Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 403

RFK Jr Calls Central Bank Digital Currencies “Instruments of Control and Oppression”

By Ken Macon

Reclaim the Net

The New York Post, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a Democratic Party presidential candidate, took a deep dive into the topic of currency. He unfolded his candid views on Bitcoin, expressed trepidations over central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), and rang the bell of caution around artificial intelligence (AI).

Kennedy plans to “support Bitcoin and the freedom to transact,” and enable individuals to wield command over “Bitcoin wallets, nodes, and passwords.” In his world, regulatory fetters would be whittled down to the bare essentials to curb money laundering.

Kennedy also locked horns with Biden’s proposed crypto tax, a formidable 30%, and sounded the alarm against CBDCs.

His argument on CBDCs was clear-cut – CBDCs, in his estimation, are “instruments of control and oppression, and are certain to be abused.” He’s not alone in this battle-cry; his rival from the Republican stables, Ron DeSantis, shares a kindred spirit.

His disquiet was not merely consigned to the domain of cryptocurrency; artificial intelligence was equally ensnared in his critical lens. Kennedy called for the global harnessing of AI, citing figures like Elon Musk, whose advocacy for free speech he commended. The omens, as he foresees, are grave – where AI’s formidable might could “control narratives, create illusions, surveil our activities to dictate our behaviors and enforce compliance, and ultimately enslave humanity.”

[…]

Via https://reclaimthenet.org/robert-f-kennedy-jr-calls-cbdcs-instruments-of-control

Trump’s 2024 lead widens after latest indictment

© Getty Images / Drew Angerer

RT

The former US president has pulled further ahead of his Republican rivals since being charged by the Department of Justice

Donald Trump’s lead over his nearest Republican opponent for the party’s 2024 presidential nomination has nearly doubled since the former US president was indicted on federal charges earlier this month, a new poll has shown.

The NBC News survey, released on Sunday, shows that Trump is the first choice for 51% of Republican primary voters, compared with 22% for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and 7% for former vice president Mike Pence. Trump’s 29-point lead over DeSantis compares with a 15-point margin when the same poll was done in April.

Pollsters began the latest survey on June 16, a week after the ex-president was charged with 37 felonies by a US Department of Justice (DOJ) special prosecutor over his alleged mishandling of classified documents. Trump has tried to turn the case to his political advantage, just as he did after a New York City prosecutor charged him in April for allegedly falsifying business records.

“Every time the radical-left Democrats, Marxists, communists and fascists indict me, I consider it a great badge of courage,” Trump told supporters on Saturday at a Christian voter conference in Washington. “I’m being indicted for you, and I believe the ‘you’ is more than 200 million people that love our country.”

A Harvard CAPS-Harris poll released earlier this month showed that Trump leads incumbent President Joe Biden by a margin of 45% to 39% in a hypothetical 2024 rematch of their 2020 race. An Emerson College poll released on Thursday found that a third-party candidate, such as philosopher and activist Cornel West, would draw support away from Biden, giving Trump an advantage.

Results of the NBC News survey suggest that the federal indictment has made Trump even more politically polarizing. While 21% of respondents said they have a “very positive” view of him, up from 17% in April, 49% gave a “very negative” assessment, up from 44% previously.

Just 20% of US voters believe the nation is on the “right track” under Biden, down from 23% in January. At the same point in Trump’s presidency, the number was 33%. Just 18% of voters have a “very positive” view of Biden, down from 29% in the early days of his presidency, the poll showed.

The current and former vice presidents, Kamala Harris and Mike Pence, have even lower favorability ratings. Only 11% of voters have a “very positive” view of Harris, while Pence’s rate is even worse, at 3%. DeSantis went from a 19% “very positive” rate in September 2022 to 14% this month.

Voters also give low marks to the DOJ, with 14% rating the department very positively, down from 18% in the most recent reading before Trump’s indictment.

[…]

Via https://swentr.site/news/578690-trump-widens-lead-after-indictment/

Europe Does About-Face On Transgender Therapy For Children

AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File

Zero Hedge

While the American healthcare industry is happy to give confused children puberty blockers and lop off various offending body parts, the European medical community is having second thoughts.

According to the Wall Street Journal, five countries – the U.K., Sweden, Finland, Norway and France – are now cautioning doctors to exercise caution in their treatment of minors, citing a lack of evidence that the benefits of transgender therapy outweigh the risks.

Earlier this month, the UK’s National Health Services restricted the use of puberty blockers to clinical trials, effectively banning their use in children.

“These countries have done systematic reviews of evidence,” said transgender care researcher Leor Sapir at the right-leaning Manhattan Institute think tank. “They’ve found that the studies cited to support these medical interventions are too unreliable, and the risks are too serious.”

American politicians have taken notice

“It’s beneficial to see European countries coming to their senses,” said Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) in an interview, referring to the UK’s systematic evidentiary reviews of puberty blockers. According to the report, Republicans plan to make transgender-care issues part of their 2024 election platform.

“This is the issue of our time. This is a hill we’re gonna die on,” said Crenshaw.

Democrat witness can’t name ONE study that shows how transgender procedures are beneficial for kids

https://t.co/LwC3sdmdij

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) June 14, 2023

Democrats, meanwhile, say Republicans are simply scoring cheap political points.

“They are telling parents that Republican politicians know better than they do what is best for their child,” said Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), echoing comments made by former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R).

According to a poll taken late last year and published in May by the Washington Post and KFF, 68% of respondents oppose the use of puberty blockers in children aged 10-14. Since then, over a dozen GOP-run states have restricted medical interventions as part of transgender care – including Texas, which will yank a doctor’s license for providing puberty blockers, surgeries or hormone treatments to most transgender minors.

The U.S. medical community hasn’t wavered in its support for medical interventions and continues to recommend puberty blockers and hormones for minors as a clinical option. Unlike the concerns expressed by many authorities in Europe, U.S. medical associations often treat the science behind such medical interventions as settled.

