Dr Mercola

In early April 2020, Mercola.com became one of the first websites to purposely block Google from indexing our articles and breaking news blog posts. Most of you are well aware that I’ve had concerns about the surveillance capitalists, spearheaded by Google, for a number of years.

September 2017, I discussed Google’s partnership with the National Alliance on Mental Illness, and how their depression assessment quiz was in fact a drug promotion scam sponsored by the drug manufacturer Eli Lilly. No matter how you answered the questions, you were a candidate for antidepressants.

Since then, Google and other tech companies have only gotten deeper and wider access to people’s personal medical information, and Google’s selling of this data to third parties can have real-world consequences. Higher insurance premiums or denial of employment are but two obvious examples.

Google Blocked From Interacting With Mercola.com

Most of you know that in the summer of 2019, Google removed us from coming up in any keyword search unless our name was also typed into the query. While we still received substantial traffic from people who looked very hard to find Mercola articles through Google, we finally decided to block Google from crawling or indexing any of my articles or breaking news blogs. We also stopped using the Google Analytics program in 2018.

So, everything related to Google has been removed from this site, and I hope other sites will follow suit. I encourage you to search every site’s privacy policy page to see if they use Google Analytics or Google Ad programs, and if they do, encourage them to stop.

We can be successful without the surveillance monopolies, and businesses and individuals need to unite to do everything we can to stop their dangerous privacy theft and data mining.

How You Pay for Companies’ Use of ‘Free’ Analytics

A majority of websites are using Google’s “free” analytics program, as well as their advertising platforms. Alas, those services are not actually free. Ultimately, YOU pay for them with your personal data, as that is the product Google turns around and sells to third parties. Collectively, all of these sites are stealing an enormous amount of your private information.

Google and its data-siphoning tentacles reach deep into your everyday life, collecting data on every move you make and conversation you have, whether online or in the real world.

Even if you disable location tracking on your phone, Google has ways to determine your whereabouts by tracking the addresses of nearby cellular towers that your phone connects to instead. This is one of the reasons I strongly encourage you to ditch all Android phones and use an iPhone that has better privacy policies.

I discussed this in my 2018 article, “Google — One of the Largest Monopolies in the World.” That article also includes a list of examples of the type of data collected by Google, whether you’re aware of it or not.

Our ‘Cognitive Liberties’ Are at Stake

As detailed in “Will Google’s Social Credit System Determine Your Future?” there are now proposals suggesting all this data, in combination with artificial intelligence-enabled analytics systems could be used for “predictive policing” as illustrated in the 2002 movie “Minority Report,” where suspected perpetrators are arrested before a crime is actually committed.

In the 2018 TED Talk above,¹ legal scholar and bioethicist Nita Farahany discusses the potential ramifications of mind-reading technology, warning that such technology could easily lead to “a society where people are arrested for merely thinking about committing a crime.”

Mind you, Google claimed to have the ability to read your thoughts an entire decade ago. In 2010, Google CEO Eric Schmidt boasted, “We know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less know what you’re thinking about.”²

Fast-forward 10 years, and Google’s mind-reading capabilities have exponentially grown and been perfected to the point that their AI can predict the exact moment when a teenager is feeling insecure, lonely or vulnerable, so that an advertisement for an image-boosting product can be placed in front of them on the screen in that moment.

This and many other terrifying capabilities are detailed in the book, “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism,” written by social psychologist and Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff. The video below features an interview I did with her about this topic.

In her TED Talk, Farahany also discusses the dangers of a world in which “private interests sell our brain data.” She believes we, as a global community, need laws protecting our rights to cognitive liberty; laws that protect our freedom of thought and self-determination.

Say Goodbye to Google

Over the years, I’ve grown exceedingly concerned about Google’s exponential data mining efforts and infiltration into every conceivable area of our everyday lives, from health care and fitness to education and finance.

The influence of Google is so vast yet so hidden, most people simply have no idea just how controlled they actually are. Most of us would vehemently deny that something as simple as Google search results can manipulate us into thinking a certain way about a topic, yet research clearly shows that this kind of subliminal influence is profoundly powerful.

Robert Epstein, Ph.D., who has spent the last decade of his professional career exposing Google’s manipulative and deceptive practices as a senior research psychologist for the American Institute of Behavioral Research and Technology, has also demonstrated how easily Google can shift our political and societal landscape.

Without Google, the technocrats’ dream of a One World Government would likely never happen, as it relies on social engineering and artificial intelligence. Google is a frontrunner and expert in both, and has the ability to control entire populations. As noted by Epstein in the interview above, Google poses three unique threats to society:

• They’re a surveillance agency with significant yet hidden surveillance powers — Google Search, Google Wallet, Google Docs, Gmail, Google Drive, YouTube — all are surveillance platforms and from Google’s perspective, the value of these platforms are their ability to glean very precise data about you as an individual. Most of these platforms offer free services for the simple reason that YOU are the product being sold to third parties.

• They’re a censoring agency with the ability to restrict or block access to websites across the internet, thus deciding what people can and cannot see. While Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act makes free speech possible for everyone, it also allows Google and other online platforms to filter out and censor whatever they want.

The most crushing problem with this kind of internet censorship is that you don’t know what you don’t know. If a certain type of information is removed from search, and you don’t know it should exist somewhere, you’ll never go looking for it. And, when searching for information online, how would you know that certain websites or pages have been removed from the search results in the first place? The answer is, you don’t.

For example, Google has been investing in DNA repositories for quite a long time, and are adding DNA information to our profiles. According to Epstein, Google has taken over the national DNA repository, but articles about that — which he has cited in his own writings — have all vanished.

• They have the power to manipulate public opinion through search rankings and other means, and the shifts in thinking produced are both rapid and enormous. For example, Epstein has demonstrated that Google has the ability to shift voting preferences among undecided voters by a whopping 48% to 63%, and the power to determine 25% of global elections. What’s more, this manipulation is entirely undetectable and untraceable.

