Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 519

History of the Silk Road: Envoy Zhang Qian’s Journey to the Central Steppes

Episode 15: The Silk Roads – The Envoy Zhang Xian

Foundations of East Civilization

Dr Craig Benjamin (2013)

Film Review

Early in the second century BC, the Han emperor Wudi dispatched Zhang Xian as an envoy to the Yeuzhi Federation on the Central Steppes. Wudi’s goal was to seek an alliance with the Yeuzhi against the repeated raids of the Xiongu nomads to China’s north. Long time rivals of the Yeuzhi, the Xiongu had launched a series of brutal attacks that had forced them to migrate thousands of miles and eventually resettle (in 130 BC)in the Oxus River valley (presently northern border of Afghanistan).

Leaving China in 138 BC, it took Zhang Xian ten years to reach the Yuezhi in Bactria with his coterie of 100 men.* The first Chinese in history to cross the Himalayas, he was captured by the Xiongu as he headed through the Gonzu Corridor (controlled by the Xiongu) in the Gobi Desert.

After the Xiongu killed most of his men, Zhang Qian himself was transported to their headquarters on the northern steppes. After ten years of captivity, he  escaped, along with his Xiongu wife and their children. When he finally arrived in Bactria in 120 BC, the Yuezhi refused to ally with the Han Dynasty to confront the Xongnu.

The Xongnu rearrested Zhang Qian on his return trip in 125 BC. After being held for a year, he was released on the death of the Xiongu leader.

The reports he brought back to Wudi gave Chinese the first glimpse of settled regions to the west of China. With a population of a million people, Bactria had a well-developed agricultural economy (based on wheat, rice and grapes) with 100 cities and a well-developed trading economy. A subsequent envoy was very surprised to find goods from southern China (outside of Han control) that had found their way to Bactria via India.

In 124 BC, Zhang Qian set out again to seek a new route to India that didn’t traverse Xiongnu territory. This time Kunming tribes he encountered in the Himalayas murdered most of his men.

Zhang Qian’s initial trip rip to the Central Steppes would lead to hundreds of Chinese expeditions per year to Central Asia.

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

 

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/video/5808638

Alberta Leadership Candidate Vows to Ban Employer Vaccine Mandates

NWO Report

Posted BY: Teresa | NwoReport

Tens of thousands were pressured to take the vaccine on threat of losing their job. This was a human rights violation,’ Danielle Smith said.

HIGH RIVER, Alberta (LifeSiteNews) – Alberta Premier leadership candidate Danielle Smith said employer vaccine mandates enacted in the province were a “human rights violation” and she promised as leader that she would make it illegal for anyone to be fired because of their vaccine status.

“Thousands of Albertans lost their jobs because they wouldn’t agree to be vaccinated. Tens of thousands were pressured to take the vaccine on threat of losing their job. This was a human rights violation,” Smith tweeted yesterday.

Smith said that with “federal booster mandates looming” there will be many companies who will be “pressured into implementing mandates this fall.”

“That’s why as Premier our government will amend the Alberta Human Rights Act to prohibit employers from firing employees based on their vaccination status,” Smith wrote.

Smith then noted that the “Government and media can butt out” out of one’s “decision of whether to be vaccinated” as this is “between you and your doctor.”

Earlier in the week, Smith said that as leader of the province she will make it “illegal” for post-secondary institutions to shut out students who choose “not to be vaccinated.”

She also recently noted that as leader of Alberta she would “ensure our schools and youth activities remain open permanently; and no child will ever be forced to wear a mask again.”

“We will let kids be kids and teachers teach. That’s my promise to you,” Smith wrote.

“Shutting down our schools was extremely harmful to our kids. Not only did it harm their education, it contributed to the ballooning youth mental health crisis & robbed them of so many positive experiences that all of us had growing up, but they missed,” she said.

The shuttering of businesses and the firing of the vaccine free in Alberta as well as the rest of Canada was unprecedented in the nation’s history, seeing many hard-working men and women suffer as a result.

In Alberta, many who were unfairly targeted by the COVID mandates have fought back.

[…]

Via https://nworeport.me/2022/09/02/alberta-leadership-candidate-vows-to-ban-employer-vaccine-mandates/

How Modern Medicine Fails to Protect Children From Chronic Disease

By Nate Doromal

Modern medicine has become too insular and reductionistic. Our children deserve medical care that takes a larger view of health beyond infectious diseases. Our children can’t be healthy if they are suffering from chronic illnesses in perpetuity.

Children’s health is getting worse. And it has been for decades

While the COVID-19 pandemic brought about widespread changes to our daily lives, forcing us to reexamine our lifestyle and values in the wake of the crisis, it also brought widespread examination and criticism of our medical system.

Medicine has heralded the need for intervention to protect children from COVID-19. However, despite the startlingly low risk of COVID-19 for children (akin to the risk of being struck by lightning) and the harmful health effects of masking a child, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) pushed for masking children in schools, an approach The Atlantic criticized as flawed and based on shaky science.

Now health authorities are pushing the COVID-19 vaccines for children despite the questionable risk benefits to a demographic that has never been at risk for COVID-19 while downplaying potential hazards such as myocarditis.

Despite the fear-mongering from the media, infectious diseases, including COVID-19, are not the foremost health concerns for children. A look at the top 10 causes of childhood mortality reveals the top 3 medically-related conditions are cancer, congenital anomalies and heart disease.

On the contrary, the top health concerns for children are chronic conditions. The British Medical Journal (BMJ) stated in 2016 that “the primary burden of disease in children and young people has shifted from infectious diseases towards chronic conditions.”

This shift has been occurring for decades, and medicine offers no easy answers. Much of the belief is that the onset of disease is genetic. But this is a simplistic answer that ignores the underlying causes.

Modern medicine has largely ignored a significant potential source of problems — environmental toxins.

Here we will examine the problem of declining children’s health, consider known environmental toxins that could play a role in that decline and show how medicine needs to reorient toward a broader vantage point to improve children’s health.

The normalization of chronic illness in children

It’s suddenly become the norm for children to have a chronic illness.

A review by Children’s Health Defense paints a stark picture. Despite higher per capita health spending, children have poorer health outcomes than in other Western nations. In addition, the review shows that every chronic illness is on the rise in children, including asthma, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, allergies, autoimmunity, etc.