Last week, delegates at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association endorsed a resolution—co-sponsored by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology and others—that reiterated support for access to medical interventions, saying that GOP claims about transgender care “do not reflect the research landscape.” -WSJ

On the other hand, blue states such as New York have issued guidance allowing teachers to keep a child’s gender transition a secret from their parents. According to the guidance, some students “have not talked to their families about their gender identity because of safety concerns or lack of acceptance and may begin their transition at school without parent/guardian knowledge.”

Of course, this is a big business we’re talking about, so we’ll see how this plays out.

THESE PRIVATE EQUITY PITCH DECKS ARE GETING OUT OF CONTROL. pic.twitter.com/mWGcDgFa7M

— INVESTMENT HULK (@INVESTMENTSHULK) June 19, 2023

[…]

Via https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/europe-does-about-face-transgender-therapy-children

 

 

Drug Use for Grown-Ups

Drug Use for Grown-Ups

Dr Carl L Hart

Penguin Putnam (2021)

Book Review

Hart, an African American psychology professor at Columbia University, has spent decades researching the effect of illicit drugs on a broad cross-section of users and non-users. Based on this research, he makes a compelling case that all illicit drugs are more beneficial than harmful and should be legalized. In his studies (of cannabis, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and psilocybin), small doses of each consistently produced feelings of altruism, empathy, focus and tranquility in nearly all his subjects. They also reported a feeling a greater sense of purpose and meaning and improved sexual intimacy and performance.*

At the same time, Hart cautions that recreational drugs are likely to produce unwanted effects in people with psychiatric illness or in acute crisis. Likewise he also recommends using recreational drugs (and alcohol) in a responsible “adult” way that doesn’t interfere with family, work and social responsibilities.

According to Hart, the US has a long proud history of using opium, cocaine and cannabis and for medical conditions. Jefferson was avid long term drug user for both medicinal and mind altering purposes. Freud was a heavy cocaine user. In the US, the main opioid (opium or morphine) users were middle aged white women, with few adverse effects. Cocaine use was actively encouraged among (Black and white) laborers because it increased their productivity.

Since Nixon first declared a War on Drugs in 1971, its budget has increased from 1.5 to 35 billion, illicit drugs remain as plentiful as ever and the US prison population has grown to over two billion. In 2021 when the book was published, 32 million Americans reported using at least one drug in the past month. Owing to differential police enforcement, the vast majority of people incarcerated for drug possession are Black or Hispanic, while the vast majority of drug users (and dealers) are white.

Marijuana

Extensive research suggests marijuana is beneficial for AIDS wasting syndrome, neuropathic pain, chronic main and spasticity due to multiple sclerosis, Thirty-two states have legalized its use for specific medical conditions. At the same, there is no reliable evidence that it causes brain damage, that  it’s a gateway drug to more dangerous drug or impairs reasoning or abstracting thinking (as is frequently claimed).

Cocaine and Crack

Cocaine, the origin of modern lidocaine, was the the first local anesthetic During the 1986-88 crack cocaine hysteria, the majority of crack users were white and for the most part they were offered treatment. Black people who used it were arrested and given five-year sentences.

Opiates

Opiates have long been used medically for treatment of pain. Heroin can be lifesaving n regions with endemic dysentery. Only 1/4 of opioid-related overdose involve a single drug. In 3/4 of case, the opium is contaminated and/or combined with a downers, such as alcohol, a tranquilizer or antihistamine. Fentanyl overdoses are common because naive street users underestimate how potent it is compared to heroin. Hart strongly advocates for free drug safety testing (widely available outside the US), which allows users to ascertain whether their street heroin has dangerous contaminants. The severity of opiate withdrawal (which unlike alcohol withdrawal is almost never fatal) has been grossly exaggerated.

Amphetamine

Contrary to common propaganda, there’s no reliable peer reviewed evidence that amphetamines cause brain damage.

Psychodelics

Hart is highly critical of wealthy “psychonauts” who advocate for legalization of psychodelics (ie their drug of choice). He decries the myth of PCP causing superhuman strength in black males (which is totally unsupported by research), which police sometimes use an excuse to gun down black males. He also advocates for more research into the use of ketamine, psilocybin and LSD microdosing in depression.

In my view, Hart argues very persuasively for the legalization (which would end prosecution of drug dealers). Portugal and Brazil have decriminalized all recreational drugs. However their continued prosecution of drug dealers continues to result in mass incarceration of poor minority populations.

*Hart tried each of these drugs himself and had a similar reaction. He also deliberately put himself through heroin withdrawal, which was fairly benign except for excruciating abdominal pain, which he eventually relieved by snorting 0.5 mg of the sleeping medication triazolam (Halcion). At present he uses heroin (snorting) or alcohol occasionally, finding both protective against the negative health consequences of “negotiating pathology producing environments.” He reports heroin as being particularly helpful in warding off the flu or other respiratory infections.

A Comprehensive Critique Of Net Zero Fantasies

Francis Menton Manhattan Contrarian

As yet another example of a bureaucracy gone completely nuts, consider the International Energy Agency. IEA started out in the 1970s as a consortium of Western nations organized to counteract the oil price shocks imposed by OPEC in those years. That seemed reasonable enough. But somewhere along the line, gradually, the mission, let us say, evolved. Today, IEA is fairly described as a center of advocacy for elimination of fossil fuels from the world’s energy supply.

