Retired child and adolescent psychiatrist and American expatriate in New Zealand. In 2002, I made the difficult decision to close my 25-year Seattle practice after 15 years of covert FBI harassment. I describe the unrelenting phone harassment, illegal break-ins and six attempts on my life in my 2010 book The Most Revolutionary Act: Memoir of an American Refugee.
Brier defines prehistory as time before writing. According to archeologists, Egypt first acquired writing around 3200 BC. The scientific study of prehistoric Egypt began around 1859 when archeologists discovered the first stone tools.
Paleolithic 700,000 BC
The first pre-humans migrated to Egypt from southern Africa around 700,000 BC, at a time when Egypt was lush Savannah. They had speech and used stone axe heads and fire. The axe head was the only tool found in Egypt until the Neanderthals arrived in Egypt between 70,000 and 43,000 BC. The latter buried their dead, cared for the sick and made specialized tools such as scrapers (to prepare hides as clothing).
Around 43,000 BC modern man arrived to replace the Neanderthals. They are fish and molluscs and lived in clans of 25-30 people. Their life expectancy was 30 years, and they made tools from obsidian, which forms a sharper edge than flint. New tools included a sickle to harvest crops (which were intensively cared for but not planted) and a bow and arrow, making tiny specialized arrowheads for hunting birds.
Mesolithic 10,000 – 5,000 BC
This period saw the development of grinding stones to grind grain and cosmetics (used for religious and aesthetic purposes).
Neolithic 5,000 BC to present
From 5,000 BC on, there is clear evidence people were growing grain in Egypt and making pots to cook it and make beer. A total population of 2,000 were living in communities of 150, with clear evidence of a division of labor that included crafts people as well as farmers. Upper and Lower Egypt each has their own king and people start burying their dead in sand pits. Burying bodies in dry sands leads to natural mummification. This may have inspired the Egyptian science of mummification.
There’s early evidence of art, with cosmetic grinding plates carved in animal shapes, decorated pots and small female figurines.
The date of these artifacts is mainly confirmed via carbon 14 dating* or pollen dating (comparing the pollen zones in different rock layers**)
*Carbon 14, present in all living things, begins breaking down the moment they die. Carbon 14 has a haf-life of 5,700 years.
**Non-living objects can sometimes be dated by Carbon 14 dating of pollen found in the same rock layer.
Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.
The FBI and the CIA know that the Zionist entity is the only entity with really significant spy networks in the US, but they are either unwilling or unable to investigate Israeli espionage networks operating freely across the country.
Listen to Nancy Pelosi at the end of January this year: “What we have to do is to try and stop the suffering in Gaza. This is about women and children, people who don’t have a place to go. So let’s address that. But for them to call for a ceasefire is Mr Putin’s message… Make no mistake. This is directly connected to what he would like to see.”
“I think some of these protestors are spontaneous and organic and sincere. Some, I think, are connected to Russia and I say that having looked at this for a long time.”
What is going on here? These are Zionist talking points. As the Palestinians say – every Zionist accusation is a confession. In reality, the only entity with really significant spy networks in the US is the Zionist entity.
One well-known spy network is the Anti-Defamation League. Created in 1913, it has been spying on Arab Americans since before the creation of the Zionist entity. Throughout this period, the ADL has also closely collaborated with the FBI. Today, the ADL is doing more than attempting to repress free speech on Palestine; it is attempting to have ordinary pro-Palestine activism declared to be “terrorism”.
What they are trying to do is to use a vaguely worded law, which they lobbied for, to entrap Palestine solidarity activism as falling under a legal definition of material support for “terrorism”.
In late October, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and another Zionist group published an open letter urging universities to investigate Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) under the material support statute introduced in 1996.
In addition to accusing SJP of supporting Hamas, they were also, the ADL claimed, “voicing an increasingly radical call for confronting and ‘dismantling’ Zionism on U.S. college campuses.”
Material support for “terrorism” can include giving advice or other speech so long as it is at the behest or in coordination with the “terrorist” group.
But there is also an attempt by the ADL and its allies to claim that routine pro-Palestine activism should be legally understood as support for “terrorism”. They are working to blur the line between independent advocacy, which is allowed, and coordination, which could be terrorism.
It is of little comfort that there is no public evidence any SJP student members coordinated with Hamas or any other armed group. The case law construing the material support statute’s punishment of advocacy is so underdeveloped that there is considerable room for investigative overreach by the FBI.
The line between independent advocacy and material support as speech in coordination with a listed “terrorist” group “remains unelaborated”.
Of course, the ADL is one of the few non-government groups that trains federal law enforcement on counterterrorism. It can use the gap to advance its overreaching conception of the material support statute.
To fight back, all campus groups and university management need to declare that no independent campus speech, no matter how incendiary, serves as a legitimate basis for a material support investigation.
It is linked to Israeli intelligence and strategically targets individual students or faculty on campus in order the “crush” the movement.
ICC was created by Hillel International and the Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation in 2002 to promote “Israel” advocacy on campus.
The money came from the business Charles who at that stage had a “major interest in Bank Hapoalim, Israel’s largest bank, and has extensive interests in oil, real estate, banking and shipping in the US.”
Today, Hillel and the ICC maintain close organizational ties. The ICC continues to provide Hillel professionals with “Israel” advocacy training and support.
Hillel has taken on a more extreme form of Zionism in recent years, sparking a rebellion by some student members who are critical of some aspects of Zionism.
They called their challenge Open Hillel, which says it “promotes pluralism and open discourse on Israel-Palestine in Jewish communities on campus and beyond. We aim to eliminate Hillel International’s Standards of Partnership for Israel Activities, which exclude individuals and groups from the Jewish community on campus on the basis of their views on Israel.” But even calling for a debate on Zionism was too much for the ICC, which engaged in spying on the Jewish student group.
The spy operation is closely co-ordinated with the Zionist regime as was revealed by The Lobby USA.
“The ICC pools resources from all of the campus organizations. So that they’re tapped in on all angles.”
According to Jacob Baime, currently the ICC’s chief executive officer, “We built up this massive national political campaign to crush [pro-Palestine activism].”
“It’s modeled on General Stanley McCrystal’s counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq. We’ve copied a lot from that strategy … And one of the pieces was this Operations and Intelligence Brief.”
This is then passed on to the Israeli Ministry of Strategic Affairs.
Baime confirmed that ICC “coordinates with” and “communicates with” the Ministry.
Once collected, data from the ICC’s web of campus spies and high-tech Israeli surveillance equipment then flow to the Anti-Defamation League.
Among its other activities, the ICC offered to pay any pro-“Israel” student $250 to attend the sparsely attended damp squib of the March for Israel in November 2023 in Washington DC.
Make no mistake, the Zionist regime has agents on campus all over the United States. Everyone must be removed.
