Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 399

Vitamin D Deficiency Linked to Heart Attacks

By Dr Eddy Betterman

Research out of Australia has confirmed that vitamin D deficiency is directly linked to an increased risk of heart attack or some other cardiovascular event.

Supplementing with vitamin D – or better yet, exposing your skin to more natural sunlight – can go a really long way towards promoting a strong and healthy heart, which is absolutely critical in the age of Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccines.”

Since the jabs are known to clog people’s blood vessels, vitamin D optimization is of utmost importance. And the study confirmed that especially among older people, topping up one’s vitamin D stores can help to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events.

While the absolute risk difference between the two groups evaluated in the study was relatively small, the researchers emphasized that the benefits of getting more vitamin D are not insignificant.

It is also important to note that the study is the largest ever to date to look at vitamin D and its impact on cardiovascular health.

“Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a general term encompassing all conditions affecting the heart or blood vessels and is one of the main causes of death globally,” a Study Finds report on the study explains.

“CVD events like heart attacks and strokes are projected to increase as populations continue to live longer and chronic diseases become more and more common.”

(Related: Keeping your vitamin D levels optimized can also help to protect your body against cancer.)

It’s never a bad idea to optimize your vitamin D levels

Previous studies have identified a definitive connection between vitamin D levels and CVD risk, but none up until now have yielded evidence to show that vitamin D supplements can help to prevent cardiovascular events.

For this study, the Aussie team assessed whether or not supplementing older adults with vitamin D could help to reduce the number of major cardiovascular events that occur, on average, among older adults.

Known as the “D-Health Trial,” the study was carried out between 2014 and 2020 and included 21,315 Aussies between the ages of 60 and 84. All participants received one capsule of either 60,000 international units (IU) of vitamin D (10,662 people) or a placebo (10,653 people).

All participants took either the 60,000 IU dose or a placebo – neither group knew which one they were taking – orally at the beginning of each month over the course of five months.

“Those with a history of high calcium levels (hypercalcemia), overactive thyroid (hyperparathyroidism), kidney stones, soft bones (osteomalacia), sarcoidosis, an inflammatory disease, or anyone already taking more than 500 IU/day vitamin D were excluded from the experiment,” reports indicate about the study’s design.

Following the initial five-month period, researchers looked at data covering hospital admissions and deaths to look for major cardiovascular events such as heart attacks, strokes, and coronary revascularization (a treatment that restores normal blood flow to the heart).

At the end of the full five years of taking either the vitamin D supplement or a placebo, more than 80 percent of trial participants were still on track with participation. From this, the researchers determined that 1,336 participants had suffered at least one major cardiovascular event between 2014 and 2020 – 6.6 percent in the placebo group and 6 percent in the vitamin D group.

“Meanwhile, rate of major cardiovascular events was nine percent lower in the vitamin D cohort compared to the placebo group (equivalent to 5.8 fewer events per 1,000 people),” Study Finds further explains.

“Heart attack (-19%) and coronary revascularization (-11%) rates were lower in the vitamin D group, but the team did not note any differences in the rate of stroke between the two cohorts.”

[…]

Via https://dreddymd.com/2023/07/05/vitamin-d-levels-optimized-prevent-heart-attack/

International Atomic Energy Agency Colludes with Japan to Dump Radioactive Fukushima Waste Into the Pacific

By Fukushima 311 Watchdogs

Whistleblower Releases Internal IAEA Document Proving Collusion with Japan Over Fukushima Radioactive Water Release

A whistleblower-released document created by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on June 1, 2023, shows that “the fix is in” – IAEA is not only is planning to approve the release of 1.3 million tons of radioactive water from Fukushima but to manipulate their communication to the world in support Japan’s position despite facts showing otherwise, eliminating anything that might “be viewed negatively by the public.”

This is outrageous and dangerous for the entire world. Japan, with the IAEA’s support – NOT protection – is planning to commit its own nuclear assault on the world through this radioactive water release.

We’ve suspected and accused the IAEA and Japan of working together in the past, and now we have the proof.
Please, do what you can to get this word out – not just to our echo chamber, but to media.

Few days ago a well-intentioned whistleblower has sent me an internal document of the IAEA.

In this IAEA’s internal document the IAEA is seen coaching TEPCO about what to tell and what not tell to the public regarding the « treated » water to be soon discharged into the Pacific Ocean.

One thing that can be drawn from that document’s content is that the IAEA and TEPCO have no intention to be fully transparent about the radioactive contamination of the said « treated water », only the one to cushion insidiously the real facts to the public eyes.

« Treated water » is quite an euphemism as it is public knowledge that in 12 years the TEPCO’s ALPs filtering system has never been capable to fully remove all the 64 radionuclides present in that radioactive water. Not even to mention the radioactive mud which has accumulated at the bottom of all those water tanks. For them to mention in their press releases only the tritium as being present in that “treated” water is their habitual lying by omission.

According to the news, Rafael Mariano Grossi, the director general of IAEA, will visit Japan on 4 July. The IAEA’s final report will be published soon and the nuclear water will be discharged into the ocean after the report.

This internal document is quite certainly making us question their future transparency, and their intention to protect truly the marine life and the health of the people. Cheap expediency, lying by omission when not just plain lying, are part of their usual modus operandi.