In May 2021 IEA published a big Report with the title “Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector.” You might get the impression from the title and some of the text that this could be just a few helpful “how to” tips on reducing emissions. But you don’t need to get too far into the document to figure out that it’s really another one of those crazed demands for immediate desperate action to save the planet from impending doom — the difference being that this one is directly funded by essentially every major Western government. From the Foreword:

We are approaching a decisive moment for international efforts to tackle the climate crisis – a great challenge of our times. The number of countries that have pledged to reach net‐zero emissions by mid‐century or soon after continues to grow, but so do global greenhouse gas emissions. This gap between rhetoric and action needs to close if we are to have a fighting chance of reaching net zero by 2050 and limiting the rise in global temperatures to 1.5 °C. Doing so requires nothing short of a total transformation of the energy systems that underpin our economies.

Now, two years later, along comes a serious group with a comprehensive critique of the IEA’s Report. The critical group is the Energy Policy Research Foundation, which has been funded in this project by the Real Clear Foundation (the people behind Real Clear Politics). The EPRF has produced its own Report, with a date of June 2023, titled “A Critical Assessment of the IEA’s Net Zero Scenario, ESG, and the Cessation of Investment in New Oil and Gas Fields.” This Report is 75 pages long, and well worth a look. The lead author is named Batt Odgerel; and the editor is Rupert Darwall.

The main themes of this EPRF Report are much in line with some oft-repeated mantras from this website: ignorant bureaucrats, this time from IEA, are seeking to force transformation of a highly complex energy supply system, with no idea of what the replacement will be, whether it will work, or how much it will cost. My only real criticism of this EPRF Report is that the authors adopt a serious and high-minded tone, rather than the scorn and ridicule that would be more appropriate for a critique of IEA’s incompetent and amateurish efforts.

But with that, I’ll select a few choice quotes. Key excerpt from the Foreword:

The Energy Policy Research Foundation’s analysis conclusively demonstrates that the IEA’s assumptions are unrealistic, internally inconsistent, and often support the case for increased hydrocarbon fuel production. The whole of the IEA net zero roadmap pivots on the assumption that the plunging cost of wind and solar will destroy demand for oil and gas. If that does not hold, the whole roadmap goes up in smoke. But as this report shows, the IEA’s own analysis contradicts its assumption on the economic superiority of renewable energy. In reality, the IEA’s “net zero roadmap” is a green mirage that will dramatically increase energy costs, devastate Western economies, and increase human suffering. As such, investment managers and banks that use other people’s money to advance this anti-investment agenda are violating their fiduciary obligation to maximize returns for retirees, investors, and shareholders.

I would only add to that that if the IEA were right that “plunging cost of wind and solar will destroy demand for oil and gas,” then there would obviously be no need or reason for a government-forced energy transition. It would happen on its own via private investment.

Here from the EPRF Report is the status on how the so-called “energy transition” is going, about 20 years into the crash program of governments to transform the energy economy:

According to BloombergNEF, over US$6.5 trillion (nominal) has been invested worldwide in the energy transition (excluding investment in power grids) between 2004 and 2022, but the share of non-hydro renewables was just 6.7% of total global primary energy consumption in 2021.

And here’s the accompanying chart:

IEA seems to think that electric vehicles will save the world because they have “zero emissions” and their costs will rapidly plunge. Here is a chart from the EPRF Report on costs of the main materials for EV batteries (which are the main component of an EV):

And as to EVs being “zero emissions”:

China leads the world in EV sales and manufacturing, but it also consumes a large amount of coal. In 2020, coal accounted for 60.6% of China’s primary energy demand and 63.3% of its electricity production, meaning that EVs powered by electricity generated in China indirectly emit substantial GHG emissions.

And finally, there’s the small problem that much or most of the technology assumed by IEA in its net zero transition scenarios either has not been demonstrated at scale or, more often, hasn’t even been invented yet:

“Energy Technology Perspectives 2023” (ETP-2023), one of the IEA’s flagship reports, acknowledges that “getting to net zero is not possible without more innovation”. According to the report, under the NZE scenario, about 50% of all emissions reductions in 2050 come from technologies that are at prototype or demonstration stages today.

There’s much, much more in this Report should you have the time and inclination. Anyway, many thanks to EPRF and the Real Clear Foundation for putting in some effort to expose the ridiculousness of the campaign to force an end to fossil fuels before anyone has a clue what is going to replace them.

[…]

Via https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2023-6-22-a-comprehensive-critique-of-net-zero-fantasies

CANADA’s Military Members Sue Bosses Over Covid Mandates

(The Canadian Press/Jeff McIntosh)

By Matthew Horwood

June 23, 2023Updated: June 23, 2023

EXCLUSIVE: Over 300 CAF Members Launch $500 Million Lawsuit Against Military for COVID Vaccine Mandates

Around 330 active or former members of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) who say they were harmed by COVID-19 vaccine mandates have filed a class-action lawsuit against high-ranking members of the Canadian military, asking for some $500 million in damages.

“The CAF shirked its own purpose and rushed an untested product onto its members, mislabeled this experimental gene therapy a ‘vaccine,’ knowingly made false statements of safety and efficacy, and facilitated its mandate with no option to refuse except for mandatory permanent removal from service,” reads the statement of claim filed with the Federal Court on June 21.

“The actions of the CAF and CDS [Chief of the Defence Staff] has resulted in injury to the Plaintiffs, who have consistently worked to prevent this abuse of power from occurring and to protect the members and their families who are experiencing coercion, discrimination, and threat of loss of career and benefits in all instances.”

https://19ffd5b95edd7f3f11a48679aa85bc19.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-40/html/container.html

The lawsuit was filed against Chief of the Defence Staff General Wayne Eyre, Vice Chief of the Defence Staff Lieutenant-General Frances Allen, Minister of National Defence Anita Anand, former deputy minister of national defence Jody Thomas, and others.

In the fall of 2021, the CAF imposed a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, with non-compliance subsequently leading to the loss of hundreds of members. They left through either voluntary release or expulsion under code 5(f), “unsuitable for further service,” a dishonourable discharge reserved for soldiers with “personal weaknesses” or other issues deemed to impose an excessive burden on the CAF.

