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.
The Mongols’ special form of warfare (mounting archers on horseback) enabled them to move one hundred thousand warriors across 2000 miles of virtually impassable terrain (deserts, barren grasslands and steep mountains). According to Armstrong, Genghis Khan and his descendants captured more territory in 25 years than the Romans did in 400.
Named Tamugen at birth, he had a remarkable mother (Hoelun) who, following the murder of her husband Yesugei, was abandoned by her clan, along with Yesugei’s first wife and seven children. According to the Secret History of the Mongols,* Hoelun kept all nine of them alive by fishing and hunting. As a teenager, Tamugen killed his eldest half brother Bekhter for trying to hog (as the firstborn) the family’s meager food stores. As punishment for the murder a nearby tribe took Tamugen prisoner and forced him to wear a yoke until sympathetic farmer helped him escape.
After Tamugen married he, in turn, avenged himself against the clan which had abandoned his mother.
As a teenager, he and his “blood brother”** from a neighboring clan ruled both groups jointly until Januka’s clan quarreled and split apart from Tamugen’s. They subsequently raided each other’s tribes for foodstuffs, weapons and luxuries.
As Tamugen and Januka consolidated separate warring clans under their rule, the former rejected traditional clan hierarchies and singled out low caste families for special allotments of land, animals and food. After cementing their loyalty in this way, he frequently called on them to serve as warriors and tax collectors. In 1204, Tamugen captured Januka in battle, and according to the Secret History (at Janika’s request) granted him a humane execution.
Following Janaku’s death, Tamugen controlled all the Central Asian steppes from the Arctic Tundra to the Gobi Desert. In 1206, he called a kuritai (assembly). After four days of deliberation, they appointed him sole leader of this newly formed confederation of Mongol tribes and granted him the name Genghis Khan (universal ruler).
Remarkable as it may seem, 99% of the proteins, carbohydrates, fats, minerals, vitamins and other biochemical scomponents making up whole food are a complete mystery. So how can scientists replicate those components in lab food? And what are we missing in our diets if those components aren’t all there?
Story at a glance:
An estimated 99% of the components making up whole food are a complete mystery. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference details 188 nutritional components of food, including 38 flavonoids, yet scientists estimate there are more than 26,000 different biochemicals in our food.
We know even less about the constituents of processed foods and synthetic foods, which falsely claim to be “equivalents” to whole foods, such as “animal-free meats” or “animal-free milk.”
Scientists cannot create equivalence when they don’t even know what 85% or more of the whole food they’re trying to replicate consists of.
A paper published in the April issue of Animal Frontiers warns that cultured products are not nutritionally equivalent to the meats they’re intended to replace.
A May report by the Food and Agriculture Organization concluded there are at least 53 potential health hazards associated with lab-grown meat, including the possibility of contamination with heavy metals, microplastics, nanoplastics and chemicals, allergenic additives, toxic components, antibiotics and prions.
Do you know what’s in the food you eat? Remarkable as it may seem, 99% of the components making up whole food are a complete mystery.
“We know next to nothing about the vast majority of compounds in our diet … ‘Our understanding of how diet affects health is limited to 150 key nutritional components,’ says Albert-László Barabási at Harvard Medical School, who coined the term nutritional dark matter.
“‘But these represent only a small fraction of the biochemicals present in our food’ … The idea that food is a rich and complex mix of biochemicals is hardly news.
“Even the well-known macronutrients — proteins, carbohydrates and fats — are hugely diverse. There’s also a vast supporting cast of micronutrients: minerals, vitamins and other biochemicals, many of which are only present in minuscule quantities, but which can still have profound health effects.”
As noted by New Scientist: “With the USDA as your guide, 99.5% of the components in food are a mystery,” and as noted by Barabási, “It would be foolish to dismiss 99.5% of the compounds we eat as unimportant … We will not really understand how we get sick if we don’t solve this puzzle.”
Searching for nutritional ‘dark matter’
Disturbed by the information gap, an international team of researchers started working on a more comprehensive database a decade ago called FooDB, which as of 2020 contained information on some 70,000 nutritional compounds.
Yet even this database still has a long way to go. An estimated 85% of the nutritional components listed remain unquantified, meaning they know a food contains a particular component, but they don’t know how much.
The health implications of most compounds also remain largely unknown.
New Scientist notes:
“This is also true of individual micronutrients. ‘Consider beta-carotene,’ says Barabási. ‘It tends to be positively associated with heart disease, according to epidemiological studies, but studies adding beta-carotene to the diet do not show health benefits. One potential reason is that beta-carotene never comes alone in plants; about 400 molecules are always present with it. So epidemiology may be detecting the health implications of some other molecule.’
“Another probable cause is the effect of the microbiome on dark nutrients, says [FooDB founder David] Wishart. ‘Most dark nutrients are chemically transformed by your gut bacteria.’
“That’s probably why studies on the benefits of different foods give relatively ambiguous results. We don’t properly control for the variation in gut microflora, or our innate metabolism, which means different people get different doses of metabolites from their food.”
Processed foods are an even greater mystery
The reason I started with that background is because we know even less about the constituents of processed foods and synthetic foods that ignorantly claim to be “equivalents” to whole foods, such as “animal-free meats” or “animal-free milk.”
Food processing alone will often alter the composition of bioactive molecules in a food and hence the food’s impact on health, but today, processed foods also contain a wide array of synthetic chemicals that, prior to the modern era, were never part of the human diet.
As such, they pose incredible risks to long-term health and well-being. Processed foods may also have intergenerational effects.
“How can scientists create equivalence when they don’t even know what 85% or more of the whole food they’re trying to replicate consists of?”
In recent years, the idea that we can simply replace whole foods with synthetic, genetically modified or lab-grown alternatives that are wholly equivalent to the original food has taken root. In reality, that’s simply impossible.