This whistleblower, who wishes to remain anonymous for his own protection, took a real risk leaking this document out, acting out of his conscience as he knows from the inside the dangers of such radioactive marine pollution. Will it be enough to wake up the consciences and stop such dumping of radioactive polllution into our ocean?

Time is crucial in this matter, as for sure soon after the visit of the director general of the AIEA TEPCO will start discharging that water, and then it will be impossible to have them to stop.

I am just a blogger blogging on this little blog, I am sending this message in a bottle out to the world in the hope that someone, some journalists will take up this information and use it to influence the various governments to pressure Japan to not use our Pacific ocean as its personal trash backyard. The Asian countries neighboring Japan and the Pacific nations should protect their population from such marine radioactive pollution.

With all my prayerful wishes, asking for your help. Please share this article widely so that document will be of some use.

Many thanks to the anonymous whistleblower who did his part, now it is our turn to do ours.

Processed Food: The Dark Side of the Food Industry

Junk Food: The Dark Side of the Food Industry

Directed by Phillipe Mach and Francoises Weilheimer (2023)

DW

Film Review

The Film is based mainly on interviews with clinicians and clients at the University of Lausanne obesity clinic; with best selling author of Salt, Sugar and Fat Michael Moss with a Nestlé public relations officer; and with Mexico’s deputy minister of health. In my view, its main drawback has been its failure to differentiate between the harmful effect of sugar and seed-based oils and salt. There’s no reliable research indicating that consuming salt is harmful, and more than a decade of research supports a healthy diet consisting of at least 30% animal fats and olive or coconut oils.

According to the filmmakers, one beneficial outcome of the Covid psyops has been a growing popular focus on healthy eating.

In Switzerland, the home of the world’s biggest food company (Nestlé) M 42% of the population is overweight and 10% obese. In Mexico, which has one of the highest rates of childhood obesity in the world, 75% of adults are overweight or obese. This contrasts with a 7% obesity rates in 1980. According to the ministry of health, 1/3 third of Mexican deaths stem from “poor nutrition” (unhealthy).

Filmmakers link this massive increase to the passage of the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA) in 1994 and US decision to flood the Mexican market with junk food. The Mexican government has tried to counteract this move with a sugar tax, a ban on junk food ads aimed at children and warning labels on foods with unhealthy levels of sugar. The laws have been effective in forcing several companies to reduce the sugar content of their processed. Mexico’s deputy minister of health, a doctor, views legal challenges to these labeling laws by observing as proof of the contempt multinational food companies have for poor people.

At present, fifty countries have a sugar tax, which has been extremely effective in forcing food companies to reduce the sugar content of their products. Thanks to heavy lobbying by Nestlé, the Swiss government, facing an $8 billion price tag for the country’s obesity epidemic, resists a sugar tax.

Processed food producers have invested years of research into the addictive potential of sugar. Not only do lab rats consistently prefer sugar to cocaine, but brain changes occur in sugar addicts similar to those produced in alcohol, tobacco and cocaine addiction.

Food industry scientists also talk about engineering “cravability, “morishness,” and the 80-20 rule, they can induce via sugar additives and sophisticated marketing. The latter relates to findings that 20% of the population eats 80% of their product. Nestlé denies any responsibility in promoting junk food addictions, asserting it’s government’s responsibility to educate consumers about more nutritional food choices.

Thanks to heavy lobbying by Nestlé, the Swiss government filed a formal objection to Mexico’s policy of labeling harmful junk foods.*

*However thanks to the law, the company has reduced the sugar content of the junk food they export to Mexico.

CDC Altered Minnesota Death Certificates that List Covid Vaccine as Cause of Death

Aaron Hertzberg

Brownstone Intitute

Someone (who needs to remain anonymous) was able to obtain the death certificates from Minnesota for all deaths that occurred from 2015 to the present, which presented the opportunity to see if the CDC is being entirely honest about the US death data. Unsurprisingly, the CDC is not.

As we shall document, the CDC is concealing references to a covid vaccine on Minnesota death certificates (that are exceedingly rare to begin with because of widespread medical establishment denialism of vaccine adverse side effects). In almost every death certificate that identifies a covid vaccine as a cause of death, the CDC committed data fraud by not assigning the ICD 10 code for vaccine side effects to the causes of death listed on the death certificate.

Background

When someone dies, there is a death certificate that is filled out for official/legal purposes. Death certificates contain a lot of information (some states include more than others), including the causes of death (CoD).

Causes of death refer to the medical conditions that ultimately played some role in the demise of the decedent. To qualify as a CoD, a condition only needs to contribute to the medical decline of the decedent in some way, but doesn’t have to be directly responsible for whatever ultimately killed the person. If someone had high blood pressure, and subsequently suffered a heart attack that led to cardiac arrest which killed them, all three conditions qualify as CoD. On the other hand, this unfortunate fellow’s ingrown toenail is not a cause of death, because it in no way contributed to their demise.

Above is the CDC’s own guidance explaining how to properly fill out CoD’s on a death certificate (you don’t need to understand the difference between Cause A, B, etc for this article).

The critical thing to keep in mind is that the person filling out the death certificate writes a text description of the CoD’s, but doesn’t assign the ICD 10 codes for the CoD’s.

That’s the CDC’s job.