The CAF lightened the vaccine mandate in October 2022 by removing COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of service, but it kept in place a mandatory primary series of injections for numerous operational roles.

Orders

The lawsuit claims that the CAF abused its power by ignoring express legislative limits on its actions, allowing the physical and/or psychological torture of unvaccinated members under the command of CAF-commissioned officers, ignoring established law on the right to privacy and the right to choose medical treatment, and ignoring established law on informed consent and regarding religious and spiritual belief.

Other alleged abuses listed include deliberately failing to ensure officers were fully and correctly briefed on all legal and policy issues related to vaccine mandates and deliberately misusing the grievance system to indefinitely delay or stop relief sought by the members.

The lawsuit states that the CAF focused on “political agendas and taking direction from political leaders that is detrimental to operational readiness and effectiveness” when it implemented the COVID-19 vaccine mandates. It said the CAF gave the plaintiffs no way to meet the mandate by writing the directives in a way that blocked any possible means of complying with them.

The statement of the claim adds the allegation that the CDS used administrative measures to punish those who refused or could not comply, instead of following the legal process under the National Defence Act that would allow members to have their cases heard in independent hearings.

In addition, it said the CDS had full control over the grievance process, which meant members were denied fundamental justice.

Further, the lawsuit said Eyre stated he received orders from the government of Canada (GC) to enforce the vaccine mandate, which the statement of claim argues is unlawful.

The lawsuit says members faced severe consequences, including loss of career and loss of employment opportunities outside the CAF, along with loss of income, retirement pension, benefits, travel, and even basic participation in work or public life as a result of non-compliance with the vaccine mandates.

Moreover, the lawsuit says coercive actions were allegedly taken by commanding officers to force compliance. Examples given in the lawsuit include “forcing members to spend unnecessary extended periods of time outside in extreme winter conditions with no shelter or protection as well as forcibly confining members to small, cramped spaces with no respite for meals or personal hygiene needs.”

Daniel Le Bouthillier, head of media relations for the Department of National Defence, said that as a matter of process, “we do not comment on potential legal actions of this nature.”

Charter Rights

The lawsuit also alleged that the CAF vaccine directives violated the plaintiffs’ rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It said the CAF breached Section 2(a) by violating their freedom of conscience and religion, Section 2(d) by violating their right to associate in collective action and achieve workplace goals, Section 7 by infringing upon their right to liberty and security of the person, Section 8 by violating their right to privacy, and Section 15 by violating their right to equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination.

The plaintiffs also argued that the requirement to disclose private medical information intruded upon their private affairs, and that a “reasonable person would regard this intrusion as highly offensive and causative of distress, humiliation and/or anguish.”

On May 30, an independent military administrative tribunal found that the CAF’s vaccine mandate violated the Section 7 charter rights of members who refused vaccination.

“I conclude that the limitation of the grievors’ right to liberty and security of the person by the CAF vaccination policy is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice because the policy, in some aspects, is arbitrary, overly broad and disproportionate,” wrote Nina Frid of the Military Grievances External Review Committee.

Alberta-based lawyer Catherine Christensen of Valour Law, which specializes in military law, filed the class-action lawsuit on behalf of the CAF members. She said the lawsuit amounts to approximately $1,000,000 for each of the plaintiffs plus “extensive other damages. Essentially, a lawsuit for about $500,000,000.”

The plaintiffs are the “tip of the spear in making the CAF and GC accountable for the past 3 years of tyranny,” she told The Epoch Times via email on June 23.

“The CDS issued an unlawful order that cost thousands of our dedicated military members to lose their careers,” she said. “He must now answer to the Court for his actions.”

Via https://peckford42.wordpress.com/2023/06/24/canadas-military-members-take-legal-action-against-their-bosses/

Private Jets Keep Green Light As WEF Pushes To Remove 75% Of All Cars In Just 27 Years

The Central Europe News here reports on how the WEF wants to reduce the global car fleet by 75% while WEF members crank up their private jet flights.

 

Chart: Greenpeace Switzerland

By P Gosselin

NoTricksZone

Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum (WEF) is calling for a reduction of private motor vehicles to a quarter of the current level. Of course, no reduction in private jets is envisaged.

Last month, the World Economic Forum (WEF) published a new paper dedicated to the future of mobility on earth.

The document would not be worth paying much attention to if it were not hidden in the small print what concrete goals the WEF is striving for. It points out, for example, that by 2050 more than two thirds of the world’s population will live in cities. To achieve the climate goals of the Paris Agreement, the report therefore recommends “electrification, public transport and shared mobility”.

75% fewer cars in just a single generation

On page 4 of the document, the WEF’s demand here reads in figures: “Reduce the vehicle fleet from potentially 2.1 billion to 0.5 billion.” That would be a radical regression within less than 30 years.

How such an extremely rapid change in societal transport systems and habitual individual mobility and consumption patterns can be implemented currently remains unclear to the public. Those “elites” who themselves thus fly around in private jets now want to take away your car and want to eliminate more than three quarters of motor vehicles from the roads within the next 27 years.

The WEF globalists’ briefing paper shows that they are obviously aware that they will not be able to cope with the expected traffic volume by 2050 with electrification. Where would the resources for the batteries come from and how do you want to produce so much electricity, even from “green” sources? There must therefore be a complete overhaul of private, individual mobility along with ’15-minute cities’.

15-minute ghettos

A dictatorial climate policy will keeps the broad masses in their own little ghettos while the chosen elites will continue to jet around the globe “to save the climate”. So a transhumanist “brave new world” without real freedom of movement and travel for ordinary people seems to be the future perspective.

