Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 397
July 9, 2023
Challenging the Link Between HIV and AIDS
Dr MercolaStory at-a-glanceJournalist Celia Farber is the author of “Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS.” In it, she highlights the work of virologist and retrobiologist Peter Duesberg, who since 1987 has insisted that HIV doesn’t cause AIDSAccording to Duesberg, retroviruses such as HIV are harmless and do not cause disease. And, up until Dr. Robert Gallo claimed he’d discovered HIV in his laboratory in 1984, and determined that it caused AIDS, this was the scientific consensusDuesberg was vehemently attacked by AIDS researchers and activists, and internationally discredited by media for not going along with the AIDS narrative promoted by the medical establishment, led by Dr. Anthony FauciAs with COVID-19, one of the key tools used to promote the “HIV causes AIDS” narrative was the use of the PCR test. There are also other similarities to what happened with COVID, including the vilification and discrediting of scientists and therapies that could effectively address the diseaseBactrim was an inexpensive generic drug that effectively treated AIDS-related pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, which was frequently fatal. This drug, like ivermectin, was withheld. Instead, Fauci insisted AIDS patients be treated with AZT, a horrendously toxic and expensive cancer drug that was never proven to work, and which killed an estimated 300,000 AIDS patients, most of them gay menIn the video below, I interview journalist Celia Farber about her recently republished book, “Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS.” As a young reporter working for SPIN magazine, Farber started questioning the official narrative around AIDS, and this book is the outgrowth of her decades-long investigation into and writing about this “hot potato” topic.
Long before censorship went mainstream, Farber was put through the wringer. In 2006, she published an article in Harper’s Magazine titled “Out of Control: AIDS and the Corruption of Medical Science.” In it, she highlighted the work of virologist and retrobiologist Peter Duesberg, who insisted that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS.
In my view, Duesberg was brilliant, but like so many other brilliant scientists, he was widely discredited for not going along with the narrative promoted by the conventional medical establishment.
As a result of her reporting, Farber was vehemently attacked by leading AIDS researchers and activists,1 so much so, she ended up suing three of the attackers for defamation. The New York County Supreme Court dismissed2 her claim in 2011 and upheld the verdict in 2013. Still, she did not quit or back down, and kept searching for the truth.
‘The Passion of Duesberg’As explained by Farber, Duesberg worked at the Max Planck Institute in Germany, one of the most well-respected scientific institutions in the world. After moving to the United States, he became a professor at the University of California, Berkeley.
In 1987, he published a paper in Cancer Research, proposing that retroviruses are not the cause of cancer, nor the cause of AIDS. According to his scientific biographer, this was the paper that “sealed his scientific doom forever after.” Farber notes:
“Duesberg mapped the genetic structure of retroviruses. So to him, yes, they were entities, but no, they didn’t do anything. They didn’t infect or kill cells. They were harmless. And he had phrases like, ‘HIV, that’s a pussycat. It’s not going to do anything. Saying that HIV is going to cause AIDS is like saying you’re going to conquer China by killing three soldiers a day.’
Mid-Air Flip in the ‘Scientific Consensus’In other words, there’s no ‘there’ there. There was no cell death. And fascinatingly, or disturbingly, the HIV orthodoxy never contested that. So, I would say they had a supernatural belief in HIV. They would say, ‘We just know HIV causes AIDS,’ and anybody who doesn’t know that is dangerous, homophobic, murderous and so forth.”
As explained by Farber, up until Dr. Robert Gallo claimed he’d discovered HIV in his laboratory in 1984, and determined that it caused AIDS, the scientific consensus had been that retroviruses, as a class, were not pathogenic.
[…]
Fauci’s Legacy: A Lifelong Suppression of ScienceFarber’s experience is proof positive that even four decades before Fauci sold us on his destructive COVID protocols, he had the power to destroy people and convince the entire country to support a fake narrative.
[…]
The PCR Scam and Suppression of Useful DrugsAs with COVID-19, one of the key tools used to promote the “HIV causes AIDS” narrative was the use of the PCR test, which the inventor, Mullis, was vehemently against.
The PCR was used to measure “viral load,” which was supposed to give you a sense of how sick or well you could expect to be. This kept HIV-positive patients going back to the doctor to get tested repeatedly. But it was nothing more than a numbers game, just as it was during COVID.
There are other similarities to what happened with COVID, including the vilification and discrediting of scientists and therapies that could effectively address the disease. Just like they vilified ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, even going out of their way to fund fraudulent studies to discredit these drugs, they did the same during the AIDS epidemic.
For example, bactrim was an inexpensive drug that effectively treated AIDS-related pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, which was frequently fatal. This drug, like ivermectin, was withheld. Instead, Fauci insisted AIDS patients be treated with AZT, a horrendously toxic and expensive cancer drug that was never proven to work, and which killed hundreds of thousands of AIDS patients.
[…]
[…]
UN Is Planning To Seize Global ‘Emergency’ Powers With Biden’s Support
USAID U.S. Agency For International Development/Flickr/cropped
/CC BY 2.0Justin HaskinsThe FederalistThe proposal might be the biggest attempted power grab in the history of the United Nations. If approved, the United States as we know it could cease to exist.