The CDC’s analysis corroborates these facts: 40% of school-aged children have at least one chronic health condition, such as asthma, obesity, other physical conditions and behavioral/learning problems. The CDC further states that there are significant year-over-year increases in cases of diabetes in youths younger than 20 years, with gains of 4.8% per year for type 2 diabetes and 1.9% for type 1 diabetes.

Mental health issues are also on the rise in children. A five-year study on U.S. children’s health and well-being found that rates of anxiety and depression in children rose 30% from 2016 to 2020. A survey done on young people in the U.K. saw a 19% increase in the proportion of mental disorders between 1999 and 2017. The CDC estimates that as many as 1 out of 5 children experience a mental illness in any given year.

There has been a steep increase in obesity in children. Childhood obesity prevalence is 10 times higher now compared to 1970. Obesity increases the risk for many serious diseases, including high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke and mental illness. In addition, childhood obesity is associated with lower IQ.

Clinicians have been aware of the rise of chronic illnesses in children, yet they cannot explain why. If doctors do not fully understand these chronic illnesses, they cannot prevent them. Nor does the practice of medicine deal with the underlying causes of these illnesses.

Instead, medicine focuses on the short-term treatment of symptoms. Children with diabetes are given insulin for the rest of their lives, asthma patients are given inhalers, children with severe food allergies carry around EpiPens and many others take a cornucopia of pharmaceutical drugs.

Medicine is not hurrying to change the status quo. There is no accompanying public health mobilization to find permanent solutions to chronic illness as there was with COVID-19. Instead, things are fine and dandy as clinicians prescribe short-term remedies while passing the buck on dealing with root causes.

It’s the environment, stupid!

We can take a lesson from former President Bill Clinton’s election campaign catchphrase “It’s the economy, stupid” used to win against incumbent former President George W. Bush.

Medicine has focused much on genetics and infectious diseases for the science policy of the last few decades. But these factors do not explain everything behind the rise in chronic illnesses. Human genetics remains the same, and infectious disease has been diminishing since the early 1900s.

The actual suspect here is the environment — something has changed in the environment that is leading to an increase in chronic illnesses in children.

Simply put, it’s the environment, stupid. If we want to truly solve the problem of chronic illness, we have to consider the possibility that something in the environment is causing harm to people’s health.

But when has a clinician ever had a heart-to-heart talk with you about the toxins in your environment? For most people, the answer is never. In truth, most clinicians do not know how to assess or educate patients about environmental toxins.

But it’s not just mere suspicion. We have plenty of science to back it up, which we’ve known about for decades.

Medicine and environmental toxicity — a dismal history

It is important to know that the history of environmental toxicity has been a dismal one.

Think about it. Why is gasoline sometimes branded as “unleaded?” Because harmful lead additives were once added to it. Banned in the USA in 1966, according to NBC, leaded gasoline has “blunted” the IQ of half the U.S. population.

How about asbestos? It was used as insulation in buildings throughout the world. However, asbestos fibers can be released into the air and cause damage to the lungs. Each year 12,000 to 15,000 people die of asbestos-related causes in the USA. Though the first documented death was in 1906, and while many other nations in the world have banned the use of asbestos, the USA remains one of the few countries not to have entirely done so.

Another prominent example is the use of the pesticide DDT. During the 1940s and 1950s, DDT was widely used as an agricultural insecticide on both farms and in neighborhoods. Health authorities encouraged the use of DDT in the USA to stop the spread of polio and to stop the spread of malaria in third-world countries.

You can find pictures of trucks spraying DDT in front of smiling families. All of these applications led to enormous profits for chemical companies.

That changed in 1962 when Rachel Carson published the book “Silent Spring,” which documented DDT’s physiological and environmental effects. She brought attention to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data that showed DDT was carcinogenic. She also brought to light the intentional use of disinformation by chemical companies.

Her book changed public sentiment against DDT, eventually leading to its ban in the USA in 1972. Despite this ban, U.S. chemical companies still manufacture DDT for sale in foreign countries.

[…]

The playbook for profiting from environmental toxins

We can learn much about looking at patterns from the history of environmental toxins. The Moreover, the health effects of environmental toxicity can be myriad, and it is easy for clinicians to accept the default — not to mention more profitable — route of treating symptoms without searching for an underlying cause. As a result, it is easy for medical professionals to fall into the traps of blaming the victim and groupthink.

Though people want to believe that things are different now, it would be naive to do so. The same pattern occurs with toxic chemicals used today — you must protect yourself and your children from them.

Environmental toxins you should know about

Just as COVID-19 quickly became a household word, there are several environmental toxins that everyone should know about.

1. Polychlorinated biphenyls

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are highly carcinogenic manufactured chemical compounds with no taste or smell. They were first manufactured in 1929 and then distributed by the chemical company Monsanto starting in 1935. PCBs were used in many industrial settings until their adverse effects became known, leading to a ban on U.S. production in 1979.

PCBs have been used in various applications, including electrical equipment, surface coatings, inks, adhesives, flame-retardants and paints. For example, if you see an old electrical transformer on a powerline, it might have PCBs.

Additionally, PCBs have the unfortunate property of being a “forever chemical” because they take a very long time to break down and thus circulate throughout the environment, going from the air to the soil, into plants and animals and into our bodies from eating, drinking or breathing.

Most people would be surprised to know that PCBs are so prevalent that just about all of us have some amount of PCBs in our bodies, where PCBs can accumulate and stay there for decades.

PCBs are present in our environment in many ways. For example, General Electric used the Hudson River in New York as a discharge outlet for PCBs for more than 30 years thus leading to its heavy contamination.

A global study found that 90% of free-range eggs have PCB contamination. PCBs can be passed to humans from contaminated fish. PCBs can even be in the air; contaminated indoor air in older buildings is a concern.

The adverse effects of PCBs are well-established. There is clear evidence that PCBs have toxic effects on animals and humans. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concludes that PCBs are a probable human carcinogen.

PCBs have been shown in human and animal studies to hamper the immune system and increase susceptibility to infections. Studies suggest that infants exposed to heightened levels of PCBs are at higher risk of impaired neurological deficits and learning disorders. These are just some negative effects, and there are far more, including damage to reproductive organs and the liver.

2. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

PFAS is an acronym for the complicated-sounding per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. This group of chemicals has been the recent talk around environmental circles as the EPA warns that PFAS are more dangerous than previously thought.

Like PCBs, PFAS are another class of “forever chemicals” that, once released into the environment, degrade very slowly and spread through the ecosystem, causing damage to humans and animals. Unfortunately, they are pervasive in our daily lives, homes and workplaces. Just about everyone is exposed to some level of PFAS.

PFAS were created in the 1940s and, since the 1950s, have been widely distributed by the company 3M. 3M is now facing increasing litigation costs for its role in contaminating the environment with PFAS.

PFAS can be found in drinking water, soil near waste sites, fire extinguishing foam, food, food packaging (such as microwave popcorn bags, pizza boxes, candy wrappers, and even the kind used in restaurants), household products, dust (especially in stain and water-repellent chemicals) and certain personal care products. They are even present in the food chain of the Canadian Arctic.

Everyone has heard of Teflon non-stick pans; they were heavily marketed by the chemical company DuPont and are still being offered to the public. They contain PFAS. The use of Teflon cookware has spread PFAS into the bodies of millions of Americans, and it is the subject of the documentary “The Devil We Know.”

The health effects of PFAS are very concerning. PFAS are hormone-disrupting chemicals that have a wide variety of adverse effects, such as interfering with human fertility, impairing thyroid function, increasing cholesterol levels, causing low birth weight in infants and increasing the risk for certain cancers.

Moreover, a 2013 study found associations between heavily exposed communities and the following conditions: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, hypercholesterolemia and pregnancy-induced hypertension.

Additionally, PFAS can suppress the immune system such that antibody response is diminished. For vulnerable populations, PFAS would increase the risk of severe COVID-19. There is a risk for immune system dysregulation, thus increasing the risk of autoimmune disease.

With so many products containing PFAS offered to the public, it remains to be seen how exactly the EPA will act. Until then, it is up to individuals to protect themselves from PFAS.

3. Glyphosate

There is a dark side to perfect-looking lawns at houses or golf courses in your neighborhood. These perfect lawns result from frequent herbicide application to control weeds and often have the cost of negative health effects on the people that live in the area, as well as contamination of waterways and damage to the surrounding ecosystem.

[…]

Currently, as of Aug. 22, the EPA claims that the use of glyphosate is safe. The EPA states that there are “no risks of concern to human health from current uses of glyphosate” and “no evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans nor is an endocrine disruptor.” While it is easy for busy people to stop at this government assessment, we will see that the science is far from settled, and the concerns are genuine.

At this moment, your body’s cells are engaged in a complicated dance, transforming chemicals into those needed for critical bodily functions. The term biological pathway describes this activity. Glyphosate kills plants by disrupting a particular pathway that plants rely upon called the shikimate pathway.

The EPA and Monsanto argue that glyphosate is safe for human consumption because humans do not have the shikimate pathway. However, they omit from their analysis that many bacteria in the human gut have the shikimate pathway and are killed by glyphosate. In addition, it is well-known that glyphosate has been patented for use as an antibiotic. Therefore, the widespread presence of glyphosate in the food supply may be disrupting the human gut microbiome.

At this moment, trillions of microorganisms populate your gut and can dramatically affect your health. However, medicine has only recently understood the importance of the gut microbiome. The gut microbiome affects your body in numerous ways, including digesting fiber, helping control your immune system, affecting your brain health and modulating your body weight.

[…]

Stephanie Seneff of MIT, Ph.D., author of the book “Toxic Legacy: How the Weedkiller Glyphosate Is Destroying Our Health and the Environment,” has long sounded the alarm on the problem of glyphosate. In addition to harming the gut microbiome, she states that “the evidence is solid that glyphosate substitutes for the coding amino acid glycine by mistake during protein synthesis.” This disruption to the body’s protein synthesis could be why many chronic diseases rise in lockstep with glyphosate usage.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/modern-medicine-children-chronic-disease/

The ‘World War’ on Covid: An Arsenal of High Tech Weapons for Social Contro

By W. Aaron Vandiver

If we carefully analyze each aspect of the “world war” on COVID-19, we can see how each tactic and high-tech “weapon” has harmed human health, destabilized civil society and possibly disrupted the ecological balance between the human population and the virus, while enriching private interests and empowering financially captured government regulators.

Bill Gates has called the global response to COVID-19 a “world war.” His militaristic language has been echoed by Dr. Anthony Fauci and other architects of COVID-19 policy for the last two and half years.

To fight their “world war,” Gates and Fauci and their allies have deployed an arsenal of high-tech “weapons” and tech-enabled tools of social control — contact tracing apps, PCR tests, QR codes, digital passports, lockdowns, mask mandates, mRNA vaccines, social media censorship, mass surveillance and so on — with devastating consequences for civil societies, human health and even the environment.

As an advocate for wildlife conservation, I have been appalled as virtually all environmentalists, and most others on the left, have supported this disastrous high-tech “war” on COVID-19.

I believe that an ecological perspective reveals many of the flaws inherent in an aggressive high-tech attack on a pathogen, although most environmentalists have been too blinded by progressive political ideologies and the hysteria surrounding COVID-19 to see this truth.

In addition to criticisms leveled at pandemic policies by civil libertarians and public-health experts such as the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration — critiques that I appreciate — I tend to view the pandemic in accord with insights I have gained while trying to protect the planet’s biodiversity, a point of view that many critics may not have thought about, and may even be inclined to dismiss.

To me, the “war” on COVID-19 has been characterized by a destructive set of attitudes, beliefs and behaviors that appear to be deeply engrained in our political and economic institutions, and which form a pattern that should be recognizable to conservationists and ecologists:

Aggressive intervention in complex natural processes using new, poorly understood technologies designed to achieve narrowly defined short-term goals, with disregard for the potential long-term ramifications;Profiteering by private interests that own the technologies, enabled by government entities and “experts” that have been financially captured by those interests;Followed by a cascade of unintended consequences.

Each aspect of the “war” on COVID-19 can be understood in these terms.

To explain, I will first elaborate on how I see the global response to COVID-19 through the lens of ecology.

Ecology and aggressive technological “wars” against complex living systems 

“The first rule of ecology is that everything is connected to everything else,” wrote the ecologist Barry Commoner in the 1970s.