ICD 10 Coding System for CoD’s

There is a fancy coding system that is used to classify the many thousands of medical conditions that can play a role in death known as the International Classification of Diseases. Every few years, it is updated/revised to keep up with new medical (or bureaucratic) developments, as new conditions are discovered and old conditions are reorganized or reclassified.

The current iteration of the ICD that was used for the deaths we’re looking at is the ICD 10 (that’s the 10th version). It is basically a hierarchical classification system:

 

There are codes for practically every random weird thing you can think of:

 

These are categories themselves – a code can go as 7 characters long:

Source

ICD 10 Codes for Covid Vaccine Side Effects

There are two ICD 10 codes for vaccine side effects that can be broadly used for the covid vaccines – T88.1 and Y59.0:

T88.1  –  Other complications following immunization, not elsewhere classified .

 

Y59.0  –  Viral vaccines

[…]

CDC – Centers for Data Concealment

The CDC receives the death certificates from the various states and applies ICD 10 codes. This is primarily done with a secret algorithm, with a tiny percentage of cases adjudicated by CDC staff when the algorithm is unable to confidently assign an ICD code to the text description written on the actual death certificate (such as confounding spelling or a text description that does not make much sense). I confirmed this with a biostatistician who works for a DoH in a US state (I’m leaving out which one because I want to preserve my persona grata status). The individual who obtained the MN death certificates likewise confirmed with state officials that the ICD codes in their data were assigned by the CDC.

What a death certificate identifying a covid vaccine as a CoD *should* look like

There are three death certificates in the MN tranche that contain either T88.1 or Y59.0. One is for a flu vaccine reaction, and – surprisingly – the other two are for a covid vaccine.

Note – when used below: 

UCoD (Underlying Cause of Death) refers to “the disease or injury that initiated the train of events leading directly to death, or the circumstances of the accident or violence which produced the fatal injury.”

MCoD (Multiple Causes of Death) refers to “the immediate cause of death and all other intermediate and contributory conditions listed on the death certificate.” (everything else)

The first death certificate contains a covid vaccine ICD (below), and it looks like the CDC was trapped and could not avoid putting it on without fundamentally rewriting the death certificate, because the vaccine complication is unambiguously listed as the UCoD (this death certificate is saying the person was killed by a heart attack caused by the covid vaccine within minutes of injection):

The second death certificate the CDC deigned to assign a vaccine ICD (and not only one but *BOTH* vaccine ICD codes(!!)) feels like perhaps a rogue CDC employee was working that day and snuck it in:

In any event, as we can clearly see, both T88.1 and Y59.0 are indeed appropriate for when a covid vaccine is listed as a CoD. Thus the CDC cannot claim that there was no official ICD 10 code that could be used to designate covid vaccines (or any other excuse).

The FRAUD:

With that introduction, below are 7 death certificates from Minnesota that identify a covid vaccine as a cause of death where the CDC omitted the corresponding ICD 10 code identifying a vaccine side effect when the CDC assigned ICD codes to the death certificates.

The first fraudulently filled out death certificate offers a crucial detail highlighting not only the fraud but the naked double standards for assigning CoD’s.

This death certificate identifies both a covid vaccine and covid itself as contributory CoD’s (in the last row highlighted in yellow, vaccine underlined in green, covid in blue):

“covid vaccine second dose 10 hrs prior to death”“history of covid infection in May 2020” (about 7-8 months prior to death)

Any remotely objective person would presume that if a condition that occurred 7 months prior without any clear link to the actual death still nevertheless meets the standard for being identified as a CoD, then surely a condition or event that occurred a mere TEN HOURS before death identified by the doctor filling out the death certificate merits inclusion as a CoD.

Yet, the CDC assigned U70.1 – “COVID-19, virus identified” – for covid, but neglected to assign T88.1 or Y59.0 for the covid vaccine.

A second point to highlight is that we see that anything mentioned as a CoD, even in the context of “history of” that had (presumably) been long resolved, is a legitimate CoD insofar as assigning an ICD 10 code and epidemiological data are concerned.

This decedent suffered a cardiac arrest that ultimately led to her death *ONE DAY* after being vaccinated.

[…]

Fraudulent Death Certificate #3

 

This death certificate doesn’t merely identify a covid vaccine, it explains that the decedent “felt sick after the vaccine” and died 4 days later from a heart attack. Yet, no T88.1 or Y59.0.

 

This death certificate provides that the decedent received her second dose of Pfizer 18 days prior to her death.

 

Here we have a 65-year-old male who was killed by a heart attack 12 days after getting vaccinated.

 

This case is especially noteworthy. Someone involved with this death informed me that the family had to pressure the coroner to put the recent covid booster on the death certificate. A family member also filed a VAERS report themselves, after the patient’s doctors declined to do so.

Furthermore, the CDC applied W34 as the UCoD. What is W34 for?

 

‘accidental discharge and malfunction from other and unspecified firearms and guns.’

There is no mention of any firearms mishaps on the death certificate.

One would have to wonder how such an errant code came to be, especially on a death certificate that contains other ICD 10 shenanigans. It is unlikely that ‘Y590’ or ‘T881’ would be ‘misspelled’ or algorithmically mixed up with ‘W34.’

Perhaps if there were no other instances of fraudulent omittance of vaccine ICD codes on other death certificates, and the CDC wasn’t in the habit of routinely assigning U07.1 for a covid infection that resolved a year ago, the failure to include T88.1 or Y59.0 here could be excused.