People may be putting plastic into recycling bins, but most of it generally ends up in landfills or incinerated.
Yet the demand for more plastic production continues—at a growing cost to human and environmental health—because of the belief that recycling offsets the associated waste and risks. A new report by the Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) alleges that the plastics industry knowingly caused the current plastic waste crisis.
The nonprofit’s report claims that as the plastics industry faced mounting concerns over plastics being incinerated and piling up in landfills, they promoted recycling as a viable solution while dismissing it internally as impractical.
“They knew since the 1970s that plastic recycling was not going to be scalable and effective in tackling the plastic waste crisis,” Melissa Valliant, communications director of Beyond Plastics, a nonprofit aiming to reduce single-use plastic use and production, explained to The Epoch Times.
The report asserts that the efforts to sell the false promise of plastic recycling were to avoid restrictive regulations and potential product bans.
Plastic Recycling Poses Many Challenges
According to the report, one problem with plastic recycling is that it is not technically or economically feasible at scale. Unlike glass and metal, plastic cannot be repeatedly recycled without quickly degrading in quality. Most recyclable plastics can typically only be recycled once. As a result, most recycled plastic eventually ends up in landfills, even if it goes through an additional use cycle as another product.
Between the 1970s and 2015, 91 percent of plastic was either landfilled, burned, or leaked into the environment, according to a global analysis published in Science Advances. Another recent report published by Beyond Plastics estimated that less than 6 percent of plastic in the United States is successfully recycled.
These figures are based on all plastic waste generated, which includes plastics not made to be recycled and those thrown away. As for the plastic that makes it to a recycling center, there isn’t an official nationwide estimate of what percent of those plastics get recycled in the end.
However, certain types of plastic containers—soda and water bottles (PET 1) and milk jugs (HDPE 2), in particular—are more likely to be recycled.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), an international organization focused on improving public policies, says only 9 percent of plastic collected for recycling worldwide in 2019 was actually recycled; 50 percent went into landfills, and 22 percent was mismanaged.
Another challenge is that there are too many different types of plastics. Recyclable plastics cannot be recycled with plastics made of different chemical compositions, and sorting the waste is infeasible.
Decades of Misleading Messaging
The plastics industry’s actions “effectively protected and expanded plastic markets,” the CCI report states, “while stalling legislative or regulatory action that would meaningfully address plastic waste and pollution.”
The report, highlighting industry communications and documents, details how, beginning in the 1950s, the plastics industry’s profits soared with single-use disposable plastics, and this “shift to disposables” created the waste problem.
In response, the industry promoted landfilling and incineration. However, by the 1980s, the plastics industry faced growing backlash and legislation to limit the sale of single-use plastics because of pollution and its environmental impact.
The industry “launched multimillion-dollar ad and PR campaigns to convince the public consumer that this was a consumer problem; just put the right things in the bin, and all the plastic pollution would go away,” said Ms. Valliant.
Plastic production then skyrocketed, from approximately 2 million tons of plastic in the 1950s to nearly 460 million tons in 2019, and continues to rise.
The CCI report cites a 1986 report by Vinyl Institute, a trade association, that “recycling cannot be considered a permanent solid waste solution [to plastics], as it merely prolongs the time until an item is disposed of.”
Eight years later, an Exxon employee warned the American Plastics Council staffers that they did not “want paper floating around” saying they could not meet recycling goals since the issue was “HIGHLY SENSITIVE POLITICALLY.”
The report’s authors aim to hold fossil fuel and other petrochemical companies accountable by pointing out that these admissions contradict decades of messaging promoting recycling.
Plastics Companies Cite New Technologies, Goals
Twenty petrochemical companies, including major oil and gas companies such as ExxonMobil, manufacture half of the world’s single-use plastics, according to the CCI.
In response to the CCI report, the Plastics Industry Association characterized the report as “political attacks” and that it is based on “outdated information and false claims.”
“This report was created by an activist, anti-recycling organization and disregards the incredible investments in recycling technologies made by our industry,” Matt Seaholm, president and chief executive officer of the Plastics Industry Association, said in the press statement.
Similarly, in a statement published by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), Ross Eisenberg, the president of America’s Plastic Makers, called the report flawed, saying it “cites outdated, decades-old technologies, and works against our goals to be more sustainable by mischaracterizing the industry and the state of today’s recycling technologies.” He also pointed to the benefits of plastics and how they can be reused to meet different needs.
“We’ve set an ambitious goal for all US plastic packaging to be reused, recycled, recovered by 2040, and we are working towards this goal by supporting systems and technologies that remake new plastics from used plastics,” he shared.
But many wonder: Even if the ACC’s 2040 goal is met, does it solve the wide-ranging issues linked to plastics?
Is Recycling Enough?
“Possibly more concerning than the environmental impacts are the health impacts of plastics on the human body,” said Ms. Valliant, who recommends consumers focus on efforts to reduce, reuse, recycle, and, when possible, refuse single-use plastic.
The management of plastics “needs to be addressed at a higher level than the individual,” Mathew Campen, a toxicologist from the University of New Mexico, told The Epoch Times.
When plastic is recycled improperly, it ends up not only in landfills and water sources but also in our soil, air, and even our bodies. Every day, we eat, drink, and inhale tiny bits of plastic because plastic doesn’t biodegrade over time—it simply breaks down into ever-smaller particles.
Mr. Campen, who investigates the impact of environmental toxicants on human health, is concerned about the increasing amount of plastics, specifically microplastics, in the environment and the potential effects.
“The truth is, governments and industry need to figure out a path to actually take care of this waste and not have it show up in our bodies,” he added.
The Biden Thing’s secretary of transportation – where in the Constitution does it state the federal government shall have the power to micromanage our comings and goings? – said the other day that people who haven’t given up their cars with engines for devices with a battery are similar to people back in the early 2000s who stubbornly refused to embrace the cell phone future.
Words to that effect.
He actually said more than just that. The money quote is as follows:
“The automotive sector is moving toward EVs, and we can’t pretend otherwise. Sometimes when these debates happen, I feel like it’s the early 2000s and I’m talking to some people who think that we can just have landline phones forever.”
Observe the passive voice masking-over the force behind all of this. The automotive sector is not “moving toward EVs.” It is being pushed toward EVs. He then equates not wanting to be pushed to buy something unwanted as being stupid. There is contempt – and menace – in this statement.
The irony of it is also lost on the Biden Thing’s secretary of transportation. Most people did get cell phones because – here it comes! – they offered advantages over land lines. These included more convenience and lower costs overall, if you bought a basic model (these currently can be bought for about $50 and a cheap monthly plan with unlimited service can be purchased for about $35). They also could do more things than just a phone, as everyone knows.
People bought them for the same reason most people prefer hamburgers made of beef rather than Impossible Burgers made of . . . well, whatever they make them out of.
