Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 546
June 30, 2022
Paradoxically, the Soviet Union, the ultimate symbol of communism, was created by international bankers
By Guilherme Wilbert for the Saker Blog
One of the great post-World War II myths, which is repeated like a mantra by starched college students with a syndrome of embracing all the causes of the world, is that the Soviet Union was built on the strength of the people and remained so during the years when it was a de facto country, but this could not be further from reality. Nothing could be further from the truth than that. What happens is that the Soviet Union was a great political-economic power project of a small international clan that had a certain fondness for the idea of dominating a country, especially one that was in tatters like Tsarist Russia.
It all begins, really, with Jacob Schiff, an international banker born in Frankfurt, Germany, in 1847 and who migrated to the United States when the American Civil War ended. There he joined the Kuhn & Loeb Co. and gradually worked his way into what would be known as the “Schiff Era. He became a director of the City Bank of New York, Wells Fargo and more. He was an ace with business.
In 1904 in New York when Jacob Schiff’s firm Kuhn & Loeb Company raises funds to make a loan to Japan, which would be used in the Russo-Japanese War against Tsarist Russia. Jacob did not support Tsarist Russia, in fact, all the people I will mention here did not even support the idea of Russia continuing along the lines of the Romanov Family.
So Schiff met with Takahashi Korekiyo, who was the Finance Minister of Japan during the Russo-Japanese War, and this was the bridge for his $200 million (equivalent to billions in 2016!) loan. He really spared no effort to finance the war that would be the beginning of the Russian downfall. It was simply half of what Japan had to use for the war. I mean, Japan was not doing well at that time either. But what could have been the reason for such generosity from Schiff? Well, not much is understood to this day, but some historians believe that because he dealt a lot with anti-Semitism at the time, he saw this loan as a kind of response to what Russia had been doing to the Jews in the Kishinev Pogrom, which today is Chișinău, Moldova. As well as thinking that gold at that time wasn’t worth much compared to the Japanese national effort to win a war.
Well, Japan won the war, the Treaty of Portsmouth is signed, and it is believed that it all happened thanks to the generous loan, since it was made possible for the country to buy more weapons with the borrowed money, and Schiff made his name. His and the Jewish people’s.
This loan had serious international consequences, since it became evident at that time how powerful the Jewish people (at least the bankers) were, and then, the 1903 writing, called the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, came to light, showing that there was not only nonsense written in this book, but much that really happened and was witnessed at that time.
Jacob Schiff received from Japan the Order of the Sacred Treasure; and in 1907, the Order of the Rising Sun, the Gold and Silver Star, the second highest of the eight classes of that Order. Schiff was the first foreigner to receive the Order personally from Emperor Meiji at the Imperial Palace. Finally, the Japanese knew how to thank the German who helped them at that moment.
At this moment we are witnessing the Japanese victory in the Russo-Japanese War through a loan making it possible to buy more weapons to fight the Russians, here, it is 1905.
September 5, 1905 to be exact.
And then the First World War breaks out, on July 28, 1914. Gavrillo Princip had killed the Archduke of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Francis Ferdinand. The Austro-Hungarian Empire declares war against Serbia, Princip’s home country, and then, everything really begins. Remember: where there is war, there is money, and if there is money, there are bankers.
Jacob Schiff, knowing that the First World War had started, asked the President of the United States at the time, Woodrow Wilson, to try to stop the war as soon as possible, since his family was still in Germany, and would actively participate in the First World War. And so, another loan.
Schiff ended up lending money to France for “humanitarian causes”.
The banker made sure that none of his money went to Imperial Russia, the country did not even receive any help from the international banker during the Tsarist era. And it is obvious that the country was already in a bad way, in fact, the Russian people’s feeling towards the Tsar was not the best, but nobody had even considered assassinating what would be the last Emperor of Russia, King of Poland and Grand Duke of Finland, Nicholas II.
During the Romanov Empire in Russia, most of the Bolsheviks (who would be known as such years after the Tsarist regime fell) were exiled from Russia for criminal-political reasons and ended up going to countries satellite to Russia. Names like Kaganovich, Yagoda, Beria, Kamenev, Stalin, Yezhov, Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin, Sverdlov, Rykov, Zinoviev, Molotov, Emakov, and more, who would come to help consolidate what would be known as the Soviet Union were in exile for crimes they committed in Nicholas II’s Russia.
It was 1918, the First War was over, and along with it came the year of the assassination of the Romanov Family, a dark year for Russia, which would lose its last emperor to the Bolshevik faction that would take power a few years later.
Well, it was not only Jacob Schiff who sympathized with the idea of ending Czarist Russia, Swedish air began to blow inside New York and Olof Aschberg, who had allegedly made a loan to Germany during World War I, which was bad for his image and forced him to change the name of his bank, which would be known as Svensk Ekonomiebolaget, also showed interest in overthrowing the Czar and setting up a new Russia, along Communist lines.
Olof was already a member of the Communist Party of Sweden and met, during a meeting at the Young Socialist Congress of Sweden in 1917, Willi Münzenberg, who was part of the Communist Party of Germany and advocated a reconstruction of Russia after the fall of the Tsar.
So there you have a sneaky history of the biggest and first communist empire after the fall of Romanov dynasty. Many are the sources.
Canada Day 2022: America’s Insidious Plan to Invade Canada and Bomb Montreal, Vancouver, Halifax and Quebec City (1930-39)
Global Research
“In 1934, War Plan Red was amended to authorize the immediate first use of poison gas against Canadians and to use strategic bombing to destroy Halifax if it could not be captured.”
[…]
First approved in 1930, Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan – Red was drawn up to defend the United States in the event of war with Britain.
It was one of a series of such contingency plans produced in the late 1920s. Canada, identified as Crimson, would be invaded to prevent the Britons from using it as a staging ground to attack the United States. (Globe and Mail, December 31, 2005, emphasis added)
The war plan directed against Canada initially formulated in 1924 was entitled “Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan — Red”. It was approved by the US War Department under the presidency of Herbert Hoover in 1930. It was updated in 1934 and 1935 during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It was withdrawn in 1939 (but not abolished) following the outbreak of the Second World War.