[…]

Via https://notrickszone.com/2023/06/24/private-jets-keep-green-light-as-wef-pushes-to-remove-75-of-all-cars-in-just-27-years/

‘F***ing Good for Business’: Blackrock Doesn’t Want Ukraine Conflict to End

AFP 2023 / BRYAN R. SMITH

Ilya Tsukanov

Sputnik International

The hedge fund signed a memorandum of understanding with Ukraine’s government late last year, and indicated it looks forward to having an “advisory role” in the European nation’s “reconstruction.” In January, the Ukrainian president personally thanked BlackRock for its support, saying “everyone can become a big business by working with Ukraine.”

Stretching out the Ukrainian conflict for as long as possible is good for Blackrock, an employee with the asset management giant accidentally blabbed to an undercover reporter.

“Ukraine is good for business. You know that, right?” Blackrock technology recruiter Serge Varlay told a reporter posing as a date in a viral video published by O’Keefe Media Group this week. “We don’t want the conflict to end, we don’t want the conflict to end as a country. The longer this goes on, the weaker Russia is,” he said.

“The Ukrainian economy is tied very largely to the wheat market, [the] global wheat market. This is fantastic if you’re trading. Volatility creates opportunity to make profit. War is really f***ing good for business,” he said, smiling before adding “it’s exciting when s*** goes wrong. Right?”

Giving a hypothetical example, Varlay said if something were to happen to Ukraine’s grain silos, wheat prices would “go mad up,” with trading firms immediately pumping trades “into whoever the wheat suppliers are. Into their stocks. Within an hour or two that stock goes f****ing up and then you sell and you just made, I don’t know, however many mil.”

Asked for his views on why US media has invested so significant to prop up Ukraine in the conflict, Varlay said it’s “because it’s also good for business too. I mean, what’s news?…What does news feed on? They feed on tragedy, they feed on f***ed up events. That’s what people like to watch. So when it happens, it’s good business. More viewers. When nothing’s happening who the f*** watches news? I don’t watch the news.”

Varlay also offered insights into the ins and outs of political power in the US, saying financial institutions like Blackrock and banks actually “run the world” and are in the habit of “buying” politicians. What matters isn’t “who the president is,” but “who’s controlling the wallet of the president,” he said. The Blackrock employee added that the media’s job is not to inform, but to misinform the American public.

As for companies like Blackrock, “they don’t want to be in the news. They don’t want people to talk about them. They don’t want to be anywhere on the radar,” he said, suggesting it was “easier to do things when people aren’t [thinking] about it.”

Later, confronted by O’Keefe Media Group head James O’Keefe in a coffee shop in Brooklyn, New York, to explain his remarks, Varlay backpeddled, stressing he was just a “low-ladder person” in the company, a “nobody,” and eventually fled the café to hide in a nearby police station.

Blackrock is the largest asset management firm in the world, with a total of nearly $9 trillion in assets under management in 2022.

The company has established a major stake in the Ukrainian economy, becoming a major holder of the country’s sovereign debt after the 2014 Maidan coup, and lobbying Kiev to partially-lift a decades-old moratorium on the sale of Ukraine’s fertile farmlan

Via https://sputnikglobe.com/20230623/fing-good-for-business-blackrock-doesnt-want-ukraine-conflict-to-end-1111430875.html

Pfizer Knew About “Sickening” Level of Vaccine Injuries

By  Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.

“Confidential” documents released by BioNTech to the European Medicines Agency reveal tens of thousands of serious adverse events and thousands of deaths among people who received the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine during a time period when the vaccine makers insisted they saw no “safety signals.”

The documents, dated Aug. 18, 2022, and marked “confidential,” show that cumulatively, during the clinical trials and post-marketing period up to June 18, 2022, a total of 4,964,106 adverse events were recorded. The documents included an appendix with further details about the specifics about the identified adverse events.

Among children under age 17, 189 deaths and thousands of serious adverse events were reported.

The documents present data collected between Dec. 19, 2021, and June 18, 2022 (the “PSUR #3 period”), in addition to cumulative data on adverse events and deaths that occurred among those who received the vaccine during clinical trials and during the post-marketing period, beginning December 2020 up until June 18, 2022.

During this time, Pfizer-BioNTech said it identified almost no safety signals and claimed the vaccine demonstrated over 91% “efficacy.”

[…]

According to an analysis by commentator and author Daniel Horowitz, the percentage of adverse events classified as serious was “well above the standard for safety signals usually pegged at 15%,” and women reported adverse events at three times the rate of men.

Sixty percent of cases were reported with either “outcome unknown” or “not recovered,” suggesting many of the injuries “were not transient,” Horowitz said.

The highest number of cases occurred in the 31-50 age group, of which 92% did not have any comorbidities, making it very likely it was the vaccine causing “such widespread, sudden injury.”

There were 3,280 fatalities among vaccine recipients in the combined cumulative period including the clinical trials and post-marketing, up to July 18, 2022.

According to Horowitz, the documents “show that Pfizer knew about a sickening level of injury early on,” yet continued to distribute its COVID-19 vaccine.

The documents are not part of the ongoing court-ordered release of the so-called “Pfizer documents” in the U.S., but according to Horowitz, are pharmacovigilance documents requested by the EMA, the EU’s drug regulator.

The documents were made available to an Austrian science and politics blog, TKP, following “a FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] request from an anonymous reader.” They were subsequently published on March 4. However, once published, no European English-language media outlet appears to have reported on them.

As a result, they remained under the radar until recently, when several independent English-language bloggers discovered and published the documents.

Thousands of pediatric serious adverse events and deaths

The main Pfizer-BioNTech document revealed 9,605 adverse events (3,735 serious) during the PSUR #3 and 25 cases during the clinical trials among children ages 11 and younger. These included 20 fatalities, in children as young as 5 years old.

Causes of these fatalities included dyspnea, cardiac arrest, cardio-respiratory arrest, pyrexia and myocarditis, though “all events were assessed as unrelated” to the vaccine.

