?

[…]

Indeed, as attorney Jenin Younes told Fang, “If people or institutions advocated for or implemented mandates, while failing to disclose ties to the vaccine companies, that is a serious ethical violation, and potentially even unlawful, and should be thoroughly investigated.”7

How the COVID Jab Can Damage Your Heart

As for how Pfizer’s mRNA COVID jab can damage your heart, several scientists have thrown their 2 cents into the discussion. One of them is Marc Girardot, a member of Pandemics Data & Analysis (PANDA8), a “multidisciplinary, sense-making group of global experts who encourage good science, rational debate and sound public policy, with the aim of empowering people to make informed decisions” about COVID-19.

On his Substack,9 Girardot features a long list of articles “debunking the COVID narrative with observations, facts, data and rigorous scientific method.” In a June 5, 2023, article,10 he focused on the bolus theory, which can help explain how and why the mRNA jabs can trigger myocarditis and other cardiovascular problems.

[…]

Normally, you’re supposed to pull back on the plunger to make sure you’re not hitting a blood vessel before you inject a vaccine. This is known as aspiration.

In the case of the COVID jabs, health authorities instructed vaccine administrators to skip this step. Back in January 2023, Bret Weinstein of the DarkHorse podcast briefly brought up Girardot’s bolus theory on the Joe Rogan Show (video below).12

Myocarditis Is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

Girardot points out that vaccine injuries will “always” involve several locations, not just a single organ like the heart.

[…]

In an August 5, 2023, tweet, Girardot argued that the bolus theory is “the very mechanism of action of any transfecting vaccine.”13

[…]

Hypotheses Cited by Vaccine Pusher

Another theory for how the COVID jabs can cause myocarditis has been presented by none other than Dr. Peter Hotez, a vaccine pusher if there ever was one.

In July 2021, he published a paper14 in the journal Circulation, citing the hypothesis that molecular mimicry between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and self-antigens might trigger “preexisting dysregulated immune pathways in certain individuals, immune response to mRNA, and activation of immunologic pathways, and dysregulated cytokine expression.”

“The reasons for male predominance in myocarditis cases are unknown, but possible explanations relate to sex hormone differences in immune response and myocarditis, and also underdiagnosis of cardiac disease in women,” he noted.

Other Mechanisms of Harm

Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., also has detailed mechanisms of action that can explain how the COVID shots damage the heart. For example, back in 2021, she pointed out that the spike protein that your body produces in response to the COVID-19 shot suppresses ACE2, which can trigger problems such as pulmonary hypertension, ventricular heart failure and stroke.15,16 But that’s not all.

In May 2021, Seneff co-wrote a paper17 titled “Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19,” published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research. In it, she describes the spike protein as a metabolic poison with wide-ranging effects.

[…]

74% of Post-Jab Deaths Linked to the Shot

Video Link

Dr. Peter McCullough has also presented hypotheses for how the shot damages the heart. In a July 2023 systematic review19,20 of 325 autopsy cases, McCullough and his team concluded that 62.5% to 73.9% of post-jab deaths were likely caused by the injection.

The most implicated organ system was the cardiovascular system (53%), followed by the hematological system (17%), the respiratory system (8%), and multiple organ systems (7%).

In the featured Daily Clout interview above, McCullough explains the jab’s mechanisms of action that appear to be responsible for a majority of post-jab heart-related deaths. In myocarditis, the electrical current can no longer conduct smoothly through the heart muscle, causing an abnormal heart rhythm. This abnormal heart rhythm can then lead to sudden cardiac death.

Lipid nanoparticles have been found to damage electrical conduction in the myelin sheath, so it makes sense that they may also damage electrical conduction in the heart. What’s more, when lipid nanoparticles are taken up by human somatic cells — nonreproductive cells, found in the heart and other internal organs — it causes syncytia formation, a process in which individual cells fuse together. This, in turn, can exacerbate the progression of heart failure.21

Because the heart prefers lipids over glucose for fuel, it may preferentially take up lipid nanoparticles, more so than other tissues. On top of that, exercise increases blood flow, which draws more lipid nanoparticles to the heart. Once your heart is inflamed, adrenaline surges can become deadly.

