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 House Judiciary Committee on Thursday will investigate how Section 702, a law that was designed to help combat terrorism, has been “weaponized against” Americans.
Breitbart News first reported that the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing next week on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) ahead of Section 702’s December reauthorization deadline.
Now, the hearing notice details more about the Thursday hearing:
The hearing, “Fixing FISA: How a Law Designed to Protect Americans Has Been Weaponized Against Them,” will examine the FBI’s abuses of its Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authorities, discuss the FBI’s failures to implement meaningful reforms to prevent its abuses, and address the broad issue of warrantless mass surveillance on American citizens.
The witnesses for the hearing include:
Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice
Sharon Bradford Franklin, Chair, U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
Beth A. Williams, Board Member, U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
A routine audit recently found that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Office of National Director of Intelligence (ODNI) of Section 702 use found that FBI agents often had political overtones for their search queries of the FISA database. This includes “the names of a local political party” to see if it had links to foreign intelligence. The Justice Department reportedly claimed that FBI personnel “misunderstood” the search procedures and that they were “subsequently reminded of how to correctly apply the query rules.”
Rep. Darin LaHood (R-IL), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, dramatically revealed that he was the unnamed lawmaker that was surveilled by the FBI. The FBI said that that the surveillance was a defensive countermeasure to make sure the Illinois Republican was not the subject of a foreign influence operation.
[…]
Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA) and other lawmakers have pressed Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz over the FBI’s purchase of Americans’ geolocation data.
Cline asked Horowitz during a hearing in March if other parts of the Department of Justice (DOJ) are buying Americans’ private data, describing these reports as “disturbing.”
Reports have found that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have purchased Americans’ private data, in what could be considered a run around constitutional protections against warrantless searches.
Cline then pressed Attorney General Merrick Garland about this controversy.
Cline asked Garland if he agreed with Horowitz that purchasing Americans’ private data should not have happened post-Carpenter v. United States, a landmark 2018 Supreme Court ruling that held that the United States government needed a search warrant to track suspects for an extended period via cellphone carriers.
The attorney general said, “The Department [DOJ] has an internal investigation going on internally to find out which parts,” of the agency might still be engaging in this practice.
Sean Vitka, of Demand Progress, an online privacy and digital rights group, said, “FBI Director Wray’s admission that the FBI secretly purchased Americans’ location data ‘derived from internet advertising’ is both shocking and further proof of the need for Congress to take immediate action to rein in mass surveillance.”
The NATO US Army is busy in northeastern Syria, business as usual, and no, it’s not combating ISIS or Al Qaeda, they’ll never destroy their best proxy army, they’re busy stealing the food and fuel of the Syrian people because they feel they’re entitled to steal while at the same time crying about the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.
34 tankers loaded with oil stolen from Syrian oils wells followed by another convoy of 40 covered lorries guarded by armored vehicles of the US Army and its other proxy army, the Kurdish SDF separatist terrorists were spotted crossing from the Syrian territories into neighboring Iraq through one of the illegal border crossings.
The US Army maintains, officially, around a thousand troops in Syria, illegally deployed and operating in the country against international law, against the UN Charter, against every United Nations Security Council resolution the USA signed on in regard to Syria, and against the will of the Syrian government which calls them occupiers and oil thieves.
The Pentagon claims it operates in Syria to combat ISIS (ISIL – Daesh), but everything on the ground and in every statement by a US official, the fact that ISIS only continues to grow in strength wherever the US Army is deployed points out otherwise.
Even the former US Commander in Chief Donald Trump when giving the orders to keep the US troops in Syria he explicitly said to ‘keep the oil’ because he ‘ likes oil’ adding that his troops are not interested in any combat missions there.
It’s not a contradiction in US policies viz a viz Ukraine, I personally used to call it hypocrisy as it’s obviously so, but if you look closely, it’s the same forces in Syria, Ukraine, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iraq, and everywhere there’s a conflict on this planet against the rest of the world, the US-led NATO ‘defensive’ alliance forces are present where they shouldn’t be, operating what they shouldn’t do, killing and maiming innocent people, displacing millions of people, destroying the infrastructure of other countries while claiming they are spreading democracy.