It wasn’t necessary for the government to issue a slew of regulations aimed at making land line phones more expensive to manufacture – in order to discourage their use and make cell phones seem less expensive. There was no need to dangle tax kickbacks in the faces of people to get them to make the switch. People just made the switch. Because it made sense to the people who chose to buy cell phones.
That the Biden Thing’s secretary of transportation does not understand this relationship tells us a great deal about the qualifications of this man to be the secretary of transportation.
Or even just a secretary.
He holds the office – and sway over transportation – not because he is competent and well-intended (and never mind that business almost no one ever brings up about where in the Constitution this office is empowered with legitimate authority to even exist) but because he is willing to do whatever is required to push the car-buying public into battery powered devices that are not what the public wants. If that were not so, it would not be necessary to push them. QED.
NATO’s 75th Anniversary on April 4, 2024, is a golden opportunity to discuss its tragic peace-making failure and why it should have been closed down thirty years ago when its raison d’etre—the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact—fell apart.
Its out-of-area operations – beginning with the bombings in Yugoslavia 25 years ago – is one long, painful violation of its own Treaty from 1949. That treaty is clearly defensive, a copy of the UN Charter with Article 5 for mutual defence among its members added.
Any organisation that consistently does the opposite of its own statutes should be investigated.
NATO’s de facto rhetoric, psychopolitical projections, concepts, threat inventions and doctrine – including nuclear first-use, deterrence, forward defence, etc. – as well as its reckless expansion in violation of all Western promises given to Russia’s Gorbachev about not expanding “one inch” – make it indisputably offensive, provocative, and war risk-increasing. Militaristic. Anti-peace.
In today’s anti-intellectual foreign and security policy world, liking and adhering to NATO is a matter of emotionalism, populism, and pure faith. NATO is a church-like institution run by religious phrases and mantras. It has nothing to do with rational analysis of pros and cons. Whatever NATO has done and does, it is for ‘stability, security and peace’ but, as everybody knows, Europe is now closer to major war than at any point since 1945.
Trillions upon trillions of dollars of taxpayers’ money have been wasted on NATO’s Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex, MIMAC, which is making every citizen in its member states less and less secure.
For years, NATO has developed into a militarist emperor, and somebody has to say: But – look – he wears no clothes!
TFF is competent and happy to do so – and will continue to do so. Why? Because it is one of Western civilisation’s biggest and most well-documented lies that NATO is the road to peace and that peace could not be created by means of completely different thinking and policies at a much lower price. We just have to begin to think – and think differently.
Since TFF is completely independent of state and corporate funding and relies only on citizens’ donations we continue to speak truth to power as we have since 1986.
And here are the other 600+ TFF articles that critically contrast—with concepts, facts, and alternative thinking—the undignified propaganda mainstream research, politics, and the media use to make you believe in militarism, fake threat analyses, and our own infallibility and innocence.
The Volunteer State just passed new legislation to reclassify so-called “vaccine lettuce,” along with all other vaccine-containing foods, as “drugs.”
According to reports, the Tennessee Senate passed the legislation, and it now awaits the signature of Gov. Bill Lee, who has never vetoed any bill that has landed on his desk.
After being passed by the Tennessee House in a 73-22 vote in early March, House Bill 1894 passed the Tennessee Senate in a 23-6 vote, responding to concerns about the pharmaceutical industry embedding “immunity boosters,” to quote the left-wing media, into synthetic lettuce.
Any food that “contains a vaccine or vaccine material” will be classified as a “drug” in the state of Tennessee. The legislation defines “vaccine material” as any substance intended to “stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against disease.”
Vaccine-containing foods will not, it is important to note, be banned in Tennessee. They can still be sold there, but they will have to carry the same medical labeling as any other vaccine or medication, meaning vaccine-containing lettuce is unlikely to hit grocery store shelves or be served at restaurants in Tennessee.
(Related: Did you know that the Tennessee Senate just passed a symbolic bill banning geoengineering and chemtrails within the state?)
Vaccine “foods” threaten U.S. food supply
In a debate on the bill that was held before the vote, State Sen. Heidi Campbell, a Democrat, asked for evidence of “any instances of there being food offered in the state of Tennessee that contains vaccines,” her implication being that the bill is unnecessary.
“The idea that this would somehow correlate to some kind of a retail offering of vegetables, especially when that vegetable would cost many thousands of dollars, just seems to me [to be] messy to be passing legislation for that reason,” Campbell said.
Nobody in the chamber was able to provide an example for Campbell, but they did emphasize that the bill’s intent is to get ahead of potential future retail offerings of vaccine-containing foods, which now threaten to contaminate the entire U.S. food supply.
State Rep. Scott Cepicky, a Republican who originally sponsored the bill, said that lettuces containing vaccines will require a prescription “to make sure that we know how much of the lettuce you have to eat based off of your body type so we don’t under-vaccinate you – which leads to the possibility of the efficacy of the drug being compromised – or we overdose you based off how much lettuce is [eaten].”
All of this stems from research taking place at the University of California into targeted mRNA (modRNA) technology being implemented into food. Edible vaccine plants are part of a $500,000 U.S. taxpayer-funded grant the UC system received for such purposes.
“We are testing this approach with spinach and lettuce and have long-term goals of people growing it in their own gardens,” commented Juan Pablo Giraldo, an associate professor at UC’s Department of Botany and Plant Sciences.
“Farmers could also eventually grow entire fields of it.”
It must be stressed that none of this would be possible were it not for U.S. taxpayers, who continue to pay for such abominations via their “voluntary” tax contributions to the federal government.
“This bill in Tennessee is a good thing that will give people the ability to tell the difference between drugged foods and un-drugged foods,” one commenter wrote about Tennessee’s efforts to legislate this reclassification of vaccinated “food.”
“Why should pharma be allowed an end run around informed consent by poisoning our food supply with drugs we don’t want?” wrote another.
Left: MLK as target. [Source: biography.com] Right: J. Edgar Hoover firing a rifle. [Source: theguardian.com] Artwork courtesy of Steve Brown.
By Jeremy Kuzmarov
Powerful new evidence of a government-abetted conspiracy has prompted King family members to demand a reopening of the investigation into his murder.
[…]
The official story is full of holes. Instead, mounting evidence suggests that King may have been murdered as part of a conspiracy planned and/or abetted by the FBI in coordination with local Memphis police personnel. In this scenario, Ray served as a patsy, like critics allege Lee Harvey Oswald was in the JFK assassination. The real shooter, according to these accounts, struck King not from the boardinghouse bathroom—allegedly from where Ray shot him—but from bushes behind the Lorraine Motel—the King assassination’s version of the grassy knoll.
