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.

Propagandists now try to position COVID vax “Novavax” as HERBAL medicine after public loses faith in deceptive pharmaceutical industry

Propagandists now try to position COVID vaccine “Novavax” as HERBAL medicine after realizing public has lost all faith in deceptive pharmaceutical industry

Dr Eddy Betterman

Oh, the lengths the vaccine industrial complex will go to “sell” Americans on getting injected with experimental, toxic prions for the ultimate scamdemic, the Wuhan Flu. As of late, Novavax has created a fourth Fauci-Flu jab that incorporates tree bark and moth cells, clearly trying to make the vaccine sound “natural” which is stupid, because you don’t go around INJECTING tree sap into your blood.

This is just a sinister attempt at trying to make experimental COVID vaccines sound like they are herbal medicine. What a joke. Realizing nobody trusts Bill Gates’ death jabs anymore, and since people do trust NATURAL medicine, Novovax is trying to position their new virus stab as “herbal.” One major problem. In herbal medicine, we don’t INJECT herbs into our blood. Nice try pharma goons.

4th COVID-19 “vaccine” using spike proteins already authorized in US

A Big Pharma shill at the University of Nebraska Medical Center says “diversity in vaccine production” should convince people who are terrified of mRNA and other deadly allergens in COVID jabs to get injected with some new “proteins” from moths and trees that allegedly and magically prevent you from catching China Flu, or spreading it, or getting a bad case of it, or something like that.

Don’t be fooled. The Novavax “vaccine” does use coronavirus spike proteins (SARS-CoV-2 antigens) to influence the immune system to create antibodies. There is ZERO proof this protects against future COVID-19 infection, or any of its variants, for that matter.

The scientists basically put the SARS-CoV-2 genes into an insect virus, infecting the moth cells until it begins replicating them. Then they extract the spike proteins and claim this is the “traditional” way to get the “purified” spike proteins.

There’s nothing traditional or “herbal” about it though. Again, in herbal medicine, nobody is injecting herbs and tinctures into their veins. Ready for your moth ball and tree sap injection sir/ma’am? It’s very “safe and effective” don’t you know.

Soapbark tree extract used as adjuvant to increase immune response to spike proteins

Supposedly, humans can get injected with fewer spike proteins than the typical billion that are being used now in the protein payload injections from J&J, or from the relentless spike-protein-creating, DNA-reconfiguring mRNA jabs, and still create immunity against “gain of function” syndrome, a.k.a. the Fauci Flu. Dangerous adjuvants are used in nearly all vaccines to conjure up an unnatural, fight-or-flight style immune response, and this alone can cause severe, deadly side effects and adverse events.

Injecting soapbark tree extract from the Quillaja Saponaria (a.k.a. Matrix-M) allegedly “encourages immune cells to activate” thus conjuring up a potent immune response. There’s nothing at all natural about injecting this extract, and the immune response cannot simply be calibrated or up-regulated in some scientifically-formulated fashion that’s “safe and effective,” as pharma and the CDC ALWAYS claim about all vaccines.

[…]

Via https://dreddymd.com/2022/07/29/propagandists-position-covid-vaccine-novavax-herbal-medicine/

Zogby Poll: 15% of American Adults Diagnosed With New Condition After COVID Vaccine

More than two years after Operation Warp Speed began, Children’s Health Defense commissioned John Zogby Strategies to conduct two surveys about attitudes and the overall health of American adults.

The first survey of 1,038 adults found that 67% of respondents received one or more COVID-19 vaccines, while 33% are unvaccinated. Furthermore, among those vaccinated, 6% received one dose, 28% received two doses, 21% received three doses, and 12% took four or more.

Of those receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, 15% say they’ve been diagnosed by a medical practitioner with a new condition within a matter of weeks to several months after taking the vaccine.