It’s not hypocrisy, from their point of view, when any diplomat or official or even reporter faces them with these blatant hypocritical acts, they don’t feel ashamed, on the contrary, the US officials and those of their satellite vassals like in the European Union, the UK, Gulfies, et al, feel proud their work is recognized.
Paxton begins this lecture by describing the conditions that led the Romans to withdraw their legions from Britain in 406 AD. Beginning in the second half of the 4th century, Rome faced increasing attack from “barbarian” tribes throughout the empire, including Britain. There they faced increasing smash and grab raids from ocean-going Germanic tribes (for booty and slaves).
In 367 AD, the Barbarian Conspiracy nearly ended Roman rule altogether. At a time when most Roman legions were fighting Germanic incursions in Gaul, it was easy for the Picts and Scoti (ancient name for the Irish) to launch coordinated attacks against Londinium and other southeast British strongholds. They were only repelled when Emperors Theodosium and Stilicho dispatched reinforcements.
In 406 AD, the Rhine froze, allowing barbarian troops to walk across into the Roman province of Gaul. This forced Rome to withdraw their remaining legions from Britain to defend the homeland.
The withdrawal of Roman troops was quickly followed by an incursion of Angle settlers and the gradual (over 200 years) disappearance of the Celtic language from southeastern Britain.*
Archeological evidence suggests this linguistic shift resulted from gradual assimilation and infiltration, as Saxon elites extended their power westward by seizing control of former Roman estates. By 519 AD, the Saxon province of Wessex extended to the Tamar River, cutting off Cornwall from the rest of Britain.
The written history paints a somewhat different different history, with Gildas reporting on the Battle of Badon in his 550 AD manuscript The Ruin and Conquest of Britain. Badon is the first recorded battle by Celtic forces against Anglo-Saxon encroachment. Later historical sources describe a courageous warrior named Arthur leading the Celts. Arthur (aka King Arthur) would become a Celtic hero, later adopted by Anglo Saxon Britain. It’s believed he was born in Cornwall, possibly at Tintagel Castle.
The Cornish language persisted through the Middle Ages, with the last Cornish speaker Dolly Pentreath dying in 1777. In 1549, Cornwall was the site of the Prayer Book Rebellion, in which the Cornish rebelled at having an English prayer book forced on them. British forces slaughtered more than 4,000 rebels.
The Celtic language Cumbric continued to be spoken during the early Middle Ages in Westmorland, Cumberland, north Lancashire and the independent kingdom of Elmet (Yorkshire). At the time, the “civilized” north was divided into three Brittonic kingdoms: Strathclyde, Rheged and Gododden.
The Angles conquered Gododdin and Elmet in the 7th century AD. King Urien of Rheged held out until the 8th century, when his kingdom was swallowed up by Northumbria. Strathclyde (Glasgow) survived until the 11th century, when it was conquered by the Gaelic-speaking kingdom of Alba (under an Irish/Pict coalition). The original Brittonic language was spoken in Glasgow until the 12th century, when it was replaced first by Gaelic and then by English.
The kingdom of Wales, which survived the longest, made a concerted effort to preserve all northern Brittonic historical documents and literature. The current movement to revive the Cumbric language owes its legacy to the Welsh.
*Paxton refers to a long period of trilingualism, with Latin spoken by government administrators and the church and early English and P-Celtic by the middle and lower classes.
Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.
Iran has spent years accusing the US of helping to create and nurture Daesh.* In 2018, Revolutionary Guards Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani urged Iranian diplomats to go to the UN and “slap” the West “in the face” with evidence of US collusion with the terrorist group. Soleimani was later killed in a US missile strike in Baghdad in 2020.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kanaani waded into the US presidential politics on Friday, offering praise for Democratic hopeful Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for confirming Tehran’s long-stated view that the Daesh/ISIS terror group was created by Washington.
“There was no doubt the US is the creator of #ISIS, but for those who deliberately closed their eyes to the truth, the statement of Robert F. Kennedy, the nephew of John F. Kennedy saying ‘WE created ISIS’ reaffirms the fact that the American regime is the godfather of Daesh/ISIS,” Kanaani tweeted.
The spokesman followed up the message with a Farsi-language tweet featuring a video excerpt from RFK Jr.’s speech in Boston, Massachusetts on Wednesday in which the politician pointed out how US intelligence agencies have repeatedly lied Americans into pointless foreign wars, destroyed nations and given rise to terrorism, including Daesh.