This article lays out that evidence—as it may soon be laid out in court and a congressional committee—if the King family’s demands to reopen the murder investigation continue to gain traction. What follows is a reconstruction of the events leading up to King’s murder, and the subsequent purported attempts by local and national government officials to cover up their involvement and pin it on a patsy named James Earl Ray.
At 6:01 p.m. on April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr., was struck in the face by a bullet as he was leaning over the balcony of his room at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee.
An hour later he was declared dead at nearby St. Joseph’s Hospital.
[…]
Lone Assassin?
Police authorities fingered James Earl Ray—a career criminal from Alton, Illinois, who had escaped from the Jefferson City, Missouri, penitentiary in April 1967—as the lone
[…]
At his trial, Ray pled guilty and was sentenced to 99 years in prison.
House Select Committee on Assassinations and 1999 Civil Trial
The 1979 House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA)—which was convened to investigate the King and Kennedy assassinations—alleged that Ray carried out the killing to collect a bounty from two St. Louis racists, both dead at the time.
[…]
In 2012, G. Robert Blakey, staff director to the HSCA, said, however, that he had been deceived by the CIA—which had failed to inform him that a government liaison to the HSCA, George Joannides, had a CIA background. Blakey told the Jackson, Mississippi, Clarion-Ledger that “thoughtful people today, not just nuts, think that more people than James Earl Ray were involved [in King’s killing].”[5]
Three days after his sentencing, Ray fired his mob-connected attorney, Percy Foreman, and said that he was pressured into pleading guilty and had been set up as a patsy.[7] Foreman was given 60% royalty rights on a book about Ray by William Bradford Huie, which would not have sold if it were about a non-assassin.[8]
A well-known crime scene investigator determined that the shot from the rooming house bathroom could not have struck King unless Ray had hung out the window or smashed a ten-inch-deep hole in the wall for his rifle to fit into—the angles were all wrong.[9]
Ray did not have a clear motive for killing King apart from a possible financial one. He could never have survived on the lam after his prison escape and in the two months after the King assassination without outside support. Ray had received money not only for travel and lodging, but also for fake identities, plastic surgery, and even dance and bartending classes and hypnosis. told to buy by the mysterious Raoul (discussed below)—said that Ray “did not seem to know anything at all about firearms, I mean nothing.”[25]
[…]
Loyd Jowers and Jim’s Grill
Taxi driver James McCraw told William Pepper that, on the morning after the shooting, Loyd Jowers, the owner of Jim’s Grill, showed him a rifle in a box on a shelf under the counter, which he said he had “found out back after the killing.”
Jowers identified the assassin as Memphis Police Lieutenant Earl Clark—who was regarded as the best shot on the MPD and was close to Liberto.[44] Afterwards, Clark allegedly scaled down a wall adjacent to the Lorraine Motel before jumping into an escape vehicle.[45]
Clark was involved in planning sessions at Jim’s Grill to prepare for the assassination with five other men, only two of whom Jowers could identify.
One of the men, unbeknownst to Jowers, was an undercover police officer and agent provocateur, Marrell McCollough, who was assigned to the MPD from the 11th Military Intelligence Group.
Born in Mississippi, McCollough had served in the military police in Vietnam and went on to work for the CIA in Central or South America. At the time of King’s slaying, McCollough was posing as a member of the Invaders, a militant Black political group, which gave him access to King and his circle. He was identified as the mysterious figure kneeling over Dr. King after he was shot.[46]
[…]
Ray’s Intelligence Background had been planned for many years and originated with his Army service at the end of World War II.
After enlisting in 1946 at the age of 17, Ray served in the 7892nd Infantry Regiment and as a military policeman with the 382nd Military Police Battalion in Nuremburg, Germany. Subsequently, Ray was recruited into the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the predecessor of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). He told John Larry that, “when you join the OSS, it’s like joining the Mafia, you never leave.”[49]
After James’s escape, he came in contact with a mysterious figure named Raoul, who provided Ray with phony documents in Montreal, Canada, after the two met at the Neptune Bar.
In exchange for the documents, Raoul had Ray assist him in smuggling contraband across the border and then sent Ray to Birmingham, Alabama, where he purchased a 1966 white Mustang and a telescopic rifle that appears to have served as the fake murder weapon.[61]
In Montreal, Ray was given the identity of Eric St. Vincent Galt—who happened to be a highly placed Canadian operative of U.S. Army intelligence.[62]Galt ran a warehouse for Union Carbide which housed a top-secret munitions project funded by the CIA, the U.S. Naval Surface Weapons Center, and the Army Electronics Research and Development Command.[63]
At 3 p.m. on April 4, Ray met Raoul at Jim’s Grill where he was told to go to the rooming house next to the Lorraine Motel. He then waited for him after the shooting and helped him flee from the scene, before Raoul jumped out of the car and abandoned him to his fate.[64]
[…]
Kimble said that the assassination was carried out by a team of covert intelligence operatives who had an unmarked van with sophisticated electronic radio equipment that could oversee the crime scene and monitor and broadcast on police radio channels.
Two snipers with the team used rifles identical to Ray’s, while other members obtained Memphis Police Department uniforms. The two snipers concealed themselves in the bushes behind the boarding house; one was a backup, the other shot King. The rifles were then concealed in a prearranged hiding place behind the boarding house where they were retrieved by other operatives.
The two snipers afterwards jumped down onto the sidewalk from the bushes and mingled with the other uniformed officers who were rushing about. A voucher had been established for the police imposters. If anyone asked who they were, they were told to call a certain police captain who would vouch for the “new men on the force.”[69]
Secret Army Intelligence Team
The 902nd Military Intelligence Group under the command of Colonel John W. Downie—LBJ’s CIA Vietnam briefer—had been deployed to Memphis at the time of King’s visit with orders to shoot to kill him and aide Andrew Young [later mayor of Atlanta] on command.[70] King was considered “a Negro who repeatedly preached the message of Hanoi and Peking.”