“Though ostensibly for war against Britain Plan RED is almost devoid of plans to fight the British. The Plan is focused on the conquest of Canada, which was color- coded CRIMSON. The U.S. Army’s mission, written in capital letters, was “ULTIMATELY, TO GAIN COMPLETE CONTROL OF CRIMSON.” The 1924 draft declared that U.S. “intentions are to hold in perpetuity all CRIMSON and RED territory gained… The Dominion government [of Canada] will be abolished.”
The strategic bombing of Halifax, Montreal and Quebec City were envisaged under Plan RED. Moreover, the US Army had been instructed (in capital letters),
“TO MAKE ALL NECESSARY PREPARATIONS FOR THE USE OF CHEMICAL WARFARE FROM THE OUTBREAK OF WAR. THE USE OF CHEMICAL WARFARE, INCLUDING THE USE OF TOXIC AGENTS, FROM THE INCEPTION OF HOSTILITIES, IS AUTHORIZED…” (quoted by Floyd Rudmin, op cit).
In a bitter irony, General Douglas MacArthur who led US forces in The Pacific during World War II, not to mention the conduct of the carpet bombing raids against North Korea (1950-1953) was actively involved in the planning of war directed against Canada.
“In March 1935, General Douglas MacArthur proposed an amendment making Vancouver a priority [bombing] target comparable to Halifax and Montreal” (Ibid). See Screen Shot, Daily Mail
Today, Canada’s sovereignty as a Nation State is threatened by the Justin Trudeau government which is firmly aligned with Joe Biden’s military agenda, acting as a de facto US proxy.The article below (first published in June 2013) reviews in detail, the US plans to annex and wage war on Canada.The historical documents of Annexation (1866), Invasion of Canada “War Plan Red” (1930) and “War Plan Red” (1935) (95 pages) are contained in Annex.
These documents are part of our history. It is important that “War Plan Red” (1930 and 1935) be firmly acknowledged and debated in schools, colleges and universities across the land.
[…]
US War Department Plan to Invade Canada (1930)While the 1866 Annexation project was stalled upon the adoption of the British North American Act in 1867, US plans to annex and/or invade Canada militarily were contemplated in the 1930s.
In the late 1920s, Washington formulated a detailed plan to invade Canada, entitled “Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan — Red”. The plan was approved by the US War Department under the presidency of Herbert Hoover in 1930. It was updated in 1934 and 1935 during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It was withdrawn in 1939 following the outbreak of the Second World War.
Secretary of War Patrick J. Hurley was largely instrumental in the formulation and approval of Plan Red by the US administration.
The plan to invade Canada consisted of a 94-page document “with the word SECRET stamped on the cover. It had been formulated over a period of more than five years (See full text in Annex).
In February 1935, the [US] War Department arranged a Congressional appropriation of $57 million dollars to build three border air bases for the purposes of pre-emptive surprise attacks on Canadian air fields. The base in the Great Lakes region was to be camouflaged as a civilian airport and was to “be capable of dominating the industrial heart of Canada, the Ontario Peninsula” (from p. 61 of the February 11-13, 1935, hearings of the Committee on Military Affairs, House of Representatives, on Air Defense Bases (H.R. 6621 and H.R. 4130). This testimony was to have been secret but was published by mistake. See the New York Times, May 1, 1935, p. 1.
In August 1935, the US held its largest peacetime military manoeuvres in history, with 36,000 troops converging at the Canadian border south of Ottawa, and another 15,000 held in reserve in Pennsylvania. The war game scenario was a US motorized invasion of Canada, with the defending forces initially repulsing the invading Blue forces, but eventually to lose “outnumbered and outgunned” when Blue reinforcements arrive. This according to the Army’s pamphlet “Souvenir of of the First Army Maneuvers: The Greatest Peace Time Event in US History” (p.2). ( Professor F.W. Rudmin, Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Comments on “War Plan Red”, see complete text in Annex III)
One of the updates to the 1930 invasion plan was the use of chemical weapons against Canadian civilians:
“In 1934, War Plan Red was amended to authorize the immediate first use of poison gas against Canadians and to use strategic bombing to destroy Halifax if it could not be captured.” (Ibid)
It is worth noting that in the course of World War II, a decision was taken by the War Department to retain the invasion plan on the books. War Plan Red was declassified in 1974.
[…]
9th Century AD: Mass Migration of Uighur Turks to China Leads to Rise of Seljuk Turks on the Steppes
Episode 21: The Rise of the Seljuk Turks
Barbarian Empires of the Steppes (2014)
Dr Kenneth Harl
Film Review
Harl asserts the real beneficiaries of the Battle of Talas (see How the 751 Muslim War with China Left Steppes Under Turkish Control) were the Turks. In 840 AD, a civil uprising in the Uighur Khanate led Uighurs to migrate en masse to China and the caravan cities of the Tarim Basin. The Abbassid Caliphate welcomed the emergence of new Turkish tribes on the steppes and the greater availability of Turkish slaves.
For two centuries prior to their conversion to Islam, Turks entered the Islamic world as imperial bodyguards, as well as slave and mercenary soldiers.
The first mass conversion of Turks (entire tribes) occurred in the 10th century. Kashgar would be the first caravan city to adopt Islamic culture, using a Persian version of Arabic script in the first Turkish literature.
After a long period of inter-tribal warfare, the Seljuk Turks became the predominant tribe on the steppes. In 1071 AD, (as agents of the Abassid Caliphate), they invaded and captured both Persia and Baghdad. From then on, the Abassid Caliphate would be ruled by Seljuk sultans.*
*Sultan is defined as a king or sovereign of a Muslim state
Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.