A follow-up question provided a list of medical conditions and asked diagnosed respondents to “select all that apply.” Among those who were medically diagnosed with a new condition within a matter of weeks to several months after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, the top five cited conditions were:

Overall, 67% reported that getting the vaccine was a good decision, 24% were neutral and 10% regret it.

Survey participants were then asked if someone they personally know had been medically diagnosed with a new medical condition within the same time frame. Overall, 26% reported yes, while 63% reported no.

In the second survey of 829 adults ages 18-49 found that 62% of respondents received a COVID-19 vaccine, while 38% are unvaccinated.

Among those receiving any COVID-19 vaccine, almost one quarter — 22% — report being medically diagnosed within a matter of weeks to several months after the shot.

The top five cited new conditions include:

  • 21% autoimmune
  • 20% blood clots
  • 19% stroke/lung clots
  • 17% liver damage/leg clots/heart attack
  • 15% disrupted menstrual cycle/Guillain-Barré/Bell’s palsy

Regarding describing the conditions, 47% report mild, 43% report serious and 10% report severe/still recovering.

Describing their experience with taking one or more COVID-19 vaccines, 58% report it was a good decision, 28% are neutral and 14% regret it.

Finally, 30% of those ages 18-49 report knowing someone else who has been medically diagnosed within a matter of weeks to several months after taking a COVID-19 vaccine.

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/american-adults-diagnosed-condition-covid-vaccine-zogby-survey/

Cincinnati federal judge blocks Air Force, Air National Guard globally from discharging religious vaccine refusers

A federal judge in Cincinnati on Wednesday halted the Biden administration for the foreseeable...A federal judge in Cincinnati on Wednesday halted the Biden administration for the foreseeable future from enforcing the COVID-19 vaccine mandate globally on any servicemembers in both the Air Force, Space Force and Air National Guard who requested religious exemptions.(Provided by Attorney Chris Wiest)

Jennifer Edwards Baker

CINCINNATI (WXIX) – A federal judge in Cincinnati on Wednesday blocked the Biden administration for the foreseeable future from enforcing the COVID-19 vaccine mandate globally on any servicemembers in the Air Force, Space Force and Air National Guard who requested religious exemptions.

U.S. District Court Judge Matthew McFarland’s preliminary injunction stops the military from discharging or disciplining servicemembers in this local lawsuit that now has an international impact on the military and class-action status as it heads toward trial.

Judge McFarland has criticized the Air Force, writing that they sweepingly rejected each exemption request and failed to carefully consider the merits of each.

“Members face the same injury: violation of their constitutional freedom by defendants’ clear policy of discrimination religious accommodation requests,” he wrote two weeks ago when he issued the temporary injunction.

Doster v. Kendall comes down to this: Do the rights of those defending our country to exercise their religious freedom and eschew the vaccine supersede the Air Force’s insistence that allowing them to do so will irreparably harm the military’s ability to do its job?

So far, the judge has sided all the way with the servicemembers and now he has included the Air National Guard in the litigation.

The government is expected to swiftly appeal this decision, as they have previous ones in this case.

FOX19 NOW has a request for comment from a spokeswoman for the Air Force. We will update this story once we hear back.

The judge’s decision impacts 200 to 300 servicemembers stationed at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, who filed the lawsuit against top military leaders back in February.

It also affects 7,000 to 9,000 service members nationally, according to the attorney for the local plaintiffs, Chris Wiest of northern Kentucky.

[…]

Via https://www.fox19.com/2022/07/28/cincinnati-federal-judge-stops-air-force-air-national-guard-globally-discharging-religious-vaccine-refusers/

UN No Longer Fit for Purpose: Should It Be Abolished or Reformed?

Timofei Bordachev

Internationalist 360°

The United Nations is a product of Western intellectual common sense, which after the Second World War created relatively fair conditions in order to maintain its centrality in international politics.

The fact that Western countries are now losing this position is for natural reasons. This inevitably affects their ability to project influence in world affairs, which was based not on formal status, but on unique capabilities of power.