At minimum, this death certificate should contain T88.0 – ‘Infection following immunization’ – to document the breakthrough infection (which is a subject for a separate article as this seems to be fairly widespread).

[…[

Via https://brownstone.org/articles/cdc-altered-death-certificates/

 

Federal Judge: Biden Likely Violated First Amendment

Andrea Vacchiano

Fox News

A U.S. District Court judge is temporarily preventing White House officials from meeting with tech companies about social media censorship, arguing that such actions in the past were likely First Amendment violations.

The Tuesday injunction by Louisiana Judge Terry A. Doughty was in response to recent lawsuits from Louisiana and Missouri attorneys general. The suits allege that the White House coerced or “significantly encourage[d]” tech companies to suppress free speech during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Doughty is barring several federal officials and agencies – including some of Biden’s Cabinet members and White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre – from contacting social media companies in efforts to suppress speech.

Google, Meta and Twitter were all named in the lawsuit.

President Biden in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on Friday, June 30, 2023. (Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

The injunction, which was obtained by Fox News, states that the government’s actions “likely violate the Free Speech Clause” and that the court “is not persuaded by Defendants’ arguments,” dealing a significant blow to the White House.

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth,’” Doughty wrote.

“If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,” the injunction adds. “In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the Federal Government, and particularly the Defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech.”

The injunction also claims that “the censorship alleged in this case almost exclusively targeted conservative speech,” but that issues the case raises are “beyond party lines.”

“Viewpoint discrimination is an especially egregious form of content discrimination,” Doughty argued. “The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction.”

The cases could mean that interactions between tech companies and government officials may be significantly limited in the future. Exceptions might include national security threats or criminal matters on social media.

The injunction received favorable responses from the Missouri and Louisiana attorneys general on Tuesday.

“Happy birthday America. You get your First Amendment back!!!” Missouri AG Andrew Bailey wrote in a tweet.

“Today’s historic ruling is a big step in the continued fight to prohibit our government from unconstitutional censorship,” Louisiana AG Jeff Landry said in a statement. “We look forward to continuing to litigate the case and will vigorously defend the injunction on appeal.”

[…]

Via https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-likely-violated-first-amendment-covid-19-pandemic-federal-judge-says

Has China Just Checkmated the US by Banning Rare Earth Exports?

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 04.07.2023

China’s ban is a response to the West’s not-so-well thought out strategy of economically decoupling from the People’s Republic, Asia-Pacific consultant Thomas W. Pauken told Sputnik.

China has imposed restrictions on exporting two strategic raw materials, gallium and germanium, which are crucial for the world’s electronic chip-making industry. The US mainstream press called Beijing’s move a “second counter-measure” in the unfolding Sino-American tech confrontation, which followed the People’s Republic sanctioning America’s Micron Technology (MU) in May.

Last October, the Biden administration unveiled an unprecedented set of export controls that restricted Chinese companies from purchasing advanced chips made anywhere in the world using US technology, as well as chip-making equipment.

The US media noted at the time that Washington’s move would thwart “China’s technological ambitions,” bragging that the global semiconductor industry was “almost entirely” dependent on the US and its allies. Now American newspapers are admitting China has played “a trump card in the chip war.”

“I find it rather laughable that [the Biden regime] actually thought that they’re going to win this tech war,” Thomas W. Pauken II, the author of US vs China: From Trade War to Reciprocal Deal, and a consultant on Asia-Pacific affairs, told Sputnik. “You don’t have access to the rare earth, you don’t have access to the supply chains in order to produce these electronics – you’re totally destroyed, you’re devastated, the US knew about this. They knew how much they were reliant on the rare earths. They knew how much they had to rely on China in order to reshore their factories. And instead of trying to find ways to cooperate, they just decided to go ahead and just do these nasty, terrible attacks against China and then just somehow think they’re going to score a victory here.”

Why Didn’t Team Biden See This Coming?

The People’s Republic boasts 63% of the world’s rare earth mining, 85% of processing, and 92% of magnet production. As per the 2022 US Geological Survey, between 2017 and 2020 the United States imported a whopping 78% of its rare earth metals from China, followed by Estonia (6%), Malaysia (5%) and Japan (4%).

Back in 2019, the Asian giant warned the Trump administration about including rare earths in Beijing’s technology-export restrictions, as Washington stepped up pressure on Chinese telecom firm Huawei. Donald Trump’s successor, Joe Biden, continued to raise the stakes in a technological tit-for-tat with China by implementing the CHIPS and Science Act in August 2022 and introducing semiconductor restrictions last October. In December 2022, US policy-makers were lively discussing possible bans on TikTok, a Chinese short-form video hosting service.

Speaking to Sputnik at the time, Pauken projected that Biden’s China strategy would eventually backfire on Washington. “If the US moves forward on decoupling, they’re only hurting themselves, because most of the supply chains on the high-tech side originate from China,” the Asia-Pacific consultant warned last December.

Given that 94% of the world’s gallium and 83% of germanium is produced in China, the US may find itself in a heap of trouble in the aftermath of Beijing’s export ban, according to the expert.

