The Most Revolutionary Act

Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine

The Most Revolutionary Act
Unknown's avatar

About stuartbramhall

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.

New Study Blames COVID on NIH, University of North Carolina — Finds Fauci and Baric’s Fingerprints on Pandemic Bug

Critics have long questioned why the National Institutes of Health would fund experiments by University of North Carolina of Chapel Hill professor Ralph Baric to develop a technique for hiding evidence of human tampering in laboratory-created super viruses.

Critics have long questioned why the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would fund experiments by University of North Carolina of Chapel Hill (UNC) professor Ralph Baric to develop a technique for hiding evidence of human tampering in laboratory-created super viruses.

Aided by some $220.5 million in National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) funding, Baric developed a so-called “Seamless Ligation” technique, which he boasted could perfectly conceal all evidence of human tampering in laboratory-created viruses. Baric nicknamed his invention the “no-see’m” method.

Now a new study, “Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV2,” published on the preprint server bioRxiv, shows that — apparently unbeknownst to Baric — the “seamless ligation” concealment gimmick leaves its own minute but legible signature.

Most momentously, these same researchers have discovered that damning signature in the genome of the virus that causes COVID-19.

Baric’s technique has long been controversial. “It’s the artist that doesn’t sign his name to the painting; the virologist that doesn’t put his signature into the virus to let us know whether or not it is emerging naturally or whether it is produced in a laboratory,” said Jeffrey Sachs, chair of The Lancet COVID-19 Commission, a task force that investigated the origins of COVID-19.

“All of it says, my God, there was really a big, very risky research agenda underway.”

This month, Sachs published the results of his 22-month investigation in The Lancet, including the damaging conclusion that COVID-19 was probably laboratory-generated and that the technology probably came from NIH-funded science.

Referring to Baric’s seamless ligation methodology, evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein observed:

“It’s the exact opposite of what you would do if your interest was public health. Public health scientists would be marking their enhancements with red flags — not devising ways to hide them. The only reason you would want a concealer is to advance a sinister purpose — such as illegal bioweapons development — some mischief that the scientist didn’t want traceable back to his lab.”

Baric taught his “no-see’m” method to the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s (WIV) “Bat Lady” Shi Zhengli in 2016. In return, Baric received Chinese coronaviruses collected by Shi from bats in Yunnan province. (Scientists have linked the COVID-19 genome’s pedigree to closely related bats.)

Shi and her colleagues at the Wuhan Institute subsequently demonstrated their mastery of Baric’s high-risk technique in a series of published — and highly controversial — gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan lab. It has been even more puzzling to his critics that Baric, again with NIAID funding, chose to share this dangerous technique for weaponizing pathogens with Chinese scientists who have clear links to the Chinese military.

Experts say that the implications of this new study could be far-reaching. By pointing the finger at Baric, the study raises the possibility of potentially devastating liability for the NIAID and the University of North Carolina and other parties.

Scientists, including those close to Dr. Anthony Fauci, have repeatedly pointed out that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has genomic sequences that appear inconsistent with natural evolution: The COVID-19 virus is no longer infectious in bats, and its spiked protein feature — which is unknown in this family of coronavirus — includes numerous mutations that make it ideally infectious in humans.

The closest known coronavirus relative — a coronavirus from the Wuhan lab — is 96.2% identical to SARS-CoV-2. The peculiar spike accounts almost completely for the entire 3.8% difference. Oddly, there are multiple novel mutations in the spike and almost none in the rest of the genome.

Natural evolution would be expected to leave mutations distributed evenly across the genome. The fact that virtually all the mutations occur on the spike led these scientists to suspect that that particular Wuhan lab coronavirus collected by Shi Zhengli is the direct progenitor of SARS-CoV-2 and that its new spike was implanted through engineering.

However, the unmistakable fingerprints of lab engineering were absent — leaving many experts wondering whether Baric’s technique was used to assemble a novel coronavirus with the engineered spike while removing the evidence of lab generation.

This new study connects the biological breadcrumbs that link federally funded research to a global pandemic. That trail leads directly to UNC and NIAID.

The authors of the study — a team of researchers from Duke University, University Clinics of Würzburg and an industry group — identified a characteristic signature in the amino acid code. That indelible artifact could only have emerged from Baric’s “no-see’m” methodology.

In an interview last spring, Baric himself confessed, that at the time the pandemic began, only two or three labs in the world were using his protocol – including his UNC lab and the WIV.

The study’s authors’ conclusions rest on the presence of unique sites in the COVID-19 virus. These sites allow special enzymes called “restriction enzymes” to cut the DNA into building blocks of unique size that then can be “stitched together in the correct order of the viral genome,” according to the study’s authors.

Essentially, Baric’s technique leaves behind unique spellings in the “genetic vocabulary.” The new words include “odd spelling choices” subtly distinguishing them from typical viral vocabulary.

The magic of Baric’s “no-see’m” technique is to invisibly weave these telltale “spelling” changes into the viral sequence between relevant genes without altering the viral protein. This is like changing the “spelling” of the word without changing its meaning; the casual listener will never notice the difference.

