Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 425
May 3, 2023
Older adults voice safety, efficacy concerns with COVID boosters as fewer than half take up the shots
There is a belief among older adults that they still have strong protection against COVID-19 from their original shots. (Getty Images)
Jacqueline Renfrow
Fierce Pharma
Older adults are expressing concerns for the bivalent COVID booster shots, according to a recent Health Canal survey.
Despite the recommendation by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for older adults to have new bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer, which were launched last year, so far only 42.4% of that age group have received the booster.
Why? Patients are citing personal health and safety concerns (40.7%) as the top reasons for not getting the booster, according to the survey.
They are also deterred by risks they see as associated with the vaccine and potential side effects (31.1%), while another reason listed for not getting the booster was skepticism about the new formula’s effectiveness, with 27.8% reporting that concern.
There is also a belief that they still have strong protection against COVID-19 (29.4%) and the belief that they have strong protection against severe illness due to COVID-19, with just over 20% of respondents reporting that.
As many as 57.2% of older adults said they are likely to get the booster at some point. Those planning to get the booster said they would get it to protect against the new omicron variant, 88.9%; to protect against severe illness due to COVD-19, 70%; to prevent long-term COVID symptoms, 60.9%; and due to the CDC recommendation, 53.8%.
Currently, 95% of people in the 65-plus demographic in the U.S. have received at least one dose of the original COVID-19 vaccine, according to Health Canal.
Australia Removes Ivermectin Prescribing Restrictions
Removal of prescribing restrictions on ivermectinAustralian Government
Department of Health and Aged Care
Therapeutic Goods Administration
From 1 June 2023, prescribing of oral ivermectin for ‘off-label’ uses will no longer be limited to specialists such as dermatologists, gastroenterologists and infectious diseases specialists.
In its final decision published today, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has removed the restriction through its scheduling in the Poisons Standard because there is sufficient evidence that the safety risks to individuals and public health is low when prescribed by a general practitioner in the current health climate.
[…]
Three more banks see stock trading HALTED, financial sector collapse contagion accelerates
(Natural News) Central banks are buying gold at a record pace in anticipation of fiat currency collapse. Meanwhile, the commercial banking sector is imploding. Just today, three more banks were halted on the stock exchange as their stock prices collapsed.
Those three banks are PacWest Bankcorp, Western Alliance and Metropolitan Bank.
More bank failures are imminent. Fiat currencies are collapsing (by design). The goal of the corrupt establishment is to take out the small and mid-sized banks, and leave just a few giants standing, holding all the assets. JP Morgan, anyone?
Once the small and mid-sized banks are destroyed, the powers that be will initiate the final collapse of the dollar and attempt to force everyone into Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), which will be the final nail in the coffin of human freedom.
Just yesterday, I interviewed Chris Olson, the CEO of Treasure Island, about this very scenario. That interview is featured in today’s hard-hitting Brighteon Broadcast News episode shown below.
[…]
Unraveling the Epstein-Chomsky Relationship
Marvin Minsky, left, and Noam Chomsky, right, converse before the beginning of a panel that was part of MIT’s “Brains, Minds and Machines” symposium in 2011. Source: MIT
Whitney Webb
Recent revelations that the renowned linguist and political activist met with Jeffrey Epstein several times have surprised and confused many. Why was Epstein interested in meeting with Noam Chomsky? And why did Chomsky agree to meet him despite his past? The answer may surprise you.
On Sunday, the Wall Street Journal published a report detailing information contained within a “trove” of previously unreported documents of the deceased sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Those documents, which have not been publicly released and appear to have been passed solely to the Journal, included Epstein’s private calendar and meeting schedules. The documents, per the Journal, contain “thousands of pages of emails and schedules from 2013 to 2017” and – as the report notes – detail Epstein’s dealings with several prominent individuals whose names were not on his flight logs or his infamous “little black book” of contacts. One of these individuals is the renowned linguist, political commentator and critic of capitalism and empire, Noam Chomsky.
Chomsky, who has previously discussed the Epstein case in interviews and who has maintained that Epstein’s ties to intelligence agencies should be considered a “conspiracy theory,” had not previously disclosed these meetings.
[…]
Many, largely on the left, have expressed dismay and confusion as to why someone with the political views of Chomsky would willingly meet, not once but several times, with someone like Jeffrey Epstein, particularly well after Epstein’s notoriety as a sex trafficker and pedophile.
[…]
Why Did Chomsky Meet with Epstein?According to the Journal, Chomsky’s meetings with Epstein took place during the years 2015 and 2016, while Chomsky taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, or MIT. Chomsky told the Journal that he met with Epstein to discuss topics like neuroscience with other academics, like Harvard’s Martin Nowak (who was heavily funded by Epstein). On a separate occasion, Chomsky again met with Epstein alongside former Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, allegedly to discuss “Israel’s policies with regard to Palestinian issues and the international arena.” A separate date saw Chomsky and his wife invited by Epstein to have dinner with him, Woody Allen and Allen’s wife Soon-Yi Previn.
[…]
Before continuing further, it is important to note that aside from Epstein, both Ehud Barak and Woody Allen have been accused of having inappropriate sexual relationships with minors.
[…]
In Woody Allen’s case, he has been accused of sexually assaulting his adopted daughter Dylan Farrow when she was 7 years old. That abuse claim has been corroborated by witnesses and other evidence.
[…]
Allen subsequently “seduced” and later married another adopted daughter of Farrow’s, Soon-Yi Previn, whom Allen first met when Previn was a child.
[…]
In the case of Allen and Epstein, and potentially Barak as well, their sexual proclivities and scandals were well known by the time Chomsky met with these men, making a strong suggestion that this type of behavior was not seen by Chomsky as taboo or as a barrier to socialization.