“You have to realize that a lot of the electronics are produced and need these rare earths ingredients,” Pauken said. “Without these rare earth ingredients, they can do absolutely nothing. This is an absolutely devastating hit to the US markets. And obviously, if they want to continue this policy of decoupling from China, it’s only going to hit them harder and harder. I’m not too sure why these countries thought they could somehow strike against China and then not get hit back by the country. This is basic reciprocity. Reciprocity means that if you hit one country with trade barriers, the other country is going to also respond with their own type of trade barriers as well. And so these tariffs are absolutely important to American factories, and they’re going to be shut down and they’re going to have a very hard time continuing their operations.”

Biden Administration’s ‘Childish’ China Policy

Pauken criticized the Biden administration’s China policy as inconsistent and “childish”. He referred to the Chinese “spy balloon” incident which made a lot of fuss in the US but eventually turned out to be a nothingburger: “A few days ago, we discovered that the spy balloon was not even a spy balloon, it was not even monitoring the US,” the expert remarked.

To complicate matters further, Joe Biden publicly dubbed his Chinese counterpart, Chairman Xi Jinping, a “dictator” almost immediately after Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s recent trip to Beijing. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s forthcoming visit to the People’s Republic is also surrounded by controversies, given that the White House is considering an order restricting investments in China.

According to Pauken, Biden’s China experts both misunderstand and underestimate the People’s Republic’s odds of withstanding the pressure and coming out on top.

For instance, while commenting on Beijing’s ban on Micron Technology in May, the Asia-Pacific consultant drew attention to the fact that the move apparently shows that China is no longer as “dependent” on the US semiconductor industry as it used to be. “Obviously, [the Chinese] have probably set up supply chains in place and have chips made in China that are maybe not equal in quality to Micron, but close enough so that they could handle the impact of no more Micron chips coming to China,” the expert suggested at the time.

“[Biden aides are] trying to take control of the US foreign policy, which is absolutely disastrous right now,” said Pauken, commenting on the recent ban. “And these are the people who are probably working for Biden, trying to think that he’s going to win and he’s going to end up coming out a big loser and they’re going to destroy the US economy. (…) The only way to turn away from this is for countries to try to find ways to improve their trade deals with China. And if they find that they can improve their relations with China, they will likely not be hit hard by this rare earths export ban.”

[…]

Via https://sputnikglobe.com/20230704/has-china-just-checkmated-the-us-by-banning-rare-earth-exports-1111663181.html

Like Halliburton in Iraq, BlackRock to Rake in a Trillion, “Rebuilding the Destruction” which They Financed in Ukraine

Matt AgoristFree Thought Project  

War is indeed a racket, and it is one that BlackRock, JPMorgan, and the like play with chilling efficiency

The echoes of Halliburton’s billion-dollar contracts during the Iraq war are deafening. These corporations, the backbone of the military-industrial complex, have found a golden opportunity in mass murder. The strategy is as lucrative as it is grotesque: profiteering from death, destruction, and then the subsequent taxpayer-funded reconstruction of the rubble they helped to create — all while maintaining a veneer of benevolence.

When we delve into the intricacies of the Ukraine Development Fund, the disturbing reality begins to surface. The World Bank estimates that Ukraine would need a whopping $411 billion to rebuild after the war. Here, BlackRock and JPMorgan Chase see a bountiful harvest. The roles they will play in leveraging taxpayer funds provide them with the potential for astronomical profits that would easily dwarf any of their alleged “donated” services.

The chilling parallels between Ukraine and the Iraq war are impossible to ignore. Halliburton reaped billions from no-bid contracts to rebuild what had been shattered by war. Tens of thousands of lives were lost, and a nation grappled with the fallout of a foreign intervention, while Halliburton and others cashed in on the chaos.

The more the dust of devastation settles over Ukraine, the clearer the profit margins become for BlackRock and their ilk. War and its aftermath create an ideal breeding ground for opportunistic corporate parasites. The brutal dance of destruction and reconstruction is a double-edged sword, inflicting deep wounds on humanity while filling the coffers of these corporations.

The financial giants’ noble facade of assisting Ukraine overlooks the brutal truth: the longer the war rages, the more they stand to gain. This harsh reality epitomizes Butler’s assertion that “war is a racket,” with the likes of BlackRock, JPMorgan, and the broader military-industrial complex reaping significant profits from the suffering and despair of millions.

What we witness here is not just war profiteering but the transformation of war itself into a highly profitable venture for corporations. These entities have a vested interest in prolonging conflict. The more extensive the destruction, the higher the potential for profit during the reconstruction phase. This dynamic serves to reinforce a system that feeds off conflict, creating an environment that incentivizes the perpetuation of war, despite its catastrophic human cost.

This perverse reality reveals the essence of Butler’s statement that “war is a racket.” The very entities that profit from war also stand to gain from the peace that follows. Until we break this destructive cycle, the suffering, the loss, and the injustice will continue to proliferate under the guise of reconstruction and recovery.

It is crucial to scrutinize the underlying motives of those who claim to assist in rebuilding war-torn nations. Are they truly benevolent benefactors committed to helping countries rise from the ashes, or are they shrewd racketeers capitalizing on the chaos of war? The answer, as history has shown us time and time again, is as evident as the grim aftermath of any battlefield — and it will never be found under a Ukraine flag emoji in your Twitter profile.