Or as the legendary naturalist John Muir, founder of Sierra Club (recently canceled by his own organization), wrote a hundred years before, “When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.”

Ecological damage often ensues when people aggressively try to control complex natural processes to achieve short-term goals without truly understanding how those living systems work, or what the full range of ramifications will be, usually with new technologies that promise “progress” but have a variety of consequences that cannot be managed over the long run.

In my opinion, this is one reason why our global industrial economy, which interferes in natural processes on a massive scale across the planet, has brought about a multi-faceted ecological crisis that has seen a dramatic collapse in the planet’s biodiversity, including an average 70% decline in Earth’s wildlife populations since 1970, among other symptoms of environmental degradation (I won’t even mention the “C” word).

An example of an ecologically destructive practice that fits this pattern is the Big Ag/ Big Pharma industry’s worldwide chemical “war” on plant and animal pathogens using herbicides, pesticides, antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals.

The world’s most popular herbicide, glyphosate, has harmed global biodiversity over the last five decades and has potentially caused many human health problems, including cancer. (Acknowledging these harms is not to endorse the anti-farmer measures recently enacted in the Netherlands, Canada and elsewhere).

The “war” on insects waged via the widespread application of the chemical insecticide DDT in the mid-20th century also caused vast ecological damage across many species that Rachel Carson exposed in her book “Silent Spring” giving rise to the modern-day environmental movement.

Studies still link DDT to elevated risks of cancer in children and grandchildren of women who were exposed to the chemical decades ago.

A similar ecologically destructive practice is the “war” that has been waged for decades on apex predators like wolves, bears and big cats at the behest of industrial agricultural interests, often accomplished through the large-scale spreading of chemical poisons across landscapes, triggering negative “trophic cascades” throughout U.S. and global ecosystems.

I cannot help but notice that the high-tech “war” on COVID-19 resembles these industrial “wars” against the natural world in many respects.

The whole “war” concept is based on a militaristic, mechanistic way of thinking that is obsessed with exerting technological control over natural processes to achieve short-term aims — often eradication of a “threat” like a pathogen or a predator — but cannot recognize the long-term consequences of interfering in the complex set of biological relationships that support natural ecosystems, and that ultimately provide the basis for human health and well-being.

Gates exemplifies this mindset, with his techno-utopian beliefs that human pathogens are like computer viruses, that human biology can be manipulated like computer code, and that vaccines can be regularly “uploaded” into the human body like software updates.

He has a wrongheaded, war-like notion, as observed by economist Jeffrey A. Tucker, that “with enough money, intelligence, and power, along with technological know-how at the helm, [a virus] can be stopped in its tracks.”

Gates’s militaristic COVID-19 strategy of retreat (lockdowns and masks) and attack (mass mRNA vaccination) was never based on a wholistic understanding of how human populations interact with pathogens and co-exist with them over time, how individual citizens remain healthy or how human societies thrive.

“The pandemic is not a war,” says Indian activist Dr. Vandana Shiva, one of Gates’s staunchest critics, and one of the only prominent ecologists to criticize his COVID-19 policies.

“In fact,” she says, “we are part of the biome. And we are part of the virome [the set of all viruses present in the human body]. The biome and the virome are us.”

In other words, co-existence with pathogens is the rule in ecology, eradication of a pathogen from nature is the rare exception and declaring “war” on any part of a complex living system can have significant unintended consequences.

But for Gates and Fauci and others in power, waging high-tech “wars” on viruses is far more amenable to their interests than a humble approach based on the subtle principle of ecology (or the traditional precepts of public health prior to March 2020).

Using new technologies to control natural processes for short-term gain, with disregard for long-term ecological consequences, is the business model. In fact, the more ecological damage that is caused, the more that further technological interventions can be justified, raising the question of whether “unintended” consequences are in some cases intended.

As explained further below, the failure of each aspect of the “war” on COVID-19 can be described and understood in ecological terms, including lockdowns, masks, mRNA mass vaccination and even the origins of the virus itself.

Origins of the virus: Who is the real bio-terrorist, Mother Nature or Anthony Fauci? 

One of the great ironies of the global response to COVID-19 is that one of its prime architects, Fauci, may have been partly responsible for the pandemic.

Fauci and other powerful figures in the international bio-security establishment have long ignored the ecological risks of tampering with natural viruses using bio-weapons technology.

This is an important factor that may have led to the initial outbreak of COVID-19 in Wuhan, China.

As soon as the pandemic started, Fauci immediately and vigorously began promoting the unproven theory that SARS-CoV-2 jumped naturally from wild animals to humans, and he even orchestrated a behind-the-scenes campaign to discredit alternative theories.

But evidence has been steadily mounting that the novel coronavirus quite possibly came from “gain-of-function” research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, funded in part by U.S. government grants approved by Fauci himself.

Jeffrey Sachs, a prominent Democrat and professor of sustainability at Columbia University, chaired a commission for The Lancet that investigated the origins of SARS-CoV-2 for two years.

He has said, “I’m pretty convinced it [the virus] came out of U.S. biotechnology, not out of nature . . . So it’s a blunder of biotech, not a natural spillover.”

Sachs has compiled evidence supporting the lab-leak theory, particularly regarding the existence of an unusual feature on the virus called a “Furin Cleavage Site,” which may have been artificially inserted in SARS-CoV-2.

I find Sach’s reasoning and the evidence he has presented persuasive, although as a wildlife conservationist I remain concerned about the potential for natural “spillover” of viruses from wild animals to humans.

Environmentalists, journalists, scientists and others who focus their attention exclusively on computer models of zoonotic transmission and statistical studies favoring the natural transmission theory, while turning a blind eye to the hard evidence supporting the lab-leak theory laid out by Sachs and others, including Matt Ridley and Alina Chan, authors of “Viral: The Search for the Origins of COVID-19,” are missing an important story. (Even Fauci now says he has an “open mind” about a possible lab leak.)

Most fail to realize that Fauci and other proponents of “gain-of-function” have long shown a reckless disregard for the risks of tampering with natural viruses, expressing a paranoid attitude toward nature that is the antithesis of respect for ecology.

Fauci and others claim that “Mother Nature Is the Ultimate Bioterrorist” to justify their Frankenstein-like efforts to hunt down the most dangerous viruses that exist in wild nature, take them to labs like the one in Wuhan and tinker around with them to make them more dangerous and deadly.