In September 2024, less than two months before the next U.S. presidential election, the United Nations will host a landmark “Summit of the Future,” where member nations will adopt a Pact for the Future. The agreement will solidify numerous policy reforms offered by the U.N. over the past two years as part of its sweeping Our Common Agenda platform.
Although there are numerous radical proposals included in the agenda, perhaps none are more important than the U.N. plan for a new “emergency platform,” a stunning proposal to give the U.N. significant powers in the event of future “global shocks,” such as another worldwide pandemic.
Many of the details of the U.N. emergency platform were laid out in a March 2023 policy paper titled “Strengthening the International Response to Complex Global Shocks — An Emergency Platform.” In the paper, the U.N. secretary-general writes, “I propose that the General Assembly provide the Secretary-General and the United Nations system with a standing authority to convene and operationalize automatically an Emergency Platform in the event of a future complex global shock of sufficient scale, severity and reach.”
Once triggered, the emergency platform would give the U.N. the ability to “actively promote and drive an international response that places the principles of equity and solidarity at the centre of its work.” The U.N. would bring together the “stakeholders” of the world, including academics, governments, private sector actors, and “international financial institutions” to ensure there is a unified, global response to the crisis.
The emergency platform would also give the United Nations the power to “Ensure that all participating actors make commitments that can contribute meaningfully to the response and that they are held to account for delivery on those commitments.”
In other words, the United Nations would be given unprecedented authority over the public and private sectors of huge swaths of the world, all in the name of battling a yet unknown crisis.
It Gets WorseAs difficult as it might be to believe, the story gets even worse from here. Although the duration of the emergency platform would initially be set for a “finite period,” at “the end of that period, the Secretary-General could extend the work of an Emergency Platform if required,” according to the United Nations’ own policy proposal.
That means the secretary-general would have the authority to keep the emergency platform in place indefinitely, all without reauthorization from member nations.
What kind of “global shock” would trigger the emergency platform? The U.N. provides several possible examples in its formal proposal, including a “major climatic event,” “future pandemic risks,” a “global digital connectivity disruption,” “major event in outer space,” and, my personal favorite, “unforeseen risks, (‘black swan’ events).”
This isn’t to say that these incredibly broad categories would be the only potential justifications allowed to trigger the emergency platform. The proposal makes clear that it “would allow the convening role of the United Nations to be maximized in the face of crises with global reach and should be ‘agnostic as to the type of crisis,’ as we do not know what type of global shock we may face in the future.”
Further, “The Secretary-General would decide when to convene an Emergency Platform in response to a complex global shock.”
Or, put in simpler terms, a “global shock” is whatever the U.N.’s leadership says it is, triggered whenever the U.N. desires.
Biden Admin Supports the ProposalThe emergency platform proposal might be the biggest attempted power grab in the history of the United Nations, but as shocking as it is, it pales in comparison to the Biden administration’s treatment of this extremist proposal.
Rather than assert America’s independence and sovereignty, the White House has expressed its support for the emergency platform. U.S. Ambassador Chris Lu noted in at least two March 2022 speeches that the Biden administration backs the emergency platform, along with numerous other proposals included in “Our Common Agenda.”
The emergency platform would centralize an immense amount of power and influence, giving the United Nations greater control over the lives of Americans than it has ever had before. And rather than stand up for Americans’ rights, President Biden has already agreed to sell us out.
If the emergency platform is approved, the United States as we know it could cease to exist. That sounds dire, but it’s true. We either stand for freedom now or risk everything come September 2024.
[…]
India’s Mauryan Empire: 320 BC
Episode 11 The Mauryan Empire
A History of India
Michael Fisher (2016)
Film Review
Chandragupta founded the Mauryan Empire in north India in 320 BC. To make this happen, he had to unite many disparate Indian janapattas (kingdoms), many with distinct languages and dialects.
Endowed with fertile soil water by Himalayan glaciers, Magadha (modern day Bihar) was Chandragupta’s center of power. Under Chandragupta, the region slowly clearcut the primeval forests (dispersing the Adivasi** who lived there). During the 4th century BC, local farmers learned to cultivate wet rice, which produced two crops a year. In this way, they produced three times as much grain as dry crops like wheat and barley.
This high level of production enabled Chandragupta to hire professional full time soldiers. It also enabled a brisk trade with the Adivasi in forest products, such as wood and elephants, as well as the mining and smelting of coal and iron, both for export and for tools used in hand manufacturing.
The rise of the Mauryan Empire came about through the consolidation, in the 5th century BC, of 700 janapatta into five. It was further aided by the invasion of Persian-controlled west India by Alexander the Great in 336 BC. Although Alexandra left behind major trade routes linking Greece, Egypt and India, western India was still in major disarray following the defeat and withdrawal of Persian overlords.
The first attempt to unite northern India occurred in 500 BC, when King Bimbisara (who fostered agriculture, manufacturing, road building and uniform taxation) annexed neighboring kingdoms through marriage and conquest. Bimbisara was overthrown, imprisoned and eventually executed by his son Ajaashatra, who went went on to conquer additional janapata.