The research team used forensic tools to drill down on minute “spelling differences” in the SARS-CoV2 genome that betray laboratory tampering using the “no-see’m” technique.

Consider how a Brit would spell “colour,” “manoeuvre” or “paediatric.” The choice to spell a word in a certain way can reveal your nation of origin. Similarly, these nearly imperceptible changes in the viral sequence give away the laboratory origins of this virus.

In sharing his seamless ligation technique with Shi Zhengli, Baric assured that the WIV possessed all the required elements of the assembly process. EcoHealth Alliance’s infamous DEFUSE proposal describes the same techniques in detail. (submitted to The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, in 2018).

The world now has proof positive that SARS-CoV2 is an engineered laboratory creation generated with technology developed by Ralph Baric with U.S. government funding.

Prosecutors and private attorneys representing clients injured by the COVID-19 pandemic now have a smoking gun. The gun points at humanity. Forensic scientists have now successfully lifted faint but precise fingerprints from the lethal pistol’s grip and trigger. Those fingerprints belong to the NIAID and the University of North Carolina.

Baric is Fauci’s favorite gain-of-function scientist. The cascade of NIAID funding to Baric and his UNC lab has financed 152 studies approaching a quarter-billion dollars.

Those federal grants have made Baric the global kingpin of gain-of-function science. In conformance with standard practice, it is probable that UNC pockets one-quarter to one-half of NIH’s financial felicities to Baric for “administrative costs.”

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-pandemic-nih-unc-fauci-baric/

 

GOP Governors Promise Not To Mandate Covid-19 Vaccine For Children

Posted BY: Steve Watson

NWO Report

After CDC unanimously votes to add shots to the recommended vaccine schedule.

Tennessee Governor Bill Lee said he will ignore the CDC in favor of “personal freedom”:

Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt followed suit:

Alabama Governor Kay Ivey vowed to never mandate COVID shots:

As we highlighted yesterday, Senator Rand Paul called the CDC’s decision “appalling,” urging that there is no scientific evidence that the vaccines have any advantages for children at all.

GOP Will Likely Oppose More Ukraine Aid If Republicans Win House Back

Zero Hedge

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) has indicated that if Republicans retake control of the House in next month’s midterm elections, the GOP will likely oppose sending more aid to Ukraine in its war with Russia, the Washington Post reports.

The US has authorized upward of $60 billion in aid to Ukraine, along with over $18.2 billion in security assistance given since January 2021. In May, the Senate voted to finalize over $40 billion in new military and humanitarian assistance – a package which many Republican lawmakers voted against. On Friday, an additional $725 million in security assistance was announced – including more ammunition for HIMARS rockets, precision-guided artillery rounds, antitank weapons and Humvees, according to the Pentagon.

“There’s the things [the Biden administration] is not doing domestically,” McCarthy told Punchbowl News. “Not doing the border, and people begin to weigh that. Ukraine is important, but at the same time, it can’t be the only thing they do, and it can’t be a blank check.”

McCarthys comments come days after the latest NYT/Siena college poll reveals that just 2% of likely voters think the war in Ukraine is the most important issue facing the country, while 44% think the economy and inflation are the two two issues. Of the 2% that said Ukraine, 3% voted for Biden in 2020 and 1% voted Trump.

Pushback

Notwithstanding GOP war hawks like Mitch McConnell (R-KY), McCarthy isn’t the only Republican who’s publicly opposed more Ukraine aid.

“I do think that we have to get to a point, and this is where we do disagree, we’ve got to stop the money spigot to Ukraine eventually,” said J.D. Vance, the venture capitalist and author who’s in a close race for a US Senate seat in Ohio, adding that he wants “the Ukrainians to be successful,” but not through more US funding.

“We cannot fund a long-term military conflict that I think ultimately has diminishing returns for our own country,” he told ABC, adding “I think we’re at the point where we’ve given enough money in Ukraine, I really do. … The Europeans need to step up. And frankly, if the Ukrainians and the Europeans, more importantly, knew that America wasn’t going to foot the bill, they might actually step up.”

Meanwhile, Arizona Republican Senate nominee Blake Masters said in May that the money would be better spent securing the southern border with a wall.

“Under Joe Biden, it’s always America last,” he said in a video. “Let’s be clear about what this means. It means no cease-fire. It means another foreign war where we pay for everything. Many more thousands of people will die. There’s no resolution, no end in sight. The risk of course is that a proxy war can escalate into an all-out nuclear war between nuclear powers.”

In New Hampshire, Republican Senate candidate Don Bolduc said last week that more spending is not the answer to improving conditions in Ukraine.

“We must hold the administration accountable,” he told New Hampshire’s ABC affiliate. “We just can’t print this money. It’s money we don’t have, and it’s equipment that’s being thrown at a problem without any strategy, without any policy, and it’s not going to get the job done.”

These Republicans could join Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who in May temporarily held up $40 billion of aid to Ukraine, saying, “you can’t save Ukraine by dooming the U.S. economy.”

