Groups allied with the Biden administration are planning on working directly with cellphone network providers to ‘fact check’ private SMS messages if they contain “misinformation about vaccines.”
The revelation is made in a Politico article which explains how the White House is preparing to characterize “conservative opponents of its Covid-19 vaccine campaign as dangerous and extreme.”
The decision to ramp up the information war against vaccine skeptics was made after conservatives showed resistance to the Biden administration’s plan to go “door-to-door” to increase vaccination rates.
“Biden allied groups, including the Democratic National Committee, are also planning to engage fact-checkers more aggressively and work with SMS carriers to dispel misinformation about vaccines that is sent over social media and text messages,” states the report.
“The goal is to ensure that people who may have difficulty getting a vaccination because of issues like transportation see those barriers lessened or removed entirely.”https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1414655500344565764&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fhumansarefree.com%2F2021%2F07%2Fdemocrats-plan-to-fact-check-private-sms.html&theme=light&widgetsVersion=e1ffbdb%3A1614796141937&width=550px
The prospect of the DNC and other government-affiliated groups having access to Americans’ private text messages represents a chilling surveillance dystopia.
Interfering with and trying to ‘fact check’ people’s personal conversations is also utterly demented.
Recall that ‘fact-checkers’ infamously declared the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis to be a “debunked conspiracy theory” at the start of the pandemic, only to be forced into a humiliating reversal later on.
In doing so, they may have helped facilitate one of the biggest cover-ups in modern history, so what business such groups have in snooping on people’s private SMS messages is anyone’s guess.
If one were only limited to viewing or reading the US mainstream media the story of how President Joe Biden went down on his knees to honor two visiting Israelis would never have surfaced. Fortunately, the story did make considerable waves in both the Israeli and the alternative media, though not enough to convince the faceless editors at CBS news and elsewhere to run with it. The kneeling incident reportedly took place while Biden was meeting in the White House with soon-to-be retired Israeli president Reuven Rivlin. Rivlin was doing something like his victory lap, having presumably completed his term of office without being charged with corruption, which is what the Jewish state’s leaders have traditionally been noted for.
In fact, the good news re Israeli corruption is that recent ex-prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been dogged by corruption charges for years, no longer can claim immunity and just might now have to pay the piper and go to jail together with his lovely wife Sara. The thought of Netanyahu in the slammer brings tears of joy to my eyes, not only because he is dishonest and a thief, but also because he was part of an Israeli spy ring that obtained nuclear triggers to construct bombs, which was operating against the United States back when he lived here in the 1970s-80s. But that is another story for another day.
Rivlin was in town to say goodbye but also to discuss Iran. The Israeli view on Iran is that the Mullahs have a secret nuclear weapons program so any kind of agreement with them allows work to proceed clandestinely. Israel believes that allowing the United States to re-enter into 2015’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) would take the heat off Iran and would virtually guarantee that the Islamic Republic would wind up with a nuclear weapon, which would threaten the entire region, most particularly Israel and the Saudis. This line is, of course, being echoed by Israel’s many friends in the United States.
The other view, supported by both the United Nations and the US intelligence community, is that it is Israel rather than Iran that has a secret nuclear arsenal which is not subject to international inspection. Everyone but Israel believes that Iran, for its part, long ago gave up an exploratory program that might plausibly have led to a weapon. The only so-called evidence challenging that view consists of information on a lap top that was fortuitously discovered by some opponents of the Iranian government which had previously been fabricated by Israeli intelligence and placed so as to be found and exposed.
Biden, completely predictably, assured the Israeli president that his personal commitment to the Jewish state is “iron-clad.” No doubt Rivlin for his part passed the Israeli view regarding Iran on to Biden during their meeting, though there has been no subsequent document describing in any detail that aspect of their discussion. The White House press release described their interaction as follows: “President Biden conveyed his unwavering support for Israel’s security and his commitment to deepening the cooperation between the two countries across all fields. The leaders discussed the many challenges facing the region, including the threat posed by Iran. The President emphasized that under his administration, Iran will never get a nuclear weapon. He also assured President Rivlin that the United States remains determined to counter Iran’s malign activity and support for terrorist proxies, which have destabilizing consequences for the region.”
In reality, of course, it is Israel and the US that are nuclear armed and have been supporting terrorist proxies in the Middle East, but we’ll give that one a pass. Rivlin had with him his 45 year-old chief of staff, a Haredi Orthodox Israeli woman named Rivka Ravitz who has borne twelve children. Many Orthodox Jews apparently believe that procreating up to maximum capacity is a requirement that comes straight from Yahweh. Joe responded with something like delight at the report of the “cheaper by the dozen” offspring and he got so excited that he went down on one knee to honor the lady and, presumably, her boss. And to make matters worse, a photographer who accompanied the Israeli entourage was in the room with the beaming trio and was able to take a picture of Joe on one bended knee, though it also has been claimed that he might have gone down on both knees which raises the question how he managed to get back up at his age. Are Secret Service Agent required to lift up kneeling presidents?
So here we have the president of the United States down on one or two knees in front of two former Israeli government officials. Doesn’t look good, does it? But it could be a metaphor for what the entire United States government and Establishment choose to do when it comes to Israel. Too bad there is no recording of what Honest Joe was saying as he was going down. Was it the usual inarticulate mumble or something acknowledging the power and majesty of his visitors? As noted above, avowed Zionist Joe reportedly said either before or maybe after his prostration that the commitment to Israel is “iron-clad,” which one might suggest to be the unofficial motto of the United States Congress.