The Many Reasons to Ditch Google

As a user, there are many reasons to de-Google your life, including the following:

Privacy concerns — Google’s services, including search, email, and maps, collect vast amounts of personal data, which can include browsing history, location data, and more. This collection is integral to their business model, which focuses on targeted advertising. Other privacy concerns include the following: • Tracking of your whereabouts 24/7 — In 2022, four attorneys general sued Google for its deceptive practices in collecting location data, as they continue to track location data even after users disable location tracking. By tracking your Google calendar entries, combined with your location data, Google also knows what events you’ve attended, when, and for how long. • Your built-in webcam on your phone, tablet, laptop or computer can also be accessed by various apps. • A lifetime of photographic evidence — Twenty years ago, photos were a private matter, reminisced over in photo albums and displayed around the home. Today, people’s lives are on public display online, and Google captures it all. When combined with facial recognition software and other technological identification applications, including metadata detailing the time and place of each snap, your photos are a treasure trove of private information. • A lifetime of communications — Google also has every single Gmail email you’ve ever sent, received and deleted. • Censoring your email — Google can also censor your email, and we have evidence that this is happening. While about 50% of our subscribers are using Gmail accounts, the delivery rate for Gmail accounts is HALF of all the email providers like ProtonMail — far lower than any other email service. So, if you are using Gmail to receive our newsletter please change immediately. If you’re using Gmail, understand that they’re censoring your inbox, and you might not even realize it. • Deleted files and information — You probably delete files and information every now and then for the sake of safety, right? You might decide to delete that list of passwords from your phone, for example, in case you lose it or it gets hacked. Well, Google still has all of that information.

Market dominance and monopolistic behavior — Google’s dominant position in search, video hosting (via YouTube), and mobile operating systems (via Android) stifles competition, potentially leading to less innovation and choice for consumers.

Data security — Although Google claims to have strong security measures, no service is immune to data breaches or security flaws. Considering the vast amount of personal data collected by Google, a data breach could be potentially devastating.

Echo chamber and filter bubble effects — Google’s personalized search and news results can create a “filter bubble,” where users are more likely to see information that aligns with their past behavior, potentially limiting exposure to differing viewpoints and leading to an echo chamber effect.

Dependence and data lock-in — Relying heavily on Google’s ecosystem can lead to a form of lock-in, where moving to other services becomes difficult due to the vast amounts of data and integration within Google’s services. To avoid this, diversify your service providers.

The coming social credit system — The ability to surveil and track every conceivable metric, censor and block access to information, and the ability to manipulate opinions also makes Google an invaluable resource for the planned social credit system, and the more information they have on you, the easier they can manipulate you.

Here’s How You Can Say Goodbye to Google Today

If you are at all concerned about Google’s data theft practices, then it’s time you stop using Google services. Sure, Google has convenience covered, but it’s not enough to overshadow its many evils.

If you’re ready to protect your privacy and break free from the manipulation of internet monopolies, here are some basic steps you can take. Also, be sure to share these tips with your family and friends.

Swap out your browser — Uninstall Google Chrome and use Brave or Opera instead. Everything you do on Chrome is surveilled, including keystrokes and every webpage you’ve ever visited. Brave is a great alternative that takes privacy seriously.

Switch your search engine — Stop using Google search engines or any extension of Google, such as Bing or Yahoo, both of which draw search results from Google. Instead, use a default search engine that offers privacy, such as Presearch, Startpage, DuckDuckGo, Qwant and many others.

Use a secure email — Close your Gmail account and switch to a secure email service like ProtonMail. If you have children, don’t transfer their student Google account into a personal account once they’re out of school.

Switch to a secure document sharing service — Ditch Google Docs and use another alternative such as Zoho Office, Etherpad, CryptPad, OnlyOffice or Nuclino, all of which are recommended by NordVPN.3

Delete all Google apps from your phone and purge Google hardware. Better yet, get a de-Googled phone. Several companies now offer them, including Above Phone.

Avoid websites that use Google Analytics — To do that, you’ll need to check the website’s privacy policy and search for “Google.” Websites are required to disclose if they use a third-party surveillance tool. If they use Google Analytics, ask them to switch!

Use a secure messaging system — To keep your private communications private, use a messaging tool that provides end-to-end encryption, such as Signal.

Use a virtual private network (VPN) such as NordVPN or Strong VPN — This is a must if you seek to preserve your online privacy.

Don’t use Google Home devices in your house or apartment — These devices record everything that occurs in your home, both speech and sounds such as brushing your teeth and boiling water, even when they appear to be inactive, and send that information back to Google. The same goes for Google’s home thermostat Nest and Amazon’s Alexa.

Don’t use an Android cellphone, as it’s owned by Google.

Ditch Siri, which draws all its answers from Google.

Don’t use Fitbit, as it was recently purchased by Google and will provide them with all your physiological information and activity levels, in addition to everything else that Google already has on you.

Via https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/03/20/boycott-google.aspx

Although Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has insistingly blamed India for the killing of Sikh separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar, New Zealand’s Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters questioned Canada’s claim of an alleged “potential” link to the South Asian country. Although this suggests a minor split in the Five-Eyes intelligence alliance, it also demonstrates a coordinated information war by the alliance’s senior members.

Despite New Zealand’s membership in the Five-Eyes intelligence alliance with the US, Canada, UK, and Australia, Peters expressed scepticism about Canada’s evidence during an interview with The Indian Express. Peters, who entered government at the end of 2023 with the newly elected National Party, also stressed that he was not involved in the handling of the matter when Trudeau triggered a diplomatic crisis with New Delhi in September last year by accusing the country of killing Nijjar on Canadian soil.

“Well, I wasn’t here, it was handled by the previous government. But look, sometimes when you’re hearing Five-Eyes information, you’re hearing it and saying nothing. It is coming past you. You don’t know the value or the quality of it, but you’re pleased to have it. You don’t know whether there is going to be substantial material value or nothing. But the very, very critical information that matters… This was mainly handled by the previous government,” Peters said on March 13.
Warring Against the Diaspora: India’s Campaign Against Khalistan

“As a trained lawyer, I look okay, so where’s the case? Where’s the evidence? Where’s the finding right here, right now? Well, there isn’t one,” he added.

Highlighting Canada’s lack of evidence against India marks the first instance of a Five-Eyes partner challenging claims regarding the Nijjar case, a designated terrorist in India who was shot and killed as he came out of a Gurdwara in Vancouver on June 18, 2023. Three months after the killing, Trudeau alleged Indian involvement in Nijjar’s killing, which New Delhi rejected as “absurd and motivated.”

