By Lance D Johnson

Newstarget

Bill Gates, author of “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster,” spent the last decade warning audiences that the world is overpopulated and subject to impending climate doom. In order to save the planet, Bill Gates says we must achieve “zero net carbon emissions by the year 2050.”

Meanwhile, Gates continues to traverse the world in his private jets, spewing more carbon emissions in one year than the average person does in their entire lifetime.

As more people see through the climate change façade and realize how their lives are being exploited by globalism, Bill Gates is suddenly changing his tune on the climate doom narrative. During a live speaking event at the Times Center in New York, Gates made a sudden U-turn on his climate doom narrative. He said, “No temperate country is going to become uninhabitable.”

Gate’s latest comments are in stark contrast to the public comments he made just two years ago, when his book on climate doom was first published. In a 2021 Fox News Sunday interview with Chris Wallace, Bill Gates said, “The migration that we saw out of Syria for their civil war, which was somewhat weather dependent, we’re going to have 10 times as much migration because the equatorial areas will become unlivable.” Now he suddenly believes the opposite is true, and it’s easy to see why he is softening his stance.

The fear-driven, end-of-the-world climate change doom narrative is no longer working on the masses, and Gates knows that people see through the manipulation and exploitation, so he is adapting his message. In his most recent public speech, Gates said, “If you try to do climate brute force, you will get people who say, ‘I like climate but I don’t want to bear that cost and reduce my standard of living.’” In other words, Gates knows his climate investments are helping to destroy the standard of living for millions worldwide.

The poor and working class are being looted by Bill Gates’ climate change policies

The poor and working class are the ones who are most impacted by the globalists’ net zero climate change policies and the green new deal energy rationing and money laundering that is taking place globally.

The United Nation’s central planning of agriculture and energy production has stifled both, driving up the cost of food and energy and reducing the standard of living for many. Now, populations are pushing back against socialism, green new deals and the “ESG” (environment, social, and governance) schemes that have infiltrated corporations and governments around the world. These policies have slowed economic growth, increased energy costs and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars.

Fossil fuels still represent approximately 80 percent of U.S. energy production and consumption, so the Biden regime’s attempts to shut pipelines and drilling down has only hurt the poor and working class who depend on affordable energy prices just to get by. In the U.S., the $27 billion “National Climate Bank,” created by Biden’s green new deal, has only led to waste, fraud, abuse and outright socialism. Government central planners (like climate czar John Kerry) are entitled to pick the winners and losers in the economy, stifling market innovation and upending countless jobs and livelihoods. Meanwhile, all this self-destruction of American energy and innovation is making the U.S. more vulnerable to foreign nations like Russia. Russia, not beholden to the UN’s climate change hysteria and population controls, is gaining leverage over the U.S. and Europe with their robust, diversified energy production and transport systems.

For these reasons alone, Bill Gates and the green new deal-pushing globalists are out of touch with reality. Not only are they making it harder for the average person to eat, commute to work and cool/heat their homes, but their delusional polices are also breaking down the sovereignty of nations, making populations more vulnerable and the world less safe in the process.

[…]

Via https://www.newstarget.com/2023-09-25-bill-gates-abandons-climate-doom-narrative.html

by Will Jones

Daily Sceptic

A top vaccine adviser to the U.S. Government has refused to get the latest Covid shot as he warns about the long term impact of myocarditis and other serious side-effects.

In a video posted on X (Twitter) by the ‘Chief Nerd’, Dr. Paul Offit – a member of the Food and Drug Administration’s vaccines committee – said he “didn’t get last year’s bivalent vaccine” and he’s “not getting this year’s vaccine” because he believes he is “protected”.

We’re going to find out about this vaccine over time,” he warns, describing the whole approach as a “novel strategy”.

We certainly were surprised by myocarditis and pericarditis and we’ll see whether or not over time when we’re five years into this, 10 years into this, 15 years into this, whether there’s any evidence of residual myocardial disease because the reason you have myocarditis is you’re making immune response to your own heart muscle… We’ll find out about that over time.

Dr. Offit has previously been a cheerleader, not only for the Covid vaccines but for the vaccine mandates that forced millions of Americans to get the shots or quit their careers.