The contraction of these advantages, the consequences of which we are now clearly witnessing, cannot bypass institutions created in a previous era.

This means that the fate of the UN will in any case come into question. The only issue is who decides to raise the subject and for what purpose – the West (in order to preserve its position in the emerging world) or the other great powers (in order to create institutions more in line with the reality of international politics)? A third option is also possible – a new cycle, in which there is little scope for a monopoly position of a narrow group of countries, will have no need for the traditional institutions of international governance at all.

We should not be confused by the fact that powers now as hostile as Russia or China to the Western community are members of the ruling circle of the UN system – as permanent members of the Security Council (UNSC).

“The UN’s ability to really run the world has always remained largely an illusion.”

The real reason for these two states to retain this status was the rational desire of the US and its closest allies to avoid a repeat of the situation in which powers perceived to be dangerous to global stability were excluded from formal institutions. The lesson of the destruction that emerged from Versailles after World War I by an aggrieved Germany and Japan was well learned – in both theory and practice.

All the more so because the presence of the USSR and (after the Communist Party had succeeded in asserting its authority) China at the Security Council table did not increase their competitive advantage. Where they were tactically stronger than the US, it was not because of their formal status (not to mention that when official Beijing was allowed into the body, its relations with Moscow were openly hostile, with the two then-socialist powers blocking each other.)

There is no doubt that on occasion, the permanent members of the UNSC have been able to act as an all-powerful ‘world government’, defining for the weaker members of the international community the boundaries of what is allowed.

But this institution has never dealt with questions of war and peace between its members. This mission has always remained the privilege of bilateral relations, determined by the ‘real’ rather than ‘formal’ balance of power.

This is still the case today – the only ‘institution’ in Russia-US relations is their capacity for mutual assured destruction. The Security Council can only reflect the real balance of power in the world, which is much broader and more diverse than the Moscow-Washington confrontation.

However, it is precisely this possibility that it is now lacking as a result of its composition, which pursues, not ‘global governance’, but ‘global containment’ of both Russia and China by maintaining the hegemonic position of the West.

This statement may seem paradoxical, since Russia and China have the same rights in the Security Council as the other three permanent members. This is true, but beyond the purely legal status that confers veto power on the quintet, there is the practical ability to influence world governance through the control of procedural practices (personnel assignments in the international bureaucracy, for example).

Here too, the US and its allies had an enormous advantage at the creation of the UN in 1945, and retain it to a large extent due to the inertia of the institution itself. As a result, the inclusion of Moscow and Beijing in the most important mechanism restrains their hypothetical revolutionary behavior, but does not provide them with the same degree of influence on world governance as the West.

In other words, the UNSC is becoming a very sophisticated form of deterrence which is carried out by granting two adversary countries a special status. This status narrows their scope for independent behavior and separates them from the rest of the international community. For the latter, the status is a privilege that the self-appointed ‘world elite’ has arrogated to itself and which it refuses to share. Thus, in its modern form, the UNSC is a way to maintain the monopoly of the US and Western Europe in international politics.

The world is indeed changing, and not only as a result of the dynamics of power relations between the Great Powers. While Russia’s military assertiveness and China’s economic weight remain the main battering rams against the international system led by the West, their actions are not determinants of the irreversibility of change. Otherwise, the revisionism of Moscow and Beijing would repeat the fate of revolutionary France in the early 19th century, or of Germany and Japan, which rebelled in the second quarter of the previous century against the injustice of the world order of that time. But we already see that this is not a likely prospect, precisely because the majority of developing countries are in fact on the side of the Russian-Chinese front.

Even if some of them formally condemned Russia’s actions in Ukraine during the UN General Assembly vote, their policies show that they are aware of their changing position in the international system. This conclusion is also supported by the fact that India, Brazil, Indonesia, and Vietnam have generally opted for a position of benevolent neutrality.