“My uncle came into office, two months later he was fighting his intelligence apparatus and his military because they wanted to invade – they wanted to do the Bay of Pigs. He was totally against it [but] he let them roll over them. And in the middle of the Bay of Pigs he realized they were lying to them and he realized that the function of the intelligence agencies had become to provide the military-industrial complex with a constant pipeline of war. And he came out during the middle of the night during the Bay of Pigs catastrophe and he said ‘I wanna take the CIA and shatter it into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds’,” RFK Jr. said.
“And George W. Bush had the same problem. George W. Bush says the worst mistake he made as president was listening to CIA director George Tenet telling him it was a ‘slam dunk’ that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. And so the neocons and the CIA got to go into Iraq and…do regime change. Now we’ve spent $8 trillion and what did we get for that $8 trillion? Nothing. Worse than nothing. Iraq is now much worse off than it was when we went in there. We killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein ever did. We may have killed a million Iraqis, nobody knows the number…We created ISIS. We drove two million refugees up into Europe, they destabilized democracy for a generation in Europe, they caused Brexit. This is the cost of the Iraq War,” the politician said.
RFK Jr. is not the first candidate for president to accuse the United States of “creating” the terrorist group. In 2016, then-Republican candidate Donald Trump repeatedly called then-President Barack Obama literally the “founder of ISIS,” and dubbed former Secretary of State “‘Crooked’ Hillary Clinton” the “cofounder.”
Iran has spent years blaming the United States for creating the regional instability which gave rise to Daesh, and has accused Washington of using its battle against the Sufi jihadist group as an excuse to justify its illegal occupation of Iraq and Syria. Some Iranian officials have gone further, accusing the US military of providing Daesh with weapons and funding and even facilitating the transportation of jihadist leaders aboard US military helicopters. Iran’s Syrian allies have made similar allegations. Pentagon officials have vociferously denied these claims.
Is There a ‘Secret US Hand’ Supporting Daesh in Afghanistan?
16 February 2018, 13:53 GMT
* Daesh, aka ISIS or ISIL, is a terrorist group outlawed in Russia and many other countries.
The mRNA vaccines were released globally in early 2021 with the slogan ‘safe and effective.’ Unusually for a new class of medicine, they were soon recommended by public health authorities for pregnant women.
By late 2021, working-age women, including those who were pregnant, were being thrown out of employment for not agreeing to be injected. Those who took the mRNA vaccines did so based on trust in health authorities – the assumption being that they would not have been approved if the evidence was not absolutely clear. The role of regulatory agencies was to protect the public and, therefore, if they were approved, the “vaccines” were safe.
Recently, a lengthy vaccine evaluation report sponsored by Pfizer and submitted to the Australian regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) dated January 2021 was released under a Freedom of Information request.
The report contains significant new information that had been suppressed by the TGA and by Pfizer itself. Much of this relates directly to the issue of safety in pregnancy, and impacts on the fertility of women of child-bearing age. The whole report is important, but four key data points stand out;
The rapid decline in antibody and T cells in monkeys following second dose,
Biodistribution studies (previously released in 2021 through an FOI request in Japan)
Data on the impact of fertility outcomes for rats.
Data on fetal abnormalities in rats.
We focus on the last three items as, for the first point, it is enough to quote the report itself “Antibodies and T cells in monkeys declined quickly over 5 weeks after the second dose of BNT162b2 (V9), raising concerns over long term immunity…”.
This point indicates that the regulators should have anticipated the rapid decline in efficacy and must have known at the outset that the initial two-dose “course” was unlikely to confer lasting immunity and would, therefore, require multiple repeat doses. This expectation of failure was recently highlighted by Dr Anthony Fauci, former director at the US NIH.
The three remaining items should be a major cause for alarm with the pharmaceutical regulatory system. The first, as revealed in 2021, involved biodistribution studies of the lipid nanoparticle carrier in rats, using a luciferase enzyme to substitute for the mRNA vaccine.
The study demonstrated that the vaccine will travel throughout the body after injection, and is found not only at the injection site, but in all organs tested, with high concentration in the ovaries, liver, adrenal glands, and spleen. Authorities who assured vaccinated people in early 2021 that the vaccine stays in the arm were, as we have known for two years, lying.
Lipid concentration per gram, recalculated as percentage of injection site.