War is indeed a racket, and it is one that BlackRock, JPMorgan, and the like play with chilling efficiency. As Ukraine braces for a period of rebuilding, it is not just the physical scars that need attention but the underlying, systemic rot that feeds off such conflict.

[…]

Via https://thefreethoughtproject.com/antiwar/like-halliburton-in-iraq-blackrock-to-rake-in-a-trillion-rebuilding-the-destruction-they-financed-in-ukraine

Wyoming Law Expands Food Freedom Act, Opens Market to Small Egg and Dairy Producers

by Mike Maharrey

Tenth Amendment Center

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (July 2, 2023)  – Yesterday, a Wyoming law went into effect that will further increase food freedom in the state, and potentially alleviate some of the recent price inflation on eggs and dairy.

Sen. Tim Salazar and 10 fellow cosponsors introduced Senate Bill 102 (SF102) on Jan. 12. The new law expands the Wyoming Food Freedom Act to allow a “designated agent” to “facilitate sales transactions” in the marketing, transport, storage, or delivery of food and beverage products. Under previous law, producers could only sell directly to consumers.

The new law will also add eggs and dairy products to the foods that can be sold at farmer’s markets, farms, ranches, producer’s homes or offices, and the retail location of the third-party sellers.

The House passed SF102 by a 62-0 vote. The Senate approved the measure by a 30-1 vote. With Gov. Mark Gordon’s signature, the law went into effect on July 1.

Expanding the market for eggs and dairy could provide some relief for Wyoming residents struggling to deal with price inflation. The price of both eggs and milk has increased precipitously over the last year. Opening up the market to more producers and sellers could help the people of Wyoming to get some relief from the money-printing frenzy of recent years.

WYOMING LEADS THE WAY

Wyoming was the first state to enact a comprehensive Food Freedom Act back in 2015. The law allows the sale of many foods and food products direct from the producer to the consumer without adhering to onerous state regulatory and licensing requirements.

The expansive law even allows poultry farmers with fewer than 1,000 birds to sell chicken and turkey, along with products made from their birds outside of the regulatory system.

It also authorizes the sale of raw milk, rabbit meat and most farm-raised fish.

In 2020, the state expanded food freedom to allow consumers to buy individual cuts of meat through herd-share agreements. The law is modeled on laws that allow the sale of raw milk in some states. Consumers pay the rancher a fee for a “share” in either an individual animal or a herd. In return, the consumer gets cuts of meat.

A second expansion allows for the sale of “non-potentially hazardous” homemade foods to be sold in retail stores and restaurants.

“Potentially-non hazardous foods are defined as ” food that does not require time or temperature control for safety and includes jams, uncut fruits and vegetables, pickled vegetables, hard candies, fudge, nut mixes, granola, dry soup mixes excluding meat-based soup mixes, coffee beans, popcorn and baked goods that do not include dairy or meat frosting or filling or other potentially hazardous frosting or filling.

Following Wyoming’s lead, North Dakota and Utah passed similar laws. In 2017, Maine enacted a law that gives local governments the authority to enact ordinances regulating local food distribution without state interference.

Food freedom laws not only open markets, expand consumer choice, and create opportunities for farmers and entrepreneurs; they take a step toward restoring the United States’ original political structure. Instead of top-down, centralized regulatory schemes, these laws encourage local control, and they can effectively nullify federal regulatory schemes in effect by hindering the enforcement of federal regulations.

Food freedom has flourished in these states with hundreds of local businesses sprouting up in recent years without a single report of foodborne illness.

FEDERAL CONTROL

While state law does not bind the FDA, the passage of food freedom laws creates an environment hostile to federal food regulation in those states. And because the state does not interfere with local food producers, that means it will not enforce FDA mandates either. Should the feds want to enforce food laws in states with food freedom laws, they have to do so by themselves.

As we’ve seen with marijuana and industrial hemp, a federal regulation becomes ineffective when states ignore it and pass laws encouraging the prohibited activity anyway. The federal government lacks the enforcement power necessary to maintain its ban, and people will willingly take on the small risk of federal sanctions if they know the state will not interfere. This increases when the state actively encourages “the market.”

Less restrictive food laws almost certainly have a similar impact on FDA regulation. They make it that much more difficult for the feds to enforce their will within the state.

While FDA apologists claim the agency only wants to protect consumers, in truth, federal regulations tend to benefit big companies and squeeze out family farms. In the name of safety, FDA regulations limit your ability to access local, fresh food.

For example, the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 mandates meat must be slaughtered and processed at a federally inspected slaughterhouse, or one inspected in a state with meat inspection laws at least as strict as federal requirements. Small slaughterhouses cannot meet the requirements.

As a result, the meat processing industry went through massive consolidation. Since the passage of the act, the number of slaughterhouses dropped from more than 10,000 to less than 3,000. Today, instead of hundreds of companies processing meat, three corporations control virtually the entire industry.

This does not promote food safety. In fact, by concentrating meat processing in a few facilities, the likelihood of widespread contamination increases. A single sick cow can infect thousands of pounds of beef in one of these corporate slaughterhouses. In a more diversified, decentralized system, outbreaks generally remain limited to small regions. You never saw these nationwide recalls in the era of diversified meat processing.

The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) “directs FDA to build an integrated national food safety system in partnership with state and local authorities explicitly recognizing that all food safety agencies need to work in integrated ways to achieve public health goals.”