That said, we do not know whether the Russian leadership itself was convinced that it would be impossible to isolate Moscow. However, Russia’s military assertiveness on the Ukraine issue has helped everyone see that the status quo favored by the West is already a thing of the past.

The fundamental transformation of the global balance of power has three main sources. Firstly, economic globalization, which emerged under the shadow of Western domination, has provided many medium and large countries with new resources to meet their development challenges. Secondly, the objective reduction of the material capabilities of the West, which is no longer able to offer the rest of the world attractive sources of prosperity that are worth giving up their own interests for. Thirdly, there is a rising self-confidence of a host of relatively new actors in international politics derived from the first two factors.

[…]

Via https://libya360.wordpress.com/2022/07/28/the-un-is-no-longer-fit-for-its-purpose-should-it-be-abolished-or-reformed/

 

Eisenhower’s Death Camps: The Last Dirty Secret of World War Two


The World We Live In

Call it callousness, call it reprisal, call it a policy of hostile neglect: a million Germans taken prisoner by Eisenhower’s armies died in captivity after the surrender.

[…]

“Hungry and frightened, lying in grain fields within fifty feet of us, awaiting the appropriate time to jump up with their hands in the air”; that’s how Captain H. F. McCullough of the 2nd Anti-Tank Regiment Division described the chaos of the German surrender at the end of the Second World War.

In a day and a half, according to Field Marshall Bernard Montgomery, 500,000 Germans surrendered to his 21st Army Group in Northern Germany.  Soon after V-E Day–May 8, 1945–the British-Canadian catch totalled more than 2 million.  Virtually nothing about their treatment survives in the archives in Ottawa or London, but some skimpy evidence from the International Committee of the Red Cross, the armies concerned, and the prisoners themselves indicates that almost all continued in fair health.  In any case, most were quickly released and sent home, or else transferred to the French to help in the post-war work of reconstruction.  The French army had itself taken fewer than 300,000 prisoners.

Like the British and Canadians, the Americans suddenly faced astounding numbers of surrendering German troops: the final tally of prisoners taken by the U.S. army in Europe (excluding Italy and North Africa) was 5.25 million.  But the Americans responded very differently.

Among the early U.S captives was one Corporal Helmut Liebich, who had been working in an anti-aircraft experimental group at Peenemunde on the Baltic.  Liebich was captured by the Americans on April 17, near Gotha in Central Germany.  Forty-two years later, he recalled vividly that there were no tents in the Gotha camp, just barbed wire fences around a field soon churned to mud.  The prisoners received a small ration of food on the first day but it was then cut in half.  In order to get it, they were forced to run a gauntlet.  Hunched over, they ran between lines of American guards who hit them with sticks as they scurried towards their food.

On April 27, they were transferred to the U.S. camp at Heidesheim farther wet, where there was no food at all for days, then very little.  Exposed, starved, and thirsty, the men started to die.

Liebich saw between ten and thirty bodies a day being dragged out of his section, B, which at first held around 5,200 men. He saw one prisoner beat another to death to get his piece of bread.  One night when it rained, Liebich saw the sides of the holes in which they were sheltered, dug in soft sandy earth, collapse on men who were too weak to struggle out.  They smothered before anyone could get to them.  Liebich sat down and wept.  “I could hardly believe men could be so cruel to each other.”

Typhus broke out in Heidesheim about the beginning of May.  Five days after V-E Day, on May 13, Liebich was transferred to another U.S. POW camp, at Bingen-Rudesheim in the Rhineland near Bad Kreuznach, where he was told that the prisoners numbered somewhere between 200,000 and 400,000, all without shelter, food, water, medicine, or sufficient space.

[…]

When a little food finally did arrive, it was rotten.  In none of the four camps had Leibich seen any shelter for the prisoners.  the death rate in the U.S. Rhineland camps at this point, according to surviving data from a medical survey, was about thirty per cent per year.  A normal death rate for a civilian population in 1945 was between one and two percent.