I know that Joe Biden and almost everyone else in Washington politics would not share my view of the Israel-US relationship, which to put it succinctly goes as follows: the United States relationship with Israel is a strategic liability that has been a major factor in US involvement in avoidable wars that have cost a great deal of money and have done terrible damage to actual interests, while also leading to the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians and American soldiers. On top of that, the US inexplicably gives Israel, a wealthy nation, billions of dollars each year and uncritical political support that has contributed to America’s sharply declining international standing. Finally, though the Israel Lobby that has brought all of this about through corruption of congress and the media includes a rabid Christian Zionist subset, the money and access to genuine political power nearly all comes from American Jewish groups and wealthy individuals who are guilty of dual loyalty, or actually singular loyalty to Israel. They should all be registered as “foreign agents” to make completely clear where their allegiance lies.
Biden is, to be sure, a funny bloke who wants to pretend to being a devout Roman Catholic while also supporting abortion as a form of birth control. He also appears to want to be President of the United States while giving “iron-clad” guarantees of loyalty to a foreign country. Given that, his kneeling to Israeli officials in the Oval Office is under the circumstances appropriate as it reflects who is actually in charge. Biden, like Nancy Pelosi and the other bottom crawlers that make up the US Congress, reflexively and automatically defers to Israel and to the powerful Jewish community on both foreign policy and many domestic issues. If one cannot accept that simple truth it will become impossible to understand what is actually at play.
Apart from a handful of liberals, who in the Congress is complaining about using readily and even illegally supplied American weapons to kill Gazans? What do we have to do to have a president that actually puts Americans first, since neither Donald Trump nor Joe Biden seem prepared to do so? It is an unavoidable fact that on so many of these issues the American federal and even many state and local governments have been dominated by Israel’s interests. The only question is “What can be done to change that dynamic?” That’s the underlying problem, but change just might come if and when more Americans begin to realize the extent to which their president and governing system have been compromised and their tax dollars stolen by Israel!
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.orgaddress is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org
Years ago, Ken and I went to a counselor/psychologist in hopes of healing our marriage. He wanted to know all about my childhood and past hurts. In pondering this method and reading a book by Dave Hunt called “Beyond Seduction: A Return to Biblical Christianity,” I can now see why most psychologists and counselors don’t help. Instead of addressing sin in the couple’s lives, they want to find the source of the sin and deal with that instead.
Dave Hunt makes some remarkable observations about psychology:
“Christians who turn from God and His Word to psychotherapists for help with depression forsake ‘the fountain of living waters’ to drink from the polluted, unsatisfying, and even harmful ‘broken cisterns that can hold no water’” (Jeremiah 2:13).
I shared this on my Instagram and was hit with many angry women who vehemently disagreed with me. So, I tried to reason with them by writing the following:
King David had many times of great depression, but he didn’t heal his mind through drugs or running to a psychotherapist. No, he renewed his mind with truth. He reminded himself who was in control and that he could trust God Almighty with his life. He became thankful rather than fearful.
Our actions flow from our thought life. This is why God speaks about what we dwell upon and commands that we renew our minds with truth. Most of what you hear from the world are lies. Most are living in rebellion to God. This is why depression and suicides are skyrocketing.
Be immersed in God’s Word! Take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ! This is how we gain a sound mind (2 Timothy 1:7), not through anything the world has to offer.
If anyone could be depressed and suicidal, it would be me. Thirty year of severe pain, hundreds of sleepless nights (singing hymns in my mind over and over again got me through), almost died a few times, missing out on holidays, vacations, and birthdays, feeling poorly all throughout the years of raising my children, a radiated to death pituitary so zero hormone production, and a brain tumor that may eventually kill me.
Whenever I felt myself sinking into a pit of depression, I would renew my mind with truth. The joy of the Lord is my strength, and I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. This would immediately pull me out. His Word is powerful, women!
“As a result of the influence of psychology, the pure gospel and the practical application of the cross in daily life have been undermined” (Dave Hunt). As if man knows better than God our Creator. As if man’s ways are superior to God’s. “Christian psychology is an attempted balancing act, with one foot upon the solid Rock, Jesus Christ, and the other on the sinking sand of humanism.
“Instead of purging out the leaven, the church is granting increasing credence and honor to psychology. Christians are asked to accept psychology as a new source of truth and put it on an equal footing with God’s Word. Its psychology is as unstable as water. Its false gospel continually changes as its conflicting theories ebb and flow and its gurus come and go. Nevertheless, these illegitimate prophets who are worshiped in the secular world are influencing Christianity.
“In summary, by accepting a ‘new interpretation’ of the Bible that comes from outside and cannot be supported by the Scripture themselves, the church has embraced an alien gospel administered by a new class of priests supported by humanistic authority. With its own vocabulary and rituals and academic knowledge, this new clergy has gained authority over those who know only God and His Word and are thus no longer qualified to counsel from Scripture.” (Dave Hunt)
Many in the churches do need personal, marriage, and family counseling, but it must be biblical (speaking the truth in love) and not psychological. The more regular Christians like you and me study the Word and understand Truth thus growing in wisdom, the better we’re able to give biblically, sound counsel to those who are hurting. I mentor women on a daily basis. All of my counsel to them revolves around God’s Word, since I know His ways are higher than my ways.
Drugs for depression should be a last resort, since they are highly toxic to the human body and the side effects can be depression and suicide. Plus, they are very hard to withdraw from. There are people who are still having withdrawal symptoms from them years after going off of them. Seek to replace the lies you’re believing with truth instead. Eat as healthy as possible. Get exercise and sunshine. Do all you can to stay far away from the drugs.