Essentially, this means dictating state food laws.

Constitutionally, food safety falls within the powers reserved to the states and the people. The feds have no authority to enforce food safety laws within the borders of a state.

Food freedom laws undermine these federal regulatory schemes. Widespread adoption of food freedom, along with state and local refusal to enforce federal mandates, could make FDA regulations virtually impossible to enforce and nullify them in effect and practice.

[…]

Via https://healthimpactnews.com/2023/wyoming-law-expands-food-freedom-act-opens-market-to-small-egg-and-dairy-producers/

Big Tech Ramping Up Censorship of Climate ‘Solutions’ Debate

By W. Aaron Vandiver

Social media “climate misinformation” policies are targeting a wide range of people on both the Right and Left who dispute official narratives about climate “solutions” preferred by the government and its powerful corporate backers.

In May, LinkedIn suspended the account of Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy after he posted several climate-related campaign messages.

In one message, Ramaswamy asserted that “fossil fuels are a requirement for human prosperity,” and in another, he wrote that if adherents of the “climate religion” really cared about the climate “they’d be worried about, say, shifting oil production to places like the U.S. and China.”

“Big Tech election interference has begun,” Ramaswamy said.

LinkedIn (owned by Microsoft) backtracked under pressure and reinstated his account. But the episode highlighted the ways in which social media companies are expanding their “content moderation” of “climate misinformation” — with potentially far-reaching consequences across the political spectrum.

In another incursion into the presidential race, YouTube attached a “Context” note to a June 5 interview of Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in which he discussed his views about climate change with Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson.

YouTube’s “Context” note included a definition of climate change from the United Nations (U.N.) and linked to a page on the U.N. website. The video is no longer available and now leads to a “Community Guidelines” warning.

In April, TikTok announced:

“We will begin to ramp up enforcement of a new climate change misinformation policy which removes climate change misinformation that undermines well-established scientific consensus, such as content denying the existence of climate change or the factors that contribute to it.”

TikTok’s policy is similar Facebook’s, which over the last several years has censored prominent climate contrarians (often pejoratively referred to as “deniers”) Michael Shellenberger and Bjorn Lomborg.

Like Ramaswamy, Shellenberger and Lomborg disputed aspects of the “scientific consensus” on climate change and argued for the continued use of fossil fuels and the expansion of nuclear energy.

Lomborg has argued that “partisan ‘fact-checking’ pushes alarmist climate narratives.” Yet there are counterexamples of people being censored on social media because they are raising the alarm about climate change and environmental degradation more loudly than representatives of the “scientific consensus.”

Social media companies, under pressure from government authorities, have been applying their climate misinformation policies not only against people who express doubt about climate change itself but also against a wide range of people who question the climate “solutions” promoted by the government and its powerful corporate backers.

This includes many people who do not fall into the “denier” camp at all.

The large corporations, government entities and political interests that have claimed the power to censor social media are using this power to manipulate the climate debate toward their preferred “solutions” and to denigrate alternative perspectives and approaches.

From censoring ‘denial’ to censoring debate about ‘solutions’

“Now it’s not so much denying the problem,” President Biden’s first National Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy said in an interview last year with Axios for its virtual event, “The Infodemic Age.” “What they [spreaders of alleged misinformation] are really targeting is our inability to accelerate the answers to climate. The technologies we need moving forward. That is equally dangerous to denial because we have to move fast.”

[…]

“We have to get tighter” with the enforcement of climate misinformation policy against people who cast doubt on these technologies and “solutions,” she said. “We need the tech companies to really jump in.”

To “get tighter,” the government has been working with tech companies and organizations in the “Censorship-Industrial Complex” that act as third-party “fact-checkers” for social media — TikTok calls them “Safety partners.”

Together, they have been shifting their focus from censorship of outright climate “denial” to censorship of debate and discussion about clean energy technologies and other climate “solutions,” as McCarthy described.

The U.N. climate webpage that YouTube attached to the Peterson-Kennedy interview in its “Community” note, for example, says, “We face a huge challenge but already know many solutions.”

The fact is, however, that many people from various points of view have problems with the mainstream “consensus” about clean energy and other touted climate “solutions.” There is a great deal of controversy about whether these “solutions” actually work — and who benefits from them and who bears the costs.

[…]

Censoring a wide range of critics, including environmentalists 

A wide range of people are now getting caught in the digital net of “climate misinformation” censorship, including some environmentalists.

The following groups are among those experiencing social media censorship due to their criticism of officially sanctioned climate “solutions” and because of their advocacy for alternative approaches to climate and environmental issues.

Local citizens, conservationists and environmental activists opposed to ‘clean’ energy projects.

The massive $3 trillion dollar push for solar and wind energy across the U.S. is causing a backlash in some communities where local citizens are unhappy with the immediate environmental impacts.

The backlash against clean energy also is growing among some who say these giant industrial development projects are being built to the detriment of biodiversity, wildlife habitat and healthy ecosystems.

In December 2022, YouTube “permanently” deleted — without warning or notice of suspension — the channel of the group Protect Thacker Pass, which opposes the development of a large lithium mine in Nevada. Three days later YouTube restored the channel, without explanation.

Small conservation groups like Basin & Range Watch, a nonprofit that seeks to protect the deserts of Nevada and California from industrial development, including wind and solar, reported that they were accused of being spreaders of “misinformation” by proponents of these energy projects.