Three other dynasties also seized rule in Magadha. Chandragupta, a low-born rebel was the last. Chandragupta’s Brahman tutor Canakya is almost as well known as Chandragupta for his spy networks and skill in playing off ministers against each other.
When Chandragupta marched into west India, he faced strong opposition from Alexander’s successor Seleuces. Eventually defeating him, Chandragutpa won his daughter in marriage, trading 500 elephants for Baluchistan and much of modern day Afghanistan.
According to the Greek Megathens, who lived at his court for three years, Chandragupta ran an incredibly complex administrative network without benefit of written documents. The latter technically achieved military control over all but the southern tip of India. Yet his regime resulted in little political or cultural change outside Magadha.
After two decades of rule he became a Jain* monk to burn off the bad Karma of al his conquests, eventually fasting to death.
*See Ancient Indian Religions: The Rise of Jainism
**See India’s Indigenous Adivasi
Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.
https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/366254/366193
July 8, 2023
YouTube Censors Australian Politician’s Maiden Speech to Parliament
Rebekah Barnett
Brownstone Institute
30 minutes of truth bombs’ is how one Twitter user described Liberal Democrat John Ruddick’s maiden speech to the New South Wales (NSW) Parliament, last Wednesday 28 June.
Indeed, Ruddick, who left the Liberal Party in 2021 after public disagreements over the Party’s handling of the pandemic response, said out loud in parliament what many Australians have been saying for some time now – at first privately, around dinner tables, but increasingly more publicly, over workplace water coolers or at the pub, as saying the obvious becomes more socially acceptable.
Nevertheless, what is socially acceptable offline is not necessarily acceptable on social media. YouTube swiftly removed Ruddick’s speech from its platform, just seven hours after it was uploaded. The NSW Liberal Democrats say this is the first time in Australian history that a politician’s maiden speech has been censored by the platform.
The interference of the social media giant in Australia’s political discourse is ironic given this line from Ruddick’s speech: “We libertarians are plotting to take over the world … so we can leave you all alone.”
A spokesperson for the Lib Dems says, “We initially posted the video on party founder Dr John Humphreys’ YouTube account. We then circulated that link on other social media – for example, this tweet from Dr John, which you can see now links to a takedown notice.”
YouTube claims that the video violated its ‘medical misinformation policy’, and implied that removing the video was necessary to ensure that YouTube remains a ‘safe place for all.’
Note the definition of ‘medical misinformation’ as information that, “contradicts local health authorities’ or the World Health Organization’s (WHO) medical information about COVID-19.”
Hear that? Galileo just rolled in his grave.
So what did Ruddick actually say about Covid that might have disturbed the information gatekeepers?
He said that the NSW government had enacted an “authoritarian Covid police state.”
He said that the NSW government had given in to “vaccine extremism,” telling the public, ‘we won’t let you out until you take multiple injections of not only a rushed vaccine but of an entirely new class of vaccine’.
He said that, “NSW Health published weekly data showing, the fewer vaccines you had, the less likely you went to hospital or ICU. The fatality rate was similar for the vaxxed and the unvaxxed.”
He said that, “since the vaccine rollout there has been a 15-20 per cent increase in excess deaths in nations like Australia that had mass mRNA injections,” and questioned whether this might have anything to do with the vaccines, or from locking people up for so long.
He said that take-up of the fifth shot is low – “too many know of others with bad reactions.”
He said that ivermectin, an anti-viral drug that won the 2015 Nobel Prize for Medicine, was disingenuously smeared as a horse dewormer. He noted the financial incentives for suppressing ivermectin as a potential treatment for Covid, despite researchers around the world testifying to its efficacy.
He said that there have been over 137,000 adverse events reported to the Therapeutic Goods Administration following Covid vaccination, and that many drugs have been pulled from the market for far less than this.
Agree or disagree as you please, but all these claims are evidence-based. As a friend of mine said when disagreeing with my insistence, in late 2021, that the vaccines would not be effective in preventing/reducing transmission, “We believe different scientists.”
The video of Ruddick’s maiden speech has been reposted on YouTube via the Lib Dems main account, and has not yet been taken down. You can watch the speech in full below, or via the Lib Dems twitter account.
Spectator has also published the transcript of Ruddick’s speech in full.
A spokesperson for the Lib Dems said on Friday,
“We’re obviously very disappointed that YouTube feels the need to censor something not only from NSW Parliament but as time-honoured as a maiden speech, but we also oddly must thank them as we’ve benefited from the Streisand effect.
“The video already has over 225,000 views on one tweet, and is also being viewed in Facebook groups, on Telegram and (for now anyway) a little bit on the federal LibDems YouTube page. The interest in the speech certainly seems to have increased exponentially after the YouTube removal, and we’re getting inundated with positive comments and questions.”
Other notable ‘truth bombs’ from Ruddick’s speech include his criticism of blown-out government debt, and his concern that pursuing a net zero carbon economy is a “reckless folly.”