Nevada Republican Senate nominee Adam Laxalt tweeted in May that the $40 billion U.S. aid to Ukraine was a “shockingly abhorrent proposal.” -WaPo

Via https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/gop-will-likely-oppose-more-ukraine-aid-if-republicans-win-house-back-mccarthy

Feds Sued for Withholding Records on JFK Assassination

Courthouse News Service

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — San Francisco Bay Area researchers sued President Joe Biden and the National Archives on Wednesday over the postponement of the release of records on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963.

Two members of the Mary Ferrell Foundation claim in their federal lawsuit that the Biden administration has postponed releasing certain records on Kennedy’s assassination without doing a review of the records or maintaining an accurate index of the redacted content. They say the National Archives and Records Administration violated the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 by preventing them from being fully informed on the history of the assassination.

The foundation, based in Massachusetts, maintains the largest searchable electronic collection of materials on the JFK assassination. Plaintiffs Josiah Thompson, a private investigator and author of books and articles on the JFK assassination, and author Gary Aguilar claim the government’s obstruction has interfered with the foundation’s core mission to educate the public.

According to the plaintiffs, Biden’s postponement of the records release deprives them from their legal right to information on the assassination. They also say the president and National Archives make it impossible to determine the number and identity of redacted and withheld assassination records in the JFK Collection — or records that may be in other government offices.

As a result of pressure to end what was then three decades of government secrecy about Kennedy’s death, Congress unanimously enacted the JFK Records Act in 1992, signed into law by then-President George H.W. Bush on Oct. 26, 1992. Congress declared that the “legislation is necessary to create an enforceable, independent, and accountable process for the public disclosure of such [assassination] records.”

Just before the October 2017 statutory deadline to put out the remaining secret assassination records, then-President Donald Trump issued a memorandum instructing National Archives to temporarily postpone the public disclosure of some unidentified records for six months. He later ordered National Archives to postpone the release for another three and a half years beyond the statutory deadline.

In October 2021, Biden issued an executive memorandum ordering the continued postponement of release of an unknown number of unidentified records — without, according to the plaintiffs, conducting a record-by-record review. They claim in doing so, the president breached his duties by not giving reasons with evidence for postponement, or stating how withholding the records outweighs the public interest in having the records.

The plaintiffs also say National Archives acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” and violated the Administrative Procedures Act by implementing Biden’s orders, and failed to perform assigned duties under the JFK Records Act such as maintaining an accurate guidebook and index to the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection. They also claim National Archives failed to follow up with government offices on outstanding record searches requested in 1998.

The plaintiffs want a judge to declare that Biden’s postponement violates the JFK Records Act and to order the president and National Archives to explain their continued postponement for each withheld record with clear evidence of “identifiable harm posed by the potential disclosure” and how it outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

“If the court finds that the proposed grounds for postponement do not meet the statutory criteria. the court should order the release of such assassination records to the American people,” the plaintiffs say in their complaint.

The plaintiffs also want National Archives ordered to complete a search for other records without identification in the department’s directory, remove all unjustified redactions in the central directory and find missing records identified in the complaint. They also want the agency to verify that there are no additional records withheld in full, and to establish a procedure to ensure the public release of all records “at the earliest possible date.”

[…]

Via https://www.courthousenews.com/feds-sued-for-withholding-records-on-jfk-assassination/

 

6 Reasons You Might Be at Higher Risk of Injury From a COVID Vaccine

risk covid vaccine injury feature

By Marina Zhang

Epoch Times

Why do some people report adverse events after COVID-19 vaccinations while some do not?

This question is central to the controversy of COVID-19 vaccine adverse events.

Doctors have identified several factors that contribute to an increased risk of spike protein-induced disease, specifically, post COVID-19 vaccine injury.

Dr. Paul Marik, Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) co-founder, said at an FLCCC conference on Oct. 15 that long COVID and injury from the COVID-19 vaccines share many overlaps in their symptoms and mechanisms.

Both diseases are systemic, affecting multiple organs and tissues, and are both driven by a high load of spike protein accumulated in these organs and tissues.

These spike proteins trigger inflammation, mitochondrial dysfunction and autoimmunity.

However, not everyone will experience these symptoms.

[…]

Spike protein exposure increases risk, severity

[…]

There is a dose response with the vaccine, such that the greater the number of vaccine doses, the higher the risk of spike protein injury.

“The more the patients are exposed to spike [proteins], the more severe the disease,” said Marik.

Both long COVID and injury from COVID-19 vaccines are driven by prolonged exposure to spike proteins through infection and vaccination respectively, he explained.

Dr. Flavio Cadegianni hypothesized that receiving COVID-19 vaccines after having had COVID-19 increases one’s risk of spike protein injury.

This is because vaccines likely trigger a higher amount of spike protein load in the bloodstream than a common COVID-19 infection.

[…]

Spike proteins from vaccination have been observed to be present even at nine months following vaccination, so subsequent shots and boosters could lead to more spike protein production, increased inflammatory complexes formation and higher risk of symptom onset.

[…]

Varied loads in vaccines

Not all vaccine vials are made the same.