Their twisted logic seems to be that if they intentionally create superviruses, they can somehow anticipate and prepare for natural pandemics.

Most objective observers, however, say that “gain-of-function” is a military-industrial boondoggle that has no practical benefit whatsoever and dramatically increases the risk of pandemics (which, when they do occur, substantially increase the wealth and power of those funding and conducting the experiments).

“Gain-of-function research of concern involves the creation of new health threats,” Dr. Richard Ebright of Rutgers University recently testified before the U.S. Senate, “health threats that did not exist previously and that might not come to exist by natural means for tens, hundreds, or thousands of years.”

If environmentalists and others on the left were being true to their principles, they would denounce Fauci’s funding of bio-weapons experimentation and cry out for a worldwide ban on “gain-of-function” research in the same way that earlier generations of activists sought to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

“Gain-of-function” is already illegal under U.S. laws that Fauci appears to have found his way around.

It remains inconclusive whether “gain-of-function” research actually caused the COVID-19 pandemic, but its potential to have done so is a vivid example of how powerful actors like Fauci use technological tools to interfere with natural processes, with disregard if not outright contempt for the long-term ecological consequences, thereby creating opportunities to exercise more power.

Lockdowns: A failed bio-warfare strategy

Since 9/11 it has been part of U.S. bio-warfare planning to “lock down” the population in response to a deliberate biological attack or the accidental release of an engineered pathogen, which according to Sachs is exactly how SARS-CoV-2 escaped the bio-technology lab in Wuhan, China. (See chapter 12 of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s book, “The Real Anthony Fauci,” for a comprehensive summary of bio-warfare planning over the last 20 years).

In the Spring of 2020, this bio-warfare tactic — lockdown! — was unleashed on hundreds of millions of healthy Americans and billions of others worldwide without any understanding of the true long-term effects on human health and well-being, the vitality of our complex civil societies or the biological relationship between the population and the virus.

Authorities justified lockdowns and associated policies with oversimplified computer models that did not reflect biological reality, and which were based on the utterly false premise that limiting social contacts through the brute force of modern technology (contact tracing apps, QR codes, digital passports, mass testing, online schooling, social media messaging, etc.) would somehow “flatten the curve” of infections in some meaningful, non-temporary way.

The Great Barrington Declaration, authored by epidemiologists Jay Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff, and Sunetra Gupta, of Stanford, Harvard and Oxford Universities, correctly predicted that lockdowns were incapable of containing or controlling the spread of the virus, which is now ubiquitous in every corner of the globe despite numerous countries enforcing lockdowns throughout 2020 and 2021.

By disrupting the normal functioning of society to the maximum extent, lockdowns caused immense collateral damage to the most vulnerable and marginalized people on Earth, including the global poor (100 million pushed into dire poverty by lockdowns in 2020, and 263 million more could crash into extreme poverty this year), working classes ($3.7 trillion in lost earnings in 2020 alone and now crippling inflation) and children (massive educational deficits and an unprecedented mental-health crisis).

Lockdowns led to deaths of despair from suicide and drug and alcohol addiction, depression, skipped medical treatments and other direct harms to human health, including the impairment of millions of immune systems due to lack of exposure to pathogens, leading to surges of infection with adenovirus, rhinovirus, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), human metapneumovirus, influenza and parainfluenza, in addition to COVID-19.

Meanwhile, billionaires who own the technological armory of lockdown added a total of $5 trillion to their wealth from March 2020 to November 2021, and the world’s ten richest men, including Gates, doubled their fortunes due to the increase in the value of their holdings in Big Tech and Big Pharma attributable to “pandemic super profits.”

According to Oxfam International, “for every new billionaire created during the pandemic — one every 30 hours — nearly a million people could be pushed into extreme poverty in 2022.”

Lockdowns also empowered government bureaucrats (under the influence of Big Pharma, Big Tech and other multinational corporate interests) to rule by emergency decree, circumventing democratic processes and causing a massive worldwide rollback of basic civil liberties and human rights, which fell to various forms of tech-enabled control: free speech gave way to social media censorship, free movement to digital passports, and freedom to earn a living or get an education to bans on “nonessential” activity that forced commerce and schooling online.

The real story here is how elites used lockdowns to exert an unprecedented degree of control over society and each one of us.

[…]  

Toxic masquerade: The effects of petrochemical masks on health and the environment

Masks are “weapons” in the “war” on COVID-19 manufactured by the petrochemical industry that have caused enormous collateral damage to human health, civil society and even the environment.

Yes, surgical and N95-style masks are made from synthetic petrochemical fibers, i.e. plastic. As I have written about previously, billions of plastic masks have already ended up in the world’s oceans, where they directly harm marine life like sea turtles, whales and especially sea birds — masks are devastating bird populations around the world.

[…]

One study found that “wearing masks treated with high levels of PFAS for extended periods of time can be a notable source of exposure and have the potential to pose a health risk.”

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently warned that certain PFAS compounds are more dangerous to human health than previously thought and present a risk to human health even in very tiny quantities.

[…]

A research team from the Hull York Medical School in the UK found polypropylene and PET or polyethylene terephthalate, which are fibers from synthetic fabrics such as the material that surgical and N95 masks are made from, in lung tissue.

“The surprise for us was how deep it got into the lungs and the size of those particles,” their team leader said.

Clearly, public-health agencies never paused their mask campaign long enough to consider the obvious risks that petrochemicals pose to human health and the environment.

[…]

Despite all this collateral damage, masks made little to no difference in the spread of the virus throughout the U.S. and the world. As with lockdowns, public-health officials rationalized mask mandates with oversimplified computer models, and with ridiculous studies on mannequins, as well as small inconclusive observational studies, not a robust scientific understanding of disease transmission in complex human societies.

Randomized controlled trials conducted before and during the pandemic showed that mask policies did not significantly reduce community transmission of respiratory viruses including vCOVID-19.

Even if masks were shown to have some modest effect, officials who mandated masks across vast swathes of society relied on the same faulty short-term logic that characterized lockdowns: the simple-minded notion that temporarily “tamping down” transmission of a respiratory virus is a legitimate and meaningful goal, regardless of the collateral damage.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/world-war-covid-tech-social-control/

California Electric Company Admits It Will Never Be Able To Charge Everyone’s Electric Vehicles

(Natural News) The Golden State just enacted a new provision to phase out the sale of all gas-powered vehicles by 2035. The only problem is that the state’s energy grid is already on the verge of collapsing.