One day in June, through hallucinations of his fever, Liebich saw “the Tommies” coming into the camp.  The British had taken over Rheinberg, and that probably saved his life.  At this point, Liebich, who is five-foot-ten, weighed 96.8 ponds.

[…]

Under the Geneva Convention, three important rights are guaranteed prisoners of war: that they will be fed and sheltered to the same standard as base or depot troops of the Capturing Power; that they can send and receive mail; and that they will be visited by delegates of the International Red Cross (ICRC) who will report in secret on their treatment to a Protecting Power.

[…]

In fact, German prisoners taken by the U.S. Army at the end of the Second World War were denied these and most other rights by a series of specific decisions and directives stemming mainly from SHAEF–Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force.  General Dwight Eisenhower was both supreme commander of SHAEF–all the Allied armies in northwest Europe–and the commanding general of the U.S. forces in the European theatre.

[…]

In March, 1945, a message to the Combined Chiefs of Staff signed and initialled by Eisenhower recommended creating a new class of prisoners–Disarmed Enemy Forces, or DEFs–who, unlike Geneva-defined prisoners of war, would not be fed by the army after the surrender of Germany.  This would be a direct breach of the Geneva Convention.

[…]

On April 26, 1945, the Combined Chiefs approved the DEF status for prisoners of war in American hands only: the British members had refused to adopt the American plan for their own prisoners.  The Combined Chiefs stipulated that the status of disarmed troops be kept secret.

By that time, Eisenhower’s quartermaster general at SHAEF, General Robert Littlejohn, had already twice reduced rations for prisoners, and a SHAEF message signed “Eisenhower” had reported to General George Marshall, the U.S. Army Chief of staff, that the prisoner pens would provide “no shelter or other comforts….”

The problem was not supplies.  There was more than enough material stockpiled in Europe to construct prison camp facilities.  Eisenhower’s special assistant, general Everett Hughes, had visited the huge supply dumps at Naples and Marseille and reported:

[…]

In addition, the International Red Cross had over 100,000 tons of food in storage in Switzerland.  When it tried to send two trainloads of this to the American sector of Germany, U.S. Army Officers turned the trains back, saying their warehouses were already overflowing with ICRC food which they had never distributed.

[…]

For three and a half days, we had no water at all.  We would drink our own urine….”

[…]

The conditions in the American camps along the Rhine in late April were observed by two colonels in the U.S. Army Medical Corps, James Mason and Charles Beasley, who described them in a paper published in 1950:

“Huddled close together for warmth, behind the barbed wire was a most awesome sight–nearly 100,000 haggard, apathetic, dirty, gaunt, blank-staring med clad in dirty field grey uniforms, and standing ankle-deep in mud….The German Divisions Commander reported that the men had not eaten for at least two days, and the provisions of water was a major problem–yet only 200 yards away was the River Rhine running bank full.”

[…]

Via https://luis46pr.wordpress.com/2022/07/28/eisenhowers-death-camps-the-last-dirty-secret-of-world-war-two/

The Decline of the Mongol Empire and the Birth of Russia

Image

A Map of Muscovy Russian Expansion from 1533-1598 Under Ivan the Terrible

Episode 31: Conversion and Assimilation

Barbarian Empires of the Steppes (2014)

Dr Kenneth Harl

Film Review

At its height the Mongol Empire consisted of four semi-independent states or hulas

  • The eastern hula, consisting of the Yuan Empire, Tibet and the Mongol homeland
  • The Chagatai Khanate on the central steppes
  • The Golden Horde controlling the western steppes and the Russian principalities
  • The Ilkhanate (Persia and Transoxiana)

The Yuan Dynasty was overthrow in a civil war in 1368. Mongol control over the other hulas began to decline even earlier (after 1254) as they converted to Islam.