June 29, 2022
Father’s 20-Year Battle on Behalf of Vaccine-Injured Son Exposes Travesty of Liability-Free Vaccines
Yates Hazlehurst, who developed autism after receiving his childhood vaccines, was the first and only vaccine-injured plaintiff to make it to a jury. The 20-year process revealed major flaws in a system that is supposed to compensate children for vaccine injuries.
In a riveting legal battle spanning two decades, William Yates Hazlehurst (“Yates”) on Feb. 2, 2022, became the first vaccine-injured person with a diagnosis of autism to reach a jury since the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act of 1986 (the Vaccine Act) became law.In a medical malpractice case filed in the Madison County Circuit Court in Tennessee, attorneys for Yates argued the clinic and physician who administered Yates’ vaccines, including the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine on Feb. 8, 2001, should be held liable for medical malpractice and the neurological injuries Yates developed after being vaccinated.
Although the jury decided in favor of the physician — who Yates’ father said failed to adequately inform the parents of the risks of vaccinating Yates while he had an active ear infection — the case exposed major flaws in a system designed to protect children and shield pharmaceutical companies and physicians from liability for vaccine injuries.
“In the fight to end the autism epidemic, we were all hoping for the one knockout punch that would bring the truth to light and help end the autism epidemic,” Yates’ father, Rolf Hazlehurst, said.
“This medical malpractice trial was the only opportunity in the last 35 years for a jury to hear evidence in a court of law regarding whether a vaccine injury can cause neurological injury, including autism.”
Hazlehurst, who is a senior staff attorney for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), said “unless the Vaccine Act is repealed, my son is probably the only vaccine-injured child with a diagnosis of autism who will ever reach a jury.”
The Hazlehurst case was a medical malpractice case against the doctor who administered the pediatric vaccines that, in the opinion of the world’s top experts, sent Yates, now 22, spiraling into the depths of severe, non-verbal autism.
Although the case was originally filed in 2003, it didn’t receive its day in court for 19 years because a separate case involving Yates’ injury first had to work its way through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP).
When Yates’ medical malpractice case was finally heard, the trial exposed alarming evidence about autism and vaccines, the low standard of care practiced by physicians administering pediatric vaccines and financial conflicts of interests between pharmaceutical companies that manufacture vaccines and government agencies entrusted with vaccine safety.
During the trial, the world’s top experts in the field of autism and mitochondrial disorder explained how the administration of “routine” childhood immunizations can cause autism, brain injury, and many other disorders.
According to the National Institute of Mental Health, autism is a neurological and developmental disorder that affects how people interact with others, communicate, learn and behave. Symptoms can be severe and usually manifest before a child turns 3, which coincides with the age children receive the most childhood vaccines.
Increasing evidence indicates a significant proportion of individuals with autism have concurrent diseases such as mitochondrial dysfunction, abnormalities of energy generation, gastrointestinal abnormalities and abnormalities in the regulation of the immune system.
Yates’ medical malpractice trial illuminated how vaccines can cause autism in children with mitochondrial disorder and showed how the Vaccine Act — which is designed to ensure informed consent and compensation to injured children — is an abject failure because it’s largely unenforceable.
Yates was normal until he received his 12-month vaccines
During the first year of his life, Yates developed typically and met all of his developmental milestones.
“He was a happy, healthy and normal child,” his father said.
After his 6-month shots, Yates experienced a severe screaming episode approximately 24 hours after receiving the DTaP, Prevnar, Hib and Hep B vaccines.
In the days following his vaccinations, Yates began to experience seizure-like shaking episodes.
But his parents didn’t realize their son’s symptoms were consistent with a severe vaccine adverse reaction because they were not given a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) at their pediatrician’s office.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a VIS is an information sheet produced by the CDC that explains both the benefits and risks of a vaccine to recipients.
“Federal law requires that healthcare staff provide a VIS to a patient, parent or legal representative before each dose of certain vaccines,” the CDC website states.
Instead of providing the VIS, Yates’ physician told his parents any adverse event to a vaccine would be “almost immediate” — within 5 to 15 minutes after vaccination.
Before Yates’ first birthday, his mother and aunt took him to the doctor because he had been sick, and his parents wanted to make sure it was okay for Yates to have a birthday party.
Hazlehurst told The Defender this appointment was not a scheduled well-child check. It was a sick visit. At the appointment, Yates was diagnosed with an ear infection and prescribed an antibiotic.
As the pediatrician turned to leave, he stated Yates would receive his shots, as it was close to his first birthday. A woman returned to the room who portrayed herself to be a nurse, but Hazlehurst later found out was only a medical assistant.
Yates’ mother asked the “nurse” whether their son should receive his shots despite being sick and was told he should.
Once again, they were not given a VIS form informing them of the risks of vaccinating Yates while he had a fever and an active ear infection.
“By administering vaccines to a sick child, the doctor and his clinic could charge a “modified double bill” Hazlehurst said.
That day, on Feb. 8, 2001, Yates received the MMR, Prevnar, Hib and Hep B vaccines. Twelve days later, Hazlehurst said his son experienced a high fever, rash and vomiting consistent with a vaccine adverse reaction.
Hazlehurst called the clinic where his son received his vaccine and talked to the doctor on call who asked him which vaccines Yates received. Hazlehurst responded, “whatever you get when you’re a year old.”
Hazlehurst was told his son was having an adverse reaction to the antibiotic and the doctor wrote him a prescription for a different antibiotic and an anti-fungal medication.
Soon after, Yates began to lose the skills he once had and began developing abnormally. He lost his speech, started running wild, was constantly on the go and would knock things off the table.