Defending the first New York City vaccine mandate in summer 2021, he animatedly told CNN that “it is not your right as an American citizen to catch and transmit a potentially fatal infection”.

However, he changed his tune at the start of this year when he wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine an article sharply criticising the bivalent vaccines being rolled out at the time, branding them a “cautionary tale”.

At that point he did not mention safety worries, so his raising of concerns about myocarditis and other adverse effects is a new development.

As Dr. Offit says, we’re going to find out about this vaccine over time. Dr. Offit has been complicit in inflicting this rushed, under-tested technology on America and the world. However, he is a rare example of someone in a key advisory position willing to change his tune publicly. Will others be inspired to follow him?

[…]

Via https://dailysceptic.org/2023/09/26/top-u-s-government-vaccine-adviser-refuses-to-get-latest-covid-shot-as-he-warns-of-long-term-impact-of-myocarditis/

Major international governments have signed multibillion-dollar legal contracts with drug companies in order to secure access to covid-19 vaccines.

But the drug companies and governments have refused to divulge details, saying the information is “commercial in confidence.”

In 2021, we got our first peek at contracts between Pfizer and various international countries after they were leaked to The Bureau of Investigative Journalism and US consumer group Public Citizen.

“The contracts offer a rare glimpse into the power one pharmaceutical corporation has gained to silence governments, throttle supply, shift risk and maximise profits in the worst public health crisis in a century,” said Zain Rizvi, author of the Public Citizen report.

Pfizer was accused of “bullying” governments during contract negotiations, asking some Latin American countries to put up sovereign assets, such as embassy buildings and military bases, as a guarantee against the cost of any future legal cases.

High court decision

Last month, a South African NGO called Health Justice Initiative, won a high court challenge to gain access to all of South Africa’s covid-19 vaccine contracts.

Tony Nikolic, an Australian solicitor from law firm Ashley, Francina, Leonard & Associates, reviewed the Pfizer contract and says it reads like South Africa was “held to ransom” over the deal.

“It’s a one-sided contract. Pfizer gets all of the profits and none of the risks,” says Nikolic. “It’s akin to extortion, there’s absolutely no liability for the vaccine manufacturer in terms of injuries that may arise from their product.”

The South African government agreed to “indemnify, defend and hold harmless” Pfizer and all its affiliates from “any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses” arising from the vaccine.

It also says the government will “create, dedicate, and maintain a no-fault compensation fund sufficient to undertake and completely fulfil the indemnification obligations….. for damage, injury, or harm arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the development, administration, or use of the vaccine.”

Nikolic says, “It’s like the manufacturers could ask for anything they wanted. There was such panic at the time and images in the media of people dying in the streets created a real sense of fear and insecurity around the world.”

The protection against liability is not only in place for the initial vaccine formulation, but for “any or all related strains, mutations, modifications or derivatives of the foregoing that are procured by Purchaser.”

“What this means,” explains Nikolic, “is that Pfizer can modify its vaccine to match whatever variants emerge, and still have all the same protections against liability. This is nothing more than a cash cow for Pfizer, they are privatising the profits, whilst socialising the costs.”

Pfizer charged the South African government $10 per dose, which is nearly 33% more than the $6.75 “cost price” it reportedly charged the African Union.

“In my view, this is why Pfizer wants the details kept secret, so that it can protect the various price differences between countries. It’s classic price gouging with a predatory twist, that is why procurement transparency is essential,” says Nikolic.

Long-term safety?

The contract states “the long-term effects and efficacy of the vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known.”

Nikolic says this is in stark contrast to the public health messages at the time.

“We had politicians and key opinion leaders telling people that the vaccines were ‘safe and effective’ when the procurement contracts themselves did not make such claims,” says Nikolic.

“The contract clearly indicates that adverse effects were unknown at the time of signing. The burden of proof should never have been on the people to prove the vaccine was unsafe, it should have been on the manufacturer to prove the vaccine was safe,” he adds.

Nikolic has spent the last two years trying to access the procurement contracts signed by the Australian Government.

“Australians are still in the dark about what is contained within these contracts. We know it gave liability protection to the vaccine manufacturers like other countries, but that’s the extent of it,” says Nikolic.

“We need to know what our politicians knew at the time of signing the deal. And we need to know how much money we, the taxpayer, spent for a vaccine that turned out to be far less safe or effective than promised,’ he adds.