[…]
Thus, per Epstein, his interest in inviting Chomsky to his house was explicitly related to the “artificial intelligence,” which was a major scientific interest of Epstein’s. This also provides a major clue as to how Chomsky and Epstein might have first been introduced.
Chomsky, Epstein and MITChomsky is most widely viewed as a famous linguist, political commentator and critic of modern capitalism and imperialism. So, why did Epstein seek to meet with him instead on Artificial Intelligence matters?
Well, an admitted “friend” of both Chomsky’s and Epstein’s was the AI pioneer Marvin Minsky. Like Chomsky, Minsky was a long-time professor and academic at MIT.
[…]
Epstein described himself as being “very close” to Minsky, who died in 2016, roughly a year after Epstein began meeting with Chomsky. Epstein also financed some of Minsky’s projects and Minsky, like Ehud Barak, was accused of sexually abusing the minors Epstein trafficked.
[…]Chomsky’s views on linguistics and cognition, for those who don’t know, is based very much on evolutionary biology. Chomsky was also a pioneer in cognitive science, described as “a field aimed at uncovering the mental representations and rules that underlie our perceptual and cognitive abilities.”[…]
Despite their friendship, Minsky greatly diverged with Chomsky in this view, with Minsky describing Chomsky’s views on linguistics and cognition as largely superficial and irrelevant.
[…]
However, given the importance of evolutionary biology and genetics to Chomsky’s theories, it is hardly surprising that Jeffrey Epstein would have gravitated more towards his views on AI than those of Minsky. Epstein was fascinated by genetics and, even per mainstream sources, was also deeply interested eugenics.
[…]
Thus, Epstein’s interest in AI, genetics, and more was tied into his documented obsession with “transhumanism,” which – as several Unlimited Hangout reports have noted – is essentially a rebranding of eugenics. Indeed, the term transhumanism itself was first coined by Julian Huxley, the former president of the British Eugenics Society and the first head of UNESCO who called to make “the unthinkable thinkable again” with regards to eugenics.
[…]
Returning to Chomsky, though he may not have been aware of Epstein’s interests in eugenics and transhumanism, it has since become clear that Epstein’s main interest in Artificial Intelligence – his stated purpose for courting Chomsky – was intimately tied to these controversial disciplines. However, Chomsky did know of Epstein’s past, and likely also knew of Woody Allen’s similar past before meeting him as well. He turned a blind eye on those matters, telling the Journal that Epstein had “served his sentence” and, as a result, had been granted a “clean slate”. In saying this, Chomsky is apparently unaware of Epstein’s controversial “sweetheart deal” that resulted in an extremely lenient sentence and non-prosecution agreement. That “deal” was signed off on by then-US Attorney Alex Acosta because Acosta was told to “back off” Epstein because Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” Chomsky had previously told several people, including an Unlimited Hangout reader, that an Epstein-intelligence agency connection is a “conspiracy theory.”
Given Chomsky’s odd views on Epstein’s past and the fact that Epstein frequently discussed transhumanism and eugenics around other prominent scientists, it is possible, though unproven, that Chomsky may have known more about Epstein’s true interests in AI and genetics.
[…]
Chomsky is just one of several prominent academics and intellectuals who were courted by Epstein in an attempt to supercharge the development of technologies that could help bring his controversial obsessions to fruition. Notably, many of these characters, including Chomsky, have had their work – at one point or another – funded by the U.S. military, which has itself long been a major driver of AI research.
[…]
Chomsky’s own history at MIT brought him into contact with the military. For instance, during the early 1960s, Chomsky received funding from the Air Force, which aimed to program a computer with Chomsky’s insights about grammar in an attempt to endow it “with the ability to recognize instructions imparted to it in perfectly ordinary English, thereby eliminating a necessity for highly specialized languages that intervene between a man and a computer.” Chomsky later stated of the military funding of his early career that “I was in a military lab. If you take a look at my early publications, they all say something about Air Force, Navy, and so on, because I was in a military lab, the Research Lab for Electronics.”
Chomsky has since denied that military funding shaped his linguistics work in any significant way and has claimed that the military is used by the government “as a kind of a funnel by which taxpayer money was being used to create the hi-tech economy of the future.” However, reports have noted that this particular project was very much tied to military applications. In addition, the man who first recruited Chomsky to MIT in the mid-1950s, Jerome Wiesner, went on to be Chomsky’s boss at MIT for over 20 years as well as “America’s most powerful military scientist.”
[…]
To Chomsky’s credit, after this program ended, he became fully, and publicly, committed to anti-war activism. This activism led him, at one point, to consider resigning from MIT, which he declined to do – likely because he was rather quickly granted professorship. As Chris Knight writes, “this meant that instead of resigning, Chomsky’s choice was to launch himself as an outspoken anti-militarist activist even while remaining in one of the US’s most prestigious military labs.”
By staying at MIT, Chomsky chose to maintain his career, in relative proximity to the centers of power he would later become an icon for denouncing. However, it shows that Chomsky, from this time onward, began to make some choices that undermined his radicalism to an extent. Chomsky may have rationalized his decision to stay at MIT in the 1960s because it gave him a better platform from which to espouse his political and anti-war views. It is not unheard of for prominent public figures to make such compromises. However, in light of the recent Epstein revelations and what they appear to signal, it seems that Chomsky, particularly in his later years, may have become too comfortable and too willing to make these types of compromises – ones that a much younger Chomsky would have surely rejected.
[…]
More US Banks Collapse as JPMorgan Chase CEO Consolidates Power – Is this the Next Phase of the Great Reset?
