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.
‘It could shut New York City down,’ Jennifer Hernandez, a trucker who supports the boycott, told NewsNation in an interview on Monday.
‘If New York loses…just 10 percent of the trucks going there, their prices are skyrocket on everything, from milk to eggs to any type of goods that the consumer needs,’ she added.
It’s not yet clear how widespread support for the proposed boycott is, and what impact it might have on deliveries to the city.
It could shut New York City down,’ Jennifer Hernandez, a trucker who supports the delivery boycott, told NewsNation in an interview on Monday
The New York Mayor’s Office, New York Association of Convenience Stores, and New York-based National Supermarkets Association did not immediately respond to requests for comment from DailyMail.com on Monday morning.
Prior proposed trucker boycotts have had mixed results. Last July, a proposed one-day trucker boycott in Florida over a strict new immigration law fizzled out, according to the Tampa Bay Times.
Many truckers do not own their own trucks, and those who do may be under financial pressure to take whatever jobs are available, the outlet noted.
But in late 2021, a trucker boycott of Colorado got results. In that case, truckers were furious over a 110-year prison sentence for a truck driver who was involved in a crash that killed four people.
In New York, Trump has praised the planned trucker boycott, posting on Truth Social: ‘Such an honor to have so many Great Patriots on the side of freedom!’
He added: ‘Joe Biden ’s Unfair and Dangerous Weaponization of Law Enforcement is a serious threat to Democracy. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!’
Another driver with the username Chicago1Ray, shared a video on X saying he had spoken to ‘at least ten’ colleagues who all agreed they would start refusing loads to the city on Monday.
Truckers who support Donald Trump claim their proposed New York City delivery boycott over his $355 million fraud trial verdict could paralyze the city
It wasn’t clear how many truckers were involved, but after Trump hailed their plan on his Truth Social page, Chicago1Ray posted again, saying: ‘Trump just posted my video and picture on his Truth Social account, pretty f***en cool…
Since Chicago1Ray shared the video, others have chimed in on the alleged boycott saying they supported the move.
One person posted: ‘Do it! Let us know how we can help! You’re NOT alone in this fight!’
Another added: ‘We can always rely on the trucker to restore some semblance of the right thing in response.
‘Thank you from the many here on X for your courage to stand up to the Marxist leftists.’
In the ruling on Friday Judge Arthur Engoron ordered Trump and his company to pay $355 million in penalties, finding he had lied about his wealth for years, to deceive banks, insurers and others by inflating his wealth on financial statements.
He is also banned from being a director in a New York firm for three years.
What are Russians saying about the death of Alexei Navalny? Let’s have a look.
Russian State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin said Brussels and Washington are to blame for Navalny’s death. He added that Navalny’s death benefits countries that are pushing for more sanctions against Moscow.
LDPR leader Leonid Slutsky said that the death of one person was a disaster but he was more concerned about the conflict in Ukraine. He vowed that Russia would not allow Navalny’s death to be “used in the interests of the West”.
State Duma Deputy Sergei Mironov, the leader of A Just Russia — For Truth, said Navalny’s death “benefits Russia’s enemies. It is necessary to investigate the circumstances of the death and take measures to repel the information attack of the West.” He concluded that the West was to blame for the death, which came as Moscow was calling for negotiations with Washington.
Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Commission to Investigate Interference of Foreign States in the Internal Affairs of Russia, Mikhail Delyagin, said that Western countries will likely use Navalny’s death as a to introduce new sanctions. He also predicted that the death could be used as a pretext to seize Russian assets that were frozen at the beginning of the SMO.
Vladimir Dzhabarov, Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council Committee on International Affairs, described Navalny’s death as an “accident” and insisted that the Russian government had no motive to harm Navalny while he was in prison.
Reactions from Telegram channels and commentators
Russian Telegram channels were quick to point out that Yulia Navalnaya made a surprise appearance at the Munich Security Conference, where she spoke about her husband’s death, announced just hours prior.
“You can believe in a coincidence, but a series of coincidences that benefit one side is very difficult [to believe],” wrote Roman Alekhin, a military volunteer who curates a popular Telegram channel.
Tot samyy olen, another popular Telegram channel, expressed similar suspicions:
Obviously, the death of the extremist oppositionist Navalny happened at the right time—exactly after the interview with Tucker Carlson, in the midst of the presidential campaign in Russia and during the Munich Security Conference, which very conveniently brought together all the main actors of this anti-Russian play, including Navalny’s wife. All of them almost instantly made accusatory speeches at press conferences specially convened for this purpose. […]
All the circumstances of the mysterious death have yet to be clarified, but we believe that even after the examination no one will publicly answer all the questions. One of the reasons for the transfer of chief prisoner Navalny from institution to institution according to a secret protocol was precisely due to fears for his life. Navalny was the most guarded prisoner in Russia, who was watched 24 hours a day … We believe that some [Russian officials] are clearly at risk of losing their shoulder straps.
Political commentator Anatoly Nesmiyan argued that Navalny’s decision to return to Russia, where he faced certain imprisonment, suggested that he was being groomed for a “Mandela project”. Navalny’s death raises questions about who inside Russia “guaranteed” Navalny’s safety and why this “project” was ultimately derailed, Nesmiyan wrote.
RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan wrote on Telegram that numerous “victims” of Navalny’s “custom-made investigations” had contacted her and gloated over Navalny’s death (they used an expression, “Земля стекловатой”, that basically translates to “I hope he doesn’t rest in peace”). Simonyan said she wanted to make similar statements but wanted to show self-control during Lent.