How Bad is My Batch is a website that compiles data on adverse events from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) on COVID-19 vaccination.

By separating each adverse event into its corresponding vaccine batch, the website has shown that some vials were made different from others, as they are associated with a greater number of adverse events, deaths and disabilities.

This could be due to impurities in the vaccines.

Leaked emails from staff in the European Medicines Agency showed that the agency only asked for 50% mRNA integrity in their Pfizer vaccinations.

However, potential issues could also be due to the dosage; some vials may have a higher mRNA or DNA spike protein content than others.

Currently, doctors have no way to verify what is in the vials.

[…]

Genetic factors

“There’s a genetic predisposition,” said Marik. “If someone in the family is vaccine injured, it is very common that the brothers of that individual … [will also become] vaccine injured so there are genetic factors which we don’t understand.”

Marik has observed that certain genetic mutations may also put them at a greater risk of COVID-19 vaccine injury.

This included individuals with a methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) gene mutation and those with Ehlers-Danlos type syndromes.

Around 40% of people in the U.S. carry or are affected by the MTHFR mutation. It is an enzyme responsible for transforming folate (vitamin B9) into its active form.

[…]

Underlying chronic diseases and immune deficiencies

Metabolic diseases, especially high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes, have been associated with severe symptoms in COVID-19 infections and vaccination.

Dr. Aseem Malhotra, a renowned cardiologist, wrote in his paper that even “a single high blood glucose reading in non-diabetics admitted to hospital [for COVID-19] has been shown to be associated with worse outcomes.”

[…]

Spike proteins are also highly autoimmune, meaning that it is able to trigger the immune system to mount attacks against self-tissues.

[…]

Deficiencies in folate, cobalamin (vitamin B12) and vitamin D have been associated with an elevated risk of COVID-19 infection.

A pre-print study authored by UK researchers funded by the National Health Service found that supplementation in vitamin D and vitamin B12 relieved neurological symptoms caused by COVID-19 vaccination.

Vitamin D is anti-inflammatory and can boost immune action, while vitamin B12 is critical for neural health as it helps to produce myeline, which is a fatty coat wrapped around neurons, that helps protect neurons against scarring and improves neural messaging.

“Vaccines, including the COVID-19 vaccines, are known to cause severe and/or chronic neurological reactions in rare cases. We support screening for vitamin B12 deficiency prior to vaccination in high-risk groups,” wrote the study authors.

Folate deficiencies have also been observed in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The vitamin plays a role in the formation of DNA and RNA for cellular protein.

Age and sex

Marik said that women are generally more at risk of injury from COVID-19 vaccination.

He based this statement on the results from a survey conducted by React19, a website that provides advice on vaccine injuries and early treatment.

There were 508 patients suffering from post-vaccination injury evaluated in October 2021 as part of the questionnaire.

The survey found that 81% of people reporting vaccine injury were females. Between the two sexes, patients aged between 30 to 50 were the most prevalent.

react 19 covid vaccine survey results
Results from REACT19 survey on vaccine injured people, survey conducted on Oct. 5, 2021. Credit: React19

Data from VAERS also showed that women constituted around 65% of the adverse event reports; 41% of these reports came from women aged 18 to 49 at the time of the report

Women in the 50 to 59 age bracket and the 65 to 79 age bracket also constituted a large fraction of the adverse event reports, taking up almost 35% of all reports in females.

Spike proteins trigger inflammation through many pathways.

One pathway is through binding to ACE2 receptors on cell surfaces. This receptor is important for reducing inflammation, and a reduction of ACE2 through spike protein interaction thus increases inflammation.

Though ACE2 receptors are found across many organs, studies show that it is particularly abundant in the ovaries and the eggs.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-vaccine-injury-risk-et/

 

Australia Govt Website Pays Funeral Expenses for Patients Killed by Covid Vax

Deceased COVID-19 vaccine recipient payments and funeral costs

In cases involving death you may be eligible for payment and support for funeral costs. We’ll make this payment to the deceased’s estate.

What proof you need

Before you can claim, you need to get your doctor to complete a COVID-19 vaccine claims scheme medical report. You need this as proof when you submit the claim. We need your doctor’s responses to help us assess your claim.

You need to provide the following documents with your claim:

  • the deceased’s death certificate or medical cause of death certificate
  • proof that you’re acting on behalf of the deceased
  • proof of any funeral costs and who paid, like receipts
  • proof of any amounts you got or will get from third parties, like funeral insurance
  • proof of the deceased’s partner and children dependent on the earnings of the deceased at the time of death, if applicable.

How to calculate payments and funeral costs

You need to show your actual costs for the funeral. Remember to deduct any amounts you got or will get from third parties.

If your claim involves death, find out what you can claim in the COVID-19 vaccine claims scheme policy on the Department of Health and Aged Care website.

Next:
How to claim

Complete these steps to make a claim under the COVID-19 vaccine claims scheme.