[…]
Statins Increase Diabetes Risk by 38%
Dr Joseph Mercola
Story at-a-glanceData from one study showed people taking statin medications have a 38% increased risk of developing Type 2 diabetes. Scientists have identified several factors that may play a part in elevating risk, including impaired insulin sensitivity and the impact on epigenetics that influence insulin traitsData released in early 2021 have also shown that people taking statin medications have an increased risk of cardiovascular events in all but the highest risk groupIn a presentation at the University of Sydney and in a peer-reviewed narrative review, Maryanne Demasi looked at the evidence that has divided medical professionals over statins and shows how by simply revising definitions and hiding data, the industry has misled consumers and pocketed billionsInstead of relying on cholesterol numbers that have little benefit unless the total is over 300, consider evaluating your cholesterol-to-HDL and triglyceride-to-HDL ratios, as well as your ferritin and gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT) levelsAccording to a 2020 report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,1 34.1 million U.S. adults had diagnosed or undiagnosed diabetes in 2018. There were slightly more men than women, and more white, non-Hispanic people with diabetes than Black, Asian or Hispanic people combined.
Just two years later, these numbers have gone up, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,2 with 37.3 million people having diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes. A total of 96 million over the age of 18 have prediabetes, which is 38% of the U.S. adult population.
These numbers demonstrate that diabetes is already at epidemic proportions in the U.S. A study published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology3 found that adults taking statin medications to control cholesterol levels have a higher risk of developing insulin resistance and Type 2 diabetes than the general population. However, researchers have repeatedly failed to find evidence that high cholesterol is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease.
As I have discussed in many previous articles, three factors have a far greater influence on your cardiovascular disease risk and, to some degree, are interrelated. These are insulin resistance,4 chronic inflammation5 and high iron levels.6 Unfortunately, these primary contributors are rarely the focus of cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment in conventional medicine.
Instead, statins, also called cholesterol-lowering drugs, are the go-to defense in Western medicine, which led to the drug once holding the infamous title of the most profitable drug. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick7 is a general practitioner in Cheshire, England, and the author of three books, including “A Statin Nation: Damaging Millions in a Brave New Post-Health World.” He estimates that the pharmaceutical industry has grossed more than $1 trillion from statins.
Statins Increase Risk of Diabetes by 38%A team at Erasmus University Medical Center in The Netherlands published the study found in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.8 The researchers wrote that several epidemiological studies had shown an association between statins and diabetes, but this team sought to analyze the associated glycemic traits with Type 2 diabetes.
They included 9,535 people in the Rotterdam Study who did not have diabetes at the start of the study. They followed the participants for 15 years and found those who used statin medications had a higher concentration of serum fasting insulin and insulin resistance as compared to those who had never used a statin.
This was associated with a 38% increased risk of developing Type 2 diabetes. The researchers concluded, “Individuals using statins may be at higher risk for hyperglycemia, insulin resistance and, eventually, Type 2 diabetes. Rigorous preventive strategies such as glucose control and weight reduction in patients when initiating statin therapy might help minimize the risk of diabetes.”
Unfortunately, the mechanism by which statins trigger Type 2 diabetes has not been fully identified and may not be related to obesity. Scientists have also identified a health condition called metabolically obese but normal weight (MONW),9 which is a subgroup of the population that has impaired insulin sensitivity and a higher risk of diabetes while being normal weight.
In this condition, the patient would appear to have a normal weight but have impaired insulin sensitivity, so weight reduction would not be an effective means of reducing the risk of Type 2 diabetes. Recent research has also found the same results — individuals taking statin medications have a higher risk of developing Type 2 diabetes.
Scientists have proposed multiple reasons10 for the increased risk of diabetes in those taking statins, including impaired insulin sensitivity and reduced secretion of insulin from pancreatic beta cells. One paper published in the International Journal of Molecular Science11 in 2020, reviewed the mechanisms by which statins appear to increase the risk. These included the impact on epigenetics through differential expression of microRNAs.
Another study12 published in the same year investigated the role of epigenetics by comparing DNA methylation in patients using statins against those who did not. They gathered evidence from five cohort studies that included 8,270 participants and found evidence that DNA methylation contributed to the effect that statin medications had on insulin traits.
Statins Also Raise Your Risk of Cardiovascular EventsA third retrospective cohort study13 looked at the results from 13,698 patients that were evenly split between statin users and non-statin users. Participants did not have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or diabetes in 2005 when the study began. The group was followed until 2013 and evaluated for the risk of Type 2 diabetes.
The results revealed that statin users had a significantly greater risk of new-onset Type 2 diabetes than non-users. The researchers separated the risk by statin medication and found that five-year use was associated with a higher risk for those taking simvastatin (Zocor), followed closely by atorvastatin (Lipitor).14
In January 2021, when the pandemic media storm was in full swing, a study15 was published in the journal Atherosclerosis that showed people taking statin medications have a higher rate of cardiovascular events than those who were not on statins. This is significant since statins are supposed to reduce the rate of cardiovascular events.
[…]
Via https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/06/29/statins-increase-diabetes-risk.aspx
Fauci Gets COVID Again After Taking Pfizer’s Treatment — the Drug That Cost Taxpayers $10.5 Billion
Dr. Anthony Fauci said Tuesday he is experiencing a rebound of COVID-19 symptoms after taking Paxlovid, Pfizer’s COVID-19 antiviral pill. Taxpayers are on the hook for $10.5 billion worth of the experimental treatment, under a deal the White House cut with Pfizer.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and chief medical advisor to President Biden, said Tuesday he is experiencing a rebound of COVID-19 symptoms after taking Paxlovid, Pfizer’s COVID-19 antiviral pill, Bloomberg reported.
Fauci tested positive for COVID-19 on June 15, despite being quadruple-vaccinated, initially experiencing “mild symptoms,” according to the NIAID.
Due to his age — 81 — which put him at high risk for developing complications, Fauci was prescribed Paxlovid.
The drug, which is made from a combination of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, in December 2021 was granted Emergency Use Authorization to treat COVID-19.
“After I finished the five days of Paxlovid, I reverted to negative on an antigen test for three days in a row,” Fauci said Tuesday in a remote interview during the Foreign Policy’s Global Health Forum.
“And then on the fourth day, just to be absolutely certain, I tested myself again. I reverted back to positive.”
“It was sort of what people are referring to as a Paxlovid rebound,” Fauci said. Over the next day, he began to feel “really poorly,” and “much worse than in the first go-around,” he added.