According as his divine power hath given unto us ALL things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue. 2 Peter 1:3
For more than a decade, Joel Moskowitz, a researcher in the School of Public Health at UC Berkeley and director of Berkeley’s Center for Family and Community Health, has been on a quest to prove that radiation from cellphones is unsafe. But, he said, most people don’t want to hear it.
“People are addicted to their smartphones,” said Moskowitz. “We use them for everything now, and, in many ways, we need them to function in our daily lives. I think the idea that they’re potentially harming our health is too much for some people.”
Since cellphones first came onto the market in 1983, they have gone from clunky devices with bad reception to today’s sleek, multifunction smartphones. And although cellphones are now used by nearly all American adults, considerable research suggests that long-term use poses health risks from the radiation they emit, said Moskowitz.
“Cellphones, cell towers and other wireless devices are regulated by most governments,” said Moskowitz. “Our government, however, stopped funding research on the health effects of radiofrequency radiation in the 1990s.”
Berkeley News spoke with Moskowitz about the health risks of cellphone radiation, why the topic is so controversial and what we can expect with the rollout of 5G.
Berkeley News: I first heard you speak about the health risks of cellphone radiation at Berkeley in 2019, but you’ve been doing this research since 2009. What led you to pursue this research?
Joel Moskowitz: I got into this field by accident, actually. During the past 40 years, the bulk of my research has been focused on tobacco-related disease prevention. I first became interested in cellphone radiation in 2008, when Dr. Seung-Kwon Myung, a physician scientist with the National Cancer Center of South Korea, came to spend a year at the Center for Family and Community Health. He was involved in our smoking cessation projects, and we worked with him and his colleagues on two reviews of the literature, one of which addressed the tumor risk from cellphone use.
At that time, I was skeptical that cellphone radiation could be harmful. However, since I was dubious that cellphone radiation could cause cancer, I immersed myself in the literature regarding the biological effects of low-intensity microwave radiation, emitted by cellphones and other wireless devices.
After reading many animal toxicology studies that found that this radiation could increase oxidative stress — free radicals, stress proteins and DNA damage — I became increasingly convinced that what we were observing in our review of human studies was indeed a real risk.
Berkeley News: While Myung and his colleagues were visiting the Center for Family and Community Health, you reviewed case-control studies examining the association between mobile phone use and tumor risk. What did you find?
Joel Moskowitz: Our 2009 review, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, found that heavy cellphone use was associated with increased brain cancer incidence, especially in studies that used higher quality methods and studies that had no telecommunications industry funding.
Last year, we updated our review, published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, based on a meta-analysis of 46 case-control studies — twice as many studies as we used for our 2009 review — and obtained similar findings. Our main takeaway from the current review is that approximately 1,000 hours of lifetime cellphone use, or about 17 minutes per day over a 10-year period, is associated with a statistically significant 60% increase in brain cancer.
Berkeley News: One thing I think we should address upfront is how controversial this research is. Some scientists have said that these findings are without basis and that there isn’t enough evidence that cellphone radiation is harmful to our health. How do you respond to that?
Joel Moskowitz: Well, first of all, few scientists in this country can speak knowledgeably about the health effects of wireless technology. So, I’m not surprised that people are skeptical, but that doesn’t mean the findings aren’t valid.
A big reason there isn’t more research about the health risks of radiofrequency radiation exposure is because the U.S. government stopped funding this research in the 1990s, with the exception of a $30 million rodent study published in 2018 by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ National Toxicology Program, which found “clear evidence” of carcinogenicity from cellphone radiation.
In 1996, the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, adopted exposure guidelines that limited the intensity of exposure to radiofrequency radiation. These guidelines were designed to prevent significant heating of tissue from short-term exposure to radiofrequency radiation, not to protect us from the effects of long-term exposure to low levels of modulated, or pulsed, radiofrequency radiation, which is produced by cellphones, cordless phones and other wireless devices, including Wi-Fi. Yet, the preponderance of research published since 1990 finds adverse biologic and health effects from long-term exposure to radiofrequency radiation, including DNA damage.
More than 250 scientists, who have published over 2,000 papers and letters in professional journals on the biologic and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields produced by wireless devices, including cellphones, have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for health warnings and stronger exposure limits. So, there are many scientists who agree that this radiation is harmful to our health.
Berkeley News: Why did the government stop funding this kind of research?
Joel Moskowitz: The telecommunications industry has almost complete control of the FCC, according to Captured Agency, a monograph written by journalist Norm Alster during his 2014-15 fellowship at Harvard University’s Center for Ethics. There’s a revolving door between the membership of the FCC and high-level people within the telecom industry that’s been going on for a couple of decades now.
The industry spends about $100 million a year lobbying Congress. The CTIA, which is the major telecom lobbying group, spends $12.5 million per year on 70 lobbyists. According to one of their spokespersons, lobbyists meet roughly 500 times a year with the FCC to lobby on various issues. The industry as a whole spends $132 million a year on lobbying and provides $18 million in political contributions to members of Congress and others at the federal level.
Berkeley News: It reminds me of when the U.S. Surgeon General released a landmark report in 1964 that linked cigarettes with dangerous health effects, including cancer and heart disease. Even though the 10-person committee consulted more than 7,000 articles already available in biomedical literature, the report’s findings were very controversial when they came out.