Via https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/deceased-covid-19-vaccine-recipient-payments-and-funeral-costs-you-can-claim-through-covid-19?context=55953#a1

Antidepressants Rarely Outperform Sugar Pills

By Dr Mercola

Story at a Glance

  • The serotonin hypothesis posits that low serotonin levels in your brain are responsible for symptoms of depression. However, there’s little to no evidence for this. A number of studies have debunked the serotonin hypothesis, which is the basis upon which drug makers market SSRI antidepressants like Prozac, Lexapro and Zoloft
  • According to recent research, “The main areas of serotonin research provide no consistent evidence of there being an association between serotonin and depression, and no support for the hypothesis that depression is caused by lowered serotonin activity or concentrations”
  • The primary effect of SSRIs is to superimpose an abnormal drug state over your symptoms, much like recreational drugs and alcohol would. The small benefits seen in some drug trials are due to emotional numbing
  • This numbing effect comes at a steep price, as it also prevents you from experiencing emotional highs and does little to counteract the loss of energy, interest and motivation that are so characteristic of depression
  • Researchers at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently published the most comprehensive analysis of antidepressant clinical trial data submitted to the FDA, including unpublished trials. The evidence showed antidepressants outperformed placebo in only 15% of patients, and almost exclusively in those with the most severe depression

As of 2018, 13.2% — approximately 1 in 8 — of American adults over the age of 18 were on antidepressant medication, with more than twice as many women taking them (17.7%) than men (8.4%).1 Curiously, though, only 7.2% had actually been diagnosed with a major depressive episode — a statistical discrepancy that hints at massive antidepressant overprescribing.

[…]

While those statistics are already staggering, depression rates have further risen since then, thanks to COVID lockdowns and the unprecedented fearmongering that has been a hallmark of this pandemic. As reported in “What Does the Best Evidence Say About Antidepressants?” 22.4% of American adults reported symptoms of depression in June 2022, compared to 7.1% in 2017.

No Evidence to Back Serotonin Hypothesis

The fact that antidepressants are still being used to this extent is a testament to how effectively the drug industry manipulates doctors and patients alike with less than truthful propaganda, as independent studies have repeatedly shown these drugs work no better than placebo.

As Irving Kirsch — associate director of the Program in Placebo Studies and the Therapeutic Encounter at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School and a long-time critic of antidepressants — told Newsweek:3

“People do get better on the drug — but in the vast majority of cases it’s not because of what’s in the drug. There are other treatments that are at least equally effective, and that don’t carry the risks.”

Indeed, a number of studies have solidly debunked the serotonin hypothesis, which is the basis upon which drug makers market SSRI antidepressants like Prozac, Lexapro and Zoloft.

In short, the idea is that low serotonin levels in your brain is responsible for symptoms of depression. The problem is, there’s little to no evidence for this.

[…]

Negative Emotions Are Part of the Human Condition

As explained by Moncrieff, the primary effect of SSRI’s is to “superimpose an abnormal drug state” over your symptoms, much like recreational drugs and alcohol would. She also stresses that the small benefits seen in some drug trials are due to emotional numbing.

This numbing effect comes at a steep price, however, as it also prevents you from experiencing emotional highs, and does little to counteract the loss of energy, interest and motivation that are so characteristic of depression. Moncrieff continues:7

[…]

The question is how to treat it. While many psychiatrists believe stress can cause changes in the brain that can be reversed by antidepressants, others, like Moncrieff, Horowitz and Kirsch, believe psychotherapy that centers on strengthening coping skills and emotional resiliency is a far better — and safer — option.

Most Comprehensive Analysis to Date

In 2022, another team, which included researchers at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, also came out with the most comprehensive analysis of antidepressant clinical trial data ever published.

This paper,8 published in The BMJ, included all antidepressant clinical trial data submitted to the FDA between 1979 and 2016, including unpublished trials. In all, 232 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials involving 73,388 patients diagnosed with depression were analyzed.

Here, the evidence showed antidepressants outperformed placebo in only 15% of patients, and almost exclusively in those with the most severe depression. In short, the reason many believe they’re getting a benefit from these drugs is because of the placebo effect and nothing else.

This supports previous research, which found the placebo effect accounts for anywhere between 30%9 and 67%10 of the antidepressant treatment effect, and that placebo is just as effective as antidepressants in those with mild to moderate depression.11

[…]

Antidepressants Are Not for Long-Term Use

Importantly, SSRIs, even when they do work for someone, should not be used for years on end.

[…]

Dr. Michael Thase, professor of psychiatry at UPenn’s Perelman School of Medicine, agrees. While he believes antidepressants can be helpful by interrupting the damaging release of glutamate in the brain, he also believes the drugs should not be used for more than six to nine months. Beyond that, you need to have another treatment plan in place.14

This could go a long way toward avoiding the withdrawal symptoms that afflict 56% of those trying to wean off SSRIs.15 Since 2004, the average duration patients stay on SSRIs has doubled,16 and avoiding withdrawal symptoms appears to be a huge part of this trend. Doctors and patients also often misconstrue withdrawal symptoms for a relapse of depression.