How can scientists create equivalence when they don’t even know what 85% or more of the whole food they’re trying to replicate consists of?
Common sense will tell you they can’t. It might look, smell and even taste similar, but the micronutrient composition will be entirely different, and as a result, the health effects will be incomparable as well.
Animal-free equivalence is a PR fraud
Take cultured meat, for example. It’s said to be equivalent to real animal meat because it’s grown from animal cells. The cells are then grown in a nutrient solution inside a bioreactor until they become a meat-like slab.
Similarly, Bored Cow animal-free milk is a dairy alternative made with whey protein obtained through a fermentation process, plant-based fats (in lieu of milk fats), citrus fiber (for creaminess) and added vitamins and minerals.
Defenders of cultured meat insist that this product is not “fake meat” but “actual meat,”
the only difference is that no animal had to be slaughtered to create it.
Cultured meat and other synthetic foods are also said to be more environmentally friendly. But nothing could be further from the truth.
Their impact is far more akin to that of the pharmaceutical industry than the food industry.
Based on this assessment, each kilo of cultured meat produces anywhere from 542 pounds (246 kilos) to 3,325 pounds (1,508 kg) of carbon dioxide emissions, making the climate impact of cultured meat four to 25 times greater than that of conventional beef.
And this information is only provided to refute those who believe the global warming fallacy.
As noted by the authors, investors have poured billions of dollars into the animal cell-based meat sector based on the theory that cultured meat is more environmentally friendly than beef.
However, according to these researchers, that hype is based on flawed analyses of carbon emissions.
A paper published in the April issue of Animal Frontiers also warned that there are several implications of cell-based meat that need to be considered but aren’t, including the fact that cultured products are not nutritionally equivalent to the meats they’re intended to replace.
The claim that no animals are killed in the process is also false. At present, most cultured or cell-based meats are created by growing animal cells in a solution of fetal bovine serum, which is made from the blood of unborn calves.
In short, pregnant cows are slaughtered to drain the unborn fetus of its blood.
Is it safe to eat tumors?
There are also many unanswered questions surrounding safety. For example, to get the cell cultures to grow, some companies are using immortalized cells, which technically speaking are precancerous and/or fully cancerous.
The reason for using immortalized cells is that normally behaving cells cannot divide forever. Most cells will only multiply a few dozen times before they become senescent (old) and die.
This won’t work when your intention is to grow thousands of pounds of tissue from a small number of cells, hence they use immortalized cells that have no off switch for their replication and can divide indefinitely.
Meat substitutes cultured in this way could therefore be thought of as tumors, seeing how the flesh is entirely made up of precancerous or cancerous cells. Is it safe to eat tumors? We don’t know.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology biologist Robert Weinberg, Ph.D., has proposed that humans can’t get cancer from these cells because they’re not human cells and therefore cannot replicate inside your body.
However, there’s no long-term research to back this theory.
Dietary headaches to come
It’s also important to realize that the nutritional composition and safety of synthetic foods will vary depending on the brand.
When you’re dealing with beef, for example, the meat from one cow will be relatively identical to that of any other cow (one major exception being the way they’re raised and fed).
One wild-caught salmon is comparable to any other wild-caught salmon and each russet potato is more or less identical to every other russet potato.
However since each synthetic food brand uses proprietary ingredients and processes, no two will have identical composition or safety, so even if one is eventually proven safe and nutritious, those results cannot be applied to any other brand.
This variance has the potential to create major problems in the future when all sorts of foods have been replaced with synthetic non-equivalents.
How do you determine which cultured beef, chicken or salmon brand might be best for you? How will you devise a sensible diet plan when every food comes in myriad variations of varying composition and safety?
Synthetic foods pose unique food-safety hazards
Many synthetic food proponents claim lab-created food will bypass a host of food-safety problems, but the converse is far more likely to be true.
Sure, beef, for example, can be contaminated during processing, packaging, transport or storage, or during the cooking process.
But in cultured meat, every ingredient and processing step brings with it the potential of contamination and any of the hundreds of ingredients could have toxic effects, alone or in synergy.
Indeed, an in-depth analysis of the available evidence by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and a World Health Organization expert panel, published in May, concluded there are at least 53 potential health hazards associated with lab-grown meat.
Among them are the possibility of contamination with heavy metals, microplastics, nanoplastics and chemicals, allergenic additives, toxic components, antibiotics and prions.
What’s more, some of the ingredients that go into synthetic biology like cultured meat are regulated as “non-detectable manufacturing aids,” and you won’t even know what they are. Israeli startup Profuse Technology, for example, has developed a growth media supplement that massively encourages protein growth.
As reported by Food Navigator Europe in an article titled, “Cultivated Meat ‘Breakthrough’: Media Supplement Achieves Full Muscle Maturation on Scaffold Within 48 Hours,” the supplement reduces the time to grow filets and steaks by 80% and augments the protein in the final product by a factor of five.
In early April 2023, microbiologist Kevin McKernan detailed finding massive DNA contamination in Pfizer’s and Moderna’s bivalent COVID booster shots. The highest level of DNA contamination found was 30%, meaning nearly one-third of the content of the shot was plasmid DNA, the presence of which dramatically increases the likelihood of DNA integration and cancer
An in vitro experiment found that the modified RNA in the Pfizer jab has the ability to enter human liver cells and reverse transcribe into DNA in as little as six hours post-exposure
The lipid nanoparticles that the mRNA and DNA contaminants are encased in facilitate getting the DNA inside the cell. Once it’s in the cytoplasm, bits of DNA can enter the nucleus by random chance
Mice injected with the COVID mRNA shot passed on their acquired immune traits — both good and bad — to offspring, which not only suggests that the mRNA can enter the nucleus of the cell, but also that it can be permanently integrated into chromosomal DNA and have intergenerational effects
Pfizer’s bivalent jab has also been found to contain simian virus 40 (SV40) promoter, an oncogenic piece of the virus’ DNA known to drive very aggressive gene expression. Combined with pieces of DNA, the presence of SV40 promoter make the risk of cancer all the more likely
The SV40 promoter is a sequence used in gene therapy to drive DNA into the nucleus of cells. If the shots aren’t supposed to alter the human genome, why do they contain bits of DNA and an SV40 promoter that can drive that DNA into the nucleus?