McCullough cites research showing there are two primary periods of sudden cardiac death: during exercise and between 3 a.m. and 6 a.m. The common factor between these two is adrenaline. Adrenaline surges during exercise and in the natural waking process. If you have myocarditis, this adrenaline surge can be enough to trigger sudden cardiac death.

Why Can’t Pfizer Answer the Question?

As you can see, there’s no shortage of theories and hypotheses to explain how the mRNA COVID shots can damage your heart and cause myocarditis, so the fact that Pfizer’s reps cannot cite a single mechanism of action to explain it is simply not believable.

It’s not that they can’t answer the question. They don’t want to, and the most likely reason for holding this information back is because if they admit knowing how the damage is done, they may be held liable since they never warned anyone about it. Their safest route right now is to say they don’t know, and then, at some point in the future, pretend as though a recent investigation finally solved the mystery.

[…]

Resources for Those Injured by the COVID Jab

Aside from autopsy assessments, case reports of harms and various other studies, things like job statistics, disability claims, life insurance claims and all-cause mortality statistics also tell us that the COVID jabs are having a devastating effect.23 All have skyrocketed since the introduction of these COVID jabs.

If you got one or more jabs and suffered an injury, first and foremost, never ever take another COVID booster, another mRNA gene therapy shot or regular vaccine. You need to end the assault on your body.

The same goes for anyone who has taken one or more COVID jabs and had the good fortune of not experiencing debilitating side effects. Your health may still be impacted long-term, so don’t take any more shots.

When it comes to treatment, it seems like many of the treatments that worked against severe COVID-19 infection also help ameliorate adverse effects from the jab. This makes sense, as the toxic, most damaging part of the virus is the spike protein, and that’s what your whole body is producing if you got the jab.

[…]

Via https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/08/15/pfizer-is-hiding-how-covid-jab-damages-the-heart.aspx

Biden Censors Battered — Epic Supreme Court Showdown Expected

Federal Judge Terry Doughty condemned the Biden admin for what he called maybe “the most massive attack against free speech in United States history.”Youtube

James Bovard

New York Post

Federal judges hammered fresh nails into the coffin of the Biden censorship regime Thursday in New Orleans.The thrashing the administration received will likely set up an epic Supreme Court battle that could help redefine freedom for our era.A federal appeals court was hearing the Justice Department’s appeal of a July 4 decision in Missouri v. Biden that ignited pro-freedom rhetorical fireworks across the nation.Federal Judge Terry Doughty’s opinion condemned the Biden administration for potentially “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”

Doughty delivered 155 pages of damning details of federal browbeating, jawboning and coercion of social-media companies.

He issued an injunction blocking the feds from “encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”

The Biden administration rushed to sway the appeals court to postpone enforcement of the injunction and then sought to redefine all its closed-door shenanigans as public service.

In its briefs to the court, the Justice Department declared, “There is a categorical, well-settled distinction between persuasion and coercion,” and castigated Judge Doughty for having “equated legitimate efforts at persuasion with illicit efforts to coerce.”

The department denies that federal agencies bullied social-media companies to suppress any information.

Instead, there were simply requests for “content moderation,” especially regarding COVID.

Actually, there were tens of thousands of “requests” that resulted in the suppression of millions of posts and comments by Americans.

Team Biden champions a “no corpse, no delicta” definition of censorship.

Since federal SWAT teams did not assail the headquarters of social-media firms, the feds are blameless.

Or, as Justice Department lawyer Daniel Tenny told the judges, “There was a back and forth. Sometimes it was more friendly, sometimes people got more testy. There were circumstances in which everyone saw eye to eye, there were circumstances in which they disagreed.”

It’s irrelevant that President Joe Biden publicly accused social-media companies of murder for not censoring far more material and that Biden appointees publicly threatened to destroy the companies via legislation or prosecution.

Nope: It was just neighborly discussions between good folks.

At the hearing, Judge Don Willett, one of the most principled and penetrating judges in the nation, had no problem with federal agencies publicly criticizing what they judged false or dangerous ideas.

But that wasn’t how Team Biden compelled submission: “Here you have government in secret, in private, out of the public eye, relying on . . . subtle strong-arming and veiled or not-so-veiled threats.”

Willett vivified how the feds played the game: “That’s a really nice social-media platform you’ve got there, it would be a shame if something happened to it.”