Joel Moskowitz: Yes, there are strong parallels between what the telecom industry has done and what the tobacco industry has done, in terms of marketing and controlling messaging to the public. In the 1940s, tobacco companies hired doctors and dentists to endorse their products to reduce public health concerns about smoking risks.
The CTIA currently uses a nuclear physicist from academia to assure policymakers that microwave radiation is safe. The telecom industry not only uses the tobacco industry playbook, it is more economically and politically powerful than Big Tobacco ever was. This year, the telecom industry will spend over $18 billion advertising cellular technology worldwide.
Berkeley News: You mentioned that cellphones and other wireless devices use modulated, or pulsed, radiofrequency radiation. Can you explain how cellphones and other wireless devices work, and how the radiation they emit is different from radiation from other household appliances, like a microwave?
Joel Moskowitz: Basically, when you make a call, you’ve got a radio and a transmitter. It transmits a signal to the nearest cell tower. Each cell tower has a geographic cell, so to speak, in which it can communicate with cellphones within that geographic region or cell.
Then, that cell tower communicates with a switching station, which then searches for whom you’re trying to call, and it connects through a copper cable or fiber optics or, in many cases, a wireless connection through microwave radiation with the wireless access point. Then, that access point either communicates directly through copper wires through a landline or, if you’re calling another cellphone, it will send a signal to a cell tower within the cell of the receiver and so forth.
The difference is the kind of microwave radiation each device emits. With regard to cellphones and Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, there is an information-gathering component. The waves are modulated and pulsed in a very different manner than your microwave oven.
Berkeley News: What, specifically, are some of the health effects associated with long-term exposure to low-level modulated radiofrequency radiation emitted from wireless devices?
Joel Moskowitz: Many biologists and electromagnetic field scientists believe the modulation of wireless devices makes the energy more biologically active, which interferes with our cellular mechanisms, opening up calcium channels, for example, and allowing calcium to flow into the cell and into the mitochondria within the cell, interfering with our natural cellular processes and leading to the creation of stress proteins and free radicals and, possibly, DNA damage. And, in other cases, it may lead to cell death.
In 2001, based upon the biologic and human epidemiologic research, low-frequency fields were classified as “possibly carcinogenic” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization. In 2011, the agency classified radiofrequency radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based upon studies of cellphone radiation and brain tumor risk in humans. Currently, we have considerably more evidence that would warrant a stronger classification.
Most recently, on March 1, 2021, a report was released by the former director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which concluded that there is a “high probability” that radiofrequency radiation emitted by cellphones causes gliomas and acoustic neuromas, two types of brain tumors.
Berkeley News: Let’s talk about the fifth generation of cellphone technology, known as 5G, which is already available in limited areas across the U.S. What does this mean for cellphone users and what changes will come with it?
Joel Moskowitz: For the first time, in addition to microwaves, this technology will employ millimeter waves, which are much higher frequency than the microwaves used by 3G and 4G. Millimeter waves can’t travel very far, and they’re blocked by fog or rain, trees and building materials, so the industry estimates that it’ll need 800,000 new cell antenna sites.
Each of these sites may have cell antennas from various cellphone providers, and each of these antennas may have microarrays consisting of dozens or even perhaps hundreds of little antennas. In the next few years in the U.S., we will see deployed roughly 2.5 times more antenna sites than in current use unless wireless safety advocates and their representatives in Congress or the judicial system put a halt to this.
Berkeley News: How are millimeter waves different from microwaves, in terms of how they affect our bodies and the environment?
Joel Moskowitz: Millimeter wave radiation is largely absorbed in the skin, the sweat glands, the peripheral nerves, the eyes and the testes, based upon the body of researchthat’s been done on millimeter waves. In addition, this radiation may cause hypersensitivity and biochemical alterations in the immune and circulatory systems — the heart, the liver, kidneys and brain.
Millimeter waves can also harm insects and promote the growth of drug-resistant pathogens, so it’s likely to have some widespread environmental effects for the micro-environments around these cell antenna sites.
Berkeley News: What are some simple things that each of us can do to reduce the risk of harm from radiation from cellphones and other wireless devices?
Joel Moskowitz: First, minimize your use of cellphones or cordless phones — use a landline whenever possible. If you do use a cellphone, turn off the Wi-Fi and Bluetooth if you’re not using them. However, when near a Wi-Fi router, you would be better off using your cellphone on Wi-Fi and turning off the cellular because this will likely result in less radiation exposure than using the cellular network.
Second, distance is your friend. Keeping your cellphone 10 inches away from your body, as compared to one-tenth of an inch, results in a 10,000-fold reduction in exposure. So, keep your phone away from your head and body. Store your phone in a purse or backpack. If you have to put it in your pocket, put it on airplane mode. Text, use wired headphones or speakerphone for calls. Don’t sleep with it next to your head — turn it off or put it in another room.
Third, use your phone only when the signal is strong. Cellphones are programmed to increase radiation when the signal is poor, that is when one or two bars are displayed on your phone. For example, don’t use your phone in an elevator or in a car, as metal structures interfere with the signal.
Also, I encourage people to learn more about the 150-plus local groups affiliated with Americans for Responsible Technology, which are working to educate policymakers, urging them to adopt cell tower regulations and exposure limits that fully protect us and the environment from the harm caused by wireless radiation.
I have been reading Xenophon’s Retreat and was struck by the similarities of social, political and cultural experiences during the waning years of the Greek experiment in the late 5th century B.C. and America today. One passage- attributed to Xenophon or Aristotle depending on text reads thus:
“The contrast between aristocracy and democracy is universal. It is based on the fact that intemperance and injustice are more or less unknown in the best of men, who have the highest degree of concern for decency, whereas ignorance and unruliness and dishonesty are in the highest degree qualities of the masses, who are tempted to immoral conduct by their poverty.”