ORGAN
48 HOURS µg lipid equiv/g
TOTAL
CONC VS INJECTION SITE
ADRENAL
18.21
164.9
11.04%
MARROW
3.77
164.9
2.29%
SITE
164.9
164.9
100.00%
LIVER
24.29
164.9
14.73%
OVARIES
12.26
164.9
7.43%
SPLEEN
23.35
164.9
14.16%
In terms of the impact on fertility and fetal abnormalities, the report includes a study of 44 rats and describes two main metrics, the pre-implantation loss rate and the number of abnormalities per fetus (also expressed per litter). In both cases the metrics were significantly higher for vaccinated rats than for unvaccinated rats.
Roughly speaking, the pre-implantation loss ratio compares the estimated number of fertilised ova and the ova implanted in the uterus. The table below is taken from the report itself and clearly shows the loss rate for vaccinated (BNT162b2) is more than double the unvaccinated control group.
In a case control study, a doubling of pregnancy loss in the intervention group would represent a serious safety signal. Rather than take this seriously, the authors of the report then compared the outcomes to historical data on other rat populations; 27 studies of 568 rats, and ignored the outcome because other populations had recorded higher overall losses; this range is shown in the right hand column as 2.6 percent to 13.8 percent. This analysis is alarming as remaining below the highest previously recorded pregnancy loss levels in populations elsewhere is not a safe outcome when the intervention is also associated with double the harm of the control group.
A similar pattern is observed for fetal malformations with higher abnormality rate in each of the 12 categories studied. Of the 11 categories where Pfizer confirmed the data is correct, there are only 2 total abnormalities in the control group, versus 28 with the mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2). In the category which Pfizer labeled as unreliable (supernumerary lumbar ribs), there were 3 abnormalities in the control group and 12 in the vaccinated group.
As with the increased pregnancy losses, Pfizer simply ignored the trend and compared the results with historical data from other rat populations. This is very significant as it is seen across every malformation category. The case control nature of the study design is again ignored, in order to apparently hide the negative outcomes demonstrated.
These data indicate that there is NO basis for saying the vaccine is safe in pregnancy. Concentration of LNPs in ovaries, a doubled pregnancy loss rate, and raised fetal abnormality rate across all measured categories indicates that designating a safe-in-pregnancy label (B1 category in Australia) was contrary to available evidence. The data implies that not only was the Government’s “safe and effective” sloganeering not accurate, it was totally misleading with respect to the safety data available.
Known unknowns and missing data:
Despite the negative nature of these outcomes, the classification of this medicine as a vaccine appears to have precluded further animal trials. Historically, new medicines, especially in classes never used in humans before, would require a very rigorous assessment. Vaccines, however, have a lower burden of proof requirement than ordinary medicines. By classifying mRNA injections as “vaccines,” this ensured regulatory approval with significantly less stringent safety requirements, as the TGA itself notes.
In fact, mRNA gene therapies function more like medicines than vaccines in that they modify the internal functioning of cells, rather than stimulating an immune response to presence of an antigen. Labelling these gene therapy products as vaccines means that, as far as we are aware, even today no genotoxicity or carcinogenicity studies have been carried out.
This report, which was only released after a FOI request, is extremely disturbing as it shows that authorities knew of major risks with mRNA Covid-19 vaccination while simultaneously assuring populations that it was safe. The fact that mainstream media has (as far as we are aware) completely ignored the newly released data should reinforce the need for caution when listening to the advice of public health messaging regarding Covid-19 vaccination.
Firstly, it is clear that regulators, drug companies and the government would have known that vaccine-induced immunity tails off very rapidly with this being observed in real world data with efficacy against infection falling to zero. Accordingly, the single point in time figures of 95 percent and 62 percent efficacy against cases quoted for Pfizer and ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca) respectively meant almost nothing since a rapid decline was to be expected.
Similarly, the concept of a two-dose “course” was inaccurate as endless boosters would likely have been required given the rapid decline in antibodies and T-cells observed in the monkeys.
Most importantly, the data does not in any way support the “safe” conclusion with respect to pregnancy; a conclusion of dangerous would be more accurate. The assurances of safety were, therefore, completely misleading given the data disclosures in the recent freedom of information release.