Judge Jennifer Elrod compared the Biden censorship regime to the Mafia: “We see with the mob . . . they have these ongoing relationships. They never actually say, ‘Go do this or else you’re going to have this consequence.’ But everybody just knows.”

Yet the Biden administration was supposedly innocent because the feds never explicitly spelled out “or else,” according to the Justice Department lawyer.

This is on par with redefining armed robbery as a consensual activity unless the robber specifically points his gun at the victim’s head.

As economist Joseph Schumpeter aptly observed, “Power wins, not by being used, but by being there.”

On top of censorship, the feds used deceit to taint the 2020 presidential election.

As Dean John Sauer, the state of Missouri’s lawyer, explained, the FBI “engaged in deception” by prepping social-media platforms to expect false reports on Hunter Biden and then failing to admit the FBI had verified his laptop as authentic.

That spurred pervasive suppression of the New York Post exposé in October 2020.

It was a prime example of federal meddling that Judge Doughty invoked to justify leashing the FBI and other agencies.

Because Biden ended the COVID emergency in May, the Justice Department pretends this case’s issues are moot.

But the Biden administration also pressured social-media companies “to censor misinformation regarding climate change, gender discussions, abortion and economic policy,” as the July 4 court decision noted.

There is no reason to expect Team Biden and federal censorship contractors will not seek to taint another presidential election next year.

At least two of the three judges on last week’s panel will likely uphold all or part of the injunction against federal censorship.

The Biden administration will probably speedily appeal the case to the Supreme Court, setting up an epic showdown.

[…]

Via https://nypost.com/2023/08/13/biden-censors-battered-expect-an-epic-supreme-court-showdown/

Families of COVID Victims Sue EcoHealth Alliance Alleging Gain-of-Function Research Caused ‘Undue Risk’ and ‘Harm’

By  Monica Dutcher

The families of four people who died from COVID-19 and one person injured by the virus are suing EcoHealth Alliance and the international nonprofit’s president, Peter Daszak, Ph.D., and a cohort of government and elected officials, hospitals, military personnel and others.

According to a complaint filed Aug. 2 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, the defendants exposed the plaintiffs to “undue risk and actual harm” — “whether accidental or intentional” — by helping to fund and conduct gain-of-function (GOF) research, create and release COVID-19, and conspire “to cover up” these actions.

Patricia Finn, the victims’ attorney, told the New York Post:

“If we had known the source or origin of this virus and had not been misled that it was from a pangolin in a wet market, and rather we knew that it was a genetically manipulated virus, and that the scientists involved were concealing that from our clients, the outcome could have been very different.”

The plaintiffs allege the defendants “knew that coronaviruses were dangerous and capable of causing a worldwide pandemic in the human population” and that severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) — SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) — was a readily transmissible disease, airborne, and could spread through small droplets of saliva in a similar way to cold and influenza.

Four of the plaintiffs, named below, claim wrongful death of a family member, each of whom “died as a direct and proximate result of medical complications” caused by a COVID-19 infection.

Jenny Golden, daughter of Mary Conroy, died in August 2021.Monique Adams, daughter of Emma D. Holley, died in August 2021.Traci Osuna, wife of Raul Osuna, died in September 2021.Melissa Carr, wife of Larry W. Carr, died in August 2021.

Plaintiff Paul Rinker’s claim is for personal injuries. Rinker was diagnosed with COVID-19 in 2021, hospitalized and placed in the intensive care unit.

According to the complaint, many of the defendants’ failures are documented in U.S. Inspector Gen. Christi Grimm’s January report, “The National Institutes of Health and EcoHealth Alliance Did Not Effectively Monitor Awards and Subawards, Resulting In Missed Opportunities to Oversee Research and Other Deficiencies.”

The U.S. Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found NIH and EcoHealth did not sufficiently comply with procedures, which limited their abilities to “effectively monitor federal grant awards and subawards to understand the nature of the research conducted, identify potential problem areas, and take corrective action.”

The report noted the NIH did not refer the research to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for an “outside review for enhanced potential pandemic pathogens (ePPPs) because it [NIH] determined the research did not involve and was not reasonably anticipated to create, use, or transfer an ePPP.”

The OIG concluded:

“NIH missed opportunities to more effectively monitor research. With improved oversight, NIH may have been able to take more timely corrective actions to mitigate the inherent risks associated with this type of research.”