In early April 2023, microbiologist Kevin McKernan — a former researcher and team leader for the MIT Human Genome project1 — posted a preprint paper2 detailing massive DNA contamination in Pfizer’s and Moderna’s bivalent COVID booster shots.3,4,5,6
[…]
The highest level of DNA contamination found was 30%, meaning nearly one-third of the content of certain vials was plasmid DNA, the presence of which dramatically increases the likelihood of genomic integration and cancer.
What this means, in plain English, is that the shots could potentially alter your DNA, which is something vaccine makers, health authorities and fact checkers have vehemently denied and written off as “impossible.” Yet here we are, with inconvenient facts staring us in the face yet again.
Regulatory Agencies Were Aware of the Problem
In a May 20, 2023, Substack article,8 McKernan pointed out that regulatory agencies were clearly aware of this problem early on, as Pfizer submitted documents to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) showing sampled lots had a broad range of double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) in them.
The EMA’s limit for dsDNA is 330 nanograms per milligram (ng/mg), and Pfizer’s data show sampled lots had anywhere from 1 ng/mg to 815 ng/mg of DNA. And, according to McKernan,9 the EMA’s limit may be too high to begin with, as “lower limits should be applied if the DNA is packaged in transfection ready lipid nanoparticles,” as they are in the shots.
In a sane regulatory environment, this kind of contamination would have resulted in a massive recall, considering the known and suspected dangers of dsDNA contaminants. Yet nothing was done about it.
Since McKernan’s paper was posted, others have confirmed the presence of dsDNA contaminants in the COVID shots. To be clear, DNA should not be present in a commercial product that has been made under good manufacturing practices.
Obviously, Pfizer and Moderna have not perfected their commercial process, or have taken shortcuts they shouldn’t have. As a result, countless millions have been injected with unnecessarily risky COVID shots.
DNA Contamination Confirmed
University of South Carolina professor Phillip Buckhaults has since confirmed the presence of dsDNA in the COVID shots. September 13, 2023, he testified10 to this before the South Carolina Senate Medical Affairs Ad-Hoc Committee on the Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC).
Buckhaults is a molecular biologist and cancer geneticist with extensive experience in DNA sequencing, and initially set out to debunk McKernan’s claims. To his shock, he replicated McKernan’s findings instead.
In his testimony, he explained how these DNA contaminants can integrate into your genome and disrupt the function of other genes, either long term or permanently, and may be passed on to offspring for generations.
He told the senators he was “alarmed about this DNA being in the vaccine,” as “there is a very real hazard” of the dsDNA integrating into a person’s genome and becoming a “permanent fixture of the cell” that can result in autoimmune problems and cancers.11
Buckhaults suspects high levels of DNA contaminants may also be causing some of the more serious side effects of the jabs, such as lethal cardiac arrest.12 Of the two lots he analyzed, he found between 5 nanograms and 20 ng of plasmid DNA — ranging from one to 200 base pairs long — per 300 microliter dose, and he points out that having a multitude of tiny fragments is far riskier than having one big piece of DNA.13
The risk of genome integration by dsDNA has been known for decades,14 so the individuals who decided to allow this contamination to remain cannot claim they didn’t know public health would be put at risk.
Buckhaults stressed that we need to collect and analyze DNA from various tissues of those who have received the COVID jabs — at least a few hundred people — to determine whether genomic integration is taking place, and what changes are occurring.
He also explained how the DNA contamination occurred in the first place. In summary, the products used during the clinical trials and the commercial products were not made in the identical way. The commercial product grew the modified RNA using a mix of DNA plasmid and E. coli, and the DNA were not properly filtered out — a clear sign of poor manufacturing processes.
COVID Shots May Cause Cancer in Several Ways
The presence of DNA isn’t the only way in which the mRNA COVID shots can cause cancer. mRNA can also reverse transcribe into DNA under the right circumstances. For example, one in vitro experiment,15,16 published in 2022, demonstrated that the modified RNA in the Pfizer jab has the ability to enter human liver cells and reverse transcribe into DNA in as little as six hours post-exposure.
[…]
COVID Jab mRNA Can Enter the Cell Nucleus
According to a 2022 study,18 both the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and the spike protein mRNA translocated into the nucleus of infected human cells. According to the authors, “the nuclear translocation of both S mRNA and S protein reveals a novel pathogenic feature of SARS-CoV-2.”
If the spike mRNA in the natural virus (and I use that term loosely, considering SARS-CoV-2 was most likely manmade) can enter human cells, might the mRNA in the COVID shots do the same? Probably.
As noted by Buckhaults,19 the lipid nanoparticles that the mRNA and DNA fragments are encased in “facilitate getting the DNA inside the cell — just inside the cell membrane. But once it’s in the cytoplasm, bits of DNA go to the nucleus just by random chance.”
[…]
So, the claim that the mRNA in the COVID shots — which is based on but not identical to the spike protein mRNA found in SARS-CoV-2 — cannot enter the nucleus of human cells and therefore cannot be integrated into the human genome, is simply false. Science tells us genome integration can occur in several ways.
COVID Jab Can Have Intergenerational Effects
Another 2022 study21 found that mice injected with the COVID mRNA shot passed on their acquired immune traits — both good and bad — to offspring, which not only suggests that the mRNA can enter the nucleus of the cell, but also that it can be permanently integrated into chromosomal DNA and have intergenerational effects.