CDC and NIH investigate relapses after Paxlovid
COVID-19 can make a comeback after an infected person has gone through a round of Paxlovid, according to a May 24 advisory from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
According to the CDC:
“Recent case reports document that some patients with normal immune response who have completed a five-day course of Paxlovid for laboratory-confirmed infection and have recovered can experience recurrent illness two to eight days later, including patients who have been vaccinated and/or boosted.”
The agency continued to recommend the oral antiviral drug as a treatment despite the possibility of recurrences, Reuters reported.
In late April, National Institutes of Health (NIH) researchers said they will investigate how often and why coronavirus levels rebound in some patients who complete a five-day course of Paxlovid.
“It is a priority,” Dr. Clifford Lane, deputy director for clinical research at the NIAID, told Bloomberg. It’s “a pretty urgent thing for us to get a handle on.”
On May 17, political commentator Kim Iversen weighed in on reports that NIH researchers were investigating how often and why coronavirus levels rebound in some patients.
“Turns out the treatment drug Paxolvid, which is made by Pfizer, has a problem,” Iversen told viewers of The Hill’s “Rising.”
“Pfizer says its real-world data indicates the relapses occur in fewer than 1 in 3,000 patients, but again, we’ve heard this phrase throughout the pandemic — that something is ‘extremely rare,’ like getting the virus after being vaccinated or having a case of myocarditis … it turns out these events are more common than they first appear,” Iversen said.
Iversen criticized the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its rushed approval of drugs such as Paxlovid while denying the public access to older, often less-expensive treatments.
U.S. taxpayers pay $10.6 billion for the ‘free’ medication
While U.S. government researchers seek ‘urgent’ data to explain why patients who take Paxlovid relapse, health officials continue to recommend Pfizer’s drug despite evidence showing other treatments may be more effective — and less costly.
Paxlovid retails for $700 for a five-day course, but the U.S. government cut a deal to pay half that.
In November 2021, the U.S. government sealed a business deal with Pfizer to the tune of $5.3 billion for 10 million treatment courses of the experimental antiviral treatment.
Then in January, the government doubled its order to 20 million courses of Paxlovid, bringing the U.S. taxpayer bill to $10.6 billion.
Two months later, Biden announced a new “Test to Treat” initiative, which allows Americans who test positive for COVID-19 at a pharmacy to obtain free antiviral pills “on the spot.”
Biden said he ordered “millions of pills” from Pfizer, paid for by U.S. tax dollars, to allow them to be passed out “for free.”
Dr. David Gortler, pharmacologist, pharmacist, FDA and healthcare policy oversight fellow and FDA reform advocate at the Ethics and Public Policy Center think tank in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday questioned why the government continues to invest in Paxlovid, given what he called the drug’s “lackluster” performance.
In an article published on CD Media, Gortler said:
“In December 2021 Pfizer claimed initial study findings showed that Paxlovid cut the risk of hospitalization and death by nearly 90% in people with mild to moderate coronavirus infections.
“Without context this statement is grossly misleading.
“Just about everyone who gets the existing COVID-19 mutation will have mild or moderate disease, yet the drugmaker limited its study to people who were unvaccinated and who faced the greatest risk from the virus due to age or health problems, such as obesity.
“An updated more recent analysis from 1,153 patients (out of a possible 2,246 patients) showed a lackluster, non-significant 51% relative risk reduction.”
Gortler added:
“A sub-group analysis of 721 vaccinated adults with at least one risk factor for progression to severe COVID-19 showed a non-significant relative risk reduction in hospitalization or death (treatment arm: 3/361; placebo: 7/360).”
Gortler pointed out that the Senate’s $10 billion COVID-19 relief bill includes a requirement that at least half the money be spent on therapeutics.
“But why did Biden gamble every dollar on one, single drug from one single drugmaker [original emphasis]? Gortler asked. “Why was Pfizer chosen to satisfy the therapeutics clause by itself?
By trusting Pfizer and making a considerable gamble with taxpayer funds, the White House flushed $5.3 billion taxpayer dollars largely down the drain, Gortler said.
“The White House is now on the hook for an additional $5.3 billion for a total of $10.6 billion for an ineffective COVID-19 treatment that Pfizer had already developed, when they could have spent almost nothing and promoted the established safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin with an established, superior outcome.”
Pfizer stands to make $54 billion in sales in 2022 from its vaccine and Paxlovid, The Defender reported in March.
[…]
Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fauci-covid-rebound-pfizer-paxlovid-taxpayers/
Latest survey shows COVID vaccines are a disaster: ~750,000 dead in US
Steve Kirsch
Executive summary
Our latest poll is devastating for the official narrative:
a 6.6% rate of heart injury (>10M Americans)2.7% are unable to work after being vaccinated (>5M Americans),6.3% had to be hospitalized (>10M Americans)you were more likely to die from COVID if you’ve taken the vaccine.Almost as many (77.4%) households lost someone from the vaccines as from COVID. If you believe that 1M people in the US have died from COVID, then this survey indicates that ~750,000 people died from the vaccine (10.18/13.15*1M) with a 95% confidence of at least 600,000 deaths.The error bar computation on each question is here.
We will be re-running this with a 5,000 sample size soon which will have smaller error bars. But the key point is that even if we choose the most conservative data points, the survey results are inconsistent with the “safe and effective” narrative.
For example, the CDC hasn’t found anyone who has died from the mRNA vaccines and our survey shows at least 600,000 people have died. That’s a big gap. Someone isn’t telling you the truth. Why do we get such a high number every time we run our poll to a different audience?
Anyone can run our poll for $500 if you don’t believe us. I predict nobody in mainstream media will touch this because they don’t want to know the truth.
This is a poll that nobody who is pro-vaccine wants you to see.
The poll will be ignored by the mainstream media, even when we rerun it with 8,000 people and get the same results. You can bank on that.