While the Lib Dems are benefiting from the Streisand effect for the time being, Member of the European Parliament, Christine Anderson, is dealing with YouTube censorship by suing the social media platform. Anderson reports that YouTube blocked two videos from parliamentary sessions in which she acted on the official Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Anderson has described YouTube’s censorship as “anti-democratic,” saying, “I will not put up with uncontrolled influence on this scale, which is why I have now taken the necessary legal steps to… ensure that all citizens have unfiltered access to relevant information at all times.”
[…]
Via https://brownstone.org/articles/youtube-censors-australian-politicians-maiden-speech-to-parliament/
CDC gives guidance for trans people ‘chestfeeding’ kids
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s official website published advice for trans and non-binary individuals on seeking guidance on how to “chestfeed” their infants.
In sections of the major health institute’s guidance on breastfeeding, it contained information for those who have had much of their breasts removed in gender-reassignment surgeries, or for biological men taking hormones to grow breasts, on how to feed their newborn children.
However, several doctors criticized the guidance, not simply because CDC has appeared to guide biological men in how to breastfeed children, but because they claimed the CDC has failed to gauge the risks posed to children drinking milk produced by chemicals used in gender-reassignment medical operations.
In the CDC website’s section on “Health Equity Considerations” – found under its “Infant and Young Child Feeding Toolkit,” the center declared that “Transgender and nonbinary-gendered individuals may give birth and breastfeed or feed at the chest (chestfeed).”
It also stated that “The gender identity or expression of transgender individuals is different from their sex at birth,” and that, “the gender identity of nonbinary-gendered individuals does not fit neatly into either man or woman.”
Under the CDC website’s section on “Breast Feeding,” specifically an entry covering breastfeeding for those who have undergone breast surgery, the institute mentioned “chestfeeding.”
The CDC posed the question, “Can transgender parents who have had breast surgery breastfeed or chestfeed their infants?” It responded, “yes,” followed by an explanation.
“Some transgender parents who have had breast/top surgery may wish to breastfeed, or chestfeed (a term used by some transgender and non-binary parents), their infants” the CDC website states. “Healthcare providers working with these families should be familiar with medical, emotional, and social aspects of gender transitions to provide optimal family-centered care and meet the nutritional needs of the infant.”
The post added that these transgender parents “may need help with” “maximizing milk production, supplementing with pasteurized donor human milk or formula, medication to induce lactation or avoiding medications that inhibit lactation, suppressing lactation (for those choosing not to breastfeed or chestfeed)” and “Finding appropriate lactation management support, peer support, and/or emotional support.”According to the Daily Mail, this advice may apply to biological men who can produce their own breastmilk by taking “hormone drugs” which mimic the changes that happen to a biological women’s body during the late stage of pregnancy.
However, the outlet noted that the FDA’s warning that one of these drugs, domperidone, “can pass into breast milk in small amounts and can sometimes give babies an irregular heartbeat as a result.”
The outlet spoke to multiple doctors who criticized the CDC for not mentioning the health risks posed to infants “chest feeding” from biological men transitioning with female-mimicking hormones.
Executive director of the conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Dr. Jane Orient told The Daily Mail, “The CDC has a responsibility to talk about the health risks, but they have been derelict in doing that.”
She also claimed “we have no idea what the long-term effects on the child will be” if trans parents are using “all kinds of off-label hormones,” meaning drugs that are being used in a different purpose than for which they were intended.
Dr. Stuart Fischer, a New York-based internal medicine physician, told the Daily Mail that it is “very hard to believe” that the breast milk naturally-occurring in a biological female is the same as the breast milk induced in a biological man.
He is also noted it is uncertain how the latter form of breast milk would affect infants, asking, “If it’s been tested a handful of times, how would we know the long-range effect? The short-term is one thing, but the long-term in terms of physical and mental illness…”
[…]
Russia Confirms BRICS+ Nations Will Launch New Joint Gold-Backed Currency to Counter US Dollar Dominance
Jim Hoft
Gateway Pundit
In an unprecedented move that threatens to redefine the dynamics of international trade and economic stability, the BRICS nations reportedly plan to launch a new trading currency, backed by gold, at their upcoming summit in August in Johannesburg, South Africa, according to Russia’s Foreign Ministry.
The decision, reported by RT News, marks a bold move away from the US dollar, the world’s current global reserve currency.
The BRICS group, an association of five major emerging national economies comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, has captured the world’s attention with this plan. Over forty-one countries have expressed interest in joining the BRICS initiative and adopting the new currency, highlighting the growing discontent with the US dollar’s global dominance, thanks to Joe Biden.
According to Russia’s Foreign Ministry, if African nations also show enthusiasm for this gold-backed currency, BRICS membership expansion could be a key discussion point at the upcoming Russia-Africa summit this year.
Russia’s embassy in Kenya posted the following statement on Twitter:
“The BRICS countries are planning to introduce a new trading currency, which will be backed by gold. More and more counties recently express desire to join BRICS,” the embassy wrote.
The BRICS countries are planning to introduce a new trading currency, which will be backed by gold.