[…]
Cancer Promoter Also Found in Pfizer’s Bivalent Jab
In addition to DNA fragments that can more readily integrate into the human genome, and the possibility of mRNA reverse transcribing into chromosomal DNA, McKernan’s team also discovered simian virus 40 (SV40) promoter in the shots, which have long been suspected of causing cancer in humans.24
SV40 promoter is an oncogenic piece of a virus known to drive very aggressive gene expression for cancer. Combined with pieces of DNA, the presence of SV40 promoter make the risk of cancer all the more likely. What’s more, according to McKernan,25 the SV40 promoter is a sequence used in gene therapy to drive DNA into the nucleus of cells!
If the shots aren’t supposed to alter the human genome, why do they contain bits of DNA and an SV40 promoter that can drive that DNA into the nucleus?
Considering these facts, is it not reasonable to suspect, then, that the “turbo cancers”26 oncologists around are now reporting might indeed be a side effect of the COVID jabs? “Turbo cancer” is an invented term to describe cancers that grow at such unprecedented rates that patients often die before a treatment plan can be implemented.
Repeat Dosing May Promote Cancer and Autoimmune Problems
So, that makes three ways in which some of the shots can contribute to or directly cause cancer. A fourth way the jabs may trigger cancer is simply by repeat dosing.
[…]
Buckhaults has also confirmed the presence of SV40 promoter in the plasmid DNA, as has Yusuke Murakami, a professor at Tokyo University.
Does Donald Trump want to be speaker of the House?
It’s a question that has emerged in the chaotic afterglow of a collection of House conservatives succeeding in ousting House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. So far, the former president has done little to downplay the political intrigue.
“A lot of people have been calling me about speaker,” Trump said Wednesday morning outside a New York City courthouse for the third day of New York Attorney General Letitia James’ $250 million civil fraud trial against him. “All I can say is we will do whatever is best for the country and other Republican Party and people.”
He added, however, that he is focused on winning back the presidency.
Trump’s name was immediately floated by supporters after the successful vote to depose McCarthy, and a Trump adviser Tuesday night told NBC News that Republican members of the House had already been asking Trump to serve as an interim speaker.
“Members are trying to talk to the President about leading as the House works it out long term,” the adviser said in an email.
The role of House speaker has importance outside of Congress; that person is second in the presidential line of succession just behind the vice president.
And Trump, of course, is not a member of Congress. But the Constitution doesn’t explicitly say that the speaker needs to be serving in the House, although so far, every one has been. That omission has occasionally led to speculation that there could be a nonmember leader of the House.
In the past, people including Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., and the late former Secretary of State Colin Powell have all been floated as possibilities. (While there have been votes for nonmembers, that push has never gone very far.)
Trump’s name being in the mix has already led to some of his biggest congressional supporters being put on the spot. Last night on Fox News’ Sean Hannity show, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan tried to avoid questions about Trump becoming an “interim” speaker by repeatedly saying he wanted him to again become president. Hannity kept pressing the point, and Jordan eventually said he wants Trump “at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue but if he wants to be speaker, that’s fine too.”
Jordan on Wednesday became the first House Republican to officially announce that he is running for speaker.
Trump’s legal woes, which include two federal indictments, could also play a role in his thought process. Trump has frequently pointed to his position as a presidential candidate as a reason the Justice Department should not be prosecuting him, including that he lacks the time to attend a trial or participate in his own defense. Should he be named speaker of the House, Trump could again try to invoke his position to argue that his trial should be delayed.
There are some Republicans who also think the idea is a bit of a political fever dream because Trump would be unable to cobble together the 218 votes needed to win a speaker’s race.
“Trump ain’t going to do it because all he cares about is winning, and his path to 218 votes is unlikely if not impossible,” said a Republican operative directly involved in the speaker’s race.
For those who see Trump becoming speaker as far-fetched, a long line of ambitious House Republicans are already lining up and courting votes.
Aside from Jordan, chief among them is Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., has already met with the 25-person Texas Republican congressional delegation, and he is expected to have the support of Rep. Vern Buchanan, the chair of Florida’s 20-person GOP congressional delegation. Buchanan is a close Scalise ally after getting his support during a failed bid to become Ways and Means chairman.
Rep. Matt Gaetz, the Florida Republican who played a leading role in removing McCarthy, also told reporters Tuesday that Scalise is “the type of person that I could see myself supporting.”
Other potential candidates include Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn.; Rep. Garret Graves, R-La.; and House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, R-NY.
The current rules of the Republican House conference actually prohibit someone charged with a felony from serving in leadership. Trump is facing dozens of felony charges.
Today, October 3, 2023, is a historical day in the United States, as chaos now reigns in America’s political and financial sectors.
In the U.S. Congress, Speaker of the House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy was removed from his position by a vote of his fellow members of the House of Representatives, something that has never happened in the history of the United States until today.
Shortly before McCarthy lost his position as Speaker of the House of Representatives, the U.S. Stock Market closed with the Dow Jones Industrial Average losing over 400 points, its highest loss since the banking collapses back in March, giving up all of its gains on the year.
The huge loss in the Stock Market today is being blamed on rising Treasury yields.
Major U.S. stock indexes closed sharply lower on Tuesday as a surge in Treasury yields continued, pushing long-term benchmark rates to their highest level since the fall of 2007.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average shed about 430 points, or 1.3%, ending near 33,003, according to preliminary FactSet data. That marked the blue-chip index’s biggest daily drop since the March banking crisis, according to Dow Jones Market Data. It also erased the Dow’s yearly gain, with the index now down 0.4% in 2023.
Other equity gauges also skid Tuesday, with the S&P 500 index ending down 1.4% and the Nasdaq Composite Index closing 1.9% lower. Stocks have been under pressures from the continued climb in longer 10-year and 30-year Treasury yields since the Federal Reserve signaled rates could stay high through 2024 and beyond at its September meeting. (Source.)