In one example listed in the document, an 11-year-old boy died of acute respiratory failure two days after the first dose of the vaccine. In another case, a 6-year-old girl died seven days following her initial dose of complications that included renal impairment, epilepsy, apnea, seizure and “sudden death.”

The document lists another case, that of a 6-year-old boy whose listed causes of death are myocarditis, cardio-respiratory arrest and COVID-19. He died seven days after the first dose of the vaccine, and although autopsy results were “pending,” “the reporter concluded that the death ‘had nothing to do’ with the administration of BNT162b2 [the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine] and was due to natural causes.”

For children ages 12-17, the document listed 21,945 adverse eventss (19,558 serious) in the post-marketing period and 15 cases during clinical trials. A total of 169 deaths were recorded, with listed causes including dyspnea, pyrexia, cardiac arrest, myocarditis, cardiac failure, seizure and shock.

Nevertheless, the document states “No new significant safety information was identified based on the review of the cases reported in the overall paediatric population.”

‘No safety signals’ despites deaths, injuries of pregnant women and newborns

Pregnant and lactating women also were significantly affected. There were 3,642 post-authorization adverse events and 697 clinical trial adverse events in this population, including spontaneous abortion, fetal death, postpartum hemorrhage, premature separation of the placenta, premature labor or delivery, live birth with congenital anomalies and stillbirths.

Nevertheless, the documentation again states, “There were no safety signals regarding use in pregnant/lactating women that emerged from the review of these cases or the medical literature,” despite two key admissions elsewhere in the documentation.

In one instance, the document stated, “The safety profile of the vaccine in pregnant and/or breastfeeding women was not studied in the pivotal clinical trial and the maternal clinical trial was terminated early due to participant recruitment difficulties.”

And in another instance, Pfizer-BioNTech identified the following as “missing information”:

“Use in pregnancy and while breastfeeding; Use in immunocompromised patients; Use in frail patients with co-morbidities … Use in patients with autoimmune or inflammatory disorders; Interaction with other vaccines; Long term safety data.”

Pfizer-BioNTech stated a “commitment” to track “pregnancy outcome[s] in clinical trials.”

Myocarditis and pericarditis deaths among children, young adults

A notable discrepancy appears in terms of reported cases of myocarditis in the clinical trials as compared to the post-marketing period — one myocarditis case (0.15% of all cases) is listed for the clinical trial period, while 5,422 cases (1.1% of all cases) and 5,458 serious events were reported in the PSUR #3 period.

Of these, 87 cases were fatal and 1,608 were listed as “not resolved.” Among children and young adults, 48 cases were reported for those between the ages of 5 and 11 (two deaths), 366 among 12-15-year-olds (three deaths), 345 among 16-17-year-olds and 968 among 18-24-year-olds (four deaths).

In one instance, an 11-year-old girl developed myocarditis two days after her first dose and subsequently died, with the listed causes of death including myocarditis, respiratory failure, acute cardiac failure and cardio-respiratory arrest.

Separately, a 13-year-old boy developed myocarditis five days after his second dose, and subsequently died of myocarditis, cardiac arrest, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, ventricular tachycardia and renal failure.

A 13-year-old girl with no medical history developed myocarditis six days after her first dose and also later died.

In the case of a 19-year-old male who developed myocarditis three days after his third dose and who eventually died, an autopsy “revealed extensive necrosis of the left ventricular myocardium (myocardial necrosis); myocarditis/fulminant myocarditis.”

And a 26-year-old male who also took the flu vaccine developed myocarditis four days after his third dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, and subsequently died. The listed causes of death included myocarditis, arrhythmia, inflammation and left ventricular dysfunction. Autopsy results “showed myocarditis.”

Similarly, while no cases of pericarditis were recorded during the clinical trial, 4,156 were recorded during the PSUR #3 period, including 4,164 serious adverse events and 19 fatalities. This included 30 cases among 5-11-year-olds, 118 cases among 12-15-year-olds, 106 cases among 16-17-year-olds, 479 cases among 18-24-year-olds (and one death), and 417 cases among 25-29-year-olds, again including one death.

In one example, a 22-year-old male developed pericarditis 31 days after his second dose and eventually died of pericarditis and other causes, including multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, pericardial mass, pericardial effusion, malignant pericardial mesothelioma and right ventricular failure.

Numerous other cardiovascular adverse events were recorded, totaling 32,712 cases during the PSUR #3 period (496 fatal) and 27 during the clinical trials (two fatal — with none of the events listed as “related” to vaccination).

Causes of death included in this category include arrhythmia, cardiac failure and acute cardiac failure, cardiogenic shock, coronary artery disease, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and tachycardia.

Nevertheless, “No new significant safety information was identified.”

Many ‘very severe and very rare’ adverse events identified

The 393-page confidential Pfizer document shows that Pfizer observed more than 10,000 categories of diagnosis, many “very severe and very rare,” Horowitz wrote.

These include 73,542 cases of 264 categories of vascular disorders from the shots, many of which “are rare conditions,” hundreds of categories of nervous system disorders, totaling 696,508 cases and 61,518 adverse events from well over 100 categories of eye disorders, “which is unusual for a vaccine injury,” according to Horowitz.

In addition, “there were over 47,000 ear disorders, including almost 16,000 cases of tinnitus,” “roughly 225,000 cases of skin and tissue disorders,” “roughly 190,000 cases of respiratory disorders” and “over 178,000 cases of reproductive or breast disorders, including disorders you wouldn’t expect, such as 506 cases of erectile dysfunction.”

“Over 100,000 blood and lymphatic disorders, for both of which there’s a wealth of literature linking them to the spike protein” were indicated, as well as “almost 127,000 cardiac disorders, running the gamut of about 270 categories of heart damage, including many rare disorders, in addition to myocarditis.”