Canada has not presented evidence to its claims over the killing, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) has not named any suspects or made arrests in connection with Nijjar’s killing. Yet, despite this lack of evidence, Trudeau has continued to claim that the Indian government is behind the killing of a pro-Khalistan separatist leader who sought an independent state for Sikhs in northwest India.

Meanwhile, India ordered YouTube and X (formerly Twitter) to block access to a new documentary by Canadian public broadcaster CBC, which once again alleges India is behind the killing of Nijjar but without providing solid evidence.

The Indian government cited the Information Technology Act of 2000, which allows for the “intercept, monitor or decrypt any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource” if there is a threat to the “interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence relating to above.”

In effect, India deems Canada to be spreading pro-separatist propaganda whilst also assigning blame without sufficient evidence.

YouTube told the CBC that “the content has now been blocked from view” on the India YouTube country site, but it is still available everywhere else.

At the same time, India’s actions were also aimed at X as they requested the social media platform to block access to the documentary.

“Indian law obligates X to withhold access to this content in India; however, the content remains available elsewhere,” X said in an email to the CBC. “We disagree with this action and maintain that freedom of expression should extend to these posts. Following the Indian legal process, we are in current communication with the Indian authorities.”

The request to YouTube and X follows India’s efforts in 2023 to the distribution of the BBC documentary India: The Modi Question.

India recognises that there is an information war against the country from the Anglosphere, even if the South Asian country cooperates with the USA and Australia under the QUAD formation. Although India is important for the West in their attempts to counterbalance China, especially in the context of the two Asian giants having border disputes, the US and its closest allies, the UK and Canada, also recognise that India can turn into an economic and military juggernaut that primarily serves its own interests.

For this reason, although they cooperate with India at an economic level and in attempts to contain China, a vicious information war is being waged, whether by media platforms like The Washington Post and BBC or by the leaders of Washington’s junior partners like Canada’s Trudeau to spread unsubstantiated claims. The US assisted China’s rise, but as a counterbalance to the Soviet Union and to control the Asian country. This failed as China is independent. Now, the US wants India to counterbalance China but to remain in its sphere of influence, an endeavour that will also fail.

[…]

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/five-eyes-ally-questions-trudeaus-evidence-that-india-is-to-blame-for-separatist-leaders-killing/5852531

Dr Eddy Betterman

Is the world heading towards a major global food collapse? The governments of the European Union (EU) sure seem to think so.

As of right now, EU governments have begun conducting major food crisis war games simulations that predict serious food supply and logistics problems as soon as this year going into next year.

Besides the impact of the Russia-Ukraine war on grain supplies, weather events like El Niño and La Niña and their impact on Latin American soy production are part of the simulations. The farmer-tractor protests across Europe are also included in the simulation mix.

Another major component of the EU’s food crisis war games is the impact that a major pandemic, real or otherwise, can have on supply chains, i.e., what the world endured as a result of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) “pandemic.”

Last month in Brussels, a conference was held that envisioned a serious food shortage crisis in Europe this year. Some 60 EU and government officials, food security experts and industry representatives converged for two days to confront the very real possibility of a major food crisis event unfolding in a matter of months.

“Expect a level of chaos,” warned Piotr Magnuszewski, a systems modeler and games developer who contributed to the gaming scenario component of the conference. “You may be confused at times and not have enough information.”

(Related: It is expected that, come 2030, the world will face “severe cold and food shortages” due to a grand solar minimum.)

Europe used to be the best-fed continent on earth

To hear Europe and food crisis in the same sentence may come as a surprise to many, especially those who remember the good ol’ days when Europe was the most prosperous and well-fed continent on earth.

Things have obviously changed in recent years especially as the globalists who control the EU have set Europe down a dark and ugly path of collapse, including the collapse of its continental food supply.

For the food crisis simulation, the idea of “harvest failures” as soon as 2025 is presented as a possible real-life issue, starting in the coming months. Animal feed prices soar, livestock and fish production tumbles, and what little food remains is shipped overseas to the “highest bidders elsewhere.”

Palm oil exports are cut dramatically, leaving just fake-butter margarine and low-quality bread for Europeans to eat.

“Allegations of corporate greed, disinformation, and conspiracy theories are spreading,” the simulation poses as what it expects to occur.

“The cost of fertilizers and energy needed to grow crops and keep glasshouses running soared in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine,” it continues, blaming much of the crisis on Russia, as usual.

As 2025 continues, the situation worsens as desperate people start robbing supermarkets, and very little police presence is on-site to stop them. Germans living in Europe’s former economic powerhouse can no longer find fish or meat at grocery stores and the livestock industry collapses entirely.”

“Meanwhile, the public’s focus shifts to profiteering by commodity traders,” the simulation continues, warning that people are eventually going to catch on to the fact that Wall Street greed and private central banking are largely the culprits of this full-scale collapse.

“Small farms fall like dominos, while attacks on immigrants begin to become more widespread. Is the EU a sinking ship?” someone asks in a video portion of the simulation.

Of course, the aftermath of the simulation presents ideas for how to stop or at least minimize the fallout from all this, one of the major ideas being that people need to shift away from eating meat and other “climate-polluting” things now so the shortages will feel less impactful later.

[…]

Via https://dreddymd.com/2024/03/20/europe-food-crisis-war-games-global-crisis/

Jeremy Kuzmarov

In 2020 Campaign Biden Promised to Close Facility, But Has Actually Upgraded It

During the 2020 election campaign, Joe Biden followed Barack Obama in promising to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay, which had become an embarrassing symbol of human rights violations.

The move made sense geo-strategically as the Biden administration was intent on scaling down the Global War on Terror and pivoting U.S. troops away from the Middle East toward Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe to confront China and Russia, which were presented as the greatest threats to American national security.

Like Obama, however, Biden has failed to follow through on his promise.

This has undercut the rationalizations underlying the new Cold War and vast military budgets accompanying it, since it renders hollow the U.S. claim to be upholding a “rules-based international order” supposedly under threat from authoritarian Great Power rivals.

Biden has not only failed to close the Guantánamo Bay prison but has upgraded it, financing a $4 million courtroom for secret military hearings even though lawyers argued that the end of the war in Afghanistan invalidated the legal basis for keeping Guantánamo Bay open.