The 902nd Military Intelligence Group had been involved in gun-running with mobster Carlos Marcello; weapons stolen from Army bases were delivered to Marcello and the proceeds were used to help fund black operations.[71] According to two sources, the 902nd included “Klan guys who hated niggers.” A Green Beret said that nobody in it had “any hesitancy about killing the two sacks of shit [King and Young].”[72]
Another Green Beret who participated in a clandestine training course in riot control and surveillance identified a CIA/NSA agent whom he had recognized from his time in Vietnam climbing down a wall behind the Lorraine Motel just after King was shot.[73]
A contact in the CIA had given Downie’s team a detailed area of operations map, pictures of cars used by the King group and Memphis police radio frequencies. It carried camera equipment and took up positions overlooking the Lorraine Motel and monitored King’s telephone conversations from Room 306 and other communications. They obtained pictures that caught the shooter as he was lowering his rifle and Jowers running back toward the rooming house. These were given to Colonel Downie and never revealed publicly.[74] The secret agent who snapped the photos said that the shooter was not Ray.[75]
[…]
FBI’s War Against King
Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg swore in an affidavit that, during a 1978 conversation with Brady Tyson, then an aide to UN Ambassador Andrew Young, Tyson said that a group of off-duty and retired FBI officers, including a sharpshooter, working under the personal direction of J. Edgar Hoover, killed King and then covered it up.[77]
According to Ron Adkins, Hoover’s right-hand man, Clyde Tolson—who allegedly was routinely given money by Hoover to perform criminal deeds including local contract killings—planned King’s assassination beginning in May 1964 on a cruise to Southampton, England, with Russell Adkins, Sr., Ron’s father and a Memphis city engineer, Klansman, and fixer for the Dixie mafia.[78]
Part of the plot involved Tolson’s providing envelopes of money to be paid to informants and $25,000 to the warden of the Missouri state prison, Harold Swenson, to arrange for Ray’s escape.[79]
Hoover had considered King an enemy of the state. In December 1963, less than a month after the assassination of President Kennedy, FBI officials had met in Washington to explore ways of “neutralizing King as an effective Negro leader.”[80]
Hidden microphones were placed in Dr. King’s hotel rooms in an attempt to pick up evidence of extramarital sexual activity, break up his marriage, or blackmail him.
The Bureau also engaged in surreptitious activities and burglaries against Dr. King and SCLC.[81] In a letter sent to King in 1964 calling King a “colossal fraud,” the FBI even encouraged him to commit suicide.
FBI-MPD Links
The FBI enjoyed very close connections with the Memphis PD.
E.H. Arkin founded MPD’s intelligence unit in 1967 under the tutelage of FBI agent William Lawrence, who headed the FBI Memphis Field Office’s domestic intelligence operations which surveilled King.[82]
The head of the MPD at the time of King’s assassination, Frank Holloman, was a 25-year FBI veteran from Mississippi who was in charge of director J. Edgar Hoover’s Washington office from 1952 to 1959. In the mid-1960s, Holloman headed the FBI’s Atlanta office when it was the nerve center of surveillance and skullduggery directed against King.[83]
[…]
FBI Gets King to Stay at the Lorraine Motel—and Switch His Room
On March 29, 1968, the FBI issued from headquarters a COINTELPRO (Counterintelligence Program) memorandum, written by G.C. Moore, chief of the racial intelligence section, to William C. Sullivan, Assistant Director in charge of the intelligence division, that was designed to influence King to stay at the Lorraine Motel when he returned to Memphis on April 3.
The memo recommended placement of a news item with the Bureau’s friendly sources which would read as follows:
The fine Hotel Lorraine in Memphis is owned and patronized exclusively by Negroes but King didn’t go there after his hasty exit [from] the demonstration of March 28. Instead, King decided the plush Holiday Inn Motel, white-owned, operated and almost exclusively white patronized, was the place to “cool it.” There will be no boycott of white merchants for King, only for his followers.[88]
A retired New York Police detective later uncovered that King was initially supposed to stay in a secluded room in the motel, #202, but was moved to Room 306 with an exposed balcony after the concierge received a call supposedly from SCLC in Atlanta asking for the change in room. According to William Pepper and Phillip Nelson, the caller was actually an FBI infiltrator inside SCLC who acted under the orders of police chief Holloman and had been paid through an intermediary. The infiltrator or possibly infiltrators also had the task of getting King out of his room onto the balcony before 6 PM and making sure he was wearing a tie so he could be identified by the assassin.[89]
11 percent of adolescents reported being unhappy with their gender
19 percent who reported unhappiness as kids no longer expressed it as adults
The majority of gender-confused children grow out of that feeling by the time they are fully grown adults, according to a long-term study.
Researchers in the Netherlands tracked more than 2,700 children from age 11 to their mid-twenties, asking them every three years of feelings about their gender.
Results showed at the start of the research, around one-in-10 children (11 percent) expressed ‘gender non-contentedness‘ to varying degrees.
But by age 25, just one-in-25 (4 percent) said they ‘often’ or ‘sometimes’ were discontent with their gender.
The researchers concluded: ‘The results of the current study might help adolescents to realize that it is normal to have some doubts about one’s identity and one’s gender identity during this age period and that this is also relatively common.’
Patrick Brown, a fellow at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center who was not involved in the research, told DailyMail.com: ‘This study provides even more reason to be skeptical towards aggressive steps to facilitate gender transition in childhood and adolescence.
‘The fact that rates of satisfaction are lower even just a few years later suggests that for the vast majority of people, prudence and caution, rather than a rush towards permanent surgeries or hormone therapies, will be the best approach for teenagers struggling to make sense of the world and their place in it.
‘As such, policies that prohibit gender transition for minors make a great deal of sense.’
The study is one of the longest into the issue of gender in children – but the researchers point out it has some limitations.
For one, it looked at a mixture of children from the general population and kids who were receiving mental health care – though not specifically for anything related to their gender.
Therefore it does not necessarily reflect the attitudes of children clinically diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
The researchers, from the University of Groningen, analyzed the data of 2,770 people who were part of the Tracking Adolescent’s Individual Lives Survey.
Participants were asked to respond to the statement ‘I wish to be of the opposite sex’ at six different points over 15 years.
They were given a multiple choice: 0-Not True, 1-Somewhat or Sometimes True, and 2-Very True or Often True.
The same prompt was given every two or three years from the start of the study in March 2001 until the end.
Rates of gender dysphoria have soared in every state except one over the past five years.
Across all age groups, surgery rates rose most dramatically in 2021
Researchers looked for those expressing ‘gender non-contentedness,’ or unhappiness with being the gender aligned with their biological sex.
The study, published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, found that overall 78 percent of people had the same feelings about their gender over the 15 years.
Around 19 percent became more content with their gender and just about 2 percent became less comfortable.
Participants were also asked to evaluate their self-worth by rating how they felt about their physical appearance and self esteem.
According to the findings, females were more likely to report being unhappy with their gender and both increasing and decreasing ‘non-contentedness’ were associated with lower self-reported self worth, more behavioral problems and an increase in emotional struggles.
The authors said: ‘Gender non-contentedness, while being relatively common during early adolescence, in general decreases with age and appears to be associated with a poorer self-concept and mental health throughout development.’
Brown told DailyMail.com: ‘As anyone who has ever been a teenager knows, puberty and its aftereffects can be a confusing time of hormonal surges, physical changes, and social insecurity.
‘It isn’t surprising that the highest rates of being dissatisfied in one’s body would peak during this time.’
Rates of gender dysphoria, a clinical diagnosis by a healthcare professional that differs from gender non contentedness, have soared in every US state except one since 2018 – with the average age of diagnosis trending younger.