In a recent Australian Senate committee hearing, Queensland Senator Malcolm Roberts grilled Pfizer executives under oath about the indemnity clauses in its contract with the Australian government, but Pfizer refused to give details.

“The contents of Pfizer’s contract with the Australian Government remains confidential,” said Pfizer Australia’s medical director Krishan Thiru.

In 2021, Nikolic mounted a legal challenge against covid-19 vaccine mandates in the NSW Supreme Court where he tried to subpoena the Pfizer contract, but his request was blocked.

Undeterred, Nikolic submitted an FOI request to the Australian Department of Health.

The FOI request, however, was denied because the contracts “contain information that is confidential in nature” such as “trade secrets and commercially valuable information.” It stated;

“The documents contain commercial information regarding the procurement of vaccines to Australia. The documents contain information specifically relevant to the unique commercial arrangements between the department and third parties, including indicative prices, payment terms, professional indemnity, ongoing funding measures, manufacturing details and production measures.”

Nikolic says, “It’s unethical, potentially unlawful and immoral for them to argue that the right to preserve commercial confidence overrides the right for public safety, it just doesn’t make sense.”

He adds, “It just boggles the mind how governments just rolled over and entered into agreements with companies like Pfizer that have a long track record of breaching the False Claims Act resulting in billion-dollar criminal and civil liability.”

[…]

Via https://maryannedemasi.substack.com/p/the-secrecy-of-covid-19-vaccine-contracts

Duwamish River People’s Park & Shoreline Habitat. Photo credit: Richard Droker/flickr

By Lulu Ramadan, The Seattle Times

ProPublica

Boeing has been dumping chemicals into the river for decades. In court papers accusing the aircraft manufacturer of trying to slough off its share of the cleanup bill, the Port of Seattle said the total cost could top $1 billion — more than double any estimate previously made public. Boeing is in negotiations over how to split the cost with the city, adjoining King County and the Port of Seattle, potentially leaving Seattle taxpayers on the hook.

In its early days as a major aircraft manufacturer, Boeing was remarkably open about toxic chemicals flowing from its factory into the neighboring Duwamish River, Seattle’s only river and a longtime source of food, tradition and culture for Indigenous people.

In fact, the company described the Duwamish River as “a natural collector for Boeing’s fluid wastes” in a 1950 magazine article Boeing produced for its employees.

Boeing said at the time that it had a handle on the situation — asserting, for example, that some of its most volatile waste would be neutralized by chemicals released by other polluters.

Today the waterway is among the nation’s most contaminated, a full-scale cleanup is scheduled to begin next year, and Boeing is deep in negotiations over how to split the cost with other leading landowners on the river: the city, adjoining King County and the Port of Seattle.

As with most negotiations conducted under the nation’s Superfund cleanup law, the parties agreed long ago to keep details of their talks secret. But a short-lived lawsuit, filed by the port last year and withdrawn in June, offered a glimpse of a staggering dollar figure that’s never been part of the public discussion.

In court papers accusing Boeing of trying to slough off its share of the cleanup bill, the port said the total cost could top $1 billion. The sum is more than double any estimate previously made public, and it would make the Duwamish one of the nation’s costliest cleanups on record. Government websites still put the cost at about $340 million.

The dollar amounts alluded to in the 2022 lawsuit point to a high-stakes and largely hidden deliberation between the region’s biggest government players and a major company born in Seattle more than a century ago.

Whatever the parties agree to, taxpayers may never know whether the cost split was fair because how the decision was reached is intended to remain secret.

This month, in response to questions from The Seattle Times and ProPublica, Boeing said it was the port that was refusing to do its part.

[…]

Boeing declined to comment on the private negotiations or disclose the exact amount it agreed to pay, but it said that the company expects to spend “hundreds of millions of additional dollars.”

This summer, Boeing joined with the city and county in issuing a separate statement saying the lawsuit’s allegations do not affect their “ongoing and lasting commitment to restoring the water quality of the Lower Duwamish for people, salmon, and orcas.”

[…]

The port continues to claim, as it did in its lawsuit against Boeing, that negotiations could saddle taxpayers with “tens of millions of dollars” in costs for which the company is liable.