In June, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, a law professor at the University of Minnesota and at Queens University in Belfast, issued a 23-page report which concluded that inmates at Guantánamo had been subjected to “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” that “may meet the legal threshold of torture.”

The degrading treatment included excessive use of restraints, constant surveillance of inmates who were deprived access to their families, and the adoption of unduly harsh disciplinary measures such as forced cell extractions, sensory deprivation and solitary confinement.

The report noted that numbers of Guantánamo inmates had never even been charged with any crime and lacked access to counsel; others had their cases languish for years in judicial pipelines while others were cleared but remain incarcerated. Secrecy pervades all of the available judicial and administrative proceedings, with the U.S. failing to uphold fair-trial guarantees.

Many inmates under these circumstances showed signs of deep psychological distress—including profound anxiety, helplessness, stress and depression. Medical and psychiatric care was inadequate; guards were inadequately trained—an online, one-time human rights training session was not enough—and the U.S. Government’s failure to provide torture rehabilitation squarely contravenes its obligations under the Convention Against Torture.

Abhorrent Conditions Hinder Legal Efforts

The New York Times reported ironically on August 26 that the inhumane conditions at Guantanamo Bay prison have hindered legal efforts to prosecute terrorists.

The confession of a man accused of plotting the U.S.S. Cole bombing, for example, was thrown out by a military judge because the confession was contaminated by his torture by the CIA.

Over the years, Al-Shibh had disrupted pretrial hearings with outbursts and has been heavily medicated with psychotropic drugs.

In court filings, he complained that the CIA torments him with noises, vibrations and other techniques to deprive him of sleep.^[1]

Acting As Ghouls

A newly released documentary, We Are Not Ghouls, directed by Chris James Thompson, spotlights the case of Binyam Mohamed, a UK resident originally from Ethiopia who was imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay for eight years before being cleared of any charges.

The documentary, available here, is based on the book, The Guantánamo Lawyers: Inside a Prison Outside the Law edited by Mark P. Denbeaux and Jonathan Hafetz (New York: New York University Press, 2009).

The title of the documentary draws from a 2007 speech by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) who stated that, “in every war I’ve ever seen, there’s been mistakes, even the war on terrorism…but we are not ghouls, we don’t want to torture someone because he has a bad name, we want to get information from someone who we think might want to kill our children and your children.”

Unfortunately, Rohrabacher was wrong. The U.S. acted like ghouls torturing people like Mohamed who did not actually want to harm or kill American children.

In the 1990s, Mohamed had gotten into drugs in the UK after his parents moved back to Ethiopia and he found salvation in Islam. At the age of 21 he decided to undertake a journey to Afghanistan in order to better understand the religion. He said this was a like a young Buddhist deciding to travel to India.

When the U.S./NATO invaded Afghanistan in October 2001, Mohamed went to Karachi and tried to get a flight back to London but was arrested because of a forged passport.

The authorities tried to connect him to al-Qaeda terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (an alleged plotter of the 9/11 attacks), Richard Reid, who tried to bomb a civilian airplane with a shoe bomb, and José Padilla, who was found guilty in 2007 of plotting a terrorist attack using a radiological bomb (or “dirty bomb”).

One problem was that Mohamed did not even speak Arabic.

This did not stop the British MI5 from interrogating him and then collaborating with the U.S. in transferring him to Morocco under the extraordinary rendition program.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) later brought a lawsuit against Jeppesen DataPlan, Inc., a subsidiary of Boeing Corporation, which provided key logistics to the CIA, including flight plans, clearances, and ground crew arrangements, that were used in the rendition program under which Mohamed was transferred.

In Morocco, Mohamed was subjected to physical and psychological torture involving sleep deprivation, stress positions and mind games. He was stripped naked and cut with a scalpel in his genital area.

From Morocco, Mohamed was taken to a CIA black site near Kabul in Afghanistan where he was forced to endure a cruel form of sensory deprivation where the lights were turned off all the time as music blared from loudspeakers 24 hours per day, seven days a week.

The purpose was to drive captives crazy. Mohamed later told his lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, that after enduring this he felt dead.

After six months, Mohamed was transferred to Guantánamo Bay where he was subjected to more prolonged periods of isolation and torture. As an act of resistance, Mohamed embarked on a hunger strike which caused his health to deteriorate.

Yvonne Bradley, a graduate of the University of Notre Dame Law School and devout Christian with conservative political views, was the lawyer from the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch of the United States Air Force assigned to Mohamed’s case.

She describes in the film how she was initially apprehensive about meeting Mohamed because of what she had read about him in the media, but found him to be a kind person.

When Bradley was given information on the case by opposing counsel, she thought something was missing as there seemed to be no evidence against him.

Bradley ultimately believed that she had been deceived by the military and government that she had dutifully served. She came to recognize that not only was Mohamed innocent but so were many of the other Guantánamo detainees.

The film ends on a happy note—with Bradley visiting Mohamed as a free man in London. Mohamed had bragged about his skill cooking spaghetti and he cooked her a spaghetti dinner.

Mohamed said that he was slowly coming back to life after his nightmarish years in Guantánamo that left him incapable of experiencing regular human emotions.

We Are Not Ghouls is a worthy film in its effort to humanize the victims of Guantánamo and invite empathy for their suffering. Bradley points out that, even if some of the Gitmo inmates are real terrorists, this does not excuse their treatment.

[…]

Via https://covertactionmagazine.com/2024/03/19/twenty-two-years-after-it-was-created-guantanamo-bay-prison-remains-a-monstrosity/

Rhoda Wilson

At the Aspen Ideas Climate, Bezos Earth Fund vice chair Lauren Sánchez announced an initial $60 million commitment to establish Bezos Centres for Sustainable Protein as part of the Bezos Earth Fund’s $1 billion commitment to food transformation.

The food transformation Sánchez dreams of is “plant-based lab-grown meats.”  For anyone who has any logic or common sense, no such food exists nor can it ever.