Regulatory authorities knew that animal studies showed major red flags regarding both pregnancy loss and fetal abnormalities, consistent with the systemic distribution of the mRNA they had been hiding from the public.
Even in March 2023, it is impossible to give these assurances, given the fact that important studies have not, to the best of our knowledge, been done.
Pfizer elected not to follow up the vast majority of pregnancies in the original human trials, despite high miscarriage rates in the minority they did follow. Given all of the problems with efficacy and safety, the administration of these products to women of childbearing age, and administration to healthy pregnant women is high-risk and not justified.
That is the 11th weekly deposit outlfow in the last 12 weeks.
On a non-seasonally-adjusted basis, deposit outflows also resumed (after two
While we note yesterday’s surprise surge in outflows from Money Market funds, suggesting inflows back to deposits, it is key to remember two things – 1) the deposit data is a week lagged to the MM flow data and 2) it’s tax time and the MM fund outflows are likely driven by coporate tax payment demands…
Large, Small, and Foreign commercial banks all saw deposit outflows (seasonally-adjusted) last week…
Large banks saw the largest outflows
Large Banks -$59.85bn
Small Banks -$8.80bn
Foreign Banks -$14.31bn
Source: Bloomberg
And on the other side of the ledger, commercial bank lending rose $13.8 billion in the period after increasing $10.2 billion in the prior week on a seasonally adjusted basis. On an unadjusted basis, loans and leases fell $9.3 billion.
However, Small Banks only lent $913mm, while large banks lent $10.5 billion…
Bear in mind however that, while loan growth for the quarter just reported has been in-line with expectations, forward guidance suggests a moderation. Banks generally pointed to weakening loan growth expectations for the balance of the year.
Finally, for those who think the crisis is over and everything is over, there’s just one more thing. Wondering why, amid all this great news, regional banks just can’t catch any kind of reasonable bid?
It’s simple – as we detailed previously (as far back as Nov) – as long as we are above the reserve constraint level for small banks, there is stability courtesy of the Fed’s massive reserve injection.
It appears Small banks are moving back towards the critical level, and the closer we get to that level, the greater the risk of bank failures and Fed panic.
Grazing animals are often blamed for harming the environment — but it’s not the animals that are causing harm, it’s how humans manage livestock and the land they live on, according to the Savory Institute.
The Savory Institute is a global network of farmers and land managers working to “facilitate the large-scale regeneration of the world’s grasslands and the livelihoods of their inhabitants, through “holistic management.”
In a new video, the institute says:
“We as humans have managed them [by] treating livestock like cogs in a machine rather than complex living beings with minds of their own. Thankfully, there’s another way for dealing with complexity called ‘holistic management.’”
Holistic management is a framework for making decisions “that honors the whole system — plants, animals, people and land — instead of maximizing one at the expense of the other,” the video explains.
“It optimizes the whole and aligns our actions with the rhythms of the living world, allowing us to make decisions that balance environmental, financial and social well-being.”
The living world is comprised of “beautifully and infinitely complex adaptive living systems” that are interconnected, so “the way we manage decisions amidst these complex living systems matters,” the institute said.
Rather than sequestering livestock on industrial factory farms and feeding them grain, or having them continuously graze on a pasture for extended periods of time without allowing plants to rest or regrow, ranchers can use “holistic planned grazing” methods — sometimes called “regenerative” or “rotational” grazing — so “animals get to the right place, at the right time, with the right behavior,” according to the institute.
Holistic planned grazing mimics the ways wild herds once grazed, they said.
Regenerative grazing isn’t a new idea. Several Indigenous tribes, including the Navajo Nation, used similar methods over 80-mile spans in a balance that involved the conservation and preservation of ecosystems, EcoWatch reported.
When animals are intentionally rotated on areas of land, plants get time to grow back so the land maintains a level of groundcover, which protects the soil from erosion and runoff from rains.
Moreover, the land doesn’t suffer from soil compaction due to the same areas being constantly trampled by livestock.
“Grasslands become more productive and resilient, creating a photosynthetic powerhouse that pulls carbon out of the atmosphere and into the soil,” the institute said.
‘It’s a lot easier to work with nature than against it’
When managing complex systems, “we must shift from ‘control’ to ‘cooperation,’” according to the Savory Institute.
Cooperating with nature can create win-win situations that benefit the entire ecosystem — and without harmful additives like pesticides and herbicides.