In 2014, EcoHealth received its first $666,442 of a $4.3 million grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases — under then-Director Anthony Fauci — to study the risk of bat coronavirus emergence and the potential for outbreaks in human populations.

The research included genetically manipulating coronaviruses to make them more infectious to humans.

Emails revealed the NIH colluded with EcoHealth to circumvent federal restrictions on GOF research and avoid oversight. At least two NIH officials expressed concern that the experiment might fall under the designation of GOF experiments banned under a 2014 federal moratorium.

According to The Intercept, Daszak stated in emails that WIV1, the parent of chimeric SARS-like viruses, “has never been demonstrated to infect humans or cause human disease.” Yet three months earlier, in March 2016, Daszak’s collaborator, Ralph Baric, Ph.D., published a paper showing WIV1 did indeed have the ability to infect humans and posed a threat to the human population.

In April 2020, under the Trump administration, the NIH terminated EcoHealth’s grant over concerns the organization had violated the grant terms, using U.S. taxpayer money to fund GOF research at the Wuhan lab.

In May, NIH reinstated its grant to EcoHealth to study the risk of bat coronavirus spillover.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-gain-of-function-ecohealth-lawsuit/

US ambassador signals potential Julian Assange plea deal

US Ambassador to Australia Caroline Kennedy  (Brook Mitchell)

Jorge Branco

nine.com.au

The United State Australian envoy has indicated there could be a “resolution” to the ongoing detention of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who is fighting extradition to the United States from the United Kingdom to face spying charges.

The Australian has battled in British courts for years to avoid being sent to the US, where he faces 17 charges of espionage and one charge of computer misuse over WikiLeaks’ publication of classified diplomatic and military documents more than a decade ago.The latest blow to the Australian’s hopes came earlier this month when US Secretary of State Antony Blinken pushed back against Australian calls for an end to the Assange prosecution.

“Mr Assange was charged with very serious criminal conduct in the United States in connection with his alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of our country,” Blinken said at the time.But US ambassador to Australia Caroline Kennedy, who met with Assange supporters at Parliament House in June, has now indicated a potential plea deal could allow him to return to Australia.

Asked by the Sydney Morning Herald whether a diplomatic outcome could be reached, she said “it’s not really a diplomatic issue, but I think that there absolutely could be a resolution”.

In comments published on Monday, she said “there is a way to resolve it” but stressed any potential agreement was “up to the Justice Department”.

[…]

Via https://www.9news.com.au/national/julian-assange-update-us-ambassador-caroline-kennedy-flags-potential-plea-deal/5b417912-6a88-44bc-98a6-e95601490958<

Are You Ready for the Collapse of the Medical System?

by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News

The medical system in the United States today is on the brink of collapse.

I seriously doubt that there are too many people who would question or doubt this statement.

For example, 100,000 nurses have left the medical system since COVID, and 800,000 more nurses plan on quitting. (Source.)

Pharmaceutical drug shortages have become so severe, that pharmacists and hospitals are now rationing medical care. (Source.)

And many hospitals are now “dumping” patients on the street, because they can no longer afford to care for them, as they refuse to leave.

This crisis in the medical system is happening right now, even before the economy totally collapses.

So when the economy does collapse, and these medical products and services are no longer available to you, what are you going to do?

Have you given any thought or made any plans for when this day comes, which could literally come tomorrow?

The Pharmaceutical Model for “Healthcare” is a Total Failure

The first thing to realize when preparing for the coming system collapse, is that the medical system was never really healing anyone anyway, and in fact the life-span of Americans may actually increase if medical services become largely unavailable to the general public.

The past three years have shown us the total bankruptcy of the “healthcare” system, which has very little if anything to do with “health” at all, and should be properly called the “medical system,” as the criminal behaviors from this system have been on display for the whole world to see via the COVID-19 scam.

The COVID-19 scamdemic did not corrupt the medical system. The corrupt medical system gave us the COVID-19 scam.

COVID-19 only revealed the true motives of this system, which is to enslave people through medical tyranny, and not heal people.

Healing people is a terrible business model, as you eliminate your repeat customers.

The medical system was the #1 cause of death before COVID arrived on the scene, due to hospital errors and adverse reactions to their drugs, including vaccines.

[…]

Via https://healthimpactnews.com/2023/are-you-ready-for-the-collapse-of-the-medical-system/