The Fed’s problem and the U.S. Treasury’s problem just became the problem of every American who has their retirement savings stuffed in the stock market via 401(k) plans or direct holdings.
[S]tocks do not like yields on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note rising to a level that is competitive with the return on stocks – especially since the principal on the Treasury note is guaranteed at maturity while the principal in the stock market is guaranteed to take one’s stomach on a roller coaster ride.
Last evening, the 10-year U.S. Treasury note had spiked to a yield of 4.682 percent, its highest yield since 2007. As of early this morning, its yield had spiked even higher, to 4.738 percent, making a 5 percent handle increasingly possible.
In response to the competition from Treasury securities and chaos in running the U.S. government, stocks have sold off in 8 of the last 10 trading sessions through Monday.
On September 21, the U.S. Treasury’s Assistant Secretary for Financial Markets, Josh Frost, delivered a speech in which he indicated that “we expect that further gradual increases in coupon auctions sizes will likely be necessary in future quarters.”
Frost also indicated that the Treasury is, apparently, going to join the thinking of the wizards at the Wall Street mega banks who prop up their banks’ share prices by spending tens of billions of dollars a year buying back their own stock.
The Fed, as you might recall, called its Treasury buyback program Quantitative Easing or QE for short. The Fed is now attempting to whittle itself out of the $9 trillion mess to its balance sheet that resulted from that radical experiment by shrinking its balance sheet. So far, it’s whittled away about $1 trillion.
Which means that a new buyer of last resort for Treasury securities is needed. But should that really be the same entity that is issuing the debt in the first place? If the Treasury has the money to buy back its debt, why is it issuing the debt? (Full article.)
One analyst wrote that one major source of rising U.S. bond yields is China, who has sold $300 billion worth of US Treasurys since 2021, including $40 billion since April 2023.*
As to who is going to replace McCarthy as Speaker of the House of Representatives, who is second in line to take over as President of the United States, after the Vice President, is anybody’s guess at this point.
As rumors spread over the weekend that McCarthy could lose his position as Speaker of the House, no names had surfaced yet as to who his replacement could be as of today. It took 15 rounds of voting back in January to install McCarthy as Speaker of the House, and Donald Trump’s name started showing up in the latter ballots cast. Could we see a stronger effort this time to bring back Trump?
But it would also not be surprising to see some of the older Republicans reach out across the aisle to Democrats, which could even result in a Democrat taking over as the House Speaker, such are the crazy times we now live in.
Whatever happens, we are much closer today to a total economic and societal collapse here in the United States, than we were yesterday. More banks collapsing seems like a certainty at this point.
Just tonight I learned that over 11,000 workers received “12A Exemptions” during this period from an Official Information Act request to Te Whatu Ora (Health New Zealand), the health service agency that absorbed the District Health Boards and manages all public health services nationwide.
I am highlighting an excerpt from the response, as follows:
From 13 November 2021 to 26 September 2022, a total of 478 applications for Significant Service Disruption exemption (SSD) were received. 103 applications were granted, covering approximately 11,005 workers.
The Significant Service Disruption criteria are outlined here.
I personally know of two psychiatrists who refused to be inoculated at all, and another who, after having received two jabs, refused any further. All were terminated from their employment, in a country with a catastrophically severe shortage of competent psychiatrists no less.
I know of another healthcare worker who developed a severe adverse reaction to the first inoculation and consulted a cardiologist who recommended and applied for a medical exemption. The request for an exemption was declined by then-Director General of Health, Ashley Bloomfield. I know personally others too — midwives, nurses, pharmacists — who lost their jobs because they believed the jabs were either unnecessary or dangerous or both.
With this new information, I now wonder how many of the ‘chosen’ 11,000 were doctors, and if so, why these doctors didn’t raise their voices against the program of coercive inoculation? Had a fraction of them done so, the entire lawlessly intrusive governmental program would have been stopped in its tracks.
I wonder who decided that these 11,000 workers could get off jab-free while my friends and many others suffered the consequences of their conscientious choice? Why were some people deemed ‘essential’ and others not?
Only 43 of the more than 8,000 US service members who were discharged from the military for refusing to be vaccinated against Covid-19 have sought to rejoin eight months after the vaccine mandate was officially repealed, according to data provided by the military branches.
Many Republicans argued that the vaccine mandate hurt military recruiting and retention efforts, which was part of the rationale for forcing the Defense Department to cancel the vaccine requirement. The military mandated the vaccine between for only 15 months from August 2021 through January 2023, when it was rescinded by law as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. It marked perhaps the first time in US military history that a vaccine requirement was reversed.
But since the repeal, only 19 soldiers have rejoined the Army, while 12 have returned to the Marines, according to service spokespeople. The numbers are even smaller for the Air Force and Navy, where only one and two have rejoined, respectively, the services said.
While Republicans have pointed to the vaccine mandate creating a retention issue, the Defense Department says all of the military services had surpassed their retention goals for the first 10 months of the 2023 fiscal year, which began on October 1, 2022. The services have exceeded retention goals even as the military has faced challenges in recruiting new service members.
J. Stephen Morrison, director of the Global Health Policy Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, described the numbers as “minuscule” and said, “it helps put the issue to bed, I hope.”
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin mandated the vaccine for all service members after it received approval from the Food and Drug Administration. Some Republican lawmakers railed against the mandate, despite the Covid-19 vaccine being one of more than 15 vaccines required by the Defense Department.
Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville, as part of the ongoing fight over his hold on more than 300 military nominees, insisted that the vaccine mandate had “damaged readiness” and “depleted the ranks” of the force.
In a letter he wrote earlier this month to the secretaries of the Navy, Air Force, and Army, the Alabama Republican said discharging thousands of service members also hurt military recruitment and retention.