There is simply no way that tens of millions of cars, trucks and even tractor-trailers will be able to hook up for a charge all at once, day in and day out, without killing the grid and leaving the entire state in the dark.

Researchers from the University of California Irvine (UCI) say they are trying to figure out how to provide enough electricity to charge all those cars once the rule comes into effect.

“The grid does not currently have the capability to add millions of battery-electric or even fuel-cell electric vehicles today,” says Jack Brouwer, a professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at UCI.

“So, we have some time to make reasonable investments in the grid to enable this to actually happen and to happen well.”

Southern California Edison (SCE), an electric company that provides power to some 14 million customers, says it is making those investments right now – but will it actually work?

“We have a long-term process in place to make sure we’re making smart investments in the grid today, so we’ll have the energy we need five to 10 years down the road,” says Paul Griffo, and SCE spokesman.

“In fact, Southern California Edison is investing over $5 billion in modernizing the grid, so that we can handle the additional needs of our customers in the future, including electric cars.”

If everyone drives electric cars, the grid will fail

In recent years, California has had a really hard time keeping the lights on as it is. There are apparently too many people and not enough infrastructure – and the infrastructure that does exist is outdated and overloaded.

To reinvent the wheel at this point in time in order to accommodate a massive influx of electric vehicles will be an incredible feat. You might even say it is a pipe dream that is unlikely to succeed.

California is going to try anyway, though. Various electric vehicle (EV) prototypes are being unveiled, including a hydrogen-powered vehicle that only emits water.

Brouwer says that in order for this to even have a chance at working, there will need to be more focus on not just battery-electric cars but also many other types of electric cars.

“If we try to move in this direction and only use battery electric vehicles, we will fail,” he says.

“The grid cannot charge every single transportation application. We must invest in both battery-electric vehicles and fuel-cell electric vehicles.”

His focus is on hydrogen-electric vehicles, which he says will not stress the grid that much even if half of all drivers in California buy one by the year 2035.

“Those people can fill up their cars at hydrogen stations, which are much like gas stations, and will hopefully become more available throughout the state in the coming years,” reported CBS News.

No matter how you look at it, the push to completely outlaw all gas-powered vehicles and replace them with some form of an electric vehicle is a mistake. Taking away the option is what will eventually kill California’s grid.

Unless every household and business uses solar panels that never fail, there will simply not be enough electric capacity to power everyone. Perhaps this was the goal all along: to deprive the general population of energy so they are at the behest of the state control.

[…]

Via https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-08-26-california-electric-cant-charge-everybodys-electric-vehicles.html

UK Government Paying $140,000 For Covid Vaccine Damage Victim

WHICH SEEMS TO BE GETTING NO COVERAGE IN THE AMERICAN MEDIA. WONDER WHY.

The new program follows controversy over the flawed efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines as well as massive conflicts of interest between pharmaceutical representatives and politicians pushing vaccine mandates.

https://thenationalpulse.com/2022/08/26/uk-to-pay-covid-19-vaccine-victims/

Natalie Winters

Natalie Winters is the Lead Investigative Reporter at the National Pulse and co-host of The National Pulse podcast.

Aug 26, 2022

The United Kingdom has rolled out a financial compensation program for individuals and families who have been harmed by the COVID-19 vaccine, despite repeated claims by U.S. corporate media entities denying any negative health impacts of the vaccines created by their largest advertisers.

Under the program, the first payments, which amount to a maximum of almost $150,000, have already been made to family members of individuals injured or killed as a result of the experimental vaccine.

Vikki Spit, whose 48-year-old partner Zion became unwell eight days after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine and ultimately, is believed to be the first recipient of a sum from the government’s vaccine damage payment scheme (VDPS).

The VPDS will compensate British citizens with a tax-free payment of up to £120,000, or nearly $141,000. Vaccines for roughly 20 diseases are eligible for payments under the program and archives of the British government’s website show that COVID-19 was added between November 2020 and July 2021.

ELIGIBLE VACCINES.

To receive a payment, individuals must demonstrate that a vaccine left them “severely disabled,” which the British government quantifies as at least 60 percent disabled.

“This could be a mental or physical disablement and will be based on medical evidence from the doctors or hospitals involved in your treatment,” explains the application guidelines.

Family members can also apply on behalf of injured individuals, as the British government’s portal explains: “You can also apply for this payment on behalf of someone who has died after becoming severely disabled because of certain vaccinations. You need to be managing their estate to apply.”

So far, the National Health Service (NHS) Business Services Authority, the body that handles the VDPS, confirmed that as of May 2022 it had received 1,681 claims related to COVID-19 vaccines.

“Based on current timescales, once medical records have been sent for assessment, we expect to receive an outcome for most cases from the independent medical assessor within 12 weeks,” explained a spokesperson.

The new program follows controversy over the flawed efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines as well as massive conflicts of interest between pharmaceutical representatives and politicians pushing vaccine mandates.

Government health agencies have also helped obscure data from COVID-19 vaccine trials, which, when released, suggests the vaccines don’t confer the same level of immunity as touted by their advocates in the White House and mainstream media.

[…]

Via https://talesfromtheloublog.wordpress.com/2022/09/01/the-british-government-has-begun-paying-140000-for-covid-19-vaccine-damage-victims/

Articles of Impeachment Being Filed Against Biden for ‘High Crimes’

NWO Report

Posted BY: The Republic Brief

Republicans are getting ready to impeach Democrat President Joe Biden, and more crimes and misdemeanors have been added to the growing list that faces Biden if the GOP retakes the US house in November.

Left-leaning media is ringing the alarm bell and trying to minimize the panic over the idea.

“A number of rank-and-file conservatives have already introduced impeachment articles in the current Congress against the president,” the Hill reported on Tuesday.

Trending: DIANA – Ritual Sacrifice of the New World Order

“They accuse Biden of committing ‘high crimes’ in his approach to a range of issues touching on border enforcement, the coronavirus pandemic, and the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan.”