Fourth-generation Texas rancher Adam Isaacs told The New York Times he uses his cattle — rather than herbicides — to cut down on weeds.
“We let cattle stomp a lot of the stuff down,” he said. This adds organic matter to the soil and exposes it to oxygen, which helps grasses and other desirable plants grow, which in turn makes the pasture healthier.
“These cows are my land management tool,” Isaacs said. “It’s a lot easier to work with nature than against it.”
“The appropriate time-managed grazing systems will not kill a single plant and will increase the biodiversity of native plants, animals, insects, and microorganisms in the farm ecosystem,” according to Regeneration International, a nonprofit with 250 international partners working to accelerate the global transition to regenerative food, farming and land management.
Additionally, a researcher who reviewed 58 studies on regenerative grazing and biodiversity said the soils enriched by regenerative grazing had “increased microbial bioactivity, higher fungal:bacteria biomass, greater functional diversity, and richer microarthropods and macrofauna communities.”
Grass-fed beef higher in vitamins, antioxidants and beneficial fatty acid
Cows raised using holistic management methods and fed grass throughout their lives are healthier for people to eat, research suggests.
Most cattle in the U.S. are grain-fed, meaning they start out eating grass but then are fed “specially formulated feed based on corn or other grains.” Formulated feed contains corn and grains grown with chemical fertilizers and pesticides, growth hormones and antibiotics.
Grass-fed beef also is higher in key nutrients, including vitamins, antioxidants and a beneficial fatty acid that has been associated with improved immunity and anti-inflammation benefits.
A widely accepted theory, such as the theory of evolution, depends on a consensus being reached among the scientific community — but it must be achieved without censorship or reprisal.
In a recent interview, famed astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson was challenged on his scientific views about COVID-19. He said, “I’m only interested in consensus” — words that would have Nicholas Copernicus and Galileo Galilei rolling in their graves.
The appeal to “scientific consensus” is fraught with problems, just like “The science is settled” and “Trust the science” and other authoritarian tropes that have dominated the pandemic.
A widely accepted theory, such as the theory of evolution, depends on a consensus being reached among the scientific community, but it must be achieved without censorship or reprisal.
As Aaron Kheriaty, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, recently said:
“Science is an ongoing search for truth & such truth has little to do with consensus. Every major scientific advance involves challenges to a consensus. Those who defend scientific consensus rather than specific experimental findings are not defending science but partisanship.”
Consensus by censorship
It’s not difficult to reach a scientific consensus when you squelch dissenting voices.
Twenty-seven scientists published a letter in the Lancet condemning “conspiracy theories” that suggested the virus did not have a natural origin. Dissenting views were censored on social media and labeled “misinformation.”
Only now that the U.S. Department of Energy and the FBI say the virus was likely the result of a lab leak in Wuhan, it’s possible to have these discussions openly.
The Great Barrington Declaration is another example. Three eminent professors from Harvard, Stanford and Oxford Universities, argued against lockdowns, which they said would disproportionately harm the underprivileged.
But former NIH Director Francis Collins dismissed them as “fringe epidemiologists” asking Dr. Anthony Fauci for “a quick and devastating take down” of the declaration.
Scientific consensus has become a manufactured construct, dictated by politics and power.
The recent release of the “Twitter Files” reveals how government agencies, Big Tech, media and academia colluded in an effort to police online content, and censor dissenting voices to create a false perception of consensus.
One egregious example was Stanford University’s Virality Project which brought together elite academia, experts in artificial intelligence and social media companies to censor “true” stories of vaccine injuries under the guise of fighting disinformation.
Dr. Robert Malone, physician and pioneer of mRNA technology summed up the situation accurately when he said:
“The real problem here is the damn press and the internet giants. The press and these tech players act to manufacture and reinforce ‘consensus’ around selected and approved narratives. And then this is being weaponized to attack dissenters including highly qualified physicians.”
The pandemic has made this insidious behavior more visible, but the reality is, it has been happening for a long time — I would know — I was caught up in it.
Consensus in mainstream media
As a TV presenter on ABC’s top-ranking science program “Catalyst” for over a decade, my role was to investigate science issues and, if necessary, challenge orthodoxy.
The ABC is not funded by private industry, but by the public purse, to avoid the bias which befalls the commercial networks. Or so I thought.