Bill Gates with JPMorgan Chase Bank CEO Jamie Dimon. Image source
by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News
Another blood bath in American banks was seen today in stock market trading, with a “total collapse” of regional banks.
a total collapse in regional banks…
And despite the Biden admin claiming that FRC was just another ‘outlier’ business model, PacWest, Western Alliance, and Zions (among others) are in a freefall…
This follows the collapse of the second largest bank in U.S. history that occurred over this past weekend with First Republic Bank.
On Monday morning, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, who stepped in to purchase the remaining assets of First Republic Bank at bargain rates, announced that the U.S. Banking system is “very, very sound.”
[…]
Pam Martens of Wall Street on Parade, who has extensively covered the multiple felony charges that have been filed against Jamie Dimon over the years since he took over at Chase, published an article this morning explaining how we cannot trust Dimon’s statements that he is “saving” the banking industry, because he is one of the main reasons these smaller banks are failing in the first place.
There are two critical things you need to know about JPMorgan Chase’s Chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon’s ability to stabilize the banking crisis: (1) he’s tried twice and failed both times; (2) his bank is a key financier of hedge funds, some of which are undermining bank stock prices with short selling.
The Financial Times reported on April 5 that “Hedge funds made more than $7bn in profits by betting against bank shares during the recent crisis that rocked the sector, their biggest such haul since the 2008 financial crisis.”
[…]
Is Jamie Dimon Looking to Take Over Big Tech?As mentioned above, Jamie Dimon’s Bank now holds over 10% of America’s deposits, and that percentage will only increase as more and more smaller banks collapse.
Most of these banks that have failed so far have been with banks holding the deposits of venture capitalists and billionaires from Big Tech. Some are now speculating that Dimon is looking to start dominating Silicon Valley, and have a greater influence with Big Tech.
[…]
Analysis: This Could be the Next Step in the “Great Reset” and Digital Control
“JPMorgan has a decades long presence in Silicon Valley, with well-established relationships across the corporate, venture and startup community,” a JPMorgan spokesperson said.
“We welcomed thousands more in recent weeks so they could continue to run their businesses without interruption.…We are committed to the innovation economy and excited about the opportunities to do even more.” (Full article – Subscription needed.)
As things have unfolded here in the first 4 months of 2023, I think I am seeing a pattern now of where this all might be going, and how we might now be at the start of the next phase of the “Great Reset,” and the desire of the Globalists to take digital control over the population as the U.S. economy crashes.
This phase actually began in November of 2022, with the roll-out of Microsoft’s AI ChatGPT. Even though this AI app had many problems and consistently gave wrong or bad information, it quickly became the fastest and most downloaded app of all time, even surpassing TikTok, as hundreds of millions of people downloaded it out of fascination to see what it could do.
The sheer amount of downloads sent panic throughout Big Tech, as everyone was afraid of being left in the dust on this new frenzy that Microsoft had created.
Google panicked the most, because while they had over 90% of all Internet searches, with Microsoft’s Bing a very distant second, here was something that threatened their near monopoly on Internet searches that it has held for decades now.
So they quickly released their own AI chat bot, Bard, and also released it to the public, and it made more mistakes than even Microsoft’s ChatGPT.
Within a very short period of time, Big Tech, which had been crashing since the fallout of FTX in 2022, started investing $BILLIONS into AI chat software. $Billions of investment into something that Microsoft started, by giving it away for free.
I have published several articles now warning people that this quite literally is the largest financial bubble of all time, because money is going out in investments while banks are failing, and little to no revenue is coming back in yet from those investments.
And that is a recipe for disaster, as many others in the financial world also clearly see as a huge risk. Here is one recent article published a couple of days ago on MarketWatch.year to build out more infrastructure to support the higher-performance computing power needed for AI, and hope to reap the rewards later.go to companies like Nvidia Corp. and other hardware makers making data-center infrastructure technologies.
[…]
The entire U.S. stock market is being supported by Big Tech right now, and almost everything being invested in Big Tech revolves around AI, as they bet on the future where at some point those investments will return a profit.
But with the Big Tech banks now failing and all other U.S. banks also doing poorly as credit dries up, who is going to continue funding Big Tech?
And the news just keeps getting worse, as the largest of all Big Tech companies, Apple, is facing huge potential losses based on the trade war with China, according to a report published today.
[…]
Big Tech is in serious trouble, and the entire industry stands at the brink of a total collapse, along with hundreds of regional and small banks, unless they are bailed out.
Who will be left to bailout these banks and Big Tech companies?
Apparently Jamie Dimon, along with his pal Bill Gates, and his pal, Warren Buffet. (See: Who Owns the World Health Organization and Their Plan to Vaccinate and Digitally Track Every Human Being on the Planet?)
What we are probably looking at are a handful of banks and a handful of tech companies that are “Too Big to Fail” and will be bailed out.
These Big Tech companies MUST be bailed out, because the U.S. Government, along with the military and all of their intelligence agencies, have all their data stored in the Cloud with these companies.
[…]
Never mind the fact that ChatGPT cannot be trusted to provide accurate and unbiased information, it is FREE and it works faster! Who can compete with that?
[…]
Just like Jamie Dimon seems to be consolidating the Banking industry by driving smaller banks out of business, so too might Bill Gates and Microsoft be driving smaller Tech companies out of business, to consolidate the Tech industry.
What a perfect scenario that might be unfolding for the Globalists to eventually force everyone to bank at only the banks they choose, and only use the technology products they decide upon, all as part of the Great Reset to convert everyone into the new digital age where everyone will need some kind of digital ID to participate in, with everything about your private or public life digitally tracked and stored.