“At least eight resolutions to impeach Biden have been offered since he took office: Three related to his handling of the migrant surge at the southern border; three targeting his management of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan last year; one denouncing the eviction moratorium designed to help renters during the pandemic; and still another connected to the overseas business dealings of his son, Hunter Biden,” The Hill continued.

Conservative Brief added details to the story:

Those resolutions never had a chance of seeing the light of day, with Democrats holding a narrow control of the lower chamber. But with Republicans widely expected to win the House majority in the midterms, many of those same conservatives want to tap their new potential powers to oust a president they deem unfit. Some would like to make it a first order of business.

“I have consistently said President Biden should be impeached for intentionally opening our border and making Americans less safe,” Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.), said, according to The Hill.

“Congress has a duty to hold the President accountable for this and any other failures of his Constitutional responsibilities, so a new Republican majority must be prepared to aggressively conduct oversight on day one.”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has led the drive to impeach Biden.

According to her Jan. 21, 2021 filing:

Summary: H.Res.57 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)All Information (Except Text)
There is one summary for H.Res.57. Bill summaries are authored by CRS.

Shown Here:
Introduced in House (01/21/2021)
This resolution impeaches President Joseph Robinette Biden for abuse of power by enabling bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Specifically, the resolution sets forth an article of impeachment stating that, in his former role as Vice President, President Biden abused the power of that office through enabling bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors by allowing his son Hunter Biden to influence the domestic policy of a foreign nation and accept benefits from foreign nationals in exchange for favors.

The article states that, by such conduct, President Biden

endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of government;
threatened the integrity of the democratic system;
interfered with the peaceful transition of power;
imperiled a coordinate branch of government; and
demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.
The article also states that this conduct warrants immediate impeachment, trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

“She believes Joe Biden should have been impeached as soon as he was sworn in, so of course she wants it to happen as soon as possible,” said Nick Dyer, a spokesman for the congresswoman, in an email to The Hill.

“At least eight resolutions to impeach Biden have been offered since he took office: Three related to his handling of the migrant surge at the southern border; three targeting his management of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan last year; one denouncing the eviction moratorium designed to help renters during the pandemic; and still another connected to the overseas business dealings of his son, Hunter Biden,” The Hill noted.

“Ignoring the conservatives’ impeachment entreaties might spark a revolt from a Republican base keen to avenge the Democrats’ two impeachments of Trump, who remains the most popular national figure in the GOP,” the outlet added.

[…]

Via https://nworeport.me/2022/09/01/articles-of-impeachment-being-filed-against-biden-for-high-crimes/

Silk Roads – In the Footsteps of the Nomads

Episode 14: Silk Roads – In the Footsteps of the Nomads

Foundations of Eastern Civilization

Dr Craig Benjamin

Film Review

Benjamin begins this lecture by outlining the significant “revolutions” (ie leaps) in the progress of human beings towards “modernity”:

50,000 years ago – Upper Paleolithic Revolution produced technologies enabling humans to survive the Ice Age, eg tools and weapons to hunt large mammals, cave art and symbolic language.11,000 years ago – Agricultural Revolution.5,000 BC – Urban Revolution (first cities and states

Benjamin views the development of the Silk Road trading network in the 2nd century BC (linking all of Afro-Eurasia with the Roman and Han Empires ) the fourth major human “revolution.”

He believes the first Silk Road paths probably used the same paths early hominids used to migrate from Africa to Asia. He credits their development into a major trading network to two main factors: 1) the presence of four stable empires (Roman, Han, Kushan, Parthian and Roman) across the Middle East and Asia and 2) the Secondary Products Revolution on the Steppes.

The latter he attributes to the discovery by steppes nomads that domesticated animals could provide a number of secondary products (eg milk, fur, transportation and load bearing) that improved human beings’ quality of life. On the steppes, this discovery led to nomadic pastoral herding and the eventual colonization (by nomads) of all the deserts and steppes of Africa and Eurasia.

Benjamin goes on to describe in some detail the “lifeways” of the Xiongnu nomads to the north of China. In addition to pastoral nomadism and booty raids on the Chinese, the Xiongnu also engaged in rug weaving, leather making and the forging of bronze, gold and iron tools and artwork. A small segment of Xiongu also engaged in farming in fortified settlements in Noin-Ula (modern day Mongolia) and Ivolga (on the Russian steppes).

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

 

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/video/5808608

Unvaccinated Face Potentially Illegal Discrimination

 

  By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D.

A new international study of 18,497 individuals unvaccinated against COVID-19 shows potentially illegal discrimination. “Such discrimination and restriction of liberties based on a medical choice may fall foul of relevant national anti-discrimination laws and international treaties,” concluded the authors.

A new study published Aug. 12 in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research showed evidence of potentially illegal discrimination against individuals who declined COVID-19 vaccination.

The study reported the survey results of 18,497 individuals unvaccinated against COVID-19 throughout the world who voluntarily offered personal information through the Control Group Cooperative — also known as the “Vaccine Control Group” — which is a citizen-led initiative that seeks to provide an “independent, worldwide, long-term study of the health outcomes of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-free.”

After collecting the survey results, the Control Group Cooperative invited a team of independent international medical researchers to analyze and publish the data.

The authors — including Robert Verkerk, Ph.D., from the U.K., Dr. Christof Plothe, D.O., of Germany, Naseeba Kathrada, M.B.Ch.B., of South Africa and Dr. Katarina Lindley, D.O., of the United States — said that “between 20% and nearly 50% of respondents, depending on region, reported being personal targets of hate, implying victimization, owing to their COVID-19 vaccination status.”

They added:

“Proportionately, rates of such victimization were highest in Southern Europe and South America and lowest in Western Asia and Southern Africa (although the number of respondents in the latter regions were also substantially lower).”

Moreover, the study authors noted:

“Such discrimination and restriction of liberties based on a medical choice may fall foul of relevant national anti-discrimination laws and international treaties, such as the United Nation’s International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UN Office of Public Information, 1966), which includes fundamental rights to liberty and security of person, freedom of movement, privacy, religion and belief, freedom of expression, and peaceful assembly.”

Teachers and nurses ‘most intensely impacted’ by medical choice discrimination

Verkerk — who led the study team and is the scientific director for the Alliance for National Health International — told The Defender in an email that their data showed teachers and nurses were the two professions “most intensely impacted” by discrimination for their medical choice to abstain from COVID-19 vaccination.