Limiting their duration of use will also minimize other risks to your health, as antidepressants come with a long list of potential side effects, including:17,18

  • Self-harm, suicide and violence against others. Many mass shooters have been on antidepressants
  • Increased risk of developing Type 2 diabetes,19 even after adjusting for risk factors such as body mass index20
  • Thickening of the greater carotid intima-media (the lining of the main arteries in your neck that feed blood to your brain),21 which could contribute to the risk of heart disease and stroke. This is true both for SSRIs and antidepressants that affect other brain chemicals. Users of tricyclic antidepressants have a 36% increased risk of heart attack22
  • An increased risk of dementia; as the dose increases, so does the risk for dementia23
  • Depletion of various nutrients. In the case of tricyclic antidepressants this includes coenzyme Q10 and vitamin B12, which are needed for proper mitochondrial function. SSRIs have been linked to iodine and folate depletion24

[…]

Via https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/10/20/antidepressants-outperform-placebo.aspx

The Real Anthony Fauci: The Film

The Real Anthony Fauci Film!!!! – Devoted To Yah

The Real Anthony Fauci

Directed by Kala Mandrake

Film Review

Yesterday I watched Part I of the new film based on Robert F Kennedy Jr’s best selling book The Real Dr Fauci. It’s which is free to view for the next eight days.

I found it riveting. It provides a stunning showcase for  the courageous high profile doctors and researchers who have spent 2 1/2 years of their life collecting and publicizing the sizeable scientific evidence negating the official Covid 19 narrative.

I found Mandrake’s collage of athletes collapsing (and dying) on the field one after another especially compelling.

I was also impressed by the film’s ability to weave together the numerous strands of the complex psyops that’s been imposed on us – starting with scenes from the planning exercise Event 201 from October 2019.*

Highlights that stood out for me were

  • The proven (via multiple studies) ineffectiveness of N95** and other face masks in filtering respiratory viruses.
  • The pronouncement (by prominent mRNA researcher Dr Robert Malone MD) that suppression of effective early Covid19 treatment (ie Ivermectin and Hydroychloroquine) was a crime, causing the unnecessary death of tens of thousands of Americans.
  • Compelling evidence that Fauci and fellow public health officials used burner phones to conceal their involvement om gain-of-function bat virus research in Wuhan China.
  • Fauci’s role in suppressing growing evidence that HIV is not the main causative agent of AIDS, including his campaign to re-diagnose more than 5,000 US AIDS patients who tested HIV negative.
  • Fauci’s role in foisting the toxic AZT (for which he engineered FDA approval after four months of limited safety trials) on healthy AIDS patients (and killing them) pasymptomatic approved after four months of limited human trials) as well as his role in outlawing effective non-pharmocological treatments for AIDS.***
  • Fauci’s role in establsihing and funding gain of function “safety labs.”
  • Fauci’s role in tampering with SARS and MERS studies to sell worthless SARS and MERS vaccines to numerous governments.
  • Fauci’s long term relationship with so-called philanthropist Bill Gates, who earns a 20 to 1 return on his $10 million investment in vaccines.

I can’t wait until Part II gets released.


*The media clips from this exercise look and sound identical to real life soundbites that bombarded us from February 2020 on.

**Originally developed to filter dust particles, N95 masks are so named because they filter 95% of dust particles. The latter are 1,000 times larger than respiratory viruses.

***Including IV Vitamin C, ozone therapy and hyopthermia.

 

Film can be viewed free the next 9 days at https://www.therealanthonyfaucimovie.com/trailer

 

What Western Empire?

By Dmitry Orlov

Some observant people are beginning to suspect that not everything is going perfectly well with the mighty Western Empire headquartered in Washington, DC. Some of the more excitable of these observers are quick to claim that what they are witnessing are early stages of collapse. But these voices are few and far between, while the rest of the observant observers still feel compelled to follow this bit of mental discipline:

  1. The mighty Western Empire is mighty. This is a tautology and therefore self-evident, brooks no argument and requires no further proof.
  2. Dominating the whole world requires an absolutely astounding level of intelligence. That’s because the world is big and complicated.
  3. f the mighty Western Empire appears to do something stunningly stupid, then that’s because we ourselves are too stupid to understand the subtlety of its intelligence that’s masquerading itself as rank stupidity; see point 2 above as to why.
  4. If the mighty Western Empire appears to engage in what seems like a never-ending sequence of spectacularly dumb and self-destructive moves, then that iteratively reduces to a repeated application of point 3 above.

But then there is the radical, extremist viewpoint: that the mighty Western Empire has already collapsed and continues to exist merely by physical and mental inertia while its leaders try to keep up appearances and postpone the inevitable in order to more thoroughly feather their individual nests. These conspiratorially-minded extremists have the gall to imagine that there is no astoundingly brilliant and subtle strategic master plan beyond individual players’ efforts to keep getting while the getting is good—or something equally radical and extremist along these general lines.

What is Pax Americana, defined in a single sentence? Pax Americana is a globalist parasitic regime that attempts to extract wealth from the rest of the world through the imposition of a transnational financial oligarchy backed by a system of worldwide military bases and an expeditionary force that exacts obedience through financial oppression and military violence. Its parasitism rests on two pillars: a monopoly on printing money and the ever-looming threat of horrible military violence.