The Aspen Ideas Climate conference was held in Miami, Florida over the three days of 11-13 March 2024.  It had five themes:

• Big Bets on Tech: Charting the course for sustainable technologies of the future which included climate technology, biotechnology, lab-cultured “food,” artificial intelligence, geoengineering and new ideas for creating and storing energy.
• Building things: Such as urban landscapes, infrastructure and “reimagined” economies that lead to a “sustainable and inclusive future.”
• Financing the Future: A seismic shift in financial strategies, from billions to trillions globally, is required to address the “climate crisis,” so they claim.
• Healthy Planet, Healthy Community.
• Narratives of Change: “From the resonance of music to the subtleties of architecture, from stirring art to imaginative fiction, profound calls to action are often hidden in the unexpected. Experience the captivating stories that inspire change from some of the most unanticipated sources.”  Which has undertones of using psychological techniques to bring about the desired change.

According to her biography, Sánchez is dedicated to fighting climate change and the protection of nature, as well as early childhood education, programming, and housing support.  So, it’s no surprise that she began her 10-minute speech on 12 March at the Aspen Ideas Climate with three stories: two fictional – one relating to her recent book for children – and the third about her thoughts as a child, which may or may not also be fictional.

Stripping away her storytelling, Sánchez’s message was centred around innovation in three areas: deforestation and global warming,

“Deforestation and global warming … it’s not just about solving a problem it’s also about reimagining our interaction with the world. We need to invent our way out of climate change,” she said.

And then she reverted to her storytelling again: “Inventors love to solve real problems and the answer usually begins with a question. So, for example, how do you find and measure the thousands of methane leaks happening all over the world? I don’t know if you know this, but think about it, methane has caused 30% of global warming.  So, how are we going to fix it? This is how; we’re going to start right here with MethaneSat.”

“It’s a game-changing satellite we support with the Environmental Defence Fund,” she said. “Now, before MethaneSat launched into orbit, just last week, … we weren’t able to see the big picture of where and how bad the methane leaks are … we now have innovative technology which we can see and measure leaks like never before.”

It is claimed that data gathered by MethaneSAT – which was launched into orbit on 4 March 2024 – will help measure methane pollution from oil and gas facilities worldwide.  It will regularly monitor roughly 50 major regions accounting for more than 80 per cent of global oil and gas production. The Environmental Defence Fund claims it can “measure surface-level methane emissions from other major sources of human-caused methane emissions, too.”

Call us sceptical, but could it be a spying operation under the guise of measuring methane?

She then moved on to tackling her solution for nature.  Surprisingly, she made a sensible suggestion, which is unusual among the climate change fantasist sect.  Her suggestion wasn’t a new technology born from “brilliant minds” but common sense –  plant more trees.  Although she ended her praise of the Bezos Earth Fund planting more trees with “we like to co-invent, this takes creativity and flexibility,” indicating she believes that planting trees, which to most of us is common sense, is a new and innovative invention.

Then she moved on to food “innovations.”  Setting the scene using the usual marketing tactic of fear porn, in this case, global famine. Sánchez asked: “How do we feed 10 billion people with healthy, sustainable protein throughout this century?”

“This will need a tonne of innovation,” she said following it with a statement that should make everyone shudder.  “We’re investing heavily in [the] livestock sector and inventions that will give consumers meat options that are better for the Earth.”

Sánchez continued: “I’m thrilled to announce, and I’m very excited about this one, tonight 60 million dollars to establish Bezos Centres for Sustainable Protein that will help grow these ideas. Their inventions will make plant-based lab-grown meats cheaper, healthier and tastier.  And these sustainable proteins really are getting better, trust me.”

No thanks.  That’s a “no” to both her laboratory-manufactured fake “food” and “trust me.”

In partnership with the Good Food Institute, the Bezos Centres for Sustainable Protein aim to advance the science and technology in producing fake food. A Bezos Earth Fund press release about Sánchez’s announcement stated: “To date, challenges in biomanufacturing – the production, at scale, of sustainable protein products, whether plant-based, fermented, or cultivated – are resulting in high costs and limited quality. There are also enormous opportunities to enhance the texture and boost flavour through innovation in cell biology and engineering.”

Irrespective of how much money is poured into this technology, it will still be technologically produced fake food with unknown ingredients causing untold harm.

The press release goes on to state that Sánchez’s announcement “builds on the Bezos Earth Fund’s $1 billion commitment to support farmers and expand food production.”

How does Bezos Earth Fund plan to “support farmers” and increase food production?

“Work includes reducing methane from livestock and innovating in pasture management to help take pressure off forested land. The Earth Fund is also working with inventors, researchers, and entrepreneurs to improve the resilience and carbon absorption of major food crops,” the press release states.

Does it sound like their investment will do either? No, and what the press release said next is proof that they have no intention of supporting farmers or improving food security.

As has become the mantra for those promoting and hoping to capitalise from the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, Bezos Earth Fund blatantly attacked farmers and food production stating that “food is the second largest cause of climate change, and agriculture is the primary driver of deforestation and biodiversity loss.”

What’s concerning is the $1 billion commitment to “support” farmers and food production is just the start.  The Bezos Earth Fund is investing $10 billion in this “decisive” decade to “drive systems-level change” for the transition to a “low-carbon economy.”

Through his fund, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos will not only fund scientists but also activists, NGOs and others.

If the science is robust and the need is real, why would Bezos need to fund activists?

“This future is not just a dream, it’s not. It’s a blueprint for a world,” Sánchez said in her speech at the Aspen Ideas Climate.  “I’m so proud to work with the Bezos Earth Fund and what they’re doing.”

[…]

Via https://expose-news.com/2024/03/19/bezos-demonises-farming-and-invests-in-fake-food/

Biden and Trump (Donkey Hotey)Christian Parenti

Christian Parenti

Trump was ideologically incoherent and crassly transactional. But the threat he posed to American empire and thus the gargantuan security state helps establish a motive for why US intelligence intervened in both the 2016 and 2020 elections.

As president, Donald Trump lavished the rich with tax cuts and deregulation. Yet, contradictorily, he also threatened the structure of American global hegemony that does so much to keep the American one percent tremendously wealthy. In fact, Trump undertook the most momentous rollback of American military and diplomatic power since the current architecture of American informal empire first took form at the end of World War II.