“In many countries,” he explained, “but most especially in Australia and Canada, they required vaccination for many employees as a condition of work.”

For instance, on Aug. 24 Sky News reported that the Education Department in Queensland, Australia, issued a letter stating they will dock up to 18 weeks of pay for unvaccinated teachers as a disciplinary measure for refusing COVID-19 vaccination.

The department claimed the teachers had “acted inappropriately” by ignoring the public health advice.

Such actions were reflected in the study data, Verkerk said.

“Survey respondents reported feeling more victimized by the respective government authorities than by the non-state entities,” according to the study authors.

“Rates of perceived discrimination were greatest among respondents in Southern Europe (61%), Western Europe (59%), Australia and New Zealand (57%) and South America (57%),” they wrote.

Based on their analyses of the survey data, the study authors included a list of contributing factors that they considered to likely be “major drivers of discrimination,” Verkerk told The Defender.

The authors’ list included:

Widespread misunderstandings about, and overstated benefits of, COVID-19 “vaccines.”False claims over societal risks posed by the unvaccinated.Misleading or plainly false media or state propaganda.Coercion to ensure high rates of COVID-19 vaccination.Institutional mandates.The desire for in-group identity as explained by social identity theory (Scheepers & Derks, 2016).

Study results show ‘pandemic of the unvaccinated’ was misinformation

Verkerk told The Defender that the study data exposed the “nonsense” behind the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” narrative which claimed that COVID-19 infection rates were higher among those unvaccinated against COVID-19.

On average, one quarter (n = 4,636, 25.1%) of the survey respondents reported experiencing symptomatic COVID-19 at some stage during the survey period, the authors said.

“Most of the reported symptoms were rated as mild (14.4%),” they noted, and “8.7% were reportedly moderate and just 2% were reported as severe.”

They added that 3% (n = 556) reported experiencing an asymptomatic case of COVID-19.

Moreover, the study data showed that less than 2% of the cases required hospitalization. The authors said:

“Only 74 respondents out of the 5,196 (1.4%) who reported suspected or known SARS-CoV-2 infection also reported that they were hospitalized following infection.

“Therefore, outpatient or inpatient hospitalization was reported in just 0.4% of the full survey cohort.”

As a rough comparison, data from New York as of Aug. 22 indicates that 0.52% of vaccinated individuals over the age of 5 have been hospitalized with COVID-19.

Vitamin D, vitamin C, zinc and quercetin were used regularly by the majority of the cohort in treating COVID-19, they said.

Study a step toward comparative research between vaccinated and unvaccinated

Although the study included data only from individuals unvaccinated against COVID-19, the Control Group Cooperative’s ultimate goal is to collect large-scale health data from both those vaccinated and unvaccinated against COVID-19 and facilitate an “independent, comparative analysis to show whether the vaccine-free do, or do not have better long and short-term health outcomes.”

“Our belief,” the Control Group Cooperative said on their website, “is that without a vaccine-free control group to compare against, there is no true measure of the levels of safety and effectiveness proclaimed by governments and health organizations across the world.”

They added:

“Science demands that every experimental treatment must have a control group in order to properly evaluate its long-term success and efficacy.”

According to the Control Group Cooperative, the COVID-19 vaccines “were rushed out” under Emergency Use Authorization, using “novel technology without any long-term testing.”

The original control group for the “experimental treatment,” they noted, was eliminated several months after the trial commenced when the placebo recipients were offered the vaccine, “which the vast majority took. Therefore, there is no longer an official control group.”

The Control Group Cooperative is now an invaluable resource that serves as an international database collecting information from unvaccinated individuals.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/unvaccinated-covid-misinformation-discrimination/

 

The Tide is Turning: Our Opportunity to Change Public Opinion

 

By  The Defender Staff

The battle for our children’s safety will be fought in our pediatricians’ offices and in our conversations with friends and family.

On Aug. 22, The Pulse released a presentation by Dr. Madhava Setty, senior science editor at The Defender, that offered an effective way to engage healthcare professionals who are willing to discuss COVID-19 vaccine safety concerns.

“Those who were initially skeptical of the COVID-19 jabs have been proven correct over and over,” said Setty, “however, many of us have forgotten how to communicate with folks who have been subjected to sophisticated programming coming from mainstream media and our own public health agencies for a long time.”

Setty continued:

“We must realize that it is highly unlikely that there will ever be any open admission of the grave mistakes that were made by our entrusted officials. The truth about what was done will emerge from the bottom up, from us.

“The reason why this presentation has been so effective is because it is based on information everyone can agree upon, no matter how one feels about the pandemic response. When we methodically examine what was known at the vaccine campaign’s inception, we end up with far more questions than answers.

“There are no third-party opinions. I cite only data from the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration], the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and communiques from Pfizer. The information I offer here cannot be refuted, even by the most ardent vaccine proponents.”

But vaccine proponents have been entrenched in the “safe and effective” narrative for nearly two years. Nevertheless, Setty believes we are at a turning point:

“We have an opportunity to change public opinion in a big way right now. The CDC has recently announced ‘streamlined’ guidelines that make no distinction based on vaccination status. People are finally beginning to ask if their compliance and sacrifices were necessary and whether the proposed bivalent vaccines should be trusted.”

Part 1 of the presentation demonstrates how both mainstream and independent media platforms have been disingenuous. Setty then dissects the most relevant findings from the published Pfizer trial data and explains why former trial coordinator and now whistleblower Brook Jackson’s allegations are credible and damning.

Part 2, released on Aug. 25, explains how the FDA and the CDC use double standards to hide clear danger signals coming from their adverse event reporting systems while exaggerating the risk of COVID-19.

Pointing out double standards is often the only means available to dismantle dogmatic thinking, as Setty explained in a Defender article earlier this year.

The information offered is not new, however, it is presented in a way that is non-confrontational and instead engages curiosity.

“Obviously many of us are tired and frustrated after two years of being ignored, gaslighted and attacked,” said Setty.

“But the tide is turning. If we truly wish to protect our children from this experiment we must find a way to engage with those who have unjustly vilifi us. The battle for our children’s safety will be fought in our pediatricians’ offices and in conversations with our friends and family. We all have an important role to play right now.”

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/engage-effectively-battle-childrens-health/