IntroductionWe used a professional to draft most of the survey questions and skip logic for our Jun 25 survey.
Here are the key takeaways from the Jun 25 survey. We use “stratified counts” throughout since these are “normalized” based on the US demographics:
380 of the 500 people who took the poll were vaccinated after normalization [Q1]Only 34% of Americans are drinking the Kool-Aid and getting >2 doses [Q1]2.63% of the households (13.15/500) had someone who died from the COVID virus [Q19]2.03% [1.7%-2.4%] of the households (10.18[8.6-11.8]/500) reported a death from the vaccine in their household [Q15]. This is stunning because it shows that the vaccine has killed almost as many people as the COVID virus has. The authorities say that COVID has killed over 1M people in the US so this suggests that 774,000 people were killed by the vaccine (10.18[8.6-11.8]/13.15[12.3-14.0]=77.4% [64.2%-90.5%]). How can that be a “safe” vaccine? The 95% confidence intervals say over 600,000 Americans have been killed by the vaccine. Even if this is overestimated by a factor of 10X, this is devastating for the vaccine narrative. There is simply no way to spin this. This is why the “fact checkers” and mainstream media will avoid this survey.2.7% of the people who took the vaccine (10.43/380) are so injured they are unable to work [Q7A2]. This is a disaster. So this is 2.7% of the 200M vaccinated people ages 18 and older: >5M severely injured people who can’t work. I don’t know how they will spin this as a positive.16.7% (63.7/380) of the people who took the vaccine consider themselves vaccine injured [Q2]. So that’s >30M vaccine injured. I don’t know how they will spin this as a positive.The survey shows a 6.6% rate of heart injury post-vaccine according to the poll (24.97/380 [Q3]). This is stunning because these are of the people taking the survey reporting their own injury. Nobody could know this better than the survey taker. This is 1,000X higher than the CDC told us. Per Gavi, “The CDC researchers estimated there might be a maximum of 70 cases of myocarditis out of a million second doses given to boys ages 12 to 17.” How could the CDC underestimate this severe adverse event by 3 orders of magnitude?!!? There is something seriously wrong here. Our survey is well within 1 order of magnitude with other rates we’ve been told. This represents 13.3M million people who are seriously injured, probably for life.9.2% (35/380) of the people who took the vaccine had to seek medical help for their injury. [Q4]. That’s 18M doctor visits.6.3% (23.83/380) of the people who took the vaccine had to be hospitalized for their vaccine injury [Q5] That’s over 12M hospitalizations.3.7% (18.83/500) of the households had a person with a heart condition due to the vaccine [Q14]. Since there are 123M households, this is 4.5M new heart conditions. This is a lower estimate than the direct injury above suggesting that people answering this question were answering it for people other than themselves (since otherwise the rate would be higher than the 6.6% direct rate above). So this is another estimate on the number of new heart conditions.If you got a COVID infection, it’s 17% (36.4/30.98) [Q17] more likely that you were vaccinated, suggesting the vaccine could be making things worse.If you died from COVID, it was 72% more likely you died after getting the vaccine (6.81/3.95) [Q22]. We were told the opposite by the government.46% are planning on getting more vaccines [Q23]. A total of 24.6% of all people are sheep, i.e., even if they are told the vaccine has a good chance of disabling them for life, they will do what the government recommends. These percentages are approximately what is predicted by mass formation theory.Most people (65%) believed that the hospital treatments for COVID may be responsible for killing people that they lost to COVID, not COVID [Q20][…]
Via https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/latest-survey-shows-the-covid-vaccines
Rockefeller Foundation Doomsday Document Predicted Food Shortages Two Years Ago
Dr Joseph Mercola
Story at-a-glanceWe’re told looming food shortages are primarily the result of climate change and the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Yet in July 2020, The Rockefeller Foundation had already predicted it, and was calling for a revamp of the food system as a whole to address it“Reset the Table: Meeting the Moment to Transform the U.S. Food System,” published by The Rockefeller Foundation July 28, 2020, describes how the COVID pandemic caused “a hunger and nutrition crisis” in the U.S. “unlike any this country has seen in generations”According to The Rockefeller Foundation, the pandemic revealed deep problems in the U.S. food system that need to be “reset.” “Reset the Table” was published just one month after the World Economic Forum (WEF) officially announced its plans for a “Great Reset,” and many of the contributors to the Foundation’s paper are WEF membersWhile the report stresses the need for “healthy diets” and “sustainable” food production, the words “natural,” “organic” or “grass fed” are absent, so that’s not what they’re referring toThe WEF has, for years, promoted the idea that insects should be recognized as a healthy, sustainable protein alternative that can save the environment and solve world hungerIt seems nothing escapes the prophetic minds of the self-proclaimed designers of the future. They accurately foresee “natural disasters” and foretell coincidental “acts of God.” They know everything before it happens. Perhaps they truly are prophets. Or, perhaps they’re simply describing the inevitable outcomes of their own actions.
Right now, we’re told looming food shortages are primarily the result of climate change and the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Yet, back in July 2020, The Rockefeller Foundation had already predicted it, and was calling for a revamp of the food system as a whole to address it.
‘Reset the Table’ Is Part of The Great ResetThe document in question, titled “Reset the Table: Meeting the Moment to Transform the U.S. Food System,”1 published by The Rockefeller Foundation July 28, 2020, describes how the COVID pandemic had caused “a hunger and nutrition crisis” in the U.S. “unlike any this country has seen in generations.”
Mind you, COVID was declared a pandemic March 11, 2020, so by the time this Rockefeller report was published, the pandemic had only existed for four months, and while certain high-risk groups did experience food insecurity, such as children whose primary meal is a school lunch, widespread food shortages, in terms of empty shelves, were not widely prevalent or particularly severe in the U.S.
The report also notes that it grew out of “video-conference discussions in May and June 2020,” so we’re to believe that two months into the pandemic, these prophetic minds already had the future all figured out. According to the Foundation, the pandemic revealed deep problems in the U.S. food system that need to be “reset.”