Trump campaigned on an end to “nation building” and then, amazingly, set about actually winding down America’s “forever wars” by simply packing up and leaving. Nor did he start any new wars. Trump cut the number of US troops in Iraq by almost half. In Afghanistan, he cut the US occupation force by half and negotiated a framework for total withdrawal. He tried to end US combat deployments in both Somalia and Syria, and in both cases, despite Pentagon opposition and slow-walking noncompliance, Trump did manage to withdraw the majority of US personnel. In Syria, bases abruptly abandoned by US special forces were taken over by Russians – a development that prompted the New Yorker to accuse Trump of the “abandonment of Syria.”

Worse yet in the eyes of the national security state, Trump went after US operations in Germany and South Korea, threatening highly strategic lynchpins in the global system of US military power. He also made great strides towards normalizing relations with North Korea and producing a peace treaty on the Korean peninsula. In Libya, he declined to escalate and worked with Russia towards a peace settlement. In Venezuela, he first allowed John Bolton and the CIA to attempt a color revolution-style coup fronted by pretty-boy Juan Guaidó. But when that effort faced resistance Trump grew bored, started making flattering remarks about “tough” Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro and his “good looking generals,” while complaining that his National Security Council director John Bolton wanted to get him “in a war.”

Understanding how Donald Trump threatened American empire and thus the gargantuan security state and its associated industrial complex of contractors and think tanks helps establish a motive for why the FBI and over 50 former intelligence officialsactively attempted to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story, thereby putting their thumbs on the scale during the 2020 election.

It also helps us understand why, in 2016, the CIA, FBI, NSA, and the Director of National Intelligence all signed off on the Russiagate narrative despite the lack of credible evidence. And it helps us understand why, as Matt Taibbi has reported, over 150 private philanthropic foundations came together to create and fund the intelligence-adjacent Alliance for Securing Democracy, which in turn funded the spooky outfit Hamilton 68 which pushed the Russiagate hoax. In short, it helps explain why they hate him.

Trump described his foreign policy as “America First,” thus tapping into a more-than-century-long strain of American isolationism, or conservative anti-war sentiment. But his attacks on American empire were not ideologically coherent. He hated NATO but he loved Israel. He increased pressure in Cuba, but did the opposite with North Korea. He increased the military budget even as he attempted to withdraw troops all over the planet. His reasoning, when given, was crassly transactional.

[…]

For example, six months into his administration, Trump met with the increasingly worried Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon in a super-secure meeting room called “the Tank.” The meeting was an attempt to talk sense into the new president. As the Washington Post described it, the Joint Chiefs tried to “explain why U.S. troops were deployed in so many regions and why America’s safety hinged on a complex web of trade deals, alliances, and bases across the globe.” The presentation involved maps and graphics intended to make the issue clear and simple.

Unimpressed, Trump called his generals “dopes and babies” and “losers” who “don’t know how to win anymore.” As his anger rose, he demanded to know why the United States was not receiving free oil as tribute for the US military presence in the Middle East. “We spent $7 trillion; they’re ripping us off,” Trump bellowed. “Where is the fucking oil?”

Despite active opposition from within his administration, Trump also attacked important treaties, ordering the United States withdrawal from: the United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR); the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); the Paris Climate Agreement; and the World Health Organization (because Trump saw the WHO as soft on China at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic). He withdrew the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a corporate free trade deal which had taken two years to craft and would have been the centerpiece of a US “pivot toward Asia.” With a barrage of punitive tariffs, Trump launched a trade war against China. Although it continued under Biden, Trump’s destabilizing economic confrontation with China came as a shock to business and political leaders around the world.

Accusing Russia of cheating, Trump terminated the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. But he also held a cordial face-to-face summit with Putin in Helsinki that took his opposition’s Russiagate paranoia to unprecedented heights. Trump withdrew from the Treaty on Open Skies, an almost 20-year-old mechanism for preventing weapons proliferation. He started to scrap the hard-won nonproliferation treaty with Iran and revised America’s Nuclear Posture Review to, insanely, allow an atomic response in case of cyber-attack!

Most shocking of all, Trump repeatedly expressed his wish to remove the US from NATO, which would have destroyed NATO if it had been done. If NATO fell apart, the entire US-centered global system – that is, the largest, most effective, complex, and expensive imperial project in world history – would undergo a seismic destabilization. American empire is not inevitable, it is not natural, and it is widely resented. It only continues to exist because of constant, diligent, sophisticated leadership. Trump, like a toddler wielding a hammer, spent four years almost randomly smashing holes in that delicate structure.

What is American power?

Since 1945, American global hegemony has rested on a vast system of infrastructure: embassies, listening posts, 800-plus military bases, naval assets, satellite networks, undersea cables, etc. It also rests on an array of long-standing, multi-national relationships involving state institutions, politicians, diplomats, military officers, contractors, intelligence networks, corporations, business executives, humanitarian professionals, academic specialists, and journalists.

Central in all this, yet often overlooked, is the role of building consent for American power among allies. This consent allows Washington to use allies against adversaries. But it is also a form of control over those same allies. Thus, NATO is about keeping the Russians out of Western Europe, but it is also about controlling Europe, one of the most powerful centers of global capitalism.

[…]

Trump treated powerful allies as poorly as he treated subcontractors during his real estate days. Recall the G-7 summit of 2018: Trump arrived late, left early, and refused to sign a joint communiqué reaffirming the G-7’s commitment to a “rules based international order.” When then-German Prime Minister Angela Merkel pressured him to sign, Trump took two Starburst candies from his pocket, tossed them across the conference table and sneered, “Here, Angela, don’t say I never give you anything.”

In 2020, the US Senate’s Committee on Foreign Relations described Trump’s foreign policy as “marked by chaos, neglect, and diplomatic failures.” The President’s “impulsive, erratic approach has tarnished the reputation of the United States as a reliable partner and led to disarray in dealing with foreign governments…. Critical neglect of global challenges has endangered Americans, weakened the U.S. role in the world, and squandered the respect it built up over decades. Sudden pronouncements, such as the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria, have angered close allies and caught U.S. officials off-guard.”

Mark Esper, who spent a year and half as Trump’s second Secretary of Defense, made an art of blocking implementation of Trump’s empire-wrecking directives. When Trump demanded that one third of the American military personnel in Germany come home, Esper drew up a plan to instead “redeploy” 11,500 troops with more than half of these remaining in the European theater. Indeed, Esper even managed to spin the redeployment as advancing America’s traditional agenda of threatening Russia.