In July, Republican Sens. Ted Cruz from Texas and Dan Bishop from North Carolina tried to introduce an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act to reinstate service members “wrongfully discharged” over the vaccine mandate.
“I don’t think there was ever any real evidence that it was getting in the way of recruitment or retention,” said Morrison. “There was some grumbling, but you know the reality if you enter the military and you submit to a whole battery of different medical measures.”
But months after the vaccine mandate was repealed, only the smallest fraction of those discharged from the military have sought to return.
Experts speculated that younger troops may have left and found other career paths, while older service members may have seen it as a reason to accelerate retirement.
Lawmakers have voted to oust Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., from his leadership role, the first time in the history of the House of Representatives that the chamber voted to boot a member from the top job.
Eight Republicans voted with every present Democrat to vacate the speaker’s chair. The final vote was 216 to 210 in favor of McCarthy’s ouster.
Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., introduced a measure against McCarthy known as a motion to vacate on Monday night, accusing him of breaking promises he made to win the speaker’s gavel in January.
Tensions flared during an hour of debate before the actual motion to vacate, after 11 Republicans voted with every Democrat to advance the measure. McCarthy’s allies had taken up all of the microphones on the GOP side of the chamber, forcing Gaetz to make his case from the side where Democrats traditionally sit.
“Chaos is Speaker McCarthy. Chaos is somebody who we cannot trust with their word,” Gaetz said as McCarthy looked down at his lap.
Lawmakers have voted to oust Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., from his leadership role, the first time in the history of the House of Representatives that the chamber voted to boot a member from the top job. (Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images)
At one point, an outraged McCarthy ally, Rep. Garret Graves, R-La., accused Gaetz and his cohorts of sending fundraising efforts on their motion to vacate. He fumed while pointing to his phone, “Using official actions to make money, it’s disgusting.”
Chants of “shame” erupted on the House GOP side of the chamber.
Gaetz responded, “When it comes to how those raise money, I take no lecture on asking patriotic Americans to weigh in and contribute to this fight from those who would grovel and bend knee for the lobbyists and special interests who own our leadership.”
A Republican lawmaker shouted at Gaetz, “You’re no martyr.”
Democrats signaled early on Tuesday that they would not be inclined to help McCarthy. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said before the vote that Democrats “are ready to find bipartisan common ground. Our extreme colleagues have shown no willingness to do the same. They must find a way to end the House Republican civil war.”
In January, it took 15 rounds of voting until McCarthy was elected.
McCarthy angered hardliners over the weekend when he passed a short-term spending bill known as a continuing resolution (CR) to keep the government open for 45 days in order to avert a government shutdown and give lawmakers more time to cobble together 12 individual spending bills.
Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., introduced the motion to vacate McCarthy. (AP Photo / J. Scott Applewhite)
Ninety House Republicans voted against the CR on Saturday, arguing that it was a “clean” extension of the previous Democrat-held Congress’ policies. But the speaker’s previous attempts to put a CR on the table that would cut spending for its short duration were upended by several of those same conservatives who were opposed to any such measure on principle.
The frustration at the small number of rebels was palpable among House Republicans on Tuesday morning.
“This is a distraction from what we should be focusing on, which is the appropriations process,” said Main Street Caucus Vice Chair Stephanie Bice, R-Okla. “This is all about Matt Gaetz. It’s not about Kevin McCarthy. Matt Gaetz is using the American people as pawns in his narcissistic game of charades.”
One of the many peculiarities of the special military operation (SMO) has been the rather small number of POWs (prisoners of war) on both sides (relative to the number of overall casualties). Reasons for this are manifold and include the way the conflict is being waged (the vast majority of casualties are the result of long-range strikes, primarily artillery and drones), widespread use of combat drugs, as well as the rabidly Russophobic propaganda that is being disseminated among the Kiev regime forces. This often results in instances of summary executions of Russian POWs by the Neo-Nazi junta troops or their unwillingness to surrender to the Russian military, as they are being fed propaganda that the Russians will treat them the same, even though evidence suggests otherwise.
In order to reduce the number of casualties on both sides, the Russian military has even set up special communication channels for Ukrainians willing to surrender. This has been giving results for several months already, particularly since the start of the much-touted counteroffensive of the Neo-Nazi junta troops. On October 2, the elite 1st Guards Tank Army of the Russian Battlegroup West captured two units composed of Ukrainian conscripts in the vicinity of Artyomovsk (previously known as Bakhmut) in the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR). The units in question are the 77th Airmobile Brigade and the 56th Separate Motorized Brigade. Surprisingly, reports about the mass surrender of Ukrainian conscripts are also becoming more common in Western media, too.
Retired United States Army Colonel and former senior adviser at the Pentagon Douglas MacGregor has repeatedly reiterated that the number of surrendering Ukrainian conscripts keeps growing, particularly as the embattled Kiev regime is having trouble hiding the catastrophic losses in both manpower and equipment. According to both American and Ukrainian combat veterans, the NATO training they’ve been provided all these years has been proven detrimental to their fighting capabilities, resulting in higher casualties and lesser combat effectiveness. In fact, many Ukrainian soldiers have stated they’d be dead if they followed the much-touted NATO standards. Instead, they’re still largely relying on Soviet-era training, equipment and weapons, as these have been proven as much more effective.
Another reason for the high casualty ratio among the Neo-Nazi junta troops is the very limited training that Ukrainian conscripts have been given before being sent to the frontlines. The primary reason for this is the urgency of replacing previous losses, resulting in a vicious cycle that even the mainstream propaganda machine couldn’t ignore. Back in May, the Wall Street Journal reported that poor men from villages and small towns were sent to the frontlines after just two nights at a base. The report effectively admitted that the COs insisted that “conscripts learned on the battlefield to compensate for the almost total lack of training”. The overall result of this has been that conscript units now have up to 90% KIA/WIA/MIA, as reported by various local and global military sources.