Meanwhile, people who have waited for the Duwamish to be restored say they worry about the lack of information available to the public.

Local government agencies and Boeing have spent more than $200 million cleaning up “early action” sites in the Duwamish Superfund area since 2001. A full-scale cleanup is scheduled to begin next year. The Port of Seattle says it could cost $1 billion, which would make it one of the nation’s costliest Superfund cleanups.

Two centuries ago, as white settlers began to develop the land, Native tribes successfully negotiated for their fishing rights on the Duwamish River to preserve a cultural touchpoint and vital food source.

The city of Seattle eventually recognized the river’s value as a pathway for transporting cargo. It scraped away the winding river’s marshy banks, straightened its natural bends and dredged its floor.

What was once a complex ecosystem of mudflats, native plants and spawning fish became a sprawling industrial corridor.

Boeing found a home along the Duwamish in 1916, launching an operation from an abandoned shipyard where it built seaplanes. In the 1930s, the company developed the nation’s first four-engine bomber and the federal government eventually ordered about 7,000 B-17s over the course of World War II. By the end of the war, Boeing’s plant along the Duwamish expanded to nearly 1.7 million square feet.

It ultimately became one of the largest landowners in the industrial district, but publicly owned facilities also contributed toxins: water runoff tainted with chemicals from the city’s steam plant, pollution from the port’s cargo terminals and unfettered sewage dumped from King County’s wastewater system.

The river is now contaminated with heavy metals and cancer-causing chemicals, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).

Along the river now are large health advisory signs warning the public not to eat bottom-feeding fish and to limit consumption of certain salmon, a warning system King County calls “Fun to Fish, Toxic to Eat.”

Even direct contact with river mud is a risk, the state health department warns. Tribal fishing, protected by an 1855 federal treaty, continues along the river despite declining fish populations and public health warnings.

Some of these contaminants can be traced to Boeing’s plants along the river, which is why the federal government has named it as one of the major responsible parties.

Boeing’s 1950 magazine article, brought to light in the port’s lawsuit, described its efforts to curb pollution, but the company openly acknowledged that “any unrestrained liquid emptied on the Boeing premises is bound sooner or later to get into the Duwamish.”

Tracy Collier, a toxicologist who worked at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Northwest Fisheries Science Center for three decades and who read the magazine article at The Times’ request, said that it makes legitimate scientific arguments about how pollutants can be diluted and neutralized, but that it’s impossible to tell from the description alone whether Boeing successfully reduced the amount of contamination.

It’s also important to note, Collier said, that some contaminants now found in high concentrations in the river weren’t on the radar 70 years ago. Boeing is one of the parties known to have contributed PCBs, for example, according to the State of Washington’s Department of Ecology.

“We didn’t know in 1950 that PCBs were going to be persistent and as toxic as they are,” Collier said. The chemical wasn’t banned by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) until the 1970s.

Boeing said in a statement that its article described disposal practices that were the industry standard at the time. The company added that it proactively took the steps described in the article before federal and state environmental laws took effect.

In early 2000, a survey by the EPA revealed that the river was eligible for Superfund designation, meaning it was one of the most polluted sites in the country.

The Superfund, created by Congress in 1980, was meant to address the nation’s legacy of toxic industrial waste by establishing a process to pay for cleanups. It was also known to result in costly legal battles. The port, city, county and Boeing hoped to divvy up the tab and clean the river without triggering the Superfund process.

“They were worried about the stigma it would cast on the city, and some believed that they could clean the river up faster and better without EPA dogging their efforts,” BJ Cummings, community engagement manager for the University of Washington’s Superfund Research Program, wrote in her book “The River That Made Seattle,” which details the Duwamish’s history.

However federal environmental regulators needed to sign off. They wanted an agreement that would allow them to go after polluters for damage up to three years after completion of the cleanup, just as they could under the Superfund.

Boeing would not agree. The company told a Times reporter in 2000 that it caused only a small part of the pollution and was worried that it would be stuck with a big share of the cleanup.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/duwamish-river-seattle-boeing-toxic-chemical-dumping/

Steve Kirsch

The best way to prevent SIDS is to stop vaccinating kids. In every study published in the medical peer-reviewed literature comparing fully vaccinated with fully unvaccinated children in the US, the fully unvaccinated kids were dramatically healthier with far fewer chronic diseases including autism. In 2009, nine House members co-sponsored a bill to require the NIH to do a study that would show this, but the bill never made it out of committee. Congress doesn’t believe that the American public want to know the truth about the childhood vaccines.