More and more counties recently express desire to join BRICS.https://t.co/lMKTd4FlnT
— Russian Embassy in Kenya/Посольство России в Кении (@russembkenya) July 3, 2023
This move towards de-dollarization symbolizes a potential end to the US dollar’s reign as the global reserve currency. The impacts of this shift will undoubtedly unfold in the coming months, hinting at the end of an era of US dominance and the beginning of a new era of economic stability and prosperity for BRICS nations.
[…]
Via https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/07/russia-confirms-brics-nations-will-launch-new-joint/
July 7, 2023
Pfizer, AstraZeneca and others ask US Supreme Court to bar Iraq terrorism funding claims
The Pfizer logo is seen at their world headquarters in New York April 28, 2014. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly (UNITED STATES – Tags: BUSINESS LOGO HEALTH)By Mike ScarcellaJuly 5 (Reuters) – More than 20 U.S. and European pharmaceutical and medical-device makers have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to bar claims that the companies helped to fund terrorism that killed or injured hundreds of American service members during the war in Iraq.
The companies, part of five corporate families — AstraZeneca (AZN.L), Pfizer (PFE.N), GE Healthcare USA, Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N) and F. Hoffmann-La Roche — are challenging a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The petition at the high court was added on Wednesday to the court’s public docket.
The D.C. Circuit order from last year at the center of the case reinstated a lawsuit alleging that 21 U.S. and European medical equipment and pharmaceutical companies made corrupt payments to the Hezbollah-sponsored militia group Jaysh al-Mahdi in order to obtain medical-supply contracts. The plaintiffs’ complaint said Jaysh al-Mahdi controlled Iraq’s health ministry.
Attorneys for the companies contend in their petition that a Supreme Court ruling in May shielding Twitter from liability under the federal Anti-Terrorism Act should bar the service members’ allegations.
That ruling said aiding-and-abetting liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act, the same law at issue in the Iraq terror case, requires that a defendant “consciously and culpably” participated in a terror act to help it succeed.
The pharmaceutical and device companies asked the justices to vacate the D.C. Circuit’s ruling and to send the case back to the lower courts for further analysis. The service members sued under the Anti-Terrorism Act.
An attorney for the plaintiffs at law firm Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment. The firm represents hundreds of victims of Americans who said they were harmed in Iraq between 2005 and 2011.
The plaintiffs, according to their 588-page complaint, argue they “were attacked by a terrorist group funded in part by defendants’ corrupt sales practices.”
In a joint statement, the companies said they “vigorously dispute the plaintiffs’ allegations in this case and are not responsible in any way for the tragic events that were caused and carried out by Iraqi militia groups.”
The case is AstraZeneca UK Ltd et al v Joshua Atchley, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 23-9.
[…]Via https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/pfizer-astrazeneca-others-ask-us-supreme-court-bar-iraq-terrorism-funding-claims-2023-07-05/
How FDA Spins the Science on Cellphone Radiation and Human Health Risks
By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. Despite a $30-million “gold standard” study demonstrating clear cancer risks from cellphone radiation, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the telecom industry continue to spin the science and create doubt.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) claims there’s not enough scientific evidence to link cellphone use to health problems — but according to Devra Davis, Ph.D., MPH, a toxicologist and epidemiologist, the FDA’s claim is untrue and misleading.
Davis spoke with The Defender about the important backstory leading up to the FDA’s position on cellphone radiation as it relates to human health.
To support its statement — that “the weight of scientific evidence has not linked exposure to radio frequency energy from cell phone use with any health problems” — the FDA references a 2008-2018 literature review it conducted on radiofrequency (RF) radiation and cancer.
After completing the review, the FDA stated: “To date, there is no consistent or credible scientific evidence of health problems caused by the exposure to radio frequency energy emitted by cell phones.”
However, Davis said the FDA’s review was never signed. In other words, the names of the individuals who authored the report were never publicly released.
Davis has authored more than 200 peer-reviewed publications in books and journals, ranging from the Lancet to the Journal of the American Medical Association. She is the founding director of the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology of the U.S. National Research Council at the National Academy of Sciences and the founder and president of Environmental Health Trust.
Davis, who worked as a scientific adviser under multiple presidential administrations said, “Normally, when you have a review at that high level it’s quite consequential and it’s always signed.”
“The reason it was unsigned, I believe,” Davis told The Defender, “is because no one in the FDA was willing to put their name behind such a piece of junk. It was absolute nonsense,” she said. “It ignored many publications and only relied on an incredibly skewed interpretation of the literature — and I’m being generous when I say it like that.”
Davis pointed out that the FDA issued the review shortly after the National Toxicology Program (NTP) completed its multi-year $30 million study on cellphone radiation.
In that study, NTP researchers concluded there was “clear evidence” that male rats exposed to high levels of RF like that used in 2G and 3G cellphones developed cancerous heart tumors, and “some evidence” of tumors in the brain and adrenal gland of exposed male rats.
The NTP for decades has been the premier governmental testing program for pharmaceuticals, chemicals and radiation, said Davis, who served on the board of scientific counselors for the NTP when it was first started in the 1980s.
‘Gold Standard’ NTP study findings suppressed
Davis told The Defender that the government had access to a “gold standard program testing with positive results” that were consistent with and corroborated dozens of other studies. “It wasn’t like it [the NTP study] was a one-off study,” she said.