Sergei Karnaukhov, a former government official who runs a popular Telegram channel and makes regular appearances as a political analyst on state television, said that Navalny’s death was an attempt by the West to destabilize Russia:
Before the elections and presidential inauguration, the West will try to launch a powerful and multifactorial attack on our country. All this will be paid for, coordinated and filled by Western intelligence services, as well as supplemented by the work of Ukrainian special services and sabotage and subversive structures. The task that Western intelligence services will try to solve is to disrupt the presidential elections in the Russian Federation. At the same time, they understand well that nothing will work out. In this regard, all emphasis will be transferred to the post-election period. The voting results will not be recognized, the elected head of state will be declared an illegitimate “outlaw”, increasing the isolation of Russia.
And lastly, who could have committed this crime, and most importantly, how? We will certainly return to this question.
Military-political blogger Yuriy Podolyaka described Navalny’s death as “inevitable”:
After all, it was obvious that Navalny’s sponsors, realizing that there was zero benefit from him alive, and a huge benefit from him dead … would once again try to finish him off. Moreover, when it would be of most benefit. Now is just such a moment.
Liberal news portal “We Can Explain” compiled a list of reactions from Kremlin critics.
“This is a shocking event that will be difficult for the authorities to use favorably. It is likely that they will try not to ignore it. But the feeling of an electoral ‘holiday’ will still be reduced,” political scientist Mikhail Vinogradov told the outlet. “It’s too early to judge by the reaction of society … So far, the main intrigues are more likely related to the world reaction to what happened, since Navalny was often perceived as politician No. 2 [in Russia].”
Other commentators cited by the channel implicated the Kremlin in Navalny’s “murder”.
Liberal anti-Kremlin outlet The Bell also blamed the Russian government for Navalny’s death, claiming that it was “absurd” to suggest that the West to orchestrate the death of Russia’s most high-profile prisoner:
The reaction of Russian propaganda and second-line officials boils down to two theses: the West is to blame for Navalny’s death, and the Kremlin did not benefit from his murder. The first thesis, suggesting that the West was able to reach the most guarded Russian prisoner in one of the most distant colonies, is too absurd to talk about. The second thesis follows tradition: the Kremlin’s non-involvement in the murder of Boris Nemtsov was explained in exactly the same way in 2015. But it will be very difficult to argue this thesis in the case of Alexei Navalny. […]
The domestic political risks associated with Navalny’s murder are also small. Director of the Levada Center (foreign agent) Denis Volkov, in a conversation with The Bell today, confidently said that one should not expect serious protests in Russia now: protesting is dangerous, useless, and Navalny’s popularity has declined since 2021. “By the beginning of 2023, he had already dropped out of the top ten most trusted politicians. After this, Navalny’s rating fluctuated in an open question at 1%. The lowest figure is January 2024,” Volkov said.
But the inevitable decline in interest in Navalny after he was imprisoned did not mean that he ceased to be a long-term threat in the eyes of the Kremlin. “When the situation itself turned towards greater authoritarianism, people’s faith in any changes dried up, the sociological effect that Denis Volkov talks about takes place. But it could just as easily change in the opposite direction. In the long term, Navalny remained a strong and popular politician with large accumulated political capital. In this way, he certainly posed a threat to Putin,” says Re:Russia project director Kirill Rogov.
Russia’s anti-vax community noted (somewhat jokingly) that reports of Navalny dying from a blood-clot should raise eyebrows.
When the CDC created V-Safe as a way to track individuals who received the experimental COVID-19 “vaccines,” the agency vowed to be completely transparent. Remember—despite forcing millions of frightened human beings to take the jab—there were subpar clinical trials. One recipient shared, “The only reason I took this b******* vaccination is because my job gave me two choices. Sign a waiver or get the shot. I [got] the shot in fear of losing any benefits.”
So it makes sense, and seems mandatory, that the CDC create a system for individuals to share how they feel after receiving the experimental, mRNA-driven “vaccines.” To build trust in that system, the CDC touted V-Safe as “the most intensive safety monitoring effort in U.S. history.” Yet, as severe adverse events, including death, rapidly ascended following the EUA-pushed jabs, the CDC failed to be transparent with the data, releasing, when ordered by the Court in 2022, only superficial details. But persistence paid off. Last month, a federal judge ordered the CDC to release all 7.8 million detailed “free-text” data entries over the next 12 months. The “free-text” section is the only place in V-Safe for participants to potentially report serious adverse events. Yesterday, the CDC released the initial batch of data containing symptoms reported after being injected. The eye-opening entries are telling.
The free-text entries are critical because, shockingly, despite having an index of “adverse events of special interest” listed in its protocol, V-Safe entirely omitted those same adverse events from being tracked. As explained by ICAN, instead of asking V-safe participants about whether, for example, they experienced things such as anaphylaxis, myocarditis, or coagulopathy after taking an entirely experimental “vaccine” based on technology never before used, the CDC carelessly only asked about minor and generalized reactions, such as “chills,” “headache,” “fatigue or tiredness,” and “vomiting.” Thus, for users who may have wanted to report more serious adverse events, they must use the “free-text” field, which allows up to 250 characters. This data is crucial to understanding the safety profile of the COVID-19 “vaccines.” The fact the CDC had not thus far voluntarily released this critical data is indicative of the overall failure of the federal government’s responsibility to protect the health of Americans.