Citizens and local environmental activists who oppose offshore wind energy development in the New York-New Jersey area due to the potential impacts on whales and the ocean environment have been subjected to online censorship by Facebook and Instagram.

This censorship was coordinated by the third-party “fact-checker” PolitiFact, operated by The Poynter Institute — one of the “Top 50” members of the Censorship-Industrial Complex.

[…]

‘Doomers’ and environmentalists who advocate for systemic change.

A subset of climate activists believes that no officially sanctioned “solutions” are capable of stopping climate change or bringing an end to environmental degradation. These people are pejoratively referred to as “Doomers” (some of them prefer the tongue-in-cheek label, “Doomsters”).

In recent years, the press, climate scientists and mainstream climate activists have taken to bashing “Doomers” with the same gust they attack “Deniers.” A typical headline in The Washington Post reads, “Why climate ‘doomers’ are replacing climate ‘deniers.’”

In 2020, the Facebook group “Positive Deep Adaptation” received a warning about an article it shared, written by the award-winning novelist Jonathan Franzen in the New Yorker: “What if We Stopped Pretending? The climate apocalypse is coming. To prepare for it, we need to admit that we can’t prevent it.”

Facebook’s warning relied on a “fact-check” by the site, Climate Feedback.

And in April of this year, Facebook censored a post by Jem Bendell, a professor of sustainability at the University of Cumbria in Carlisle, England, who had attempted to share an interview British GQ conducted with him.

In the interview, Bendell discussed his view that mainstream climate policies are simply not working, and his belief that catastrophic disruptions to industrial consumer societies will occur due to climate change combined with other environmental, economic and social factors.

[…]

Similarly, in May, TikTok took down a video by “climate corruption” journalist Rachel Donald, labeling it “misinformation.” In the video, Donald, who writes the climate newsletter Planet Critical, said, “It’s the economy. It’s the economy driving the climate crisis. It’s how we’ve organized ourselves. It’s exploitation and extractivism and all this kind of stuff.”

TikTok did not offer a specific reason for labeling the video “misinformation.” But the video’s message — “It’s the economy driving the climate crisis” — conflicts with the U.S. government narratives about “green” growth.

[…]

Farmers.

When it comes to food and agriculture, the climate movement is dominated by “ecomodernists” who believe genetically modified plants, factory-made foods, synthetic meats and other industrial food technologies are “solutions” to climate change.

A smaller contingent of environmentalists believe we need small-scale farms using regenerative and agroecological methods, instead of more industrial food technologies. This contingent, and the populist small-farmer movement they are aligned with, have come under the scrutiny of the “climate misinformation” censors.

Protests by Dutch farmers galvanized worldwide opposition to onerous environmental policies that may end in the expropriation of thousands of farmers’ land. Dutch farmers received the support of some prominent ecological activists, like Dr. Vandana Shiva, who believe in the small-farm approach.

Yet the popular media, famous environmentalists like George Monbiot, and “fact-checking” organizations portray the Dutch farmer protests as a “far-right” movement that spreads conspiracy theories and misinformation.

Small farmers around the world who dispute the notion that their pasture-raised, grass-fed cattle are a significant cause of climate change have been censored by Facebook.

In one example, farmers posted memes stating that “cows are not the problem” compared to the private-jet lifestyles of billionaire elites like Bill Gates. Facebook attached a “fact-check” to these memes: “Debunked: Yes, cows are a ‘problem’ when it comes to cutting greenhouse-gas emissions.”

This example illustrates how the process of “fact-checking” a subjective political debate — are cows or private jets “the problem”? — benefits the elites who fund the “fact-checking” organizations.

“Fact-checkers” give credence to ecomodernist “solutions” pushed by billionaires like Gates, who funds several of the biggest organizations in the Censorship-Industrial Complex. Replacing cattle with synthetic beef and industrially produced “plant-based” foods — lines of business Gates is invested in — are treated as promising “solutions.”

Populist counter proposals — eliminating private jets or giving small farmers resources to transition to more ecologically friendly methods — are not taken seriously by the “fact-checkers.”

This is so, even though a compelling argument can be made that small farmers are better able than large industrial producers to feed the world using regenerative, agroecological methods.

The “fact-checkers” make no distinction between industrially raised cattle and those raised by small farmers using more holistic grazing methods. All are lumped together, even though this makes little ecological sense.

[…]

Censorship of debate prevents alternative approaches from emerging

The power to censor, which was originally justified as being necessary to silence those who “denied” the existence of climate change, is increasingly being used to silence people who disagree with official climate “solutions.”

As long as disagreement is labeled “misinformation,” democratic debate is impossible.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/big-tech-censorship-climate-misinformation/

Latest Covid Statistics from New Zealand

By Alice Springs to Mind

Around 600 New Zealanders die each week. This week 23 of those c.600 had a positive covid test result within 28 days prior to their death.

Of the Covid positive test results reported this week, the demographics were as follows:

Of the Covid positive deaths this week, the demographics were as follows:

See more at SpiderCat.co.nz.

New Zealand is experiencing unprecedented excess all-cause mortality. Data across the world shows this is associated with increasing doses of Covid-19 injectables.

[…]

Via https://alicespringstomind.com/2023/07/03/latest-covid-statistics-from-nz/