Executive summary

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) happens to babies, from 1 month to 1 year in age, but most frequently between 2 and 4 months of age.

Recently I interviewed a former police detective who handled over 250 SIDS cases for a major US city. She revealed her full name and I was able to independently verify her employment at the police department.

In the interview, she revealed that 50% of the SIDS cases happened within 48 hours after a vaccine was given and about 70% of the cases happened within one week of a vaccine.

This can only mean one thing: that the childhood vaccines are the leading cause of SIDS deaths.

There is no other explanation.

Even her pediatrician acknowledged this, but they aren’t allowed to talk about it. She said that the American Academy of Pediatrics trains the pediatricians in how to gaslight parents who seek to blame the vaccine.

This is the first time these statistics have ever been revealed publicly.

All the information is independently verifiable in the police records for any health authority who has any doubts.

Also, I am working with the police department to make these statistics public directly from the police department itself (I cannot compel the production of these records because the FOIA laws in the state exempt these records).

My 16-minute interview

The key points

1. 3 to 4 cases per month, so over 250 cases total during her tenure
2. 50% of SIDS cases happened within 48 hours of a vaccine administration. Assuming kids are vaccinated every month (which is the most conservative assumption), the chance of this happening by chance is 1.23e-64. This means the cases were caused by the vaccine since there is no other viable hypothesis that can explain the evidence.
3. 70% of SIDS cases happened within 1 week of a vaccination.
4. Her pediatrician acknowledged this and didn’t argue with the data.
5. The American Academy of Pediatrics trains doctors on how to gaslight patients who suspect the vaccine caused their child’s death.
6. Jennifer declined to publicly reveal her name or the police department she worked for, but revealed this to me so I could verify everything using independent sources.
7. The police department declined to respond to my records count request because it is outside the scope of the state’s FOIA laws since it cannot be accomplished with a straightforward query and “research” would be required. I agree with their interpretation, but I’ve requested they comply anyway as a matter of public benefit. I will update this article when I hear back from them.

Police policy is to “leave no stone unturned.” But even after they made the vaccine connection, the coroner ALWAYS ignored even mentioning the vaccine in the autopsy report!

[…[

Jennifer’s SIDS statistics are validated in the peer-reviewed medical literature!

This paper, Vaccines and sudden infant death: An analysis of the VAERS database 1990–2019 and review of the medical literature, states this:

Of all reported SIDS cases post-vaccination, 75 % occurred within 7 days (p < 0.00001).

This almost exactly matches what Jennifer said in my interview (70% within one week). Neither of us was aware of this article at the time we made the video.

This is impossible if the vaccines aren’t causing SIDS. There is simply no other viable explanation for the association. But of course, you won’t get your paper published if you say that. You have to say that the association is interesting.

Paper by CDC authors observes that nearly 80% the child deaths reported in VAERS happened after multiple vaccinations were given on the same day

In Deaths Reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, United States, 1997–2013, the CDC authors admit that “for child death reports, 79.4% received >1 vaccine on the same day.”

Jennifer is not the only police detective to figure out the connection; Helen Grus in Ottawa found the same thing

In Canada, if you are a police officer and suspect that vaccines cause SIDS, they will prosecute you. It seems that is illegal in Ottawa to question the safety of the vaccines:

Helen Grus is a Forensic Police Detective in Canada who was looking into the sudden infant deaths that appeared to be connected to mothers being vaccinated.

For the last 2 years she was stonewalled by her own police force. Her court case resumes Oct 2023 and will drag into 2024.

She is being prosecuted for seeking the truth. I hope that Detective Helen Grus will be exonerated and continue to investigate the “baffling mystery” of dead babies.

She was suspended without pay for not taking the COVID vaccine and she doesn’t think masks are effective either.

[…]

How do they explain a 2X to 3X rise in SIDS in 2021 vs. 2020?

Watch this video starting at 0:56 which points out that there was a 2X to 3X increase in SIDS cases after the vaccines rolled out. Are you surprised? This is what got Helen’s attention.