Russian intelligence reports also indicate that Ukrainian conscript units are increasingly “trained” by the much-touted British Special Air Service (SAS), highly popularized in various shooter video games, particularly the Call of Duty series, a major NATO propaganda tool in recent years. The United Kingdom keeps insisting that their forces are supposedly not present in Ukraine, with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak even denying the claims of his own cabinet’s Defense Secretary Grant Shapps that British advisors will officially be sent to train the Neo-Nazi junta troops. It’s important to note that high-ranking Russian military intelligence officials (both retired and active) have pointed out the high frequency of the usage of English among military personnel embedded within the Kiev regime forces.
Namely, this is particularly true when it comes to the areas where the abortive counteroffensive is (still) being conducted. Apart from American special forces, this reportedly also includes SAS operatives. And while the mainstream propaganda machine keeps ridiculing Moscow’s claims about the presence of NATO personnel in Ukraine (either as mercenaries or under the direct command of the belligerent alliance) and decrying them as supposed “conspiracy theories” and “Russian disinformation”, battlefield information suggests otherwise. This is also further reinforced by NATO’s standard counterintelligence practice of denying that certain weapons will be delivered and then stating they “might be” delivered only to then announce they will be sent to the Neo-Nazi junta when the process has already been completed.
In early April 2023, microbiologist Kevin McKernan detailed finding massive DNA contamination in Pfizer’s and Moderna’s bivalent COVID booster shots. The highest level of DNA contamination found was 30%, meaning nearly one-third of the content of the shot was plasmid DNA, the presence of which dramatically increases the likelihood of DNA integration and cancer
An in vitro experiment found that the modified RNA in the Pfizer jab has the ability to enter human liver cells and reverse transcribe into DNA in as little as six hours post-exposure
The lipid nanoparticles that the mRNA and DNA contaminants are encased in facilitate getting the DNA inside the cell. Once it’s in the cytoplasm, bits of DNA can enter the nucleus by random chance
Mice injected with the COVID mRNA shot passed on their acquired immune traits — both good and bad — to offspring, which not only suggests that the mRNA can enter the nucleus of the cell, but also that it can be permanently integrated into chromosomal DNA and have intergenerational effects
Pfizer’s bivalent jab has also been found to contain simian virus 40 (SV40) promoter, an oncogenic piece of the virus’ DNA known to drive very aggressive gene expression. Combined with pieces of DNA, the presence of SV40 promoter make the risk of cancer all the more likely
The SV40 promoter is a sequence used in gene therapy to drive DNA into the nucleus of cells. If the shots aren’t supposed to alter the human genome, why do they contain bits of DNA and an SV40 promoter that can drive that DNA into the nucleus?
In early April 2023, microbiologist Kevin McKernan — a former researcher and team leader for the MIT Human Genome project1 — posted a preprint paper2 detailing massive DNA contamination in Pfizer’s and Moderna’s bivalent COVID booster shots.3,4,5,6 As explained in the abstract:7
[…]
Multiple assays support DNA contamination that exceeds the European Medicines Agency (EMA) 330ng/mg requirement and the FDAs 10ng/dose requirements …”
The highest level of DNA contamination found was 30%, meaning nearly one-third of the content of certain vials was plasmid DNA, the presence of which dramatically increases the likelihood of genomic integration and cancer.
What this means, in plain English, is that the shots could potentially alter your DNA, which is something vaccine makers, health authorities and fact checkers have vehemently denied and written off as “impossible.” Yet here we are, with inconvenient facts staring us in the face yet again.
Regulatory Agencies Were Aware of the Problem
In a May 20, 2023, Substack article,8 McKernan pointed out that regulatory agencies were clearly aware of this problem early on, as Pfizer submitted documents to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) showing sampled lots had a broad range of double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) in them.
The EMA’s limit for dsDNA is 330 nanograms per milligram (ng/mg), and Pfizer’s data show sampled lots had anywhere from 1 ng/mg to 815 ng/mg of DNA. And, according to McKernan,9 the EMA’s limit may be too high to begin with, as “lower limits should be applied if the DNA is packaged in transfection ready lipid nanoparticles,” as they are in the shots.
In a sane regulatory environment, this kind of contamination would have resulted in a massive recall, considering the known and suspected dangers of dsDNA contaminants. Yet nothing was done about it.
Since McKernan’s paper was posted, others have confirmed the presence of dsDNA contaminants in the COVID shots. To be clear, DNA should not be present in a commercial product that has been made under good manufacturing practices.
Obviously, Pfizer and Moderna have not perfected their commercial process, or have taken shortcuts they shouldn’t have. As a result, countless millions have been injected with unnecessarily risky COVID shots.
DNA Contamination Confirmed
University of South Carolina professor Phillip Buckhaults has since confirmed the presence of dsDNA in the COVID shots. September 13, 2023, he testified10 to this before the South Carolina Senate Medical Affairs Ad-Hoc Committee on the Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC).
Buckhaults is a molecular biologist and cancer geneticist with extensive experience in DNA sequencing, and initially set out to debunk McKernan’s claims. To his shock, he replicated McKernan’s findings instead.
In his testimony, he explained how these DNA contaminants can integrate into your genome and disrupt the function of other genes, either long term or permanently, and may be passed on to offspring for generations.
He told the senators he was “alarmed about this DNA being in the vaccine,” as “there is a very real hazard” of the dsDNA integrating into a person’s genome and becoming a “permanent fixture of the cell” that can result in autoimmune problems and cancers.11
Buckhaults suspects high levels of DNA contaminants may also be causing some of the more serious side effects of the jabs, such as lethal cardiac arrest.12 Of the two lots he analyzed, he found between 5 nanograms and 20 ng of plasmid DNA — ranging from one to 200 base pairs long — per 300 microliter dose, and he points out that having a multitude of tiny fragments is far riskier than having one big piece of DNA.13
The risk of genome integration by dsDNA has been known for decades,14 so the individuals who decided to allow this contamination to remain cannot claim they didn’t know public health would be put at risk.