Sex change surgery rates have shot up in recent years, with one in six trans adults in the US opting to have gender-affirming surgery
An analysis of insurance claims conducted by Komodo Health Inc found between 2017 and 2021, approximately 121,880 children aged six to 17 years old were diagnosed with the condition.
In 2021, 42,000 were given the diagnosis, a 70 percent increase from 2020.
And children under 18 years old now make up one-fifth of new diagnoses each year.
In the United States, 1.6million people ages 13 and older identify as transgender.
A report by the health data analytics firm Definitive Healthcare shows the rate of gender dysphoria increased in every state except South Dakota from 2018 to 2022 across all ages.
The sharpest rises over those five years were seen in three Republican-led states: Virginia (274 percent) Indiana (247 percent) and Utah (193 percent).
South Dakota saw a decline of 23 percent between 2018 and 2022.
Meanwhile, the report also found the number of sex change surgeries being carried out each year is rising rapidly – climbing by up to 40 percent in some years.
Greater social acceptance and increased awareness about the condition on the part of doctors can partly explain the increase in cases.
Unlike other countries, such as the UK, there is no federal lower age limit for when children can get ‘top’ or ‘bottom’ operations in the US, which leaves it up to the states.
In The Netherlands, debate over the issue has ramped up as more Dutch experts have voiced their concerns over the potential adverse effects of puberty blockers and hormonal therapies for minors who wish to transition.
And in the US most recently, trans rights were thrust into the spotlight after critics slammed President Joe Biden for declaring Easter ‘Trans Visibility Day.’
However, the president said he did not make this declaration, but that the awareness day is celebrated every year on March 31 and only coincided with Easter this year by chance.
Dr Jay Richards, director of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family, told DailyMail.com: ‘We’ve known for over a decade that most kids who experience distress with their sexed bodies resolve those feelings after they pass through natural puberty.
‘Indeed, we can infer from the DSM 5 [2013] and other sources that as many as 88 percent of gender-dysphoric girls and as many as 98 percent of gender-dysphoric boys in previous generations desisted if allowed to go through natural puberty.
‘These two facts make it clear why “gender-affirming care” on minors is such an outrage. It leads, in the end, to sterilization and in many cases to a complete loss of natural sexual function.
‘There is no good evidence that this helps minors long term. Moreover, it medicalizes what could very well be temporary psychological symptoms.
‘History will judge this medicalized “gender-affirming care” on minors as we now judge eugenics and lobotomies.’
The research was published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.
In 1845, Congress established Election Day as the Tuesday after the first Monday of November. The Act sought “to establish a uniform time” for Americans to cast their ballots for president. Historically, voters needed to provide a valid reason – such as illness or military service – to qualify for absentee ballots.
But Covid served as a pretext to overturn that tradition. Just 25% of votes in 2020 occurred at the polls on Election Day. Mail-in voting more than doubled. Key swing states eliminated the need to provide a valid reason to cast absentee ballots. The virus and racial justice became justifications to disregard verification methods like signature requirements.
Rejection rates for absentee ballots plummeted by more than 80% in some states as the Covid regime welcomed an unprecedented increase in mail-in voting. Politicians and media outlets ignored rampant voter fraud in the months leading up to the election. They treated concerns surrounding absentee voting as obscure conspiracy theories despite a bipartisan commission describing it as “the largest source of potential voter fraud” just a decade earlier.
It is now clear that the overhaul of our election system was a deliberate initiative from the outset of the pandemic response. In March 2020, when the Government’s official policy was still “two weeks to flatten the curve,” the administrative state began instituting the infrastructure to hijack the November presidential election, more than 30 weeks beyond when the Covid response was supposed to end.
March 2020: The CDC and the CARES Act Meddle in the Election
On March 12, 2020, the CDC issued a recommendation for states and localities to “encourage voters to use voting methods that minimize direct contact with other people,” including “mail-in methods of voting.”
Two weeks later, President Trump signed the $2 trillion CARES Act, which offered states $400 million to re-engineer their election processes for that November.
At the time, proponents of the CARES Act argued it was necessary to reopen the country. For example, the New York Times argued it was “critical to fund and implement the safety measures necessary to let Americans get back to work, school and play without a recurrence of the virus.”
But political actors immediately plotted ways to use the funds to entrench their power long past the proposed two-week lockdowns. Nearly every swing state announced plans to promote mail-in voting and reduce electoral safeguards in a Congressional report.
[…]
When Trump signed the CARES Act, just 0.05% of Michigan residents had tested positive for Covid. The state’s political leaders later boasted that their agenda had not been focused on public health. “Even when there’s not a pandemic, once people begin using the absentee ballot process, they’re much more likely to continue to do so in the future,” said Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson after Election Day.
Pennsylvania received $14.2 million from the CARES Act to address its election process. At the time, the infection rate in the Keystone State was 1 in 6,000 (0.017%). Democratic Governor Tom Wolf’s administration told the federal government it would use its plans to increase absentee voting. In November, 2.5 million Pennsylvanians voted by mail. President Biden won 75% of those votes – a difference of 1.4 million. President Trump lost the state by under 100,000 votes.
The CARES Act provided Wisconsin with over $7 million for election matters. Democratic Governor Tom Evers said the state would use funds to provide “absentee ballot envelopes,” to develop “the statewide voter registration system and online absentee ballot request portal,” and “to account for additional costs” related to mail-in voting.
[…]
Democratic activists were unsatisfied with the $400 million added to the national debt to reshape the elections. Mark Zuckerberg’s foundation offered an additional $300 million. In Time, Molly Ball celebrated the “shadow campaign that saved the 2020 election.” She quoted Amber McReynolds, the president of “nonpartisan National Vote at Home Institute,” who called the government’s reluctance to provide additional funding “a failure at the federal level.” Despite her professed “non-partisanship,” President Biden rewarded her service by appointing her to the Board of the US Postal Service.
In Time, Ball hailed the mail-in activists’ efforts, which included targeting “Black voters” who may have otherwise “preferred to exercise their franchise in person.” They focused on social media outreach to try to convince people that a “prolonged [vote] count wasn’t a sign of problems.” Their informational warfare may have changed Americans’ perception on mail-in voting, but it could not eradicate the predictable controversies that it created.
April and May 2020: Voter Fraud Skyrockets
In May 2020, New Jersey held municipal elections and required all voting take place via mail. The State’s third largest city, Paterson, held its election for city council. The results should have been a national scandal that ended the push for mail-in voting.
Shortly after the election, the Postal Service discovered “hundreds of mail-in ballots” in one town mailbox. A Snapchat video showed a man named Abu Razyen illegally handling a stack of ballots he said was for candidate Shanin Khalique. Khalique initially defeated his opponent by just eight votes. A recount found their vote was tied.
Paterson resident Ramona Javier never received her mail-in ballot for the election. Neither did eight of her family members and neighbors, yet they were all listed as having voted. “We did not receive vote-by-mail ballots and thus we did not vote,” she told the press. “This is corruption. This is fraud.”