[…]
May 2, 2023
2 Massachusetts Towns Call Halt to 5G Towers Until FCC Complies With Court Order to Review Science
The residents of two Massachusetts towns on Monday voted to put a hold on 5G cell tower projects until the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) completes a court-ordered review of the latest science related to the effect of radiofrequency (RF) radiation emissions on human health and the environment.
The residents in Sheffield and Great Barrington said they will consider all applications from telecommunications companies seeking to build wireless infrastructure in their town as “incomplete” until the FCC reviews “studies from scientists independent from industry” who have “fully investigated” the “safety” of 5G small cell technology and until the agency has “updated” its RF radiation regulations based on the review’s findings.
The citizens passed this warrant — listed as article 32 in Sheffield and article 38 in Great Barrington — at their annual town hall meeting.
In the warrant, the residents cited two separate rulings by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that mandated the FCC conduct such a review and noted that the FCC has failed to comply with the court orders.
The District of Columbia Circuit in a 2019 ruling told the FCC it had to follow National Environmental Policy Act guidelines by conducting an environmental impact review for 5G small cell infrastructure projects.
The same court ruled in 2021 that the FCC had not adequately reviewed the scientific evidence regarding the safety of RF radiation and 5G for humans and the environment — and that it must do so.
By failing to comply with the two court orders, the FCC has failed to adequately show that 5G radiation is safe for the environment or humans, according to Cecelia Doucette, a technology safety educator and the director of Massachusetts for Safe Technology.
The agency needs to thoroughly examine the scientific evidence of harm and update its RF exposure guidelines, Doucette told The Defender.
“The harm from wireless radiation is happening right now,” she said. “It’s up to us as citizens to create the change and we are so inspired by the hard work the voters in Sheffield and Great Barrington have put in.”
She added:
“Every citizen should feel empowered to look at the science, work with their neighbors and towns, and put protections in place. It’s just common sense once you know the facts.
“Don’t wait for someone else to fix this for you, electropollution is too dangerous for us, our children and our pollinators.”
Nina Anderson, president of the Scientific Alliance for Education (S.A.F.E.) — a non-profit focused on “educating the public on health issues that may or may not be public knowledge” — called the vote “the first step in trying to protect our towns from intrusion by industry who has not complied with the court order and not proven this technology is safe.”
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) last month petitioned the FCC to “quit stalling” and comply with the District of Columbia Circuit’s 2021 order.
The order stemmed from CHD’s historic win in a case challenging the FCC’s decision not to review its 1996 health and safety guidelines for RF exposure.
The court in its 2021 ruling said, “The FCC completely failed to acknowledge, let alone respond to, comments concerning the impact of RF radiation on the environment … The record contains substantive evidence of potential environmental harms.”
Patricia Burke of Safe Tech International told The Defender:
“When citizens begin to look more deeply at the issues regarding wireless safety, including the conclusions that the Circuit Court reached in its 2021 ruling against the FCC, they realize that there is a problem.”
Burke said she was “so grateful to the sincere individuals who have been working behind the scenes in these towns and in others to facilitate conversations supporting necessary policy changes.”
Vote coincides with 1,000 days of Pittsfield residents’ battle with Verizon
The citizens of Sheffield and Great Barrington — both of which are agricultural communities — wanted “to be convinced that their crops will not suffer if the myriad of 5G transmitters negatively affect the bees,” according to a S.A.F.E press release.
The release stated:
“Their [the citizens’] warrant asks for input from scientists who are independent from the telecom industry who can give an unbiased report.
“The petitioners related telecom’s rollout of 5G without sufficient research as similar to big tobacco’s promotion of cigarettes. It was years later and many cancer deaths before regulations were enacted limiting smoking in public places and adding warning labels to packaging.”
Voters “spoke out” saying they wanted to know that a similar fate would not come to pass for those suffering from electro-hypersensitivity syndrome “with no recourse to remove the transmitters causing the problem,” the release added.
Monday’s vote coincided with residents of Pittsfield, Massachusetts, marking 1,000 days of being driven from their homes by a Verizon cell tower they allege made them sick.
The residents — who live in the “Shacktown” section of Pittsfield and are represented in court by lawyers supported by CHD — want Verizon to remove or relocate the tower and currently await a judge’s ruling on whether to allow their lawsuit to go forward or grant Verizon’s motion to dismiss the suit.
[…]
Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/5g-towers-fcc-court-order-massachusetts/
Peace Breaks Out as US Loses Grip on Middle East
Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia meets Bashar al-Assad on April 18, 2023 in Damascus, Syria. © Photo by Saudi Arabian Foreign Ministry/Handout/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
By Robert Inlakesh
Washington’s poor decision-making is starting to catch up with it, as nations choose to pursue peace without American interference.
As Washington’s influence in the Middle East declines, countries throughout the region are taking to compromise, rapprochement, and peace talks, inflicting a blow to the US narrative that seeks to depict its role as a stabilizer and democracy advocate.
Under the leadership of US President Joe Biden, there has been a notable downgrade in the status of the West amongst various long-time Middle East allies. As the US-led West exerts the majority of its efforts on the war in Ukraine, its poor decision making in the Middle East has finally begun to catch up to it.
The first major blow to Washington’s influence came in the form of a Chinese-mediated agreement to end a decades-long feud between major regional actors Iran and Saudi Arabia, one which led to the severing of ties in 2016. This has a number of implications for US power in the region.
The first being that this collapsed a strategy that the US was developing, to unite Saudi Arabia with the likes of Egypt, the UAE, Jordan, Bahrain, and Israel, against Iran and its allies in the region; the alliance was speculated to serve as a “Middle East NATO.” The second is that the Iran-Saudi rapprochement appears to have caused Riyadh to scrap its plans for normalizing ties with Israel at this time, something that the Biden administration clearly values as a foreign policy achievement. There is also the additional aspect of this being negotiated by Beijing without any regard for how it would reflect on the White House.