The further divisions of the Greek city states, primarily those of Athens and Sparta closely resemble the bitter divide that exists in our present era; the Spartans were driven by masculine efforts of martial discipline, patriotism, and honor (those of the warrior class), while the Athenian ideals were of endless hedonism, sophistry, commerce and banking. The conflict between the two as the Greek era slid into decline set the stage for the inevitable collapse of the foundational civilization of Western mankind.
It would be impossible not to see the similarities in Xenophon’s retreat from Persia- despite its military superiority over the enemy and our recent pullout from Afghanistan in this light. At the end, despite every advantage the Greeks possessed, their destiny had already been set by their own internal divisions, not by the threat from any foreign enemy.
Similarly, the trial of Socrates- foretold long before it occurred by the central player- resembled in all ways the recent phenomenon of cancel culture in modern America and the complete subversion of the system justice meant to prevent such outrages in a free society.
He wrote-
“My trial would resemble the prosecution of a doctor by a manufacturer of sweets before a jury of children.”
The Athenians were desperate to retain complete control over the masses not by example, but by a form of fear and self-imposed submission to the beliefs of the ruling class by their population. It was imperative, therefore, to make an example out of anyone who dared to challenge their authority and to do so publicly, not only to discredit, but to humiliate, lest the youth- “the children”- be led astray by those with contrarian views.
From the text of Xenophon’s retreat-
“Socrates was charged with not recognizing the gods of the state…societies such as fifth century Athens, are notoriously paranoid about the failure to conform…”
There appears, if only we scratch the surface of any condition known to man, to be and endlessly repeating cycle of behaviors regardless of time, place or circumstance.
The Pandemic is a Criminal Scam Dr David Martin & Atty Dr Reiner Fuelmich on US Govt. Origins & Patenting of Corona Virus – Going Back 21 Years
“Some people are making enormous amounts of money from this criminal enterprise… it is a delusion to believe the virus escaped from a Chinese laboratory and spread all over the world.” “What makes this even worse is that Dr Fauci in every board meeting of the NIAID between 2016 and 2019 lamented the fact that there wasn’t a way to make EVERYONE take a universal flu vaccine.” Dr. David Martin heads a company that monitors all patent applications to determine investment opportunities. From UK Guy(henrymakow.com) There is nothing novel about the Corona virus as Dr Martin explains inthis July 9 interview with lawyer Dr Reiner Fuelmich. There are 73 patents covering every aspect of the virus going back 21 years. Some were filed as early as 2000. The CDC even paid extra money (from US taxpayers) to ensure some patents were not visible to public scrutiny. The script for this pandemic was written in 2004 at a conference called ‘Sars and Bioterrorism’, held on January 6th by Merck where the phrase ‘The New Normal’ was first coined and adopted by the WHO for the propaganda campaign, along with the idea of a universal vaccine. Moderna knew they were slated to have a significant part to play in the development of the vaccine in March 2019 as they suddenly amended a series of failed patent filings; a very bizarre behaviour to specifically mention a ‘deliberate release’ of Corona virus. They amended four patents to begin the vaccine development. Moderna didn’t own all the technology which was a problem, so they negotiated with the two companies that owned this technology – Arbutus and Accuatus Pharmaceuticals who owned the lipid nano particle envelope process which delivers the mRNA fragment. In November 2019, Moderna entered a research agreement with the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill to develop spike proteins to put inside the lipid nano particle for the vaccine. This was before the virus allegedly even “emerged” and therefore meant that a candidate vaccine had ALREADY existed for it. What makes this even worse is that Dr Fauci in every board meeting of the NIAID between 2016 and 2019 lamented the fact that there wasn’t a way to make EVERYONE take a universal flu vaccine. But there was an ‘epithany’ with these amended patents in March 2019 in that: What if there was ‘an accidental or intentional release of a respiratory pathogen?’ What is problematic here is that, the same phrase is used in a book called ‘A World At Risk’ written by the World Health Organization in September 2019, months before the virus emerged. It says we need a ‘coordinated global experience of a respiratory pathogen release ‘ which by September 2020 must have in place a universal capacity for public relations management, crowd control and the acceptance of a universal vaccine. The video is deep and precise – which is great for anyone who wants to search for the truth of what is happening. It completely exposes the pandemic as a criminal scam and those with legal and evidence-based brains would find this information invaluable. The video lasts for 1 hour 51 minutes and includes some German as Dr Fuellmich translates some of what Dr Martin is saying into German, presumably to be used as expert testimony in his legal challenge to the German Government. I hope he succeeds.—-Related – Dr. David Martin – There is no virus; no pandemic —————– A Manufactured Illusion
“At the time of writing (June 2020), the pandemic continues to worsen globally. Many of us are pondering when things will return to normal. The short response is: never.”—Covid 19: The Great Resetby Andrew (henrymakow.com)Remember how the our mainstream media claimed only conspiracy theorists of the worst order would associate the COVID 19 pandemic with a “Great Reset?” Au contraire, fellow North Americans! In the following paragraphs, I hope to provide sufficient insight to cause you to do what I did – READ the World Economic Forum’s (WEF’s) COVID-19: The Great Reset. If you aren’t already familiar with the WEF, it was created in 1971 as the lead planner for the world’s various governmental advisory organizations as shown below:
The WEF’s Founder and co-author of this book is Klaws Swab. The other co-author is Thierry Malleret, Managing Partner of The Monthly Barometer, a powerful global predictive analysis resource. The following mid-book (p.145) statement on “Enlightened Leadership” is key to the authors’ game plan: “Some leaders and decision-makers who were already at the forefront of the fight against climate change may want to take advantage of the shock inflicted by the pandemic to implement long-lasting and wider environmental changes.” They will, in effect, make “good use” of the pandemic by not letting the crisis go to waste. The exhortation of different leaders ranging from HRH the Prince of Wales (Prince Charles) to Andrew Cuomo to “build it back better” goes in that direction. So does a dual declaration made by the IEA with Dan Jørgensen, Minister for Climate, Energy and Utilities of Denmark, suggesting that clean energy transitions could help kick-start economies: “Around the world, leaders are getting ready now, drawing up massive economic stimulus packages. Some of these plans will provide short-term boosts, others will shape infrastructure for decades to come. We believe that by making clean energy an integral part of their plans, governments can deliver jobs and economic growth while also ensuring that their energy systems are modernized, more resilient and less polluting.” Governments led by enlightened leaders will make their stimulus packages conditional upon green commitments. They will, for example, provide more generous financial conditions for companies with low-carbon business models. Klaus and Malleret couldn’t be more clear how the COVID-19 faux pandemic serves the purposes of their clients, the global elites. Here it is in plain sight! Yet did any of you see this “pandemic-wrapped” game plan discussed by your favorite politicians, digital and social media or TV “news?” Let’s take quick look at a few of the book’s interesting revelations: “At the time of writing (June 2020), the pandemic continues to worsen globally. Many of us are pondering when things will return to normal. The short response is: never.” P. 12, second paragraph.
“The broader point is this: the possibilities for change and the resulting new order are now unlimited and only bound by our imagination, for better or for worse. … You get the point: we should take advantage of this unprecedented opportunity to reimagine our world, in a bid to make it a better and more resilient one as it emerges on the other side of this crisis.” P.19 Oddly, Schwab and Malleret reveal a key element of the plan, vaccines, by saying: “Several months into the pandemic, it looks like even a semblance of a return to ‘business as usual’ for most service companies is inconceivable as long as COVID-19 remains a threat to our health. This in turn suggests that a full return to ‘normal’ cannot be envisaged before a vaccine is available.” P. 48 Such brazen writing reveals their objective is making everyone so desperate for a return to normal that they would rush to embrace these dangerous “vaccines.” At this time, nothing else other than continued complicity from a corrupt media is necessary to keep this heinous conspiracy’s momentum going. And the media is fuelling this momentum by keeping a fearful public desperate for vaccines. For example, according to a report from The Hill, Pfizer will announce that it would be seeking authorization for a third dose of its COVID-19 vaccine. Pfizer and BioNTech said in a Thursday statement that they had seen “encouraging data” from a booster shot trial. As planned by these nefarious men and Big Pharma, returning to normal will be a distant goal as long as the public buys into the “news” of the Indian Variant, the Delta Variant, and, etc. And what are the effects of these continued virus scares? Japan just announced that there will be no spectators for The Olympic Games in Tokyo. All the world travellers with tickets to the Olympics will be relegated to watching the events on TV from their Tokyo hotel rooms. How sad!
Now let’s return to the WEF’s COVID-19: The Great Reset and its ideas for looking forward. In their own words: “The direction of the trend is clear but, ultimately, systemic change will come from policy-makers and business leaders willing to take advantage of COVID stimulus packages to kick-start the nature-positive economy. This will not only be about public investments. The key to crowding private capital into new sources of nature-positive economic value will be to shift key policy levers and public finance incentives as part of a wider economic reset.” P.150 “Resetting the environment should not be seen as a cost, but rather as an investment that will generate economic activity and employment opportunities.” P. 151 COVID-19: The Great Reset is a both a confession of an active global conspiracy and a roadmap for its implementation. I encourage you to read this book yourself. It’s vitally important for you and those you love to know how COVID-19 has been used and what these global sociopaths intend. I leave you with this from WEF Founder and CEO, Klaus Schwab: “You’ll own nothing” — And “you’ll be happy about it.”
In 1958 (the year I was born), my grandpa bought a piece of land in the forests of Wisconsin on Lake Michigan. He built a cabin on the land where we spent our summers with all of our relatives. These are my favorite childhood memories! We had no TV or Internet, so we talked, played, swam, hiked, and just had fun together.
About 38 years ago (the year my oldest daughter was born), my dad bought the cabin next door that was owned by two elderly unmarried sisters. They had both been public school teachers in the 1920s to 1950s. My dad than built onto the tiny cabin to accompany his children and their growing families. Our children’s favorite memories are from this place now.
The other day, I found the book above in this book shelf that was part of the original cabin. I am sure it was what the sisters used when they taught long ago.
It was a reader that was written in 1929.
I looked through it, and it’s a far cry from what children are being taught these days. Here’s a page that taught children to be thankful for our great nation.
Here’s another page with a story from the Bible! Can you imagine this being taught these days?
When they threw God and prayer out of school, they threw out all truth. Now, children are only being taught lies in the public schools.
Can you imagine a President during our lifetime saying such a thing? I sure can’t, but we can pray for one. I also found some old magazines from the late 1940s and early 1950s called Ideal in the same bookshelf left by the sisters. Reading through them made me realize how much more family and home were valued back then.
Here are a few pages from one of these magazines. God’s ways are so good. Enjoy!
Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Jeremiah 6:16
The Problem With Wikipedia and the Digital Revolution
Paul Craig Roberts
From 27 months ago
Yesterday (April 10, 2019) a reader alerted me to the fact that I am being smeared on Wikipedia as a “vocal supporter of the current Russian government and its policies.” The reader also reports that an article in the Daily Beast calls me a “Putin worshiper.” The reader says that he tried to edit the Wikipedia entry without success, and he urged me to give it my attention.
I do not know whether the person who wrote my Wikipedia entry intended to smear me or is merely uninformed. However, dissenting voices do get smeared on Wikipedia. It is an ongoing problem for many of us. For years readers and people who know me would make corrections to my Wikipedia biography, but as soon as the corrections were made, they would be erased and the smears reinstalled.
The problem with Wikipedia is that it is an idealistic approach based on the belief that truth is more likely to emerge when everyone has a voice than when explanations are provided by a select group of experts or peers. This idealistic approach is not without merit. Moreover, it might work very well with subjects and people who do not have ideological opponents or are of no threat to those intent on controlling explanations.
The problem arises when a subject or a person is controversial and is especially the case if the person’s arguments disprove or dissent from official explanations. In The Matrix in which we live, truth-tellers are unwelcome to those who control the explanations in order to advance their agendas. Until truth-tellers can be silenced or completely censured, the practice is to discredit them with smears. Thus, I and many others have been described as “conspiracy theorists” for reporting factual information that contradicts the official and unproven explanation of 9/11, anti-semites for criticizing Israel’s mistreatment of the Palestinians and influence over U.S. foreign policy, and as “Russian agents” or “Putin stooges” for keeping the record straight about Ukraine, Syria, and Putin’s effort to avoid military conflict with the West.
In the pre-Internet age it was difficult to smear people. Newspaper editors would allow letters to the editor to correct factual mistakes or to provide a different interpretation of a collection of facts, but shied away from smears. This doesn’t mean that smears never happened, but not with the abandon of the Internet era.
Open works in process like Wikipedia, Internet comment sections and social media are ideally suited for smearing people and broadcasting the smears worldwide prior to any correction of them. Thus, the digital revolution has been a godsend to government agencies such as the CIA, State Department, Mossad, the Israel Lobby, corporations and other private interest groups, ideological movements such as neoconservatism and Identity Politics, and politicians, all of whom have agendas that are furthered by controlling the explanations.
As money is the highest value for many people, there is an unlimited supply of people who can be hired to smear those who challenge official explanations. A smear can start in a comment section, move to social media, and from there to a website and on to Wikipedia.
It is truth tellers who are smeared, people such as Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Manning, and whistleblowers whose messages are inconvenient for powerful private and government interests.
Smears are effective. There is no shortage of gullible and uninformed or misinformed people. They take a smear at face value and avoid the person or idea smeared. Despite the extreme clarity of Julian Assange’s orchestrated persecution, many see him as a “rapist escaping justice,” “Russian spy,” and “a blackmailer of governments and people.”
In short mud sticks better than facts. That is why I am not optimistic about the future of truth in the digital age. Many see the digital age as the era when truth will flourish. I understand their case. Their belief is not without merit. But the digital age is also an age in which lies can flourish because, unlike the print age, they can be so easily spread.
Consider, for example, the description of me as a “vocal supporter of the current Russian government and its policies” and a “Putin worshiper.” I am a well known critic of the Russian government’s neoliberal economic policies. Michael Hudson and I have jointly criticized the Russian government’s neoliberal economic policies and demonstrated that they are harmful to Russia’s economy. I am known also as a skeptic of Putin’s policy of turning the other cheek to Washington’s and Israel’s aggressions. I appreciate and admire Putin’s enormous self-control, but I have expressed concern that Putin’s unwillingness to put down a hard foot fails to turn away wrath and instead encourages more aggression that sooner or later will result in thermonuclear war.
The Russian government is aware of my position, as is the Russian media where I am often interviewed. My position is also clearly expressed on my website, which is read internationally. So why does the Daily Beast and Wikipedia misrepresent my position?
Wikipedia and comment sections can work only if commentators are responsible people who are carefully monitored by knowledgeable and responsible monitors. But this takes us back to peer-reviewed explanations that Wikipedia was created to avoid.
Historically, messengers are killed, so truth tellers have to expect smears or worse–Julian Assange was arrested this morning inside the Ecuadoran embassy in London. Mankind is fallen. Governments do evil. The most evil is done to those who oppose evil. Truth cannot be told without cost to he who tells the truth.
When I speak of truth-tellers, I am speaking of people whose motive is to tell the truth. Truth is their agenda. I am not saying that truth tellers are infallible and always right. I am saying that they strive to be. They do not intentionally write falsehoods and mislead.
Truth is not opinion. It is pointless to tell a truth teller that you disagree with him. You can present a case that his facts are wrong. You can present a case that there is a better explanation of the facts.
In my experience when most people say they disagree, they mean that they prefer another explanation that is more congenial to their feelings and emotions. For example, many Americans believed the preposterous Russiagate fib because they dislike Trump, just as today conservative talk radio has adopted the official explanation of 9/11 because it can be used against the outspoken female Muslim member of Congress. The facts have nothing to do with either belief. In both cases, the facts are resisted because the truth is not as emotionally comforting or as useful for the agenda at hand as the lie.
I have no objection if readers undertake to monitor and correct the account presented of me in Wikipedia. It will be an ongoing process, and will require the commitment of many of you. Those behind the attacks on me have a lot of money and a lot of hirelings, and they can erase your work as soon as you finish.