ICAN’s initial win in two previous lawsuits opened the door to obtaining V-Safe data. However, the taxpayer-funded CDC argued that producing the “free-text” entries was too burdensome an endeavor for them to be responsible for. Nevertheless, the Court strongly disagreed, noting that the “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.” Reporting on this outstanding victory brought by the lawyers that regularly represent ICAN on behalf of the Freedom Coalition of Doctors for Choice, ICAN explained the Court recognized that:
“The development and distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine was one of the greatest endeavors in recent history. Predictably, the American public now seeks access to COVID-related papers to ensure that relevant government policies were — and still are — supported and justified by the available data. That is precisely what FOIA contemplates and facilitates.”
Indeed, District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s ruling is a huge win for transparency, and yesterday’s first production of at 390,000 entries outlining what users experienced in the first two days of receiving the “vaccine” is telling. And unfortunately, it’s indicative of what’s to follow. Indeed, the “free-text” data, which is available here, has an overall theme of uneasiness. Users reported “anaphylaxis”—a severe, potentially life-threatening allergic reaction—numerous times, detailing experiences such as, “Emergency room visit for anaphylaxis … went to the ER … I had repeat facial swelling.” One user wrote, “Anaphylaxis within 10 min. of being vaccinated. Throat swollen almost shut.” Another user wrote:
“After receiving the shot (within 15 mins) I had an allergic reaction (tightening of the throat, dizziness, confusion, elevated heart rate) and was taken to the ER. Received steroid shot, Benadryl shot, and ephephrine shot. Was released to go home.” The user later wrote, “Feeling of mild allergic reaction in the throat. Elevated heart rate.”
Interestingly, thousands of users reported an odd “metallic taste” in their mouth, often accompanied by a tingling feeling in their tongue, lasting anywhere from a few minutes to hours or longer. Equally as many people—in the thousands—experienced rapid and concerning heart rates. Likewise, in addition to ongoing feelings of intense anxiety, numbness, dizziness, stiffness, fatigue, and diarrhea, thousands went to the emergency room within 24 to 48 hours of receiving the “vaccine.” One user described their experience at the ER, stating, “3 to 5 days after my shot, I experienced a rash around my eye that was painful and burning. I reported to the emergency room on Thursday, 12/24, diagnosed with shingles/herpes zoster, which I’ve never had before, so I’m just suspicious if that could have been a result of my first dose of the COVID vaccine.” Sadly, over 600 users specifically noted they were pregnant when they received the shot. Did the CDC monitor them more closely? They should have. Twenty-two users reported having a miscarriage that coincided with receiving the “vaccine.” One such user wrote:
“I had a miscarriage. I should’ve been 8 weeks pregnant but the baby stopped growing at 6 weeks which would’ve been very close to when I received my vaccine.”
It will take weeks to sift through the disturbing “free-text” entries detailing the myriad of troubling symptoms users experienced within the first couple of days after getting the “vaccine.” The 390,000 initial entries emphasize the potential for more serious adverse event symptoms like myocarditis that may be revealed as more “free-text” data files are released. Despite the unsettling entries, given the disaster that has been the COVID-19 “vaccine” campaign, reviewing the data is a massive step in the right direction. ICAN remarked, “This ruling sends a clear message to our federal agencies: we are not moving on and forgetting about the pandemic or the actions they took. ICAN will not stop until ALL the data is released to the public and there is true transparency and accountability around COVID-19.”
Indeed, as the pandemic catastrophe is evaluated, accountability for its blatant and oppressive mishandling is paramount. Americans deserve better. In one of many heartbreaking entries, an undoubtedly terrified vaccine-injured user shared concerning entries after receiving their first COVID-19 shot, which they clearly felt obligated to get. Making numerous entries, the user wrote:
“I had some mild tachycardia 10 mins after injection, hard to take a deep breath, sweating, & I turned bright red. My work had me take a Benadryl.
I lost the use of my right arm & couldn’t lift it. I’ve had COVID twice & the night I’ve had made me long for COVID-19. I’m not sure I can go through this again for a 2nd shot. I want to do my part, but this was unreal. Anyone around me actually told me not to get the second shot. It felt like death had entered my bones, as if they were being hammered. I kept waking up crying with a respiration rate in the 60s. I couldn’t take deep breaths because my ribs were hurting. I have a very high tolerance for pain, and this had me in tears.”
”Fraud is unacceptable, the voice of the people of Islamabad,” said a Pakistani organization. | Photo: @PTIofficial
Newsletter
Protestors denounce that on several occasions the Pakistani army has repressed its activities, to hinder the PTI’s camapaign for the presidency.
Thousands of Pakistanis participated on Saturday in a day of peaceful protests in various regions of the country, convened by the political party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), where the former Pakistani minister militates, Imran Khan, to denounce an alleged fraud in the elections held on 8 February.
“The fraud is unacceptable, they are the voices of the people of Islamabad”, is the message that the PTI has spread on its account of social network X, after announcing that the mass rally would be against “the massive fraud, shameless and unprecedented in the general elections of 2024”.
The PTI also reported that its leader, former Imran Khan, imprisoned since last August, was arrested while leading a demonstration in the city of Lahore, demanding his immediate release.
Massive protest in Pakistan – In Support of Imran Khan, against Army-backed elections rigging. pic.twitter.com/Vgrymdxejo
The party leadership also denounced that on several occasions the Pakistani Army has repressed its activities, to hinder the PTI’s campaign for the presidency.
In this sense, with a view to the last elections, the PTI changed its symbolism and presented independent candidates, and although it won 90 seats out of 266 in Parliament, it still does not come close to the simple majority of the 133 needed to form a Government in the National Assembly.
Although it won more votes than the Muslim League of Pakistan (PML-N), the latter decided to reach a coalition agreement with the Pakistani People’s Party (PPP), the Muslim League of Pakistan (LMPQ), the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, the Istehkam-e-Party of Pakistan and the Awami Party of Balochistan, reaching 152 seats.