Despite attempts in Washington to make the deal seem like something it approves of, and repeated remarks by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about how close normalization with Saudi Arabia is, it was clearly a blow and has major consequences to the US approach to the region. In March, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman said that he didn’t care if the US President had misunderstood things about him, and later in April it was reported he also told advisors that pleasing the Americans is no longer a priority.Immediately after the Saudi-Iran normalization, Riyadh entered into serious negotiations with Yemen’s Ansarallah (the Houthis), in order to end the war that has been raging between the two sides since 2015 and has claimed around 400,000 lives in the country. To make things worse for the US, Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister recently made a trip to Damascus to meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. In addition to Riyadh’s moves and Tunisia re-establishing ties with Syria, it also appears as if Ankara may be on the cusp of rapprochement with Damascus and there is a push for Syria to be re-integrated into the Arab League, which clearly runs contrary to the US agenda.
Then we have the fact that Qatar has announced it is restoring ties with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, which is not as significant as the above mentioned moves, yet adds to a list of peacemaking decisions taken without America. On the level of optics, this makes it seem as if the common denominator is the absence of the US. On the other hand, Washington’s development of ties with the Kingdom of Morocco is egging on tensions with neighboring Algeria. Not only is the Biden administration adding fuel to the fire in the diplomatic feud between both sides, but is helping exacerbate military tensions in a Rabat-Algiers arms race. Earlier this April, the US approved a potential $524.2 million sale of HIMARS artillery rocket systems to Morocco.
Furthermore, the top Middle East partner of the United States, Israel, has been severely weakened by an ongoing domestic political crisis over a proposed judicial overhaul by the Israeli government. Problems have also arisen with Israel’s approach to issues like maintaining the status quo at the al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, a holy site where neighboring Jordan maintains custodianship, and it has caused major rows between Amman and Tel Aviv in recent months. This presents another obstacle to the US, which is being forced to mediate between both sides to maintain calm. Another layer is the feud between Biden and Netanyahu, which has called into question the special relationship between Israel and the US for the first time since the 1950s.
The US strategy in the Middle East has been to impose its dominance, primarily through the military sphere. Its selling points have been security, weapons sales, threats of military action against foes, and the creation of a Sunni-Shia cold war that pitted Iran and Saudi Arabia against one another. The strength of Iran’s weapons programs, along with its regional alliances, has largely left the US incapable of maintaining a military edge that severely outweighs the power of its opposition. The American overstretch in the region has seen it driven from Afghanistan in an embarrassing fashion and rendered it incapable of protecting its allies from the damage of potential missile strikes from Iran and its allies. Washington actively builds relationships based upon strategies that put its own partners in the firing line, but where air defense systems it sells to them do not provide enough protection.Even when it comes to the Palestine-Israel conflict, an issue wedded to the US since 1967, US leadership is waning. Earlier this week, China’s foreign minister, Qin Gang, proposed to his Palestinian Authority and Israeli counterparts that Beijing step in to facilitate dialogue between the two sides. Although the conflict is not going to be solved overnight, the mere fact that another world power is stepping into the arena will certainly send a message to American policy makers.
Instead of engaging the region as equals, looking for economic partnerships that are mutually beneficial, the US has used its military might to divide and conquer, inflicting millions of deaths and spending trillions of dollars in the process. This may have succeeded in the past, but America’s ability to wage regime change wars has been severely curtailed. The main US enemies, Iran and its allies, have made significant leaps in the military field, making direct war increasingly unfeasible, and has even pressured Tehran’s former adversaries to rethink their strategies. Although we are only at the beginning of this new phase in the Middle East, it is clear that poor policy decisions and the inability of Washington to envisage a way forward are pushing away key allies, and this time for the better.
[…]
Via https://swentr.site/news/575328-middle-east-us-interference/
US and UK Made Hidden Pacts to Hide Vaccine Reactions
Dr Mercola
Story at-a-glanceU.S. and U.K. health officials discussed “anaphylactoid reactions” due to COVID-19 shots and emphasized their “mutual confidentiality agreement” regarding the topicThe news was revealed in 57 pages of heavily redacted U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) records via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuitA government email exchange from May 14, 2021, also discusses concerns about administering COVID-19 shots along with other vaccines during pregnancyRegulatory filings show Pfizer knew of its shots’ waning effectiveness in April 2021 but didn’t publicly acknowledge it until late July 2021Preclinical studies for Pfizer’s COVID shots also warned of rhabdomyolysis, which is the breakdown of skeletal muscles, but the trial reported it was “completed with no safety concerns”In the days leading up to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval of Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 shot, an agreement was made to keep serious adverse reactions under wraps. U.S. and U.K. health officials discussed “anaphylactoid reactions” due to COVID shots and emphasized their “mutual confidentiality agreement” regarding the topic.1
The news was revealed by Judicial Watch, which obtained 57 pages of heavily redacted U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) records2 via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit.
[…]
US and UK Officials Make Pact to Keep Safety Issues QuietThe pact was revealed in a series of email exchanges from December 2020. Initiated by Jonathan Mogford, policy director of the U.K.’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, and sent to FDA commissioner Janet Woodcock and Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Judicial Watch reported:5
“As background, Mogford includes information on “two cases of anaphylactoid reactions in individuals with a strong past history of allergic reactions….” Marks replies to Mogford: “It would be very helpful if our Office of Vaccines could receive additional details [redacted] from MHRA [UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency] under the terms of our mutual confidentiality agreement.”