Demise of the Yuan Dynasty

Concerned an entrenched bureaucratic state would undermine his power, the Yuan emperor Kublai Khan scrapped the civil service exam established by the Mandarin followers of Confucius. Appointing his own Mongol relatives to run the empire, he relocated the capitol further north to Xanadu (now Beijing) close to the steppes and the Mongol homeland. Likewise he refused to use Chinese script for official documents, adopting Tibetan script instead.

From the outset, this made him extremely unpopular with the Mandarin class. His successors were even more unpopular with the Chinese people for heavy taxes they imposed to fund military campaigns and construction initiatives. Owing to their failure to properly maintain the canal system, successive Yuan emperors were also blamed for a series of floods.

in 1351 a peasant named Chu Yuan-Chang launched an armed uprising. By 1356 he controlled south China, and in 1368 he marched his forces to Xanadu. After the Yuan emperor fled, Chu proclaimed himself the first Ming emperor. In 1403 the Ming Dynasty leveled Xanadu and rebuilt the city as Beijing. They also ordered total reconstruction (in masonry) of their border walls to ensure nomads never again ruled over China.

Ilkhanate

By 1334 the Ilkanate Empire had fragmented into multiple small kingdoms as Transoxiana was assimilated into the Chagatai hula. In 1453, with the fall of Constantinople, Ilkhan rule totally vanished as the Ottoman Sultanate (1299-1924) and the Safavid Dynasty of Iran absorbed the former Ilkhan kingdoms

Chagatai Empire

Beginning in the 14th century, the Chagatai Empire (which controlled the Tarim Basin Silk Road), split into smaller and smaller kingdoms until it was eventually absorbed by the Ottoman Empire. 

The Golden Horde

The Golden Horde continued to control the Russian principalities until the 15th century. Between 1325-49, they collaborated with Prince Ivan of Moscow, who collected tribute for them from the other Russian princes and Mongol cities on the western steppes. Also allying themselves with the Marmaluk Sultans in Egypt, the Golden Horde continued to provide them with Slavic slave via the Genoese colony of Kafia (on Black Sea) and later the Venetian colon of Tarnau (also on Black Sea).

In the 1380 Battle of Kurvo Yeti, a Russian army assembled by a coalition of princes defeated the Mongol army for the first time. However Mongol rule persisted, especially after Tamerlane came to the rescue of the Mongol khans.

Between 1453-70, the Golden Horde disintegrated into competing khanates (Muscoy, Crimea Khanate, Kazan Khanate and Astrakhan Khanate), all vassals of the Ottoman sultanate in Constantinople, which they supplied with slaves.

In 1480 Prince Ivan III (Ivan the Great) invaded the Kazan Khanate (comprised primarily of Turkish Tatars) for the first time. In 1568, Ivan IV (Ivan the Terrible) conquered both Khazan and Astrakhan and gained control of the Volga. Crimea would remain a vassal of the Ottoman Empire until the 17th century, when Cossack cavalry developed the skill and technology to defeat mounted Mongol archers.

As Russia expanded rapidly across the Eurasian tundra, taiga and steppes, they made treaties with the Chinese Manchu Empire about control of the steppes. The Russians assumed control of Transoxiana, and the Chinese the Tarim Basin, Tibet and Inner Mongolia.

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

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/video/5694984/5695053

FDA, CDC Sell Out America’s Children — Could Their Betrayal Bring Down Entire Childhood Vax Program?

By  Dr. Joseph Mercola

By authorizing COVID-19 vaccines for young children on the basis of shoddy data, public health officials proved they’re in the business of protecting pharma’s profits, not people — and once enough people realize it, the entire childhood vaccine program will be finished.