On the eve, the PTI announced at a press conference that it has evidence to prove that fraud existed in the past elections by the PML-N in some regions, where ballot results declined in their favor.
In late 1792, France once again faced an inflation-driven economic crisis. Shortages of food, candles and firewood led to massive price increases, while the National Convention covered their war debts with mass printing of revolutionary currency (assignats).
More extreme than the Sans-culottes, the Paris Enragés believed scarcity was artificial and blamed counterrevolutionaries for hoarding. Addressing the Convention from the galleries, Parisian women demanded bread and soap and called for speculators to be put to death. Mobs of women invaded Parisian shops, stripping them of basic necessities, which they sold on the streets (at more affordable prices), returning to the proceeds to the merchants they had robbed. Founding the Society of Revolutionary Republican Women, they also demanded the Convention subsidize the cost of bread. .
When the more conservative Girondin deputies demanded the Jacobins join in crushing the anarchy in Paris, the Enragés demanded the Convention expel it Girondins.
By March 1793, counterrevolutionary uprisings in Normandy and Burgundy had been forced underground, but the Vendée (see 1793: The French Revolution Faces Counterrevolution) had exploded into full rebellion. With France about to be invaded on three fronts, Girondin supporter General Dumaurier mutinied and tried to get his troops to to march on Paris and crush the revolution.
With 35 of 48 Paris sections calling for a purge of the Girondins, the Convention passed emergency measures creating a revolutionary tribunal that could condemn revolutionaries to death without appeal. Georges Danton (who later turned out to be a British spy*) argued forcefully in favor of these emergency measures, asserting that decisive Convention action would minimize the need for mob violence. The Convention also called on the communes to set up surveillance tribunals and ordered confiscation of emigré land.
The Girondins were the first use the Revolutionary Tribunal against Marat, a former Jacobin journalist elected as a Convention deputy (who also turned out to be a British spy**). In April 1973, the Convention impeached him for sedition and referred him to the Revolutionary Tribunal for trial. As spectators wildly cheered him throughout the hearing, the Girondins lost the the support of more moderate deputies and had no choice but to acquit him.
In May 1793 the Jacobins tried to enact price controls on essential commodities, while the Sans-culottes began organizing militias. Surrounding the Convention with 20,000 men and 50 canon, on May 31, the Sans-culottes invaded the Convention to purge it of Girondin members. Belatedly the Jacobin deputies agreed to sentence 29 Girondin members to house arrest, with nine escaping to the provinces.
This move led to armed uprisings (egged on by expelled Girondin deputies) against Jacobin clubs in Lyon, Bordeaux, Marseilles and Caen. Collectively the uprisings came to be know as the “Federalist Revolt.” The Jacobins, in turn, called for the Girondins to be tried at the Revolutionary Tribunal.
*Following his execution by guillotine, Danton was discovered to be a paid agent of the British Foreign Office with a number of other agents under his control.
**Marat, also discovered to be a paid British agent, uncannily predicted Lafayette’s desertion, Mirabeau’s collaboration of Louis XVI, the king’s attempt to flee and the treason of General Dumaurier.
Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.
JPMorgan Chase and institutional investors BlackRock and State Street Global Advisors (SSGA) on Thursday announced that they are quitting or, in the case of BlackRock, substantially scaling back involvement in a massive United Nations climate alliance formed to combat global warming through corporate sustainability agreements.
In a statement, the New York-based JPMorgan Chase explained that it would exit the so-called Climate Action 100+ investor group because of the expansion of its in-house sustainability team and the establishment of its climate risk framework in recent years. BlackRock and State Street, which both manage trillions of dollars in assets, said the alliance’s climate initiatives had gone too far, expressing concern about potential legal issues as well.
The stunning announcements come as the largest financial institutions in the U.S. and worldwide face an onslaught of pressure from consumer advocates and Republican states over their environmental, social and governance (ESG) priorities.
“The firm has built a team of 40 dedicated sustainable investing professionals, including investment stewardship specialists who also leverage one of the largest buy side research teams in the industry,” the bank said in a statement shared with FOX Business. “Given these strengths and the evolution of its own stewardship capabilities, JPMAM (JP Morgan Asset Management) has determined that it will no longer participate in Climate Action 100+ engagements.”
BlackRock, meanwhile, withdrew its U.S. business from Climate Action 100+, shifting involvement in the alliance to BlackRock’s smaller international entity where a majority of clients are pursuing decarbonization goals, the Financial Times first reported Thursday. A spokesperson for BlackRock confirmed to FOX Business that the move had been made in recent weeks.
And State Street said its exit from the alliance was made because Climate Action 100+’s “phase 2” commitments conflicted with the firm’s internal investing policies.
“SSGA has concluded the enhanced Climate Action 100+ phase 2 requirements for signatories are not consistent with our independent approach to proxy voting and portfolio company engagement,” State Street said in a statement, according to the Financial Times.
Climate Action 100+ was formally established in December 2017 at the U.N. as a way of aligning the world’s largest private sector financiers of greenhouse gas producers. Since the association was created, it has grown to include more than 700 financial institutions that are collectively responsible for a staggering $68 trillion in assets under management.
The group — which is overseen by a nongovernmental steering committee comprised of ESG activists — calls for members to engage companies on “improving climate change governance,” curbing carbon emissions and strengthening climate-related financial disclosure policies. Its actions have largely taken aim at investments benefiting the oil and gas industry, while boosting green energy investment strategies.