Esper’s memoir portrays Trump as easily distracted: “A discussion would stop stone cold and pivot as a new thought raced through his head — he saw something on TV, or somebody made a remark that threw him off track.” Yet Trump was also consistent in his foreign policy sentiments. “Somehow, we often ended up on the same topics, like his greatest hits of the decade: NATO spending; Merkel, Germany, and Nord Stream 2 [Trump wanted it stopped]; corruption in Afghanistan; U.S. troops in Korea; and, closing our embassies in Africa, for example.”

Trump’s foreign policy team worked to actively thwart him. Gary Cohn, Trump’s top economic advisor, went so far as twice stealing from the president’s desk important documents awaiting presidential signature. One would have withdrawn the United States from a trade agreement with South Korea. The other would have unilaterally pulled the US out of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Later, Trump did renegotiate NAFTA, transforming it into the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which did, in fact, include higher wages for Mexican autoworkers.

Trump regularly demeaned and insulted his foreign policy team. In a conversation that included the Irish Prime Minister, Trump called across the room to his National Security Adviser, the dementedly bellicose John Bolton, “John, is Ireland one of those countries you want to invade?” In 2019, Trump unceremoniously fired Bolton by tweet.

Trump’s first Defense Secretary, Jim “Mad Dog” Mathis, openly opposed most of the administration’s foreign policy moves. Displeased, Trump started calling Mathis“Moderate Dog.” In January 2019, when Trump ordered US troops withdrawn from Syria, Moderate Dog resigned.

A “shaken” Nancy Pelosi declared the turn of events “very serious for our country.” Republican Senator Ben Sasse called it “a sad day for America” while a “particularly distressed” Mitch McConnell worried openly about “key aspects of America’s global leadership.”

Vandalizing NATO

Most alarming to the national security establishment was Trump’s 2020 attempt to cut by one-third the US military presence in Germany. Considered the “bedrock” of NATO, Germany hosts 35,000 American military personnel stationed across 40 different installations. The air components for both U.S. European Command and U.S. Africa Command are headquartered at Germany’s Ramstein Air. These German-based assets — bombers, fighters, drones, helicopters, AWAC surveillance planes, as well as associated radar, air traffic control, and signals intelligence infrastructure — cover 104 countries ready to provide “expeditionary base support, force protection, construction, and resupply operations” even in “austere conditions.” Germany also hosts an estimated 150 US nuclear armed missiles.

[…]

More important than the quantity of troops Trump sought to withdraw is the qualitatively greater damage of those withdrawals from one of the most critical, high-tech logistics hubs in the entire imperial apparatus. The Council on Foreign Relations worried aloud about the “message to allies and adversaries alike that the United States is no longer committed to European defense.”

Final Assault

By November 2019, as Trump’s friendship with the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un was in full blossom, the American president started musing about withdrawing troops from South Korea and demanded that South Korea – and all other allies hosting US military personnel – pay “cost plus 50%” for American protection.

[…]

Via https://www.greanvillepost.com/2024/03/16/must-see-trump-against-empire-is-that-why-they-hate-him-video-text/

Rhoda Wilson

On Friday, Japanese researchers published a pre-print paper that warned about the risks associated with using blood from covid vaccinated people for blood transfusions and are calling on medical professionals to be aware of these risks.

Additionally, to avoid these risks and prevent further contamination of blood products and resulting complications, they are calling for the covid vaccination programmes to be suspended.

“The health injuries caused by genetic vaccination are already extremely serious, and it is high time that countries and relevant organisations take concrete steps together to identify the risks and to control and resolve them,” they said.

Many countries around the world have reported that so-called genetic vaccines – such as those using modified mRNA encoding the spike protein and lipid nanoparticles as the drug delivery system – have resulted in post-vaccination thrombosis and subsequent cardiovascular damage, as well as a wide variety of diseases involving all organs and systems, including the nervous system.

Based on these reports and the volume of evidence that has come to light, through their paper, the researchers are bringing to the attention of medical professionals the various risks associated with blood transfusions using blood products derived from people who have suffered from long covid and from genetic vaccine recipients, including those who have received mRNA vaccines.

However, “it should also be stressed that the issues discussed here are matters that pertain to all organ transplants, including bone marrow transplants, and not just blood products,” the researchers wrote.

Table 1 of the paper summarised the six major concerns identified by the researchers with the use of blood products derived from gene vaccine recipients.  We have copied the contents of Table 1 below.

1. Spike protein contamination

The spike protein, which is the antigen of SARS-CoV-2 and genetic vaccines, has already been found to have various toxicities, including effects on red blood cells and platelet aggregation, amyloid formation, and neurotoxicity. It is essential to recognise that the spike protein itself is toxic to humans. It has also been reported that the spike protein can cross the blood–brain barrier. Therefore, it is essential to remove the spike protein derived from the gene vaccine itself from blood products.

2. Contamination with amyloid aggregates and microthrombi formed by spike proteins

It is not yet clear how the amyloid aggregates and microthrombi formed by the spike proteins develop into visible thrombi. However, once formed, amyloid aggregates may not be readily cleared and therefore need to be removed from blood products. These amyloid aggregates have also been shown to be toxic.

3. Events attributable to decreased donor immune system and immune abnormalities due to immune imprinting or class switch to IgG4, etc. resulting from multiple doses of genetic vaccines

When the immune function of a donor is impaired by gene vaccination, there is a risk that the donor has some (subclinical) infectious disease or is infected with a pathogenic virus and has developed viremia or other conditions, even if the donor has no subjective symptoms. For this reason, healthcare professionals who perform surgical procedures, including blood sampling and organ transplantation, as well as using blood products, should manage the blood of genetic vaccine recipients with care to prevent infection through blood. It will also be necessary to inform all healthcare professionals of these risks.

4. Lipid nanoparticles (“LNPs”) and pseudouridinated mRNA (mRNA vaccines only)

In the case of mRNA vaccines, LNPs and pseudouridinated mRNA may remain in the blood of recipients if blood is collected without a sufficient deferral period after gene vaccination. LNPs are highly inflammatory and have been found to be thrombogenic themselves, posing a risk to transfusion recipients. LNPs themselves have potent adjuvant activity and are at risk of inducing Adjuvant-Induced Autoimmune Syndrome (“ASIA syndrome”). An additional risk is that if the pseudouridinated mRNA is incorporated into the recipient’s blood while still packaged in LNPs, additional spike protein may be produced in the recipient’s body.