Once the word got out that the findings of the NTP study were positive — meaning the government researchers had found an association between cellphone radiation and the growth of cancerous tumors — the telecommunication industry “started its tactics” to suppress the findings, Davis said.
Davis has been researching such tactics for more than a decade. This fall she plans to release a new edition of her 2010 book, “Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Is Doing to Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family.”
Instead of the NTP study report being released in 2016 when it was first ready, she said, the telecom industry exerted pressure to subject the study’s conclusions to an unprecedented level of scrutiny.
“When the first drafts began to circulate internally, it was elevated for a peer review unlike any that has ever been conducted in the history of the entire program — and I can say that with great certainty. No other compound or substance [studied by the NTP] has ever been subject to this level of peer review,” Davis said.
A panel of external scientific experts convened for a three-day review of the study and its conclusions in March 2018.
However, rather than downplaying the study’s conclusions, the experts concluded that the scientific evidence in the study was so strong that they recommended the NTP reclassify some of its conclusions from “some evidence” to “clear evidence” of carcinogenic activity.
Davis — who attended the three-day review — said, “The reviewers that had been picked were people who were top-of-the-game toxicologists from Proctor and Gamble, from [Nokia] Bell Labs. [They were] industry toxicologists, but they were straight-up people.”
Davis said many of the experts spoke with her privately. “The woman from Proctor and Gamble was concerned about her kids. She said, ‘This [cellphone radiation] is not appropriate.’ I said, ‘Yes, that’s what we’ve been trying to say for some time.’”
More than 250 scientists — who together have published over 2,000 papers and letters on the biologic and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produced by wireless devices, including cellphones — signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for health warnings and stronger exposure limits.
FDA rejects study it solicited, ‘spins’ it as faulty
When the experts’ review of the NTP study was released, the FDA — which in 1999 requested the study and reviewed all its protocols, interim reports and final reports — the agency in November 2018, repudiated the study and in February 2020, released the unsigned literature review that criticized the study.
“They [the FDA] suddenly said, ‘Well, the exposure chambers [used in the study] are not relevant to humans. The [radiation] levels were too high,’” Davis said. “They were not.”
Davis was not alone in disagreeing with the FDA’s rejection of the NTP study. More than 20 scientists, including Davis, wrote a letter calling on the FDA to retract the literature review. Many scientists individually wrote to the FDA as well.
Moreover, the Environmental Health Trust wrote a 188-page report on the FDA’s inaccuracies in its research review and safety determinations about cellphone radiation.
Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley, who has researched cellphone radiation for over a decade, identified nine “biased statements” made about the NTP study that “tend to create doubt about data quality and implications.”
In “SPIN vs FACT: National Toxicology Program report on cancer risk from cellphone radiation,” Moskowitz lists and counters each statement. For example, Moskowitz noted that the claim the study’s conclusions were faulty was rebutted by the study report itself.
Moskowitz also pointed out that Christopher Portier, Ph.D., a retired head of the NTP who helped launch the study and still sometimes works for the federal government as a consultant scientist, told Scientific American, “This is by far — far and away — the most carefully done cell phone bioassay, a biological assessment.”
How telecom industry war-gamed study’s results to manufacture doubt
According to Davis, the telecom industry has for decades influenced governmental agencies such as the FDA to “manufacture doubt” about scientific studies — such as the NTP study — that do not benefit it.
She pointed out that in the early 1990s, Motorola launched a “disinformation campaign to confuse the public.” According to the Environmental Health Trust:
“When first reports that cell phone radiation could damage DNA emerged from the laboratory of Henry Lai and N.P. Singh [both researchers at the University of Washington, Seattle] in the 90’s, a memo written by Motorola to their media advisors in 1994 announced the clear strategy that remains alive and well: war-game the science.”
The “wargame” memo — first released by Microwave News (see page 13) — showed that Norman Sandler of Motorola’s corporate communications department on Dec. 13, 1994, wrote to Michael Kehs of the Burson-Marsteller public relations firm in Washington to plan how Motorola would respond to Lai and Singh’s findings.
Sandler and Kehs had a three-point plan to impede further scientific research on how cellphone radiation might cause DNA damage and to create public doubt in such studies. The plan involved:
Delaying — or halting — Lai and Singh from continuing their DNA research.Preventing other scientists from replicating the study, or carefully selecting scientists who would.Convincing the press and the public using industry-selected scientists that the Lai-Singh DNA study results were of marginal importance and with questionable relevance in regard to the question of whether cellphones are safe for humans.“I think we have sufficiently war-gamed the Lai-Singh issue, assuming SAG [the Scientific Advisory Group] and CTIA [the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association] have done their homework,” Sandler said.
Sandler said Motorola’s executive vice president was “adamant” that the industry come up with a “forceful one- or two-sentence portion of our standby statement that puts a damper on speculation arising from this research.”
Sandler proposed the industry say:
“While this work raises some interesting questions about possible biological effects, it is our understanding that there are too many uncertainties — related to the methodology employed, the findings that have been reported and the science that underlies them — to draw any conclusions about its significance at this time.”