The Climate Action 100+ “phase 2” strategy, which was set to be implemented later this year, calls for member investors to actively engage with companies to reduce their carbon footprint.
“More than 700 investors are committed to managing climate risk and preserving shareholder value through their participation in the initiative,” a spokesperson for Climate Action 100+ told FOX Business on Thursday. “Since its inception, Climate Action 100+ has experienced remarkable growth — and that has only continued.”
“The initiative has recently entered its second phase, which offers more ways investor signatories can participate,” the spokesperson continued. “Last autumn alone, more than 60 new signatories joined, and we expect interest to continue growing.”
Climate Action 100+, in addition to other global climate alliances and investor networks, has drawn the ire of Republican states and lawmakers who have argued their activities may infringe on government policymaking. They have also warned such associations are harming domestic energy companies which employ thousands of Americans and ensure low consumer prices.
In June, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, issued a subpoena to Ceres, a nonprofit advocacy organization that helps to oversee Climate Action 100+, alleging the group may be facilitating collusion through its climate-focused initiatives in violation of U.S. antitrust law.
“Today’s decisions by JPMorgan and State Street are big wins for freedom and the American economy, and we hope more financial institutions follow suit in abandoning collusive ESG actions,” Jordan wrote Thursday in a social media post on X.
Additionally, state attorneys general, financial officers and agriculture commissioners have banded together in recent months to threaten legal action related to banks’ involvement in climate alliances.
“JPMorgan, State Street, and BlackRock’s departure is a necessary step in the right direction, but consumers should wait to trust these companies again,” said Consumers Research executive director Will Hild. “By leaving the Climate Action 100+ climate cartel, they are signaling that the actions of millions of consumers and dozens of elected officials are having an effect.”
“These asset management firms are clearly afraid of the bad press and legal actions taken against their destructive net zero push,” Hild added.
We are continuously sold promises of health breakthroughs that are just around the corner, but we forget they have been just around the corner for decades. We are told technology, and especially biotechnology, will enable us to live longer, healthier lives in greater comfort, yet publicly available statistics show we are now living shorter lives with greater stress, greater wealth divides, and ever-growing rates of chronic and serious illness, including cancers.
I was forcibly reminded this week that it is heresy to deny the imagined march of progress. The burgeoning class of highly paid government technocrats, regulators, and consultants, along with the medical establishment, will do almost anything to protect their imagined future, and that appears now to include the loss of life. Just remember that one murderer or the work of a serial killer is invariably tracked down, but actions that kill millions can be passed off as the price of progress or peace.
A discussion between Dr. John Campbell and Mr. John O’Looney, funeral Director from Milton Keynes, UK, published on YouTube laid bare the deceit of the UK authorities in denying justice for victims and information to the public. The discussion detailed the refusal of coroners and pathologists to investigate the well documented formation of unusual fibrous clots in many Covid vaccinated individuals, including some young people who died suddenly as a result of the consequent thrombosis. The excuse of the senior authorities: the clots must have formed after death, a complete impossibility as death ushers in decay but never growth.
The speakers pointed out that the denial of vaccine damage goes right up to PM Rishi Sunak. To acknowledge that novel mRNA vaccines might be unsafe is truly off limits for our medical practitioners, researchers, administrators, and the leaders of once great nations.
Unfortunately, it is also happening here in trusting New Zealand.
“Our results estimate that vaccines saved 6650 (95% credible interval [4424, 10180]) lives, and prevented 74500 [51000, 115400] years of life lost and 45100 [34400, 55600] hospitalisations during this 18-month period.”
They concluded that: “Covid-19 vaccination has greatly reduced the health burden in New Zealand”
The paper itself, as the title suggests, is a mathematical modelling of the effect of vaccines, masking, and antiviral drugs on the rates of Covid infection, hospitalisation, and deaths. The above claims appear to be at complete variance with the overall statistics for excess deaths in New Zealand during the study period which were amongst the highest in the world when compared to the pre-pandemic period and also at variance with the continuing reports that Health NZ is overwhelmed with high volumes of illness.
So who is right?
The paper does not investigate differences in health outcomes between the vaccinated and unvaccinated and thus falls flat at the first hurdle. It completely ignores the issue that overall mortality is ~20% higher about 5 months after vax roll-out compared with historic trends and continues high until the present. A key point is found in the paper’s supplement which describes their model.
“The antibody titre is assumed to be a correlate of protection and a given titre is generally more protective against more severe clinical endpoints, in line with the findings of [5].”
Translated, this means, the authors assumed that the vaccine was effective against death and severe Covid and just projected the benefits of the vaccine based on this assumption. They never even considered the possibility that the vaccine was not beneficial, which is what the all-cause mortality data in New Zeland is indicating. In simple terms, vaccine harm was considered unthinkable.
It is actually very hard indeed to deny the existence of continuing high excess deaths, they are after all official published figures. The leaked vaccination/death data only adds to the misery of officials who are fighting a rearguard action to deny the obvious. Here is a recent reply to an OIA request made to Health New Zealand. The original request was made almost a year ago and asks Health New Zealand among other things for:
“Data regarding the vaccination status and age brackets of All Cause Mortalities in New Zealand each month since 2019 to present”
This is of course the holy grail of Covid data if we are ever to learn what is causing the collapse of our health system and the blow out in excess deaths. Health New Zealand explained that after a miserly 100 hours of work over a whole year to try to track down the information, they have put it in the too hard basket and are refusing to answer the request because they say it would involve them in too much work.