As noted by ThreadsIrish on Substack,2 “Reset the Table” was published just one month after the World Economic Forum (WEF) officially announced its plans for a “Great Reset,” and many of the contributors to the Foundation’s paper are WEF members.
In the foreword,3 Rockefeller Foundation president Dr. Rajiv Shah also stresses that “a comprehensive playbook” to address the food system would also need to address other issues, “such as living wages, housing and transportation,” and that “all of us” — meaning the self-proclaimed designers of the future — “need to write that playbook together over the coming year.”
Problem, Reaction, SolutionThere are interesting tidbits in this document. For example, on page 3, it states that “94% of deaths from COVID-19 among individuals with an underlying condition, the majority of which are diet-related.” This is surprising, considering diet and nutrition were essentially absent from public discussions and reporting about the infection.
Equally surprising is that, on page 4, the Foundation actually admits its role in creating the problems currently plaguing our food system:
“The Green Revolution — which The Rockefeller Foundation played a role in seeding and scaling — was effective and successful in addressing calorie-based hunger and averting mass starvation. But it left a legacy that we see clearly today, including overemphasis of staple grains at the expense of more nutrient-rich foods, reliance on chemical fertilizers that deplete the soil, and overuse of water.”
[…]
How They Intend to Seize Control of the Supply Chain“Reset the Table” basically describes how they intend to seize control of the food supply and the supply chain under the guise of “equity,” “fairness” and “environmental protection.” One key to this enterprise is data collection. They want to collect data on everyone’s spending and eating habits. Expanding broadband access is part of that.
“Forty-two million Americans lack broadband access that is essential to shifts to online enrollment, online purchasing of food, direct farm-to-consumer purchasing, telemedicine, teleconsultations, as well as education, finance, and employment,” the paper5 notes, adding, “This is a fundamental resiliency and equity gap, and we need to close it, urgently.”
As you can see from these paragraphs alone, they want everything to shift into an online environment, including education, medicine and the buying of food. This, of course, makes everything you do far easier to monitor and track. Another key is to make sure global WEF partners in multiple sectors work in tandem to form a “collaborative advocacy movement.”
A third key to success is “changes to policies, practices and norms,” and those changes are “numerous.” The end goal is to centralize control of the food supply into a single executive office, which is right in line with the idea of a “one world government.” As WEF member Henry Kissinger once said, “Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.”
What’s Their Definition of ‘Healthy Diet’?As for the “healthy and protective diets” the Foundation is calling for, we’ve already been told what that is. For the past several years, the WEF has been promoting the idea that we should get used to eating weeds and bugs and drinking reclaimed sewage.
[…]
The word ‘organic’ does not appear a single time in the Foundation’s report, and the world ‘natural’ is only used in reference to ‘natural disasters.’ In other words, their versions of ‘healthy diet’ and ‘sustainable agriculture’ do not include any of the basic criteria for a truly healthy, nutritious, sustainable and regenerative food supply.Via https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/06/29/rockefeller-foundation-reset-the-table.aspx
US Exposed as “Secret Partner” in Israeli Airstrikes Against Syria that Violate International Law
Israel’s F-15 fighter jets in the air over Mount Hermon in Israel near the Syrian border. [Source: rt.com]Jeremy Kuzmarov
Covert Action Magazine
Dirty war in Syria continues as media attention focuses elsewhereThe Wall Street Journal recently reported that Israel secretly coordinates with the U.S, on many of the airstrikes it carries out in eastern Syria near the al-Tanf military base, a U.S. outpost near the Syria-Jordan border.
Since 2017, the Israeli Air Force has cleared all planned flights with the U.S. Central Command, which conducts an assessment. The command also reports details of planned flights to the U.S. Defense Secretary and others, who can also choose to conduct assessments.
The Israeli strikes are illegal under international law and, according to the Russian ambassador to Syria, Alexander Yefimov, “leave human casualties, cause tangible material damage, violate Syria’s sovereignty, pose a threat to international civil aviation, and in general increase tension in the already escalating military-political situation.”
Map of Israeli airstrikes in Syria between 2020 and 2022 based on public reports. The “x” is the spot of the al-Tanf air base. [Source: wsj.com]Officially, the purpose of the strikes is to interrupt Tehran’s flow of weapons to Lebanese Hezbollah—which established a “Golan liberation brigade” in support of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad”—and to diminish Iran’s military forces and proxies in Syria.
The U.S. claims that it wants to ensure that Israeli bombing raids do not interfere with the U.S.-led military campaign against Islamic State militants.
However, the Islamic State is the main opposition force to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whom both Washington and Israel have long tried to overthrow.
The location of the strikes underscores an ulterior agenda, furthermore, which is to help sustain the U.S. military outpost at al-Tanf which has been targeted in drone attacks.
Al-Tanf is located strategically near oil fields; U.S. troops were positioned there to “keep Syria’s oil,” as Donald Trump acknowledged when he was president.
In August 2020, Trump granted a sanctions waiver to a Delaware-based oil company, Delta Crescent Energy LLC with close ties to his administration, allowing it to develop oil fields that had been captured from the Islamic State by the Syrian Democratic Forces, Washington’s proxy troops consisting mainly of the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia.
The U.S. military trucked in components for two modular refineries to assist the company in exploiting and marketing Syrian oil.
Though the Biden administration rescinded the sanctions waiver, it has sustained at least 900 troops in Syria and bombed targets in Syria near the Iraqi border allegedly targeting pro-Iranian militias.
Syria’s Foreign Ministry told the official SANA news agency that the air raids—which killed a child on the Iraqi side of the border—demonstrated “the recklessness of U.S. policies and the need for Washington to withdraw its aggressor forces” from the region.
Washington’s Long War on SyriaAs the World Socialist website put it, U.S. imperialism has been at war in Syria since launching a regime-change operation in 2011, using CIA-backed Islamist militias as its proxies in a bid to topple Assad’s government and impose a U.S. puppet government in Damascus.