Several years ago, my successful career at the ABC came to a grinding halt after defenders of “scientific consensus” criticized several documentaries I produced, which questioned various medical orthodoxies such as cholesterol-lowering drugs, nutritional guidelines and the over-prescription of medicines.
One documentary questioned the health impacts of prolonged exposure to wireless devices (such as iPads, laptops and smartphones) which emit low-frequency radiation — we did our due diligence and undertook an excruciating process of reviewing the program for legal, editorial and factual integrity.
In the program, we questioned why the Australian government’s radiation safety authority (ARPANSA) had safety standards that were out-of-date and excluded important evidence from multiple peer-reviewed papers by independent scientists.
It unleashed a firestorm of complaints from the Telco industry, the regulatory authority and ARPANSA, all of which had been preparing for the biggest wireless rollout the country had ever seen.
Industry experts emerged from the shadows, and the media obliged, uncritically reporting criticisms of the program while ignoring those defending it. No attention was paid to the industry’s influence over the science.
Critics complained that I’d given weight to a “fringe” position that was not supported by science. And by “fringe” they were referring to Devra Davis, Ph.D., MPH, professor of epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh, with a distinguished career at the National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council.
The ABC caved to the relentless pressure and suspended me from on-air duties, concluding that I’d given prominence “to views challenging the scientific consensus.”
And by “scientific consensus,” they meant the position taken by ARPANSA, the very organization I had criticized for its lax regulations.
Eventually, ABC banned the program and “restructured” the department by firing the staff. What the network believed would be a quick solution had serious and far-reaching consequences.
It would not only deter future journalists from questioning orthodoxy, but it sent a chilling message that the ABC would succumb to industry pressure and favor scientific consensus.
I think Michael Crichton — physician, producer and writer — explained it best when he gave a lecture on science, politics and consensus in 2003:
“I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.”
He continued:
“Consensus is the business of politics. … The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
An anonymous source has sent me some internal data from the health department. I am feeling as if stuck in the first few chapters of a dystopian novel. People are mysteriously falling sick and dying in large numbers.
Everyone is looking over their shoulders and wondering if they are next in line. Slowly the realisation dawns that perhaps the authorities themselves have a dark secret they are trying to hide.
Excess deaths have been running at unprecedented levels for well over a year, hospital admissions are also at record levels, and the health service is overwhelmed.
Against the evidence, the authorities and their experts stubbornly maintain that it must be due to Covid infection, rather than vaccination. They are calling for more mRNA vaccination, not less.
The leaked figures are from the Wellington Region, which contains approximately 10% of New Zealand’s population. Presuming they are accurate, the hospital admission figures verify that the health of the population is getting progressively worse:
The Number of Heart Attacks Has Doubled
The number of heart attacks has doubled, yes doubled. How bad is that? Hospitalisation for myocarditis is up by one third (33% increase). Miscarriage, stillbirths, and strokes all up by a quarter (25% increase). Acute kidney injury (AKI) up by 40%.
If this is being repeated across the nation (a reasonable assumption), in the year April 2022 to March 2023 alone, there will have been 14,600 additional hospitalisations for heart attacks, 9,700 additional cases of myocarditis, 8,200 additional cases of kidney injury, 1,600 additional miscarriages, 1,800 additional stillbirths and 10,500 additional strokes.
The Incidence of Some Cancers is Also Rising
This is the kind of data that Te Whatu Ora and the government have been withholding from the public, but it doesn’t stop there. The incidence of some cancers (which take longer to develop) is also rising:
There is Nothing Ordinary About These Figures
I want to emphasise that there is nothing ordinary about these figures. They are so far above known trends as to be entirely without any precedent. I am assured that these are official and correct, although I cannot independently confirm them.
However, they do mirror the officially published rises in New Zealand’s excess deaths, so I have confidence in their veracity. They are also at levels similar to those overseas. So I feel it is in the public interest to release them. Te Whatu Ora has these figures. Why have they not released them?
Why Are We Not Reading About These Figures in the Media?
Every attempt is being made to normalise record levels of illness and death by ignoring them. Why? And it is a big WHY.
There is no doubt now that mRNA vaccination is disrupting immune function. This is not a conspiracy theory, it is a simple matter of scientific fact.