However, that is not the whole sorry story. The Health New Zealand reply includes this revealing admission:
“To provide some context, those who have been vaccinated/had boosters are more likely to have high all-cause mortality risk (additional to being aged) than those who did not. Therefore, vaccination will likely be misinterpreted as being associated with increased risk of death.”
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to conclude that whatever the 100 hours of work yielded, it almost certainly confirmed a higher rate of all-cause mortality among the vaccinated.
This admission is extraordinary and damning.
The author of the Health New Zealand reply hedges bets by saying that the differential mortality is “likely” due to “residual confounding”. They are suggesting here that the vaccinated population had some unidentified different characteristics from the unvaccinated which predisposes them to die at a greater rate.
However 87% of the population has been jabbed and/or boosted, this is not a group who were selected because they were sick, old or on the verge of death, it was almost everyone. Because of mandates, healthy working age people had cause to be vaccinated. To suggest that they might be dying in greater numbers as a result of some uninvestigated statistical bias which Health New Zealand is refusing to assess, because of lack of time, resources, and presumably inclination, is utterly absurd and exhibits a blatant disregard for life,
In fact, Health New Zealand is continuing with a counter factual narrative that biotech vaccines are safe and effective, as such they are refusing to face reality. The public are the losers here, left in the dark and continually urged to get boosted. The unvaccinated are still being labelled conspiracy theorists.
Health New Zealand and its employees are sworn to protect our health. In that light, this question is of the essence: Is the Covid mRNA vaccine safe or is it killing people? Apparently, even Health New Zealand is afraid that it is killing people, but they are refusing to investigate. Because of their deep faith in one word ‘vaccination’ and their enthusiastic embrace of our biotechnology future, they have decided to stone wall any attempt to address the situation. In effect, they are prepared to let people die in order to defend their faith.
So what is the right approach here?
Pre-pandemic, the most important criterion of safety in drug trials was any effect on mortality. This paper entitled “All-Cause Mortality in Randomized Trials of Cancer Screening” from 2002 spells out the overriding importance of looking at all-cause mortality as an indicator of drug safety or harm, saying:
“All-cause mortality, (in contrast to disease specific mortality), does not require judgments about the cause of death. Instead, all that this end point requires is an accurate ascertainment of deaths and when they occur. Furthermore, all-cause mortality is a measure that can capture unexpected lethal side effects of medical care. Because of the concern that some cardiac interventions may cause non-cardiac deaths, for example, there has been a trend toward the use of all-cause mortality as the primary end point in cardiac drug trials.”
The paper in the Vaccine journal cited previously and the OIA reply from Health New Zealand are relying on discussion based on Covid-specific outcomes alone, they are ignoring the huge rise in all-cause mortality. They are ignoring the canons of accepted scientific assessment, in doing so they are failing in their duty to protect public health and life.
So what do we think of all this?
Clearly, a huge number of people, many associated with the medical profession, have formed a mutually supportive network of communal amnesia in the face of fact and standard procedure. Incredibly, it appears they are prepared to put even their own lives at risk, let alone the public’s in order to justify their opinions.
There is of course more to this story and I am very grateful for those well versed in scientific practice with whom I correspond and hold discussions. As you know, the Pfizer vaccine was never subjected to long term testing prior to its release, so there was no opportunity to assess its impact on all-cause mortality. This is something that can be, and desperately should be corrected right away.
So why did the government allow a novel experimental biotech engineered vaccine into the country and mandate its use on virtually the whole population? This document from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) explains the twisted logic that was used to bypass the obvious safety issues. The EPA decided that the mRNA vaccine was not an ‘organism’ according to their interpretation of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act and therefore did not require regulation. In reaching this erroneous conclusion that suited the government of the day, the Decision Making Committee (DMC) of the EPA worked closely with Pfizer and concluded:
“The DMC decided that the only thing that BNT162b2 was capable of producing was the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, and not more copies of itself. On this basis, the DMC determined that BNT162b2 did not meet any of the criteria for it to be called an organism.”
The EPA never investigated whether the mRNA vaccine might be a hazardous substance, they decided it was safe in the absence of any long term testing which for novel vaccines would normally take place over at least ten years.
If gain of function experimentation, biotechnology innovation, military exploitation and casual public exposure to increasing risks of novel medical interventions is allowed to continue unchecked and in fact enthusiastically funded and defended, there is little doubt that there will be another pandemic and there will be a deepening of our medical crisis. Given the existing illusion of biotech safety and efficacy still governing the thoughts and actions of those in charge, the future response of governments and medical authorities will be unpredictable, likely draconian, and possibly catastrophic.
I think you will agree with me that such a pervasive alliance of deliberate scientific amnesia directly involving the medical authorities and their regulatory agencies which has firmly established itself over four years will probably now be very hard to shift. Despite this, please make a submission to the Covid-19 inquiry which is seeking public input to expand its terms of reference, you may do so at the following website: Covid-19 Commission Inquiry Have Your Say.
Victoria is just not big enough to fit all the solar and wind industrial plants
It’s no wonder the Victorian government is desperate to begin building offshore wind turbines. Their own targets for the forced transition are so crazy-brave, they would “need” to use as much as two thirds of the state’s agricultural land instead. It sounds delusional but they told us this straight up in their own policy document released in March 2022.
Think about the captive mindset it takes to publish a ludicrous document like this without blinking? These are people who never meet a skeptic. Whoever wrote and approved it didn’t even try to hide the ghastly cost of building wind and solar power onshore. And they certainly didn’t spend a nanosecond imagining what Victorian farmers might think of it. (Or checking their own maths — 70% of agricultural land is not the same as “four times the area of Greater Melbourne”.)