The US dollar monopoly (of which the rapidly declining Euro is a mere concession) was at first (right after World War II) backed not just by military might but by a large industrial base, huge fossil fuel reserves and more than sufficient gold. Over the intervening decades the industrial might has been whittled away and what now remains is a raw materials-based and agrarian economy with an overgrown services sector, all of it operating at a large and constant loss and accumulating debt at an ever-increasing pace.

Oil production peaked around 1970, a run on the dollar followed and its gold backing had to be removed at around the same time. All that remained was a system of global banking backed by the threat of unspeakable military violence. This has worked well enough: the Washingtonians would figure out how to profit from foreign resources and labor and make their demands known. If these demands were not met, there followed economic and political sanctions. And if the sanctions didn’t work, then it was time to do some bombing and some genociding. Civilian casualties, a.k.a. collateral damage, were not even counted. What’s half a million Iraqis here, half a million Libyans there, a few hundred thousand Syrians, an unknown number of Afghanis?… but it all added up to quite an appalling act of genocide spanning many decades.

But the era when the Washingtonians could threaten the whole world to compel obedience from it has come to an end. Its unsinkable aircraft carrier fleet is now very much sinkable using an entire array of modern weaponry that can be launched from a stand-off distance that is greater than the reach of an aircraft carrier’s on-board aircraft. This makes the US aircraft carrier fleet, once the pride of the US Navy that cost more than the entire defense budget of most countries, almost completely useless: still used for political posturing and showing the flag, but forced to scud off if there is a threat of military action nearby. The other pride and joy of the US military—its air defense systems—have been rendered useless by the newer and more advanced hypersonic missiles, while the new air defense systems that Russia has developed and sold around the world can knock down pretty much anything that the US has.

And then there are the heroic North Korean rocket men. In September of 2022, DPRK has pronounced itself a nuclear power. Its nuclear doctrine is as follows: KNDR will use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack, an attack with analogous weapons of mass destruction, and also when threatened (!) with such an attack. Reactions around the world ranged from quiet amazement (a reasonable reaction) to turning away while scoffing. Note to the Pentagon chiefs: do not threaten North Korea or they will nuke Guam, Kadena (Okinawa), and perhaps even California. And then what would they do. The surprising answer is: not much, really!

Could the North Koreans pull this off? Most likely, yes. After announcing its new status as a nuclear power, DPRK conducted five launches of various rockets, including a ballistic rocket that flew over Japan and came down somewhere in the Pacific. According to Japan’s military sources, who were watching nervously, the missile flew 4.500km with a maximum altitude of 970km. The reentry speed was… wait for it… Mach 17! That’s hypersound—much too fast for any air and space defense system to intercept. The altitude is impressive too. Satellite generally orbit between 160 and 2.000km. The ISS hangs out at 420km. Comrade Un’s rocket touched the sky at 1000km. Not too shabby, eh?

But Western mass media would prefer not to discuss such details. Instead, they prefer to recycle tired old fakes, such as the one about Putin handing out viagra to his troops, for them to better rape Ukrainian virgins (Whoa! Where did that come from?) previously used against Qaddafy in Libya.

Instead of paying attention to such nonsense, let us tackle this question head-on: Could DPRK carry out a nuclear attack against the United States and survive? In response, most people scoff: “That would be suicide! The North Koreans have something like a dozen nuclear bombs. Even if their rockets do work as advertised, the US, with its huge nuclear arsenal, would wipe them off the face of the earth…”

Not so fast! In the game of geopolitics, the DPRK holds an ace of trumps: geography itself. The Korean peninsula is relatively tiny and is parked right between China and Russia, which are two of the mightiest nuclear powers. Zoom out a bit, and DPRK is just a marker on the Russia-China border. This makes a nuclear strike on North Korea very difficult to distinguish from a nuclear strike on China and/or Russia. And that would be, to put it extra-mildly, a dangerous thing for Americans to do.

Russia and China have integrated their early warning systems, and to them a US launch against North Korea would look very much like a launch against Northern China and/or Russian Far East. To be on the safe side, both Russia and China would respond by executing a launch-on-warning retaliatory strike against the US. This is why North Korea can launch rockets that fly over Japan and over US military bases. Air defense systems are activated and sirens sound, but nothing happens, because the US doesn’t have anything that can shoot these rockets down.

[…]

Via https://boosty.to/cluborlov/posts/caee778c-7cee-4dbb-a6b1-593ec56f8c4c

Scientists Call for Moratorium on 5G After Study Shows Regulators Ignoring Health Risks of Radiation

By  Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.

The authors of a peer-reviewed study published Tuesday warned about the risks of exposure to radiation from 5G technology and said their research shows existing exposure limits for wireless radiation are inadequate, outdated and harmful to human health and wildlife.

The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) conducted the study, which was published in Environmental Health.