Election officials rejected 19% of the ballots from Paterson, a city with over 150,000 residents. While Paterson’s election was particularly troublesome, mail-in ballots were problematic across the state. Thirty other New Jersey municipalities held vote-by-mail elections that day, and the average disqualification rate was 9.6%.
New Jersey brought voting fraud charges against City Councilman Michael Jackson, Councilman-Elect Alex Mendez, and two other men for their “criminal conduct involving mail-in ballots during the election.” All four were charged with illegally collecting, procuring, and submitting mail-in ballots.
A state judge later ordered a new vote, finding that the May election “was not the fair, free and full expression of the intent of the voters. It was rife with mail in vote procedural violations constituting nonfeasance and malfeasance.”
[…]
In Wisconsin, the April 2020 primary election offered further evidence of the challenges and corruption surrounding mail-in voting. Following the primary, a postal center outside Milwaukee discovered three tubs of absentee ballots that never reached their intended recipients. Fox Point, a village outside Milwaukee, has a population of under 7,000 people.
Beginning in March, Fox Point received between 20 and 50 undelivered absentee ballots per day. In the weeks leading up to the election, the village manager said that increased to between 100 and 150 ballots per day. On election day, the town received a plastic mail bin with 175 unmailed ballots. “We’re not sure why this happened,” said the village manager. “Nobody seems to be able to tell me why.”
Democrats admitted the system threatened election integrity. “This has all the makings of a Florida 2000 if we have a close race,” said Gordon Hintz, the Democratic minority leader in the Wisconsin State Assembly. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo went further. “It’s a harder system to administer, and obviously it’s a harder system to police writ large,” he said. Cuomo continued, “People showing up, people actually showing ID, is still the easiest system to assure total integrity.”
The Wisconsin primary also featured special elections for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. A liberal judge upset the incumbent conservative justice, and partisans embraced their overhaul of the electoral system. The New York Times reported: “Wisconsin Democrats are working to export their template for success – intense digital outreach and a well-coordinated vote-by-mail operation – to other states in the hope that it will improve the party’s chances in local and statewide elections and in the quest to unseat President Trump in November.”
Despite the corruption, the lost ballots, and the admissions of threats to electoral integrity, the process had been a success in political terms; their candidate had won. The ends had justified the means. Citizens lost faith in their election process, and political leaders readily admitted that their concerns were justified; but the professional politicos and their mouthpiece, the New York Times, characterized the disaster as a “template for success.”
Controversies continued to emerge surrounding mail-in ballots.
In September 2020, a government contractor threw Trump mail-in ballots in the trash in Pennsylvania. ABC News reported that “ballots had been found in a dumpster next to the elections building.” A week later, three trays of mail with absentee ballots were found in a ditch in Wisconsin.
In Nevada, the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony offered gifts, including gift cards, jewelry, and clothing to Native Americans who showed up to vote. Activist Bethany Sam organized the event, where she donned a Biden-Harris mask and stood in front of the Biden-Harris campaign bus.
Voters in California received ballots with no place to vote for president, over 20% of ballots mailed to voters in Teaneck, New Jersey, had the wrong Congressional districts listed, and Franklin County, Ohio reported sending over 100,000 absentee ballots to the wrong address due to an “envelope stuffing error.”
In October, Texas police arrested Carrollton Mayoral Candidate Zul Mirza Mohamed on 109 counts of fraud for forging mail-in ballots. Authorities discovered fraudulent ballots at Mohamed’s residence with fictitious licenses. That same month, a Pennsylvania district attorney charged Lehigh County Elections Judge Everett “Erika” Bickford with “prying into ballots” and altering the entries from a local election that June. That election was decided by just 55 votes.
Reports continued to emerge after the election. The New York Post uncovered election records that showed dead people had cast absentee ballots that November.
California law enforcement arrested two men with a 41-count criminal complaint for allegedly submitting over 8,000 fraudulent voter registration applications on behalf of homeless people. Their goal was to get Carlos Montenegro, one of the defendants, elected Mayor of Hawthorne, a city in Los Angeles County. The state also alleged that Montenegro committed perjury by falsifying names and signatures in his paperwork for his mayoral campaign.
In 2022, a Georgia investigation found more than 1,000 absentee ballots that never left the Cobb County government facility. Two months earlier, mail-in ballots from the 2020 election were discovered in a Baltimore USPS facility. In 2023, Michigan police found hundreds of mail-in ballots from the 2020 election in a township clerk’s storage unit.
All of this was entirely predictable, but perhaps that was the point. From the outset, the Covid regime sought to abolish the safeguards of our election system despite well-known concerns regarding election integrity.
[…]
The Covid regime’s messaging was clear: only conspiratorial lunatics would question the integrity of an election system that more than doubles its mail-in voting. FBI Director Christopher Wray testified, “We have not seen, historically, any kind of coordinated national voter fraud effort in a major election, whether it’s by mail or otherwise.”
But this wasn’t true. It contradicted long-standing conclusions regarding electoral integrity. Just as the public health apparatus abandoned thousands of years of epidemiological practice to implement lockdowns, the media and elected officials abandoned principles that until that moment had been common sense.
Several deaths, at least one miscarriage and thousands of reports of severe adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination are included in recently released data from the CDC’s V-safe database. The court-ordered release represents only a portion of the 7.8 million “free-text” entries the CDC must release by Jan. 15, 2025.
The ruling, which ICAN described as “a huge win for transparency,” requires the CDC to release all 7.8 million “free-text” entries by Jan. 15, 2025.
The V-safe app allowed members of the public to self-report COVID-19 vaccine-related symptoms. The CDC stopped collecting reports from COVID-19 vaccine recipients last year.
The Jan. 5 ruling by Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Amarillo Division granted expedited processing of the free-text data, rejecting the CDC’s argument that releasing the data would be overly burdensome.
“Production of the free-text data will permit independent researchers to put the government agencies to their proof by considering all of the available data,” Kacsmaryk’s decision said.
The “free-text” data allowed users to describe, in up to 250 characters, the specific symptoms they experienced without the limitations of the “check-the-box” options within the V-safe app.
“Thus, the only place for participants to report serious and anticipated adverse reactions, including myocarditis, was in these free-text fields,” ICAN said.
“At first look, there’s remarkable consistency between the 390,000 text entries received in February and the 390,000 text entries received in March (made by 523,150 unique V-safe users) in terms of the number of times certain symptoms were reported.
“For example, in both the February and March productions, roughly 3,200 entries mention the symptom of ‘shortness of breath.’ For the term ‘heart palpitations’ there were about 1,900 reports in the February batch and 1,600 in the March batch. Concerningly, these are both symptoms of myocarditis.