Mogford later replies, “… attached are [redacted] hope that’s helpful in the meantime. If I can just remind — information shared under our confidentiality agreement.””
[…]
“It again took a lawsuit for the Biden administration to hand over, albeit heavily redacted, information regarding the safety of the COVID vaccines that the public has every right to know,” Fitton said in a news release. “This disturbing batch of new documents have uncovered a secret confidentiality agreement tied to COVID vaccine safety issues and emails that raise new questions about the vaccines and pregnancy.”7
Pfizer Hid Data on Lack of EffectivenessAfter initially claiming in late 2020 that its COVID-19 shots were 95% effective, Pfizer’s COVID shots turned out to have rapidly waning protection of just 39%.8 That figure was reported in July 2021 by the Israeli Ministry of Health.9 Pfizer echoed the “declining trend in vaccine efficacy” in late July 2021,10 but regulatory filings from April 2021 show Pfizer knew of the shots’ failures months earlier.
“It’s clear from the documents that these analyses were almost 4 months old by the time they became public,” Peter Doshi, associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy [and senior editor at the British Medical Journal], told Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., a former medical scientist with the University of Adelaide and former reporter for ABC News in Australia.11
And, at that time, health officials were still claiming that the shot would stop COVID-19 transmission. In May 2021, Dr. Anthony Fauci stated “when you get vaccinated, you not only protect your own health … you become a dead end to the virus.”
As Doshi explained, “Publicly disclosing that efficacy waned so soon after authorization might have undermined the credibility of authorities, who’d been projecting great confidence about the vaccines’ ability to end the pandemic.”14 But instead of transparency and supporting informed consent so Americans could make their own choice about the shots with all the data, Demasi reported:15
Shots’ Effects on Brain Known Since 2020“Within weeks of Pfizer publishing its data on waning efficacy, President Biden ordered all federal workers (and employees of contractors) to get vaccinated within 75 days, otherwise they’d face punishment or have their employment terminated.”
mRNA COVID-19 shots teach your cells to produce a protein, or piece of protein, that triggers an immune response, including the production of antibodies.16 However, because natural mRNA is easily broken down, this means the experimental gene therapy needs a special delivery system to make it to the body’s cells.
The shots use lipid nanoparticles that contain polyethylene glycol (PEG)17 for this purpose. The mRNA is wrapped in lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) that carry it to your cells, and the LNPs are “PEGylated” — that is, chemically attached to PEG molecules to increase stability.18
Usually, if you were to inject RNA into your body, enzymes would immediately break it apart, but the COVID-19 shots are specifically designed so that doesn’t happen. While it was originally advertised that COVID-19 shots “stay in the arm,” Pfizer knew since at least November 2020 that the shots may influence the brain.
Pfizer contracted Acuitas Therapeutics to conduct animal studies, which found LNPs from COVID-19 shots rapidly traveled to other areas, including the brain, eyes, heart, ovaries and other organs.19,20
[…]
A number of neurological injuries have been reported following COVID-19 shots, including ischemic stroke, Bell’s palsy, tinnitus and Guillain-Barré Syndrome. As for one mechanism of brain injury, Stephanie Seneff, a senior research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), believes genetic modifications introduced by COVID-19 shots may induce immune cells to release large quantities of exosomes into circulation.
Exosomes are extracellular vesicles that contain protein, DNA, RNA and other constituents, and may contain mRNA along with spike protein. According to Seneff and colleagues:22
[…]
COVID Shots Melting MusclesPreclinical studies for Pfizer’s COVID shots also warned of rhabdomyolysis, which is the breakdown of skeletal muscles. Writing in DailyClout, Dr. Robert Chandler reported:23
“The Pfizer documents24 contain results from a 17-day study of repeat dose injections of BNT162b2 [Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot] in Wistar Han rats. Myonecrosis and inflammation were identified histopathologically. The appearance was described as “Jellied” (Table 3), which is what rhabdomyolysis might look like after 17 days.”
Despite this and other concerning findings, including fibrosis, inflammation and myofiber degeneration present at the injection site, Chandler explains, “How was this data presented at the December 10, 2020, Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting regarding the Emergency Use Authorization for BNT162b2? … Completed with no safety concerns.”25
A review of data from the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) also revealed a dramatic increase in reports of rhabdomyolysis following the rollout of COVID-19 shots. In fact, Chandler reveals:26
“79% of all reported rhabdomyolysis cases occurred in the two complete years (2021 and 2022) after the EUA was approved in December of 2020 … A dramatic, 37-fold increase in the annual rate of cases of rhabdomyolysis occurred after mass inoculation with Spike Producing Genetic Therapy Products began in December 2020. COVID-19 (2020) did not cause an increase in rhabdomyolysis reporting in VAERS compared with years 2001-2020.”
A number of case reports have since been published of “COVID-19 mRNA vaccination-induced rhabdomyolysis,” including in a 16-year-old male two days after his first dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot27 and a 21-year-old male one day after his first COVID-19 shot.28
The findings that Pfizer and government officials were aware of serious adverse events and waning effectiveness of COVID-19 shots but neglected to share this with the public will only further undermine trust in public health authorities.
As Martin Kulldorff — co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, which scientifically critiqued the effects of prolonged lockdowns in response to COVID-19 — told Demasi, “In public health, it is important to be honest with the public. Pfizer should have reported the declining vaccine efficacy in its April 1, 2021, press release, which they clearly knew about at the time.”29
Likewise with the numerous reports of adverse events linked to the shots, which have now been linked to an explosion of excess deaths.