A case history of how vaccines cause SIDS and that the medical examiners are gaslighting parents

Read this article. It describes how Sawyer, just 8 weeks old, died just 34 hours after a series of vaccines. The police suspected the parents were at fault and the medical examiner said the death was caused by improper sleeping position and refused to do any tests that might implicate the vaccine. The psychiatrist also told the mom she had an “adjustment disorder.” Four months later, a pathologist ordered the requested tests be done, and it clearly implicated the vaccines as the cause of the SIDS death.

Peer-reviewed literature says the more vaccines, the higher infant deaths. The r value is a stunning .992. You rarely a correlation coefficient this close to 1 in any real-world data.

The peer reviewed medical literature says this: “The mean IMRs of all nations within each group were then calculated. Linear regression analysis of unweighted mean IMRs showed a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates, with r = 0.992 (p = 0.0009).”

In plain English, yes, the more vaccine doses, the higher the infant mortality rates.

A real world experiment in New Zealand

Thirty years ago in New Zealand the vaccine schedule was changed from the first being at 3 months down to 6 weeks. SIDS moved with it.

Hilary Butler in New Zealand compiled a gold mine of information as she ran the “Immunisation Awareness Society” at that time and published a monthly newsletter.

A real world experiment in the US

From the comments:

In 2020 when we were locked down at least through June, Nicole DeGraf, the former executive director of Oregonians for Medical Freedom, and myself, looked at the infant deaths under the age of 1 through the first six months of that year. All medical procedures, including well baby visits were cancelled through the end of June. The number of infant deaths during that period of time dropped to 42% of the ten year annual average of infant deaths in the state.

Seven more studies showing vaccines cause SIDS compiled here

See Vitamin D wiki which was instantly updated to add a link to this article as well.

The connection between vaccines and SIDS has been known for decades

Viera Scheibner, a Slovak research scientist living in Australia, accidentally discovered during her testing of baby monitors that babies were dying soon after receiving vaccines.

She published this in a book on 1993, “Vaccinations: 100 Years of Orthodox Research Shows that Vaccines Represent an Assault on the Immune System

[…]

Scheibner stumbled onto this field after finding a temporal correlation between the DPT vaccine and a baby breathing monitor she co-invented to help prevent SIDS.

[…]

Via https://kirschsubstack.com/p/former-major-city-police-detective?r=83qir

Episode 13 The Jews in 1215 and Beyond

1215: Years That Changed History

Dr Dorsey Armstrong (2019)

Film Review

According to Armstrong, the persecution of Jews, homosexuals, the disabled and  women originated, not with peasants and workers, but with a landed elite keen to acquire yet more resources for themselves.* However new waves of Jewish migration into Europe between 1000 and 1500 helped feed popular mistrust. Prior to the 11th century 80% of the world’s Jews lived in Muslim countries. Even after 1100, the majority were confined to southern Europe.

After 1215, “conspiracy theories” began circulating in European cities about “Blood Libel” (ie that Jews were ritually killing Christian infants and drinking their blood). Following torture, a few made false confessions, leading scores of other Jews to be executed and their property confiscated. Following the arrival of the Black Death in Europe, rumors spread that Jews had caused the plague by poisoning wells.**

The well-poisoning rumors would lead to pogroms (mass slaughters) of Jews, mainly in rural German speaking areas. Many fled to Cologne, where church leaders endeavored to protect them. In the the battle of St Bartholomew’s Night in 1348, citizens of Cologne attacked and burned the Jewish quarter. according to Armstrong, the Jews defended themselves and approximately 25,000 people killed on both sides.

She estimates there were roughly 340 pogroms in rural German speaking communities, totally wiping out 80 Jewish communities. In 1348 Pope Clement VI officially absolved European Jews (who were dying in equal numbers as Christians) of any responsibility for the plague, and some who had fled to Vienna were invited to return to their villages.

*Desperately in debt, in 1306 Philippe the Fair used growing anti-Jewish sentiment to exile all Jews from France and confiscate their property.

**Jews, who lived in walled off ghettos, may have experienced lower plague rates in some regions owing to Passover laws requiring them to eliminate all wheat, barley, rye and oats stores (including crumbs) from their homes. This would have gone a long way to eliminating flea-carrying rats responsible for spreading

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

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/12392969/12392996