“In addition, in each batch there were roughly 1,000 reports of ‘ringing’ of the ears (tinnitus), which studies and news reports have linked to the COVID-19 vaccines, despite CDC’s refusal to recognize it as an adverse event.”
Speaking on “The Highwire” podcast last week, ICAN CEO Del Bigtree said the V-Safe data are “the best data that was ever [collected] around the COVID vaccine,” adding that the data released in the February and March installments were remarkably consistent.
“Roughly 3,200 entries mentioned the symptom of shortness of breath,” Bigtree said. Each batch contained approximately 1,900 reports of heart palpitations and 1,600 reports of arrhythmias.
“These are both symptoms of myocarditis,” Bigtree said.
Brian Hooker, Ph.D., chief scientific officer for Children’s Health Defense, told The Defender the free-text entries on V-safe “read like something written by [‘Frankenstein’ author] Mary Shelley unfortunately and affirm much of the other, more forthcoming literature associated with COVID-19 vaccine injury.”
Hooker added:
“The frequency of reports of cardiac-related events affirm other reports regarding the very high prevalence of myocarditis and pericarditis. Also, tinnitus, which was an injury sustained by pro-vaccine zealot and vaccine apologist Dr. Gregory Poland, is reported at an alarming frequency.”
Highlighting the importance of the V-safe data, Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist and founder of Door to Freedom, told The Defender “V-safe allowed vaccine recipients to report injuries and medical visits in free text. This might be the only data source where that kind of granular information exists.”
“In the first month of V-safe, 3% of recipients required a medical visit after their vaccination,” she said.
Cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough told The Defender the CDC has abdicated its duties to the American public:
“The agency has the duty to monitor, analyze and inform the public on emerging COVID-19 vaccine safety issues. Americans have been horrified and outraged with lack of transparency by the CDC and the need for the courts to intervene.
“Release of CDC data describing an avalanche of side effects after COVID-19 vaccination deserves unbiased analysis and publication.”
According to Dr. Kat Lindley, president of the Global Health Project and director of the Global COVID Summit, “The fact that CDC was willing to hide the free-text data because it is burdensome tells us all we need to know about what CDC thinks about pharmacovigilance and the ‘COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective’ narrative.”
Multiple reports of deaths, heart attacks, strokes
According to ICAN, the CDC previously claimed the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines was accompanied by “the most intensive safety monitoring effort in U.S. history” — yet it took three lawsuits to secure the release of the V-safe “check-the-box” and “free-text” data.
In describing the “free-text” entries as “sobering” and “presumably ignored by CDC,” ICAN highlighted some examples of vaccine injuries reported by V-safe users in their own words, including:
My tinnitus is off the charts. It is EXTREMELY LOUD. Had I know [sic] the vaccination would make my tinnitus worse I would have NEVER gotten the vaccine. Put it this way, if I was suicidal I would be dead by now thats [sic] how bad it is.
I had miscarriage after 2nd dose of Pfizer covid vaccine. I felt fine until I had the vaccine and within 48 hrs pregnancy symptoms ceased. I have no history of fertility issues or complications and had 2 healthy uneventful pregnancies prior to this.
Today, I experienced heart palpitations accompanied by tachycardia, dizziness, and weakness. These symptoms lasted about 4 hours and my heart rate was between 135-145. I have never experienced any of these symptoms until today.
Loss of consciousness and seizure immediately following injection. Went to ER by ambulance.
‘My baby died in utero’ 12 days after vaccine
A review by The Defender of a sample of V-safe entries in both February and March data releases revealed several instances where deaths and serious adverse events were reported, including of unborn babies:
My baby died in utero 1/2/2020, I got the vaccine 12/21. She was 24 weeks.
My 6mo old baby who is exclusively breastfed got a red raised rash surrounding her mouth and on her neck beginning 1-2 days following my Covid vaccine. Unsure if it is related but sharing knowing that this vaccine has not been well studied in lactating women.
Died.
I am currently in the hospital for a heart attack that took place the day after my vaccination.
Had a heart attack8 [sic] hours after vaccine in the hospital.
Had a heart attack. 2 stents. In ICU at this time. This is his wife reporting this.
Still recovering from the heart attack I had 4 days after my vaccine. Lots of heart palpitations and general fatigue. Would like someone to contact me regarding this.
Stroke/heart attack possibly provoked by vaccine.
Had to enter hospital with short term memory loss and high levels of Troponin. They thought I had a mini stroke and heart attack. It happened the day after the vaccine.
I had a heart attack on 1:12.
Ive [sic] been having heart palpitations very frequently. Sometimes with an increased heart rate.
Yesterday I had incredible chest pain !!! Lasted for a few minutes than [sic] stopped. Thought I might be having a heart attack. Have never had this feeling before.
New onset Atrial Fibrillation.
Increased blood pressure and heart rate. Feeling like I was going to pass out. Unable to focus, floating feeling.
Facial numbness in the side I got the shot, migrated to my lips.
Colitis requiring 6 days in hospital on iv steroids, iv fluids and rest. I will be in long term prednisone now!
Severe bladder pain with urination that started ~3 hrs after receiving vaccine, urinary urgency and frequency.
This morning I noticed pain in my armpit, it felt like a swollen lymph node. I just noticed a very swollen area in my armpit. This is the right arm that I got the vaccine in yesterday.
I have painful and stiff joints- in my fingers. Particularly my left index finger. It is noticeably red and swollen. This is new for me.
Major herpes/cold sore outbreak on my lips. I usually get them, but not this bad.
Yesterday I developed herpes to my moth [sic] at a location I never get it. Also I have not had [herpes] in a very very long time.
“Difficulty thinking,” “brain fog” and “foggy feeling.”
Reacting to these reports, McCullough said, “Vignettes describing what went wrong after injection are consistent with what I am seeing in my clinical practice. Side effects are directly caused by the shots, are long-lasting and in many cases require medical intervention.”
Hooker said none of this information has been officially reported by the CDC, which “barely even gives mention of the myriad cardiac sequelae of the vaccine.”
“If CDC were taking these reports seriously, we would have been notified as the public — that’s their job, right? Public health?” Hooker said. “As per usual, CDC is lying and hiding, given their incestuous relationship with Big Pharma.
The February-March data is just “the tip of the iceberg,” Hooker said.
“The CDC needs to release all 7.8 million records, as the judge ordered,” he said. “There is no good reason for them to mete out the information slowly — this shows that they are continuing to hide adverse outcomes from the public.”
Lindley said it seems the CDC “has abandoned one of their important tenets, which is safety and protection of the consumers. The trust they seem to want to be restored will never be restored with the behaviors they continue to exhibit. Actions speak louder than words. Shame on them.”
ICAN said it will perform a “full analysis” of the data once the full release of the “free-text” V-safe records is complete.
The Most Revolutionary Act 