[…]
Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fda-cellphone-radiation-human-health-risks/
Damaged People, Rotten Standards: Anatomy of Decline
Analysis by Tessa LenaDr MercolaStory at-a-glanceIf we look around, we’ll see many working-age people struggling with basic tasks, and a great decline in standardsThe MSM is suggesting that one in every ten people who’s had “Omicron” ends up with “long COVID,” which nowadays seems to be the establishment term to describe all chronic illness, as well as injury from “vaccines”The official rates of autism and dementia are also growing at a pace that is incompatible with a functioning society, and so the “great resetters” are in a great hurry to replace us with bots and “save the day”The suffering and the decline in health are very real and heartbreakingThe mainstream medicine, on the other hand, is in decline — preoccupied mostly with selling establishment talking points and pharma drugsDefining the ProblemThe “new normal” has snuck up on us. No, there are no big screens broadcasting the babble of Klaus Schwab, dressed up as Ze Big Bro. There is no CBDC for the peasants and no climate lockdowns — not yet. But the “new normal” is here because the people have been eaten into. You can see it in their faces.
Many of the less resilient ones have checked out. The so called “new normal” is, in fact, a lack of any kind of a rational or honorable baseline in people’s heads. There are no standards, no accountability, just a Kafkaesque free fall, wrapped in politically correct words.
After a very long time of physical poisoning, soul stomping, social decline, and erosion of standards — followed by three years of deliberate torment — many people have just shut down. Gone inside. Brought their baseline to a very low level so as to feel “normal” in a world that is anything but.
On my end, I’ve been noticing signs of decline and Soviet-like absurdity in the U.S. ever since 2001. But before 2020 it was subtler: TSA (okay, maybe not so subtle when it comes to the TSA), a rude customer service representative here and there, dirty public bathrooms, paranoia-installing announcements on the train to “see something, say something,” and so on. But today, the “glitter curtain” is off, and the subtlety is all but gone!
Social engineering takes time. It takes at least a full generation to create a solid shift toward a new psychological mode. And that is what happened. Today, the people who were born after 2001 are no longer kids but young adults. The aspirating masters have been working on shifting people’s values from “proud consumer individualism” to “fear-driven subservience” for at least two decades — and the result of their trickery is here.
Not Being Able to WorkIn addition to the psychological shift, there is also a visible shift in people’s ability to work:
[….]
Redefining Chronic Disease[…]
My personal theory is that at least a part of what’s filed under “long COVID” could be a result of brazen behavior of undiagnosed fungi and parasites, taking over the bodies of people who have been poisoned way too much (and, perhaps, injected with contaminated “vaccines.”)
Our “western pride” prevents us from exploring that route but I believe that 20-30 years from now, “everyone will know” that there is an epidemic of undiagnosed and debilitating toxoplasmosis, for example — but they won’t tell us that until they have a golden goose set up and a useless vaccine to sell.
By the way, “long COVID” is not the first umbrella term for chronic disease. Here is “post-polio syndrome“:
“Post-polio syndrome is a group of potentially disabling signs and symptoms that appear decades after the initial polio illness. These signs and symptoms usually appear between 30 to 40 years after having polio.”
And of course, the “polio epidemic” was most likely connected to the use of arsenic and DDT and ended with the ban of DDT. I wrote about it here. And here is Time Magazine’s take on the “long flu”:
“In what is now Tanzania, to the north, post-viral syndrome has been blamed for triggering the worst famine in a century — the so-called “famine of corms” — after debilitating lethargy prevented flu survivors from planting when the rains came at the end of 1918.”
But even Time Magazine admits that the definition of long COVID is “wooly” as it is defined as “not recovering [for] several weeks or months following the start of symptoms that were suggestive of Covid, whether you were tested or not.”
Wooly, indeed! Like I said in my recent article, “when it comes to the decline in health, the problem is real. The suffering is real. The terminology is a little shady. Why shady? Blaming the suffering on loosely defined ‘long COVID’ is a gimmick because how do they know that it is ‘COVID’ if nobody can define ‘COVID’ to begin with, other than a positive — fraudulent — PCR test?
As far as I am concerned, the basics of epistemology need to be addressed before building a tower. That is how it works in a sane word. And yes, some of it could be related to whatever ‘COVID’ ends up being — the spike protein and what not — but I ask for an epistemological foundation first, please.”
Rockefeller Medicine, “Sleeper” DoctorsIt sucks for everyone when the people providing medical care are “sleepers.” We usually visit doctors hoping to get help, and when instead of help, we receive “zombie treatment” — rooted in prejudice and ideological addiction to the trend of the day, as opposed to an honest analysis of how things work in the real world — it’s a big letdown.
For the record, I grew up in a medical family in Moscow, and I have the greatest respect for the medical profession as such. I think that most doctors, even the brainwashed sleepers of today, go into medicine because they want to help. Furthermore, as a person who’s lived in America for the most of my adult life, I am grateful to being here, and I think that the American medicine is amazing when it comes to acute care, emergency medicine, surgeries, and so on.