Buckhaults stressed that we need to collect and analyze DNA from various tissues of those who have received the COVID jabs — at least a few hundred people — to determine whether genomic integration is taking place, and what changes are occurring.
He also explained how the DNA contamination occurred in the first place. In summary, the products used during the clinical trials and the commercial products were not made in the identical way. The commercial product grew the modified RNA using a mix of DNA plasmid and E. coli, and the DNA were not properly filtered out — a clear sign of poor manufacturing processes.
Covid Shots May Cause Cancer in Several Ways
The presence of DNA isn’t the only way in which the mRNA COVID shots can cause cancer. mRNA can also reverse transcribe into DNA under the right circumstances. For example, one in vitro experiment,15,16 published in 2022, demonstrated that the modified RNA in the Pfizer jab has the ability to enter human liver cells and reverse transcribe into DNA in as little as six hours post-exposure.
[…[
COVID Jab mRNA Can Enter the Cell Nucleus
According to a 2022 study,18 both the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and the spike protein mRNA translocated into the nucleus of infected human cells. According to the authors, “the nuclear translocation of both S mRNA and S protein reveals a novel pathogenic feature of SARS-CoV-2.”
If the spike mRNA in the natural virus (and I use that term loosely, considering SARS-CoV-2 was most likely manmade) can enter human cells, might the mRNA in the COVID shots do the same? Probably.
As noted by Buckhaults,19 the lipid nanoparticles that the mRNA and DNA fragments are encased in “facilitate getting the DNA inside the cell — just inside the cell membrane. But once it’s in the cytoplasm, bits of DNA go to the nucleus just by random chance.” He told investigative journalist Maryanne Demasi:20
[…]
IF genome modification is happening, It’s just a matter of time before one of these fragments hits a tumor suppressor gene and initiates the beginning of cancer in a single stem cell.
Also, there have been reports of myocarditis. I’m wondering if it’s possible that these little bits of DNA actually encode pieces of the spike protein … There’s a lot of open reading frames in these pieces of DNA that code for peptides that don’t belong in humans and are neo-antigens.
My concern is that some of these pieces of DNA could transform long lived stem cells in, maybe the myocardium, or pericardium, or maybe the liver, or lymph nodes … and now that tissue makes a long-lived expression of some neo-antigen that could be causing a long-term autoimmunity type response like myocarditis.
So, they are the two things that immediately come to mind — the small possibility of cancers in people in the next five years down the road, or the possibility of autoimmunity from the production of these peptides.”
So, the claim that the mRNA in the COVID shots — which is based on but not identical to the spike protein mRNA found in SARS-CoV-2 — cannot enter the nucleus of human cells and therefore cannot be integrated into the human genome, is simply false. Science tells us genome integration can occur in several ways.
COVID Jab Can Have Intergenerational Effects
Another 2022 study21 found that mice injected with the COVID mRNA shot passed on their acquired immune traits — both good and bad — to offspring, which not only suggests that the mRNA can enter the nucleus of the cell, but also that it can be permanently integrated into chromosomal DNA and have intergenerational effects.
[…]
Since chronic inflammation can lead to immune exhaustion and non-responsiveness, we sought to determine the effects of pre-exposure to the mRNA-LNP on adaptive immune responses and innate immune fitness.
We found that pre-exposure to mRNA-LNPs or LNP alone led to long-term inhibition of the adaptive immune response … On the other hand, we report that after pre-exposure to mRNA-LNPs, the resistance of mice to heterologous infections with influenza virus increased while resistance to Candida albicans decreased …
Interestingly, mice pre-exposed to the mRNA-LNP platform can pass down the acquired immune traits to their offspring …
In summary, the mRNA-LNP vaccine platform induces long-term unexpected immunological changes affecting both adaptive immune responses and heterologous protection against infections. Thus, our studies highlight the need for more research to determine this platform’s true impact on human health.”
FDA Responds to DNA Contamination Concerns
McKernan presented his findings to the FDA in June 2023. After Buckhaults confirmed the presence of dsDNA in Pfizer’s and Moderna’s shots, Demasi asked the FDA “if it had begun an investigation into the issue of DNA contamination and whether it would review its guidance to industry about residual DNA in vaccines.”22
She also asked if the agency “had instructed Pfizer and Moderna to conduct further testing to demonstrate the absence or presence of genome modification and whether it would issue new warnings to the public about the potential risks, now that DNA contamination in the vaccines had been established and replicated.”
[…]
In other words, the FDA has taken no action on the matter and has no intention of doing so.
[…]
Repeat Dosing May Promote Cancer and Autoimmune Problems
So, that makes three ways in which some of the shots can contribute to or directly cause cancer. A fourth way the jabs may trigger cancer is simply by repeat dosing.
[…]
SV40 Promoter Contamination Confirmed
Buckhaults has also confirmed the presence of SV40 promoter in the plasmid DNA, as has Yusuke Murakami, a professor at Tokyo University.
[…]
The problem is that the sequence is present in a well-known carcinogenic virus. The question is why such a sequence that is derived from a cancer virus is present in Pfizer’s vaccine.
There should be absolutely no need for such a carcinogenic virus sequence in the vaccine. This sequence is totally unnecessary for producing the mRNA vaccine. It is a problem that such a sequence is solidly contained in the vaccine …
If a sequence like this is present in the DNA, the DNA is easily migrated to the nucleus. So it means that the DNA can easily enter the genome. This is such an alarming problem. It is essential to remove the sequence. However, Pfizer produced the vaccine without removing the sequence. That is outrageously malicious.”
The Most Revolutionary Act 