Presumably some bureaucrats were tasked with justifying the big Offshore wind developments and it didn’t even cross their minds that “Net Zero” is a option, a frivolous quest, and that farmers, and everyone (outside the party room) might just say “No”.
Billions of dollars are on the table and no one even reads the policy documents. We live in an era of distilled incompetence.
The Bottom Line:
Victoria is supposedly aiming to be 95% renewable by 2035, and at this point gets about 50% of it’s electricity from fossil fuels (and even more of it’s total energy). Even after the mass installation of unreliable energy for the last ten years Victoria needs to build 15 times as much to reach its target.
The WEF-captured government of France has pushed through a draconian new law entitled Article 4. This Orwellian and unconstitutional color of law power grab is a purposely poor attempt at obscuring the irrefutable slow kill bioweapon death and destruction data.
What makes Article 4 particularly incendiary is that the majority of the French population has been outright refusing all “vaccinations.” Throttling their free speech as it pertains to gene modifying poisons will only increase the already heightened tensions between the criminal Macron administration and the awakening French populace, by design.
Between WEF puppet Trudeau in Canada and WEF puppet Macron in France, there is now a race to create the most totalitarian technocommunist nation in the West, with France now taking a slight lead; to wit:
These policies and “laws” are nothing more than an extension of the ongoing democide, and the associated iatrocide.
Meanwhile, back in the USSA, the Center for Disease Crimes (CDC) is still at it with their “Trust the Science” mendacity and murder:
Readers of this Substack fully appreciate the myocarditis and turbo cancer epidemics currently underway — not to mention soaring excess non-PSYOP-19 mortality — since the rollout of the “vaccines:”
Removing all BigPharma legal liabilities and prosecuting the various “health” agencies like the FDA, CDC, NIH, et al. has never been more urgent.
France’s Article 4 is just a hint at what is to come, especially if the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty scam ever passes in the various nations that they are attempting to further hijack.
Joshua Schulte (center) seated at the defense table flanked by his attorneys. [Source: courthousenews.com]
John Kiriakou
Joshua Schulte was given a forty year sentence for allegedly passing documents that exposed nefarious CIA practices
Has been kept under brutal solitary confinement conditions in New York Metropolitan Correctional Center that violate human rights
A federal judge in New York in early February sentenced CIA whistleblower Joshua Schulte to a draconian 40 years in prison after a jury found him guilty of nine felony counts of espionage for passing to Wikileaks documents that became known as “Vault 7.” Schulte, who foolishly represented himself, faced up to 80 years. He still faces a state charge for alleged possession of child pornography.
The conviction and sentence raise several important questions. First, what does the length of the sentence mean for any other whistleblower who goes to the media to expose waste, fraud, abuse, or illegality? Second, what do the sentence and conviction portend in the case of Julian Assange, who is widely expected to be extradited to the United States in late February, and whose Wikileaks was the recipient of the Vault 7 information? And third, what does this all say about the revenge factor in espionage cases?
Schulte was accused of taking cyber spy data from the CIA because he was a “disgruntled employee” and because he couldn’t get along with his supervisor and coworkers. He reportedly resigned in a huff after an incident with a coworker caused the two to file protective orders against each other in state court in Virginia.
That was the prosecution’s narrative. But the evidence wasn’t so clear cut. Prosecutors had literally no evidence that Schulte had taken the data from the CIA and transferred it to Wikileaks. But they contended that he was a computer genius who was so brilliant that he was able to cover his tracks. That was enough for the jury.
CIA Deputy Director for Digital Innovation Sean Roche called the Vault 7 leak “a digital Pearl Harbor.” Chief prosecutor Damian Williams said the revelations were “one of the most brazen and damaging acts of espionage in American history.”
And Vice magazine said it was “the worst leak of CIA information ever.”
The CIA leadership apparently thought the leak was so damaging that then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo ordered the Agency to come up with a plan to kidnap or to kill Julian Assange in London. One former Trump Administration national security official said that Pompeo and other senior CIA leaders, “were completely detached from reality because they were so embarrassed about Vault 7. They were seeing blood.”
So what was Vault 7? And why does the mainstream media refer to Schulte as a “leaker,” rather than as a “whistleblower?” Remember, there is a legal definition of whistleblowing: It is bringing to light any evidence of waste, fraud, abuse, illegality, or threats to the public health and public safety.” Motivation is legally irrelevant.
Vault 7 was a series of 24 collections of documents totaling hundreds of thousands of pages that included the most sophisticated computer hacking, surveillance, and cyberwarfare tools that the CIA ever developed. Wikileaks published the first tranche, called “Year Zero,” on March 7, 2017. Just this first installment contained more information than all of that released by Edward Snowden and included vulnerabilities known to the CIA within web browsers, including Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Mozilla Firefox, and Opera and the operating systems of most of the world’s cellphones, including Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android.
The fact that the CIA knew about these vulnerabilities and didn’t inform the companies was a violation of a longstanding policy that the Agency claims to have that it would assist U.S. tech companies with their security if it learned of security weaknesses. Instead, it exploited those problems in its digital operations. We have no idea if the Agency used these vulnerabilities to spy on Americans.
Ashley Gorski, an American Civil Liberties Union staff attorney said at the time, “Our government should be working to help the companies patch vulnerabilities when they are discovered, not stockpile them.”
A second Vault 7 revelation came on March 23, 2017 and included accounts of CIA efforts to hack Apple’s iPhones and Mac computers.
Additional tranches were released every week or two until September 2017. Their revelations included proof that the CIA was able to hack into cars’ computer systems and could take over control of the vehicle. Was the purpose of this to force the vehicle off the road? Off a cliff? Into a tree? The CIA never commented.