The ICBE-EMF called for an independent assessment of the dangers and impacts of wireless radiation, a campaign to inform the public of the health risks associated with radiation and “an immediate moratorium on further rollout of 5G wireless technologies until safety is demonstrated and not simply assumed.”

In an ICBE-EMF press release, Dr. Lennart Hardell, an oncologist, author of more than 100 papers on non-ionizing radiation and lead author of the study, said:

“Multiple robust human studies of cell phone radiation have found increased risks for brain tumors, and these are supported by clear evidence of carcinogenicity of the same cell types found in animal studies.”

In interviews with The Defender, Hardell and Joel M. Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley School of Public Health, discussed the study’s findings, the ICBE-EMF’s new initiative to raise awareness of the risks of 5G and explained who is most susceptible to the potentially harmful effects of wireless radiation.

According to Moskowitz, exposure to cellphones and other wireless devices should be limited, especially for pregnant women and children.

Hardell and Moskowitz — both of whom are associated with ICBE-EMF and its study — also blamed regulatory agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) for ignoring the risks — despite hundreds of studies indicating the dangers of exposure to wireless radiation — and called for legal action and increased public pressure.

Study: wireless radiation exposure limits ‘harmful,’ ‘based on false suppositions’

[…]

According to the new ICBE-EMF study, the radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits established in the 1990s by the FCC and the ICNIRP “were based on results from behavioral studies conducted in the 1980s involving 40-60 minute exposures in 5 monkeys and 8 rats” — after which “arbitrary safety factors” were applied “to an apparent threshold specific absorption rate (SAR)” of 4 watts per kilogram.

According to a fact sheet accompanying the study’s release, this means that “no adverse health effects from RFR exposure” were claimed to exist “below the … SAR of 4 watts per kilogram for frequencies ranging from 100 kHz to 6 GHz.”

The paper argues these radiation exposure limits were based “on two major assumptions” — that any biological effects of exposure to wireless radiation “were due to excessive tissue heating and no effects would occur below the putative threshold SAR,” and “twelve assumptions that were not specified by either the FCC or ICNIRP.”

The limits set by the FCC and ICNIRP also ignore “the past 25 years of extensive research on RFR” which, according to the study, “demonstrates that the assumptions underlying the FCC’s and ICNIRP’s exposure limits are invalid and continue to present a public health harm,” and “are based on false suppositions.”

These harms, which have been observed even “below the assumed threshold SAR,” include “non-thermal induction of reactive oxygen species, DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, sperm damage, and neurological effects, including electromagnetic hypersensitivity,” plus “increased brain and thyroid cancer risk.”

Despite these documented risks, the study explains that in 2020, the FCC and ICNIRP “reaffirmed the same limits that were established in the 1990s” — limits that “do not adequately protect workers, children, hypersensitive individuals, and the general population from short-term or long-term RFR exposures.”

According to the ICBE-EMF press release, the FCC and ICNIRP “have ignored or inappropriately dismissed hundreds of scientific studies documenting adverse health effects at exposures below the threshold dose claimed by these agencies,” which is “based on science from the 1980s — before cell phones were ubiquitous.”

Scientists speak out on wireless exposure risks

[…]

“The proximity of small cell antennas near where people live and work could pose health problems in addition to wireless radiation exposure from 5G cellphones.”

Hardell said that with 5G technology, “the pulses can be extremely high and also be additive from different [wireless] sources,” adding that “risks are not studied, especially not long-term.”per second) with short lags (or latencies) between transmissions.

[…]

Moskowitz said there’s been no real research on the biologic or health effects of 5G, noting that out of 35,000 publications on electromagnetic fields found on the EMF Portal as of Aug. 1, 2022, only 408 pertained to 5G, and only seven were medical or biological studies.

However, even these seven studies are inadequate, Moskowitz wrote:

“A closer look, however, reveals that although these studies employed carrier frequencies used in 5G, none of these studies modulated or pulsed the signal as required by 5G or used other features of 5G technology (e.g., beamforming, massive MIMO, and phased arrays) that are likely to affect the nature and extent of biological or health effects from exposure to this radiation.”

[…]

Regulators bear ‘full responsibility’ for harmful health effects caused by exposure to wireless radiation

[…]

“For more than two decades, FDA officials have ignored the lack of consensus in the scientific community regarding the safety of RFR,” Moskowitz wrote in 2020. “The majority of scientists who study RFR effects now believe that current RFR national and international safety standards are inadequate to protect our health.”

[…]

“Since 2002, multiple robust epidemiologic studies of cell phone radiation have found increased risks for brain tumors, which are supported by evidence of carcinogenicity of the same cell types (glial cells and Schwann cells) from animal studies.”

[…]

Scientists call for moratorium on 5G deployment

Scientists associated with the newly released paper and the ICBE-EMF called for the deployment of 5G networks to be paused until its potential harms to humans and nature are more thoroughly studied.

Hardell told The Defender that “there should be a moratorium on 5G until studied,” describing this situation as “a sad story by industry, politicians and their affiliated scientists.” “Ignorance and doubt is their product,” he said.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/5g-cell-tower-health-risks-radiation/