There were also “3,711 cases of tumors — benign and malignant,” and “there were over 77,000 psychiatric disorders observed.”

[…]

In another example, the “Pharma Files” Substack identified 3,092 neoplasms, noting that ”malignant neoplasms means cancer.”

Pfizer-BioNTech usually identified ‘no safety signal’ despite thousands of deaths

Numerous deaths and serious adverse events were recorded for a wide range of other conditions:

Stroke: 3,091 cases and 3,532 serious adverse events during PSUR #3, including 314 fatalities, and 19 cases during the clinical trial (one death).

The document stated, “Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis … and Cerebrovascular Accident/Stroke were evaluated as signals during the reporting period and were not determined to be risks causally associated with the vaccine … No additional safety signals … have emerged based on the review of these cases.”

Respiratory: 2,199 cases and 1,873 serious adverse events during PSUR #3, including 363 fatalities, and 33 cases during the clinical trial (four deaths). Serious adverse events included cardio-respiratory arrest, pneumonia, respiratory failure, acute respiratory failure, hypoxia and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Yet, “No safety signals have emerged based on the review of these cases.”Bell’s palsy: 733 cases were reported during PSUR #3, in addition to 1,428 cases of facial paralysis. Six cases were fatal, with all victims over age 60. One additional case of Bell’s palsy, in a 75-year-old female from the U.S., was recorded in the clinical trial but was deemed “not related” to her vaccination. Again, “No new significant safety information was identified.”Neurological: 5,111 cases and 4,973 serious adverse events during PSUR #3, including 67 fatalities, and 15 cases during the clinical trial. Once more, “No safety signals have emerged based on the review of these cases.”Immune-mediated/autoimmune adverse events: 11,726 cases and 8,445 serious adverse events during PSUR #3, including 133 fatalities, and 19 cases during the clinical trial. Serious adverse events included thrombocytopenia, interstitial lung disease, cerebral hemorrhage, encephalitis, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, renal failure, pneumonia and pulmonary embolism. Yet, “No new safety signals have emerged.”Multisystem inflammatory syndrome: 207 cases and 210 serious adverse events during PSUR #3, including 56 deaths, with 35 involving the elderly. In addition, 38 cases were reported in children. Nevertheless, “No new safety signals have emerged based on a review of these cases [or] literature.”

Pfizer-BioNTech stated a “commitment” for “closely monitoring multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children and in adults … and reporting of new cases.”

Thromboembolic adverse events: 6,102 cases and 6,724 serious adverse events during PSUR #3, including 265 fatalities, and 17 cases during the clinical trial (one death). Serious adverse events included pulmonary embolism, thrombosis and deep vein thrombosis. Again, “No safety signals have emerged based on the review of these cases.”

Elsewhere in the document, the case of a 14-year-old male who died of peripheral swelling after getting the COVID-19 vaccine was mentioned, with no additional details.

In another example, a 67-year-old male “with a history of diabetes and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura” suffered chest and gastrointestinal discomfort less than 30 minutes after receiving his third dose of the vaccine. A diagnosis of anaphylaxis was made, while an electrocardiogram showed “signs of a myocardial infarction.” He later sustained cardiac arrest and died 12 days following his vaccination.

Moreover, 204 fatalities (and 24,077 cases) of vaccination failure, 81 deaths from “vaccination stress,” 24 deaths (and 1,402 cases) of suspected vaccination failure, two deaths from glomerulonephritis and nephrotic syndrome, two deaths (1,326 cases) from “medication error” and 166 deaths from “other” adverse events — mostly pyrexia — were recorded.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/confidential-eu-documents-deaths-pfizer-biontech-shots/

 

Ivermectin Could Have Saved Millions of Lives, Why Was It Suppressed?

By Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null
Lew Rockwell

In 2004, the US Congress passed an amendment to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act known as Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). This piece of legislature legalized an anti-regulatory pathway to allow experimental medical interventions to be expedited without proper safety evaluation in the event of bioterrorist threats and national health emergencies such as pandemics.

[…]

An EUA cannot be authorized for any product or intervention if there is an FDA approved alternative product already available, unless the experimental product clearly shows to have a significant advantage.

[…]

As we observed during the FDA approval process and roll out of Pfizer’s and Moderna’s mRNA Covid-19 jabs and J&J’s adenovirus vaccine, no long-term human trials were conducted to even estimate a reliable baseline of their relative efficacy and safety.

[…]

Ivermectin was first introduced to the market in the early 1980s as an anti-parasitic drug for veterinary infections. However, its effectiveness was observed to be so remarkable and multifaceted that researchers started to investigate its potential for treating human diseases.  In 1987, the FDA approved ivermectin for treating two parasitic diseases, river blindness and stronglyoidiasis, in humans.

Since then an enormous body of medical research has grown showing ivermectin’s effectiveness for treating other diseases. Its broad range antiviral properties has shown efficacy against many RNA viruses such avian influenza, zika, dengue, HIV, West Nile, yellow fever, chikungunya and earlier severe respiratory coronaviruses. It has also been found effective against DNA viruses such as herpes, polyomavirus, circovirus-2 and others. The drug is capable of modulating a host immune response during viral infections and reduces pro-inflammatory cytokines that contribute to viral tissue damage.

Unsurprisingly, its discovers Drs. William Campbell and Satoshi Omura were awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine. Ivermectin was not a drug simply hidden away in a back closet; rather it has been prescribed to hundreds of millions of people worldwide.

[…]

However, despite all the medical evidence confirming ivermectin’s strong antiviral properties and its impeccable safety record when administered properly, we instead witnessed a sophisticated government-orchestrated campaign to declare war against ivermectin and another antiviral drug, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), in favor of far more expensive and unproven experimental drugs, such as Remdesivir. Unlike the US, other nations were eager to find older drugs to repurpose against Covid-19 to protect their populations.