[…]
The English Conquest of Wales
Episode 19 Politics and Literature in Wales
The Celtic World
Dr Jennifer Paxton (2018)
Film Review
Prior to English conquest (1283), Wales was divided into warring kingdoms owing to mountainous terrain that made unification and centralized government difficult. In the 11th century, Wales was divided into Dyfed and Givent in the South, Powys in the Northeast and Gwynedd in the Northwest. The latter was the most powerful, holding sway over the other three.
The 1066 Norman Conquest pushed numerous Anglo-Norman settlers into Wales, resulting in the formation of Pembrokeshire in the Southwest. It’s from Penbrokeshire, the English launched their 12th century invasion of Ireland.
As kings of Gwynedd, Llywelyn ap Iorwerth (1173-1240)* and his grandson Llywelyn ap Gruffyadd both made concerted efforts to unify Wales. The former negotiated a peace treaty with the King John of England in 1200 by offering his illegitimate daughter Joean in marriage. In spite of the treaty, John eventually invaded Gwynedd with the support of the other Welsh kings. Llywelyn senior, in turn, supported the rebellious English barons who forced the Magna Carta on John in 1215. This historic document specifically called on John to release Welsh hostages he had seized.
When John’s son King Henry III faced a second baronial revolt in 1263, Llywelyn’s grandson (Llywelyn ap Guffyadd) again allied with Henry’s opponents. In 1277, Henry’s son Edward I also clashed with the Llywelyn junior over the terms of the 1267 Treaty of Montgomery (in which Henry acknowledged him as prince of both Gwynedd and Wales), joining forces with Llywelyn’s brother to overthrow his rule.
After the former died in battle in 1282, Edward conquered all of Wales. His son, Edward II, born in Wales in 1284, would be declared the first English Prince of Wales.
The only serious challenge to the English colonization would occur in 1400, when Robert of Ouain would enter into a failed conspiracy with the Earl of March Sir Edmond Mortimer and the Earl of Northumberland Sir Henry Percy to overthrow Henry IV and divide England and Wales between the three of them.**
Despite it’s amalgamation with England, Wales remained underdeveloped. In fact, it was common for criminals (debtors especially) to disappear into the Welsh wilderness (the origin of the expression “welching” on a debt).
Welsh remains the most successful surviving Celtic language, in part owing to the following its medieval literature enjoyed in continental Europe. Especially important were Welsh poems from the early Middle Ages, the Epic of Goddodin (about Britain’s northern Celtic speakers) and four anonymous tales preserving Celtic mythology known as the Mabinogi. Dafydd ap Gwilym is regarded as one of the greatest European poets of the Middle Ages.
*Aka Llywelyn Fawr (Llywelyn the great)
**Shakespeare recounts this conspiracy in his play Henry IV.
Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.
https://pukeariki.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/5701024/5701062
May 1, 2023
WHO, One Health and the Global Takeover of Everything
By Dr. Joseph Mercola Under the One Health agenda, the World Health Organization would have power to make decisions relating to diet, agriculture and livestock farming, environmental pollution, movement of populations and much more. Taxpayers would fund the scheme — corporations would profit.
Story at a glance:The World Health Organization (WHO) is seeking to cement its control over global health through amendments to the international health regulations (IHR) and its pandemic treaty.The pandemic treaty will grant the WHO power over far more than pandemic responses. It emphasizes the “One Health” agenda, which combines human health, animal health and environmental concerns into one.Under the One Health agenda, the WHO would have power to make decisions relating to diet, agriculture and livestock farming, environmental pollution, movement of populations and much more.Private interests wield immense power over the WHO, and a majority of the funding is “specified,” meaning it’s earmarked for particular programs. The WHO cannot allocate those funds wherever they’re needed most. This too massively influences what the WHO does and how it does it. So, the WHO is an organization that does whatever its funders tell it to do.The globalist takeover hinges on the successful creation of a feedback loop of surveillance for virus variants, declaration of potential risk followed by lockdowns and restrictions, followed by mass vaccinating populations to “end” the pandemic restrictions, followed by more surveillance and so on. The funding for this scheme comes primarily from taxpayers, while the profits go to corporations and their investors.In the March 22, video below, David Bell, Ph.D., a PANDA Science Sense Society executive committee member, reviews the new international pandemic treaty proposed by the World Health Organization — what it is and the impact it will have on democracy and freedom across the world — and the proposed amendments to the WHO’s IHR.
[…]
The WHO’s pandemic treaty and the IHR amendments are two of the strategies that are driving us “toward transformation of society that threaten democracy and our existing ways of life.” Both are aimed at achieving the same thing, namely centralizing power over nations with the WHO.
The WHO is wholly compromised
As noted by Bell, the WHO is no longer what it used to be. For starters, private interests now wield immense power over the organization. Bill Gates is the largest funder of the WHO when you add together the donations from the Gates Foundation and his other organizations, such as GAVI the Vaccine Alliance.
Another major change is that most of the funding is “specified,” meaning it’s earmarked for specific programs. The WHO cannot allocate those funds wherever they’re needed most. This too massively influences what the WHO does and how it does it.
[…]
As just mentioned, Gates wields the greatest financial influence, and he never seems to fund anything that he can’t profit from at the back end. For example, he funds a “green revolution” in Africa that promotes genetically engineered (GE) crops because he’s invested in the companies that supply GMO (genetically modified organism) seeds.
The end result is greater famine and poverty, but Gates laughs all the way to the bank.
He also funds vaccination campaigns for the very vaccines he’s invested in. It’s not about charity or doing good for the world. He simply creates markets for his investments.
Bell points out that the COVID-19 lockdown strategy clearly did not come from the WHO itself, but rather from some outside source.
How do we know this? Because its pandemic guidelines up until the COVID-19 outbreak called for isolating infected patients only, for seven to 10 days.