The digital revolution and the control mechanisms it provides makes it far more likely that we will end up in a locked down dystopia than would ever have been possible in the print age. But the digital revolution represents perhaps an even greater threat to humanity. It is making humans redundant.
What are humans to do when everything is automated? If the tech nerds have their way, we soon won’t be allowed to drive cars.
What will humans do when there is no need for their labor? Boston Dynamics, a Waltham Massachusetts company, has come up with a robot that replaces warehouse workers. The prediction is that 40 million more Americans will be shoved out of the workforce by robots over the next ten years.
Has anyone thought about who is going to be employed and have the money to purchase the products of robots? No doubt we will be promised all kinds of new and better jobs like we were promised to take the place of the offshored manufacturing and professional service jobs. The promised jobs never showed up. And no, this is not a luddite argument. Everyone can’t be employed designing robots to replace humans.
Each warehouse will rush to increase its profits by laying off employees, and none will consider the aggregate effect on consumer demand for the products in the warehouses. Will the warehouses have to give back their gained profits in taxes to support the unemployed? Will the warehouses have any profits if people haven’t income from jobs with which to buy the products in the warehouses? Does the robot age mean profits have to be socialized in order to sustain human life?
An intelligent approach to technology would be to focus on technology that enhances human performance, not on technology that eliminates the need for humans.
At Stanford University technology has emerged, or is emerging, that permits real time changes in the movements of a person’s mouth as he speaks in order to broadcast a message different than the one the speaker is speaking. The mischief possible with this technology is unacceptable. Television could destroy any unwelcome politician or leader by showing him delivering a message designed to destroy him. If people catch on, it would mean the end of televised speeches as no one would believe any speech unless they were present in person.
People already find it challenging to comprehend reality. The emergence of technology capable of falsifying reality in real time presages a future in which fact and fiction become indistinguishable. The unintended consequence of this technology may well be the death of truth.
Losing a new born is a heart breaking endeavour, as is the pain of losing an unborn child. Which is why we’re both saddened and shocked to bring you the latest update on the number of unborn and newborn children to lose their lives as a result of the mothers receiving one of the Covid-19 vaccines in the United Kingdom.
The Government have released weekly reports on adverse reactions to the experimental Covid-19 vaccines, the first of which covered data inputted to the MHRA Yellow Card Scheme from the 9th December 2020 through to the 24th January 2021.
Their latest report (find it here), which is the twenty-third to be released covers data inputted to the MHRA Yellow Card Scheme from the 9th December 2020 though to the 30th June 2021.
Just twenty-two weeks separate the first and twnty-third report, and the shocking increase in the number of women losing their unborn and newborn child in that time due to having either the Pfizer, AstraZeneca Covid vaccine is appalling.
This was the Governments own advice upon emergency approval of the Pfizer / BioNTech vaccine –
‘Pregnancy’
There are no or limited amount of data from the use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2. Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is not recommended during pregnancy.
For women of childbearing age, pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination. In addition, women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is excreted in human milk. A risk to the newborns/infants cannot be excluded. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 should not be used during breast-feeding.
Fertility
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility.’
It is because of this advice released by the UK Government that we were so shocked to see in the first released report of adverse reactions to the Covid vaccines, using data inputted to the MHRA Yellow Card Scheme up to the 24th January 2021 a total of 4 women had suffered a miscarriage as a result of having the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.
As well as a total of 2 women losing their unborn child as result of having the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine.
We’re still unable to answer why these women were given one of the Covid vaccines against the Governments own advice. But what’s truly shocking is how much this number has increased in the fourteen weeks that have unfolded since.
According to the twnty-third report released by the UK Government on adverse reactions to the Covid vaccines, using data inputted to the MHRA Yellow Card Scheme up to the 30th June 2021, there has been a 4,425% increase since the 24th January in the number of women who have lost their unborn / newborn child after having the Pfizer vaccine.
The total number of miscarriages now stands at 171 alongside 1 report of a tragic premature baby death, 1 report of a death due to foetal growth restriction, 4 reports of foetal death and 4 reports of stillbirth.
The AstraZeneca jab has also caused unnecessary pain to expectant mothers. As of the 30th June there has been a 6,850% increase since the 24th January in the number of women who’ve lost their unborn / newborn baby, bringing the total to 139.
Tragically this includes 136 reports of miscarriage, 2 reports of stillbirth and 1 report of foetal death.
The Moderna mRNA jab, which has only been recently given emergency use authorisation has also started to cause unnecessary pain.
As of the 30th June 2021 a total of 10 women have reported the loss of their baby. This includes 9 reports of miscarriage and 1 report of foetal death.
The question is why are we seeing these numbers when the Governments own advice was that pregnant women should not have the vaccine?
Well the reason is that the Government has since updated it’s original advice to the following –
4.6 Fertility, pregnancy and lactation
Pregnancy
There is limited experience with use of the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 in pregnant women. Animal studies do not indicate direct or indirect harmful effects with respect to pregnancy, embryo/foetal development, parturition or post-natal development. Administration of the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 in pregnancy should only be considered when the potential benefits outweigh any potential risks for the mother and foetus.
And the JCVI have announced that all pregnant women should now get the jab when offered it despite the fact there is no safety data to support this policy.
We dread to think what sort of numbers of these events we will see in the weeks to come.
Informed consent is important, we don’t believe these women were informed in the slightest, and now they will have to suffer the eternal pain of losing their unborn or newborn child.