Still other documents showed how CIA officers could take over an unsuspecting person’s smart TV and turn its speaker into a microphone to surreptitiously bug a room, even while the television appeared to be turned off. Yet other documents showed that the CIA was running digital operations against the National Security Agency (NSA). It is unclear whether this was done as an exercise between the two agencies or if it was something more sinister.
Other revelations were that the CIA had created a program to track documents transferred by would-be whistleblowers to media outlets (the program is called “Scribblers”), malware that could take over and control computers using the Microsoft Windows 10 operating system (called “Athena”), and malware that could be transferred from one “clean” computer to another through internal systems that are otherwise protected by anti-virus software (called “Pandemic”).
Schulte’s revelations were not limited to software. He also revealed a program called “HammerDrill,” that injects a trojan horse onto CDs and DVDs and then documents information on the discs for later transmission to the CIA. An operation called “Dark Matter” revealed security vulnerabilities unique to Apple operating systems. And Schulte revealed that the CIA had compromised vulnerabilities in a huge range of Cisco Systems router models. Apple and Cisco have since spent untold millions of dollars to redesign their products and correct the security flaws.
Despite the fact that this was supposedly the worst data breach in the history of the CIA, Schulte and his revelations did not get much press play. There are several likely reasons for this. First, Schulte claimed innocence. He insisted that he was not a whistleblower and he has maintained throughout his ordeal that he did not provide Wikileaks with anything. Second, the state of New York, simultaneously with the federal charges, charged Schulte with multiple counts of child pornography, which has given many of Schulte’s natural supporters pause. All but one of those counts have been dropped.
Prosecutors maintained that they only discovered the pornography when they seized the computer hard drives in Schulte’s apartment while looking for Vault 7 information. Schulte’s defense to the child pornography charges will be that he considers himself to be a libertarian anarchist and that he set up a server to allow people unfettered “free speech,” something akin to the 4chan and 8chan servers. He maintains that he has not “received” or “disseminated” any child pornography personally. However, when child pornographers saw that Schulte’s server supported “unfettered free speech,” they used it to trade illegal images and videos. Schulte is adamant that none of the pornography was his. His protestations likely won’t matter.
In the meantime, Schulte has languished in a notorious federal prison, the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in New York, since October 2018. He will eventually be transferred to a maximum-security penitentiary for at least the first 17 years of his sentence.
Schulte is not treated like other prisoners in the MCC. When he goes to court, for example, he is required to wear shackles around his ankles and chains around his waist to which his handcuffed hands are attached, and his hands are then enclosed in a steel box that is itself locked separately.
In the Justice Department’s classified conference room, where he is required to meet his attorneys, he is chained to an eye bolt in the floor, just like the CIA does to al-Qaeda prisoners during their interrogations. He is not permitted to use the restroom during these visits. His guards give him a plastic bag at the start of the meetings, and if he has to go to the bathroom, he must urinate and defecate in the bag.
Schulte’s day-to-day existence is far more difficult. First, he has been subject to “Special Administrative Measures” (SAM) since his arrest. He is in solitary confinement in a cage in a small concrete box the size of a standard parking space 24 hours a day. He is allowed two showers a week and is not permitted to use the phone or email. He is not permitted to watch television or to listen to the radio. He is not permitted to have visitors other than his attorneys. He is not permitted to make purchases from the commissary.
There is a mechanism within the federal Bureau of Prisons by which to complain about these conditions. A prisoner must first fill out a form BP-8 ½, which goes to the person you are accusing of violating your rights, saying, “Hey, you violated my rights.” The response, of course, will be “No I didn’t.” You then have 14 days to file a Form BP-9, which goes to the warden. The warden, not surprisingly, almost always supports his staff member. You then have 60 days to file a Form BP-10, which goes to the Bureau of Prisons regional office. Once the prisoner loses there, which is almost guaranteed, he can file a Form BP-11, which goes to the Bureau of Prisons headquarters in Washington. No prisoner ever wins at BOP headquarters.
There are also ways in which the prisoner is routinely stymied in his attempt to file a complaint. The filing of every form is time sensitive, so the warden and others will withhold their responses, backdate them, and then send the responses to the prisoner so that he only has a day or two to respond. He can’t possibly get it done in time, so it’s dismissed as “not responsive in a timely fashion.” He has no recourse because the federal courts have ruled that a prisoner must exhaust the “administrative complaint process” before going to the courts. But if the complaint is dismissed by the BOP as “not responsive” because of time, he’s out of luck.
Schulte isn’t complaining just about the heavy-handed circumstances of his incarceration. He’s complaining about what his previous attorneys argued amounted to cruel and unusual punishment, perhaps torture.
They noted in a recent lawsuit against the Bureau of Prisons that Schulte is “locked in a cage in a concrete box the size of a parking space with purposefully obstructed views of outside, the cages are filthy and infested with rodents, rodent droppings, cockroaches and mold; there is no heating or air conditioning in the cages, there is no functioning plumbing, the lights burn brightly 24 hours per day, and the inmates are denied normal visitation, access to books and legal material, medical care, and dental care. All attorney-client privilege is also void as the prison confiscates, opens, and reads all legal mail. The process imposed is arbitrary and not tailored to any legitimate government interest.”
The attorneys add that, “No matter what crime an individual is alleged to have committed, the United States Constitution grands all a presumption of innocence. Indeed, no American wants to be treated like a caged animal if accused of a crime—dependent, deserted, dehumanized, demoralized, and detained.”
Newsletter
The Most Revolutionary Act 