We have been discussing this for a couple of years now in multiple articles and referencing scientific publications on the topic. To what extent this is causing the tsunami of illness is not precisely known.
This needs to be investigated, but the huge embarrassment involved in admitting fault has apparently led the government and Te Whatu Ora to withhold the figures rather than openly discuss them or even make them available to independent researchers.
Which Political Party Has the Intestinal Fortitude to Stand Up and Start Discussing This?
If you live nearby, you can hear the rescue helicopters and the ambulances making their way to Wellington Hospital day and night with increasing frequency. Now we know what is really happening. The question now is, what political party is going to have the courage to start talking about it?
The media have been publishing human interest stories about rare cancers and tragic sudden deaths affecting individuals, but they haven’t added up the tally. Now we know we are in a fight for survival. The question is which media outlet is going to have the courage to start discussing this?
Medical authorities have been swamped with a tsunami of illness, but their response has been to deregister doctors who asked questions about mRNA Covid vaccine safety and raised the alarm about health data.
Presumably, they have thought if they withheld figures, the incidence of illness would decrease, but it isn’t, is it? It is getting worse. The question now is:
When are they going to come clean and admit that biotechnology at the heart of mRNA vaccines is inherently dangerous and needs to be stopped?
Food costs are still rising, as we see the food-at-home in February 2023 were 10.2 percent higher than in February 2022, and we feel it at the grocery store every day.
Yesterday Stefan came home from the store with four full plastic bags and a gallon of milk, and spent more than $200.
It is good thing we have emergency survival food we bought almost nine years ago, because it looks like we will be using it unless we win the lottery……..then again we don’t play the lottery, so there goes that idea.
With food inflation still topping overall inflation, and for some items, like cereals, we are talking 11%-12% increase from last year at this time.
Some key points from the USDA Economic Research Service’s March 2023 forecasts, which incorporate the February 2023 Consumer Price Index and Producer Price Index numbers.
• The food-at-home (grocery store or supermarket food purchases) CPI increased 0.3 percent from January 2023 to February 2023 and was 10.2 percent higher than February 2022
• In 2023, all food prices are predicted to increase 7.5 percent, with a prediction interval of 5.5 to 9.6 percent. Food-at-home prices are predicted to increase 7.8 percent, with a prediction interval of 5.3 to 10.5 percent. Food-away-from-home prices are predicted to increase 8.3 percent, with a prediction interval of 7.2 to 9.3 percent.
• Prices increased for 13 food-at-home categories between January 2023 and February 2023. Prices increased for all categories except fresh vegetables and eggs.
• In 2023, prices are predicted to increase for other meats (4.5 percent), poultry (3.4 percent), dairy products (6.4 percent), fats and oils (15.4 percent), processed fruits and vegetables (11.4 percent), sugar and sweets (11.1 percent), cereals and bakery products (11.7 percent), nonalcoholic beverages (10.7 percent), and other foods (8.5 percent).
• Retail egg prices decreased 6.7 percent in February 2023 but remained 55.4 percent above February 2022 prices. Egg prices are predicted to increase 29.6 percent in 2023, with a prediction interval of 13.4 to 48.9 percent. This wide prediction interval reflects the volatility in retail egg prices. USDA LInk
These are not numbers the MSM push at the people, as they prefer to focus on the lower “overall” inflation, yet food and water are the two items Americans cannot live without.
According to Foreign Policy , while we averted a “collapse of the global food system” in 2022, we are “one major crop failure or natural disaster away from a food system meltdown,” right now.
RICE WILL BE AN ISSUE……
“China is the largest rice and wheat producer in the world and is currently experiencing the highest level of drought in its rice growing regions in over two decades,” according to CNBC.
Another “major price driver” for rice is India, which has put restrictions on their rice exports
The key point in that report states “The global rice market is set to log its largest shortfall in two decades in 2023.”
While this doesn’t affect Americans as severely as those in other countries, rice is still one of the staple foods for Americans living paycheck-to-paycheck, and with the increased prices due to global shortages, buying in bulk ends up being cheaper in the long run.
[…]
Rice is not something we have focused on as much as meats and vegetables in the past, but for households that can barely make ends meet, rice is a staple used often.
Again, lucky for us, we prepared in advance, back when we actually had some money in the bank, so our buckets/pails of rice will last us a while.