5. Contamination with aggregated red blood cells or platelets

The spike protein causes red blood cells and platelets to aggregate and therefore these aggregates will be carried into the recipient’s blood unless they are removed from the blood product.

6. Memory B cells producing IgG4 and IgG4 produced from them

Large amounts (serum concentration typically above 1.25–1.4 g/L) of non-inflammatory IgG4-positive plasma cells can cause chronic inflammation such as fibroinflammatory disease.

IgG4 is an antibody and is the acronym for immunoglobulin G4.  Earlier in the paper, the authors wrote that “long-term exposure to a specific identical antigen (in this case, spike protein) causes immunoglobulins to become IgG4 and some of the B cells [or lymphocytes] that produce them are likely to differentiate into memory B cells that survive in the body for a sustained period, the immune dysfunction of genetic vaccine recipients is expected to be prolonged (Table 1, point 3 & 6). More details on these points are expected to be revealed in the future.”

The researchers also make suggestions for specific tests, testing methods and regulations to deal with these risks.

In their conclusion, the authors wrote:

The impact of these genetic vaccines on blood products and the actual damage caused by them are unknown at present. Therefore, in order to avoid these risks and prevent further expansion of blood contamination and complication of the situation, we strongly request that the vaccination campaign using genetic vaccines be suspended and that a harm–benefit assessment be carried out as early as possible.

As we have repeatedly stated, the health injuries caused by genetic vaccination are already extremely serious, and it is high time that countries and relevant organisations take concrete steps together to identify the risks and to control and resolve them.

[…]

Via https://expose-news.com/2024/03/19/risks-of-blood-transfusions-from-vaccinated/

Episode 42 Napoleon Defeats the Holy Roman Empire

Living the French Revolution and Age of Napoleon

Dr Suzanne M Desan

Film Review

Between 1801-1804 Napoleon drafted 60,000 men a year. He divided his army into 7 independent corps of 14,000-25,000 troop, each with its own infantry, light cavalry and artillery. Making food foraging easier, this decentralization made it easier to cover long distances more quickly. Arme. Napoleon’s men loved him. He was well known for fraternizing with his foot soldiers, his generosity with Legion of Honor medals and a policy of adopting the children of fallen troops.

In May 1805, Napoleon was crowned King of Italy in Milan and in June he annexed Genoa. In July, the Austrians invaded Bavaria, a French ally. In the Danube campaign, Napoleon surrounded Austrian troops with 200,000 men before their Russian allies could catch up with them. The Austrians lost 60,000 men in this battle, with 10,000 killed, 27,000 taken prisoner and 23,000 wounded. After the battle of the Danube, the French army marched east to occupy Vienna.

At the Battle of Austerlitz, Napoleon staked out 55,000 troops on the Plotzen Heights, from which he attacked the Russian rear guard. As the Russian troops retreated across a frozen lake, Napoleon used canon balls to crack the ice, drowning thousands of men, canons and horses. After losing a third of their strength (27,000 men), the Austrians sued for peace while the Russians retreated behind the Russian border.

With the treaty of Pressberg the Austrians signed in December 1805, the Austrian Emperor Francis II renounced the 1,000 year-old title of Holy Roman Emperor. He also signed away the Dalmatian coast, the region around Venice and a large region in southern Germany (totaling 1/6 of Austria’s former empire) and four million subjects.

Napoleon now controlled 16 German states (including Hesse, Bavaria and Baden) known as the Confederation of the Rhine.

He made his brother-in-law General Murat leader of the Grand Duchy of Berg, his brother Louis president of the Republic of Holland and his brother Joseph king of the kingdom of Naples (which comprised most of the southern Italian peninsula).*

1805 also saw the French tragedy at Trafalgar, in which UK admiral Horatio Nelson defeated a combined French/Spanish navy of 33 ship with 27 British ships. The British lost no ships, compared to the French/Spanish loss of 22.

In 1806 Napoleon ended the revolutionary calendar.

*Napoleon himself ran the kingdom of Italy in the northern Italian peninsula.

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

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/video/149323/149403

Child Health Safety

Video 02 is released today with a free two day access offer. Video 02 – The GMC Political Show Trial of Andrew Wakefield – 29m 35s – Andrew Wakefield & The GMC

It is the next episode from Euripides Substack: How the Case Against Andrew Wakefield was Fixed – In 8 Steps – A 21st Century Medical Controversy

The first five free-to-view [or listen] videos are already published – Videos 01 A to E – see below for the links if you missed them the first time around.

Video 01 A – Introduction – Who What Why Where and When

Video 01 B – Background and History

Video 01 C – The Eight Steps 7m 55s

Video 01 D – How the BMJ’s Fabrication Was Discovered 6m 3s

Video 01 E – An Historic Breathtaking Deception 14m 24s – Andrew Wakefield & The BMJ

From Video 02 you will learn for yourself the true nature of the General Medical Council’s trial of Andrew Wakefield from the remarkable and extraordinary decision of Judge Mitting in the English High Court. Wakefield was tried alongside Professor John Walker-Smith and Dr Simon Murch.

Mitting’s decision restored the Walker-Smith’s medical licence on his appeal against the GMC decision. Walker-Smith had discretionary funding to appeal from his insurers but Wakefield did not.

You will also see for yourself the bogus charges the GMC wrongfully found Wakefield guilty of.

You will see for yourself that political show trials are not limited to banana republics or dictatorial governments on foreign shores but happen in supposed Western liberal democracies.

In this case it was in the heart of the British establishment, and perpetrated by the UK General Medical Council, in their determination to find Wakefield guilty regardless despite being the supposed regulatory body for doctors in the United Kingdom and meant to protect the safety of the public.

You will learn specific details of part of the web and networks of close relationships of an array of British deep state medical and other professionals, drug industry interests and the Rupert Murdoch media empire involved in one way or another in the British deep state’s assault on Andrew Wakefield.

[…]

Via https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2024/03/18/video-02-the-gmc-political-show-trial-of-andrew-wakefield-andrew-wakefield-the-gmc-29m-35s/