However, when it comes to anything more complex, such as chronic disease, many doctors’ heads seem to be firmly planted in fiction — and the reason is because they are kept in the land of fiction by powerful financial interests such as the Rockefellers, by the aspiring masters in high chairs.
And so it goes. We live in a beautiful world but also inside a toxic, upside-down bubble — an artificial reality created by the psychopaths and installed by them inside our beautiful and generous world.
It is as if the ones in high chairs have installed an “energy stealing” filter all around the society, a filer that corrupts and poisons everything that the Creator made available to us directly — so that we don’t have anything good unless we buy it from them, on their terms.
Their mindset is the mindset of a criminal who would happily poison a clear pond in order to sell water filters to the locals. In fact, they are exactly that.
[…]
Via https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/07/07/anatomy-of-decline.aspx
By 2030 You Will Not East Meat
Cities Race to Zero: Who’s in Cities Race to Zero? retrieved 17 June 2023
A report published in 2019 and re-emphasised in 2023 recommends that by 2030 we will not be permitted to eat meat or dairy products, we will be limited to three items of new clothing per year and one aeroplane flight every three years. It will start in countries that “consume the most.”
Published in 2019, ‘The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World’ report sets out targets for cities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as consistent with the 2015 Paris Agreement ambitions. What this report aims to do is quantify and then suggest ways for city “leaders” to reduce consumption-based emissions. In other words, reduce what you and I consume be it food, clothes or travel etc.
The place to start, a press release stated, is with those who consume the most and “consumption-based emissions must be cut by at least 50% by 2030.”
The report outlines six sectors where the world’s cities can take “rapid action to address consumption-based emissions”: food, construction, clothing, vehicles, aviation, and electronics.
The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World was co-created and co-delivered by C40, Arup and the University of Leeds with funding from Arup, University of Leeds and Citi Foundation. It claims to be an analysis and not a plan but the tone of the report, from the outset, reads like a plan. The foreword stated:
“The report demonstrates that mayors have an even bigger role and opportunity to help avert climate emergency than previously thought … While the analysis addresses big global questions, its purpose is to inspire practical action … average consumption-based emissions in C40 cities must halve within the next 10 years. In our wealthiest and highest consuming cities that means a reduction of two thirds or more by 2030.” – Mark Watts, Executive Director of C40
“It is now clear that action to reduce consumption will be necessary as part of the global effort to mitigate climate change … The actions set out in the report are challenging and they will be confronting for many, but we think they are necessary … City Mayors can set a vision and convene actors to bring about the changes we describe … The work reported here forces a focus on what a sustainable urban future might look like and helps us to consider what policies, regulations, incentives and behavioural changes will be necessary to transition to a zero-carbon world.” – Gregory Hodkinson, Former Chairman of Arup
The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World, 2019
C40 is a global network of mayors representing one-quarter of the global economy. It includes almost 100 cities plus 1,143 cities and local governments that have joined C40’s ‘Cities Race to Zero’. The cities that sign up for the ‘Cities Race to Zero’ commit, among others, to keeping global heating below the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
Without reading the numerous reports and recommendations thrown at the ‘Cities Race to Zero’ signatories, it’s not possible to establish if the actions set out in The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World report are specifically included in the action plan. Why does it matter? Because if they are, it is not only the 100 or so C40 Cities but more than 1,000 cities that are committing to the report’s reductions in consumer-based emissions. Additionally, we can assume Arup’s network is committing the same.
Arup works as a global network of “experts” and boasts that it “shapes cities in a thousand ways.” It has more than 17,000 members and offices in 46 of the 97 cities that make up C40’s global network. C40 and Arup have worked together since 2009 and have collaborated on dystopian publications such as Deadline 2020, Green and Thriving Neighbourhoods and a guide for creating net-zero neighbourhoods. But these collaborations have not come about without money changing hands.
The first C40/Arup report titled ‘Powering Climate Action: Cities as Global Changemakers’ was published in 2015. That same year Arup committed to investing $1 million over three years into a research partnership with C40.
In 2019, the year the C40/Arup consumer-based emissions report The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World was published, Arup trebled its advisory support to C40 to $3 million over 3 three years.
In 2023, Arup continued its investment in C40 with up to US$300,000 a year to help C40 drive resilience and decarbonisation in cities around the world. Unsurprisingly, in March 2023, C40 Cities re-highlighted the 2019 C40/Arup consumer-based emissions report in an article titled ‘A spotlight on consumption-based emissions’. “Since our report was published, cities around the world have begun to map consumption-based emissions and explore ways to reduce them,” C40 said.
So, what does the 2019 report that Arup has so heavily invested in say?
Below we have picked out a few highlights. You can download and read the full report HERE. Because it provides damning evidence against its collaborators, we have also attached a copy below should it disappear from public view at any time in the future.
Starting on page 66, the report summarises what they hope to impose on us. Below are images of their “ambitions” which require no further comment, except to say that all these plans are being made and agreed upon outside the democratic process and in a classic dictatorial manner under false pretences.
[…]
Via https://expose-news.com/2023/06/18/by-2030-you-will-be-allowed-only-three/
The Most Revolutionary Act
- Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's profile
- 11 followers