Then, when COVID-19 came about, that guidance was completely turned on its head, and the entire world, sick and healthy alike, was told to self-isolate for weeks and months at a time. Someone made the WHO issue this irrational and unscientific recommendation.
As a result of lockdowns, several of the WHO’s supposed goals for global health and well-being, especially for children, suffered dramatic setbacks, yet they didn’t seem to care.
On top of that, the WHO pushed for mass vaccination of populations they clearly knew had extremely low risk for COVID-19 — children and young adults in terms of age groups, and Africa in terms of geographic location.
Not surprisingly, Gates vaccine-related organizations, GAVI and Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) led that charge.
COVID countermeasures had nothing to do with healthcare
Bell also highlights how idiotic the vaccination narrative was. “With a fast-moving pandemic, no one is safe unless everyone is safe.”
That motto was reiterated everywhere to promote the COVID-19 jab, yet it’s completely irrational because people who recover from the infection have natural immunity.
They are extremely safe, regardless of others’ vulnerability. We don’t need the whole world to be immune. We just need to meet the threshold for herd immunity and the vulnerable are automatically protected by those with natural immunity.
[…]
If not about health, what was the pandemic response about?
In short, it was about money, and more specifically, wealth transfer. Forty new billionaires were created while some 200,000 small businesses were destroyed in the U.S. in 2020 alone.
Vaccine makers also made hundreds of billions of dollars on “vaccines” that provided virtually no protection while killing an unprecedented number of working-age adults and decimating birth rates.
‘The greatest show on Earth’
Bell goes on to review how the pandemic industry is putting on “the greatest show on earth.” According to the pandemic industry, pandemics are becoming more frequent. This is false, Bell says.
They also claim there’s “increasing interaction between humans and wildlife or livestock,” the insinuation being that lethal viruses regularly jump species. This notion, Bell says, is just “plain silly.”
Still, these are the narratives they’re going with to create a feedback loop of surveillance for variants, declaration of potential risk, followed by lockdowns and restrictions, followed by mass vaccinating populations to “end” the pandemic restrictions, followed by more surveillance and so on.
The funding for this scheme comes primarily from taxpayers, while the profits go to corporations and their investors.
Two instruments to seize control
As explained by Bell, the two primary instruments that will turn the WHO into a central health police are the IHR amendments and the WHO’s pandemic treaty.
The IHR amendments (which have force under international law) will provide “teeth” to the WHO’s goal of increased control over health emergencies, while the treaty will provide financing, governance and supply networks.
IHR amendments destroy national and individual sovereignty
The IHR amendments, as currently drafted:
Expand the definitions of pandemics and health emergencies. Specifically, it introduces “potential for harm” rather than actual harm. So, the WHO can mandate lockdowns or medical interventions based on the mere suspicion that a virus might cause public harm.Change the recommendations of the IHR from nonbinding to mandatory, so member states MUST follow and implement the WHO’s recommendations.Solidify the director-general’s ability to independently and single-handedly declare health emergencies.Set up an extensive surveillance apparatus in all member states.Enable the WHO to share country data without consent.Give the WHO control over certain resources within member countries, including intellectual property rights.Force national support for censorship activities directed by the WHO.Change existing IHR provisions that affect individuals from nonbinding to binding, including provisions relating to border closures, travel restrictions, quarantines, medical examinations and the medication and vaccination of individuals.Treaty will expand WHO’s power beyond pandemics
Meanwhile, the pandemic treaty will:
Set up an international supply network overseen by the WHO.Fund the WHO’s health emergency structures and processes by requiring at least 5% of national health budgets to be dedicated to health emergencies.Set up a governing body under the auspice of the WHO to oversee the entire health emergency process.Expand scope of the WHO’s power by emphasizing the “One Health” agenda, which recognizes that a very broad range of aspects of life and the environment can impact health and therefore fall under the “potential” to cause harm. This is how the WHO will be able to declare climate change as a health emergency and subsequently require climate lockdowns, for example.[…]
Taxpayers fund their own exploitation
As noted by Bell, it’s not just the WHO that is pushing this agenda. It’s financed and promoted by a long list of organizations, including the U.N., the EU, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI, the Wellcome Trust, UNICEF, CEPI, the World Economic Forum and the World Bank.
But while these entities are officially funding the pandemic industry, what’s really happening is they’re “using taxes to fund wealthy people to exploit poor populations elsewhere,” Bell says.
[…]
Current timeline
As it currently stands, the IHR amendments will be voted on in the World Health Assembly (WHA) in May 2024, about a year from now. They only need a majority vote to pass.
If that vote happens as planned, then the 10-month deadline for member states to reject the amendments will expire in March 2025, and the amendments will come into force in May 2025. If a member state opts out, then the current 2005 IHR version will apply to that state.
The WHO pandemic treaty will also be voted on by the WHA in May 2024. It requires a two-thirds majority vote to pass, and 30 member countries to ratify it. Thirty days after ratification, the treaty will take force for the countries that signed it.
The globalists don’t want to wait three years, however, so in the meantime, they’re working on a third avenue, which involves the creation of a “medical countermeasures platform for pandemics” under the WHO.
[…]
gnition” of International Women’s Day. Never mind the fact that young girls and women are the primary victims of this sick mindset.
The “manmade climate change” hysteria and subsequent war on carbon is another fabricated “emergency” that is unhinged from science and reality.
And, like the global COVID-19 response, the U.N.’s Sustainable Development goals are perfectly tailored to enable the endgame. Under these goals, human freedom, human health and quality of life are sacrificed to “protect the environment and save the planet.”
[…]
Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/one-health-who-global-takeover-cola/
The Most Revolutionary Act
- Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's profile
- 11 followers