The Obama administration launched a direct military intervention in Syria as well as Iraq on the pretext of combating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), an offshoot of the very Islamist militias that it had previously armed and funded. The toll of these interventions is exemplified by the hundreds of thousands of dead and the millions of displaced.
Now the U.S. remains in Syria for the purpose of controlling and exploiting the country’s oil, as part of a broader military campaign to “impose a neo-colonial U.S. hegemony in the Middle East at the expense of Iran, and the countries the Pentagon defines as ‘great power’ rivals, China and Russia”—which is allied with Assad.
Working Together to Hemorrhage Syria to DeathFor the Israelis, the overthrow of the Assad government would represent the final death of the Arab nationalist threat that has overhung the Jewish state since the early 1950s.
Such an outcome would also facilitate much greater freedom of action for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in the region, with Syrian ballistic missiles, chemical weapons and air defenses all having for decades been directed primarily at restraining Israel’s military power.
Israel furthermore wants to strike a blow at Hezbollah and Iran, which is allied with Assad, a Shia Allawite. Moshe Ya’alon, Israeli Defense Minister from 2013-2016, stated that, “in Syria, if it is a choice between Iran and the Islamic State, I choose the Islamic State … Our greatest enemy is the Iranian regime that has declared war on us.”
Former Israeli Consul General in New York Alon Pinkas told The New York Times in 2013 that, for Jerusalem, “this is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don’t want one to win [Syrian government forces]—we’ll settle for a tie. Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that’s the strategic thinking here. As long as this lingers, there’s no real threat from Syria.” : al-monitor.com]
These latter comments help to explain the purpose of the recent airstrikes better than anything and why the U.S. would assist with them.
By bleeding and hemorrhaging Syria to death—including also through the imposition of devastating sanctions—the U.S. could ensure that Assad remains isolated and Syria weak. Then it will remain unable to project its influence and revive the Pan-Arab project that several generations ago had begun to challenge U.S. primacy in the Middle East.
June 28, 2022
Big Pharma Desperate to Get COVID Shots on Childhood Schedule Before ‘Emergency’ Ends
Once the COVID-19 vaccine is on the childhood vaccination schedule, the vaccine makers are permanently shielded from liability for injuries and deaths that occur in any age group, including adults.
Story at a glance:
The rate of COVID-19-associated hospitalization among children aged 5 to 11 is just 0.0008%. In real-world terms, that’s so close to zero you basically cannot lower it any further.Despite that, the vaccine advisory panel — the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) — of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on June 15 unanimously approved granting Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID shots for infants and young children.Pfizer’s EUA is for a three-dose regimen (3-microgram shots) for children 6 months to 5 years old; Moderna’s EUA is for a two-dose regimen (25-microgram shots) for children 6 months to 6 years.In granting this EUA, the FDA again ignored injury and death data and swept medical ethics aside.The drug companies need this last remaining age group to be included under the EUA, because once the emergency is finally declared “over,” the next phase of liability shielding requires that the shots receive approval by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Once the vaccine is on the childhood vaccination schedule, the vaccine makers are permanently shielded from liability for injuries and deaths that occur in any age group, including adults.Statistics show the rate of COVID-19-associated hospitalization among children aged 5 to 11 is 0.0008%. In real-world terms, that’s so close to zero you basically cannot lower it any further.
Yet, despite such reassuring data, children in this age group are urged to get two to three doses of the COVID jab, even though side effects of the injection could harm them for life, or kill them.
As noted by the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation in the video below, myocarditis — one of the recognized effects of the COVID jab — “has a mortality rate of 25% to 56% within three to 10 years, owing to progressive heart failure and sudden cardiac death.”
Sudden cardiac death is what the media and public health agencies are now glibly referring to as “sudden adult death syndrome” or SADS.
The older and more appropriate description for SADS is “sudden arrhythmic death syndrome,” but they don’t even want to use the word “arrhythmic” anymore, as that tells you what the death is really caused by, and many are now aware that the jab can cause heart inflammation.
By avoiding the word “arrhythmic,” it’s easier for them to pretend as though people are dying for no apparent reason, and certainly not because of the COVID shots. Still, real-world facts tell us that SADS didn’t take off until after the shots were rolled out, and the vast majority of young healthy people who suddenly die for no apparent reason have been jabbed.
Also, understand that if your child or you are injured by the shot, you cannot sue the drug company for damages and, so far, the U.S. government has rejected all but one of the claims filed with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program.
At the current pace of about 18 claims a month, it would take 38 years just to get through the current backlog, Reuters has noted. Basically, many may die before their case even gets through review.
COVID jab authorization granted for babies
As if the situation were not bad enough already, on June 15, the FDA’s vaccine advisory panel — the VRBPAC — unanimously approved (21-0) to grant EUA to both Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID shots for infants and young children.
Pfizer’s EUA is for a three-dose regimen (3-microgram shots) for children 6 months to 5 years old, while Moderna’s EUA is for a two-dose regimen (25-microgram shots) for children 6 months to 6 years.
In the video at the top of the page, Steve Kirsch, president of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, interviews reporter Toby Rogers, who endured the entire nine-hour day of the recent VRBPAC meeting.
The day before that meeting, June 14, Rogers published a written summary of Pfizer’s trial on young children, which he referred to as “an embarrassment.” “Any VRBPAC member who votes Aye on this junk science application should be removed from his/her job,” he wrote. Apparently, they all need to go.
In the interview, Rogers laments the fact that the VRBPAC members remain “locked in their information bubble” and won’t allow any conflicting data to influence their preconceived biases.
As noted by Rogers, they have a sacred duty to protect public health, and they’re being flippant about it.
They’re ignoring data, they’re ignoring the pleas of the vaccine injured, they’re ignoring serious questions, they’re ignoring everything except the flimsiest bits and pieces upon which their narrative is built. Rogers called the experience “heartbreaking.”
[…]
The Most Revolutionary Act
- Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's profile
- 11 followers