A Johns Hopkins University analysis offered the theory that a reason why many African countries had very few to near zero Covid-19 fatalities was because of widespread deployment of ivermectin. In February 2020, the National Health Commission of China, for example, was the first to include hydroxychloroquine in its guidelines for treating mild, moderate and severe SARS-2 cases. Why did the US and most European countries under the spell of the US and the WHO fail to follow suit?

 

[…]

Early in the pandemic, physicians in other nations where treatment was less restricted, such as Spain and Italy, were sharing data with American physicians about treatments they found were effective against the SARS-2 virus.

In addition, there was a large corpus of medical research indicating that older drugs with antiviral properties could be repurposed. Doctors who started to prescribe drugs such as ivermectin and HCQ, along with Vitamin D and zinc supplementation, observed remarkable results.  Unlike the dismal recovery and high mortality rates reported in hospitals and large clinics that relied upon strict isolation, quarantine, and ventilator interventions, this small fringe group of physicians reported very few deaths among their patient loads. Even those deaths reported were more often than not compounded by patients’ comorbidities, poor medical facilities and other anomalies.

Very early into the pandemic, medical papers were showing that ivermectin was a highly effective drug to treat SARS-2 infections. In April 2020, less than a month after the WHO declared Covid-19 as a global pandemic, Australian researchers at the Peter Doherty Institute of Infection and Immunity had published their paper “The FDA- approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 virus in vitro.” Monash University’s Biomedicine Discovery Institute in Australia had also published an early study that ivermectin destroyed SARS-2 infected cell cultures by 99.8 percent within 48 hours. But no government health official paid any attention.

[…]

As of June 2023, a database for all reports investigating ivermectin against Covid-19 infections records a total of 209 studies, 161 peer-reviewed, and 98 involving controlled groups reporting an average 67 percent improvement for early infections and an 85 percent average success rate for use as a prophylaxis to prevent Covid-19 symptoms.

Moreover, prescribing ivermectin reduced mortality by 50 percent, compared to Remdesivir’s 12 percent. An Italian study observed a 416 percent increase in hepatocellular injuries among hospitalized Covid-19 patients treated with Remdesivir.  Even the WHO released a “conditional recommendation against the use of remdesivir in hospitalized patients, regardless of disease severity, as there is currently no evidence that remdesivir improves survival and other outcomes in these patients.”

[…]

Regarding Pfizer’s novel Covid-19 drug Paxlovid, the verdict remains open; the company does not permit independent random-controlled trials to investigate its drug. Therefore, we only have Pfizer’s own data to rely upon. Nevertheless, The Lancet published a study by a team of Chinese scientists at Shanghai Jiao Tong School of Medicine that managed to look at Paxlovid’s use among critically ill patients hospitalized with Covid-19. The study reported a 27 percent higher risk of the infection progressing, a 67 percent increased risk in requiring ventilation, and 10 percent longer stays in ICU facilities.

[…]

From the pandemic’s outset, Fauci embarked on the media circuit to promise Americans that federal health agencies were doing everything within their means to get a vaccine on the market because there was no available drug to clear SARS-2 virus infections. As we have seen with respect to ivermectin alone, this was patently false.

[…]

Shortly after the pandemic was formally announced, and with no promising treatment in sight, the FDA recommended HCQ but then quickly reversed its decision in June after Fauci publicly announced the future arrival of Gilead’s novel drug Remdesivir. The FDA’s approval of Remdesivir baffled many scientists, according to the journal Science, who were keeping a close watch on the drug’s clinical reports about a “disproportionally high number of reports of liver and kidney problems”

Similarly the FDA issued a warning statement against the use of ivermectin. Although Merck was ivermectin’s manufacturer, the company discredited its own product.  Shortly after ridiculing its drug, the Alliance for Natural Health reported, “Merck announced positive results from a clinical trial on a new drug called molnupiravir in eliminating the virus in infected patients.” Molnupiravir has a poor efficacy rate across the board including viral clearance, recovery, and hospitalizations/death (68 percent). One trial, funded by Merck, concluded the drug had no clinical benefit. More worrisome, molnupiravir was found to potentially contribute to lethal mutations in RNA viruses. The drug also has life-threatening adverse effects including mutagenic risks to human DNA and mitochondria, carcinogenic activity and embryonic death.

And still the FDA considers these novel patented drugs to be superior to ivermectin.

[…]

The 3-year history of the pandemic highlights a sharp distinction between dependable medical research and pseudoscientific fraud.

We witnessed the CDC adopting a common Soviet era practice to redefine the very definition of a vaccine and the parameters of vaccine efficacy in order to fit their economic and ideological agendas.

This explains Washington’s frequent uninformed decisions and its aggressive public relations endeavors to silence medical opponents.  According to cardiologist Dr. Michael Goodkin’s private investigations, several of the most cited studies discrediting ivermectin’s antiviral benefits were funded by the NIH and Bill Gates and intentionally manipulated in order to produce “fake” results. These studies were widely distributed to the AMA, American College of Physicians and across mainstream media to author “hit pieces” to demonize ivermectin. The government’s belligerent and reactive diatribes, brazenly or casually advocating for censorship, were direct violations of scientific and medical integrity and contributed nothing towards developing constructive policies for handling a pandemic with a minimal cost to life. The consequence has been a less informed and grossly naïve public, which was gaslighted into believing lies.

Now that ivermectin, and to a lesser extent HCQ, have been recognized by more and more physicians as part of a first line defense to prevent and treat SARS-2 infections, we can realize that the FDA’s EUAs for the Covid-19 vaccines and novel experimental drugs were in fact an attack on the amendments and PREP directives.

[…]

Via https://www.lewrockwell.com/2023/06/no_author/ivermectin-could-have-saved-millions-of-lives-why-was-it-suppressed/