  • In late June, the United States became the first country in the world to grant Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID jabs for toddlers as young as 6 months. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued the EUA on June 17, and the very next day, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended all toddlers get the shot as soon as possible.
  • The pediatric EUA was based on extremely weak evidence — and that’s after the FDA lowered its efficacy requirements for the pediatric population, even though they have the lowest risk of COVID and therefore have the least need for the shots.
  • With this recommendation, the FDA and CDC have evaporated any last vestiges of trust they may have held onto. The reason they authorized COVID jabs for toddlers is because the drug industry needs this age group to be included under the EUA for legal indemnity purposes.
  • Once the emergency is over, the next phase of liability shielding requires that the shots receive approval from the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Once the COVID jab is on the childhood vaccination schedule, the vaccine makers are permanently shielded from liability for injuries and deaths that occur in any age group, including adults.
  • The FDA and CDC have sold out America’s children. Once enough people realize what they’ve done, they and the entire childhood vaccine program will be finished, as no one will trust any of the vaccines on the schedule. Already, only 44% of Americans believe what the CDC says.

[…]

It’s one thing to show regulatory flexibility during an emergency. But for children, COVID isn’t an emergency. The FDA bent its standards to an unusual degree and brushed aside troubling evidence that warrants more investigation.”

COVID is inconsequential for young children

Finley points out that only 209 children between the ages of 6 months and 4 years have died from COVID, per CDC data. She uses the word “from,” but the evidence suggests most children die “with” COVID and from other serious health conditions such as cancer.

That said, Finley does note that the two children in Pfizer’s pediatric trial who developed the most serious infections “also tested positive for other viruses,” so “it’s possible that many hospitalizations attributed to COVID this winter were actually instigated or exacerbated by other viruses.”

Another telling statistic is that the number of toddlers hospitalized with COVID between October 2020 and September 2021 was about half the total number of toddlers hospitalized with influenza the previous winter.

[…]

Shots don’t work well in young children

. . . while the shots initially seemed to offer robust protection for adults, the same cannot be said for children. The Moderna shot was only 51% effective against symptomatic Omicron infection in 6-month-olds to 2-year-olds, and a mere 37% effective in 2- to 5-year-olds.

[…]

“More troubling, vaccinated toddlers in Pfizer’s trial were more likely to get severely ill with COVID than those who received a placebo. Pfizer claimed most severe cases weren’t ‘clinically significant,’ whatever that means, but this was all the more reason that the FDA should have required a longer follow-up before authorizing the vaccine.

“Also worrisome: Most kids who developed multiple infections during the trial were vaccinated. This warranted more investigation since experimental vaccines for other diseases sometimes increase susceptibility to infection.

“Scientists are also discovering that triple-vaccinated adults who were previously infected with the Wuhan variant have a weaker immune response to Omicron, leaving them more susceptible to reinfection.

“This phenomenon, called ‘immunological imprinting,’ could explain why children who received three Pfizer shots were more likely to get reinfected.”

CDC and FDA are recklessly throwing caution to the wind

[…]

This ongoing “training” that the immune system undergoes during the first few years of a child’s life is what allows them to develop a well-functioning immune system over time. Immunological imprinting could throw a huge wrench in the works, making children less able to combat infections.

Young children are exceptionally “hardy” and can bounce back from most infections.

However, that’s provided something hasn’t been done that prevents their immune system from functioning normally. Of course, we also know the shots are associated with even more serious effects, including heart inflammation, neurological disorders and cancer.

[…]

CDC is breaking trust in childhood vaccination

Leslie Bienen and Tracy Beth Høeg addressed the CDC’s self-imposed self-destruction in a July 5 Tablet magazine article, in which they noted that “With its unscientific push to vaccinate all infants and toddlers against COVID, the agency will harm vaccine uptake for more significant diseases.”

The duo cites polling data showing a majority of parents are skeptical of the CDC’s recommendation to jab their young children. Only 18% of respondents said they were eager to get their babies and toddlers inoculated, while 38% said they would wait and see if there are side effects; 27% said they would “definitely not” get their child jabbed.

[…]

Indeed, one of the few silver linings of COVID is that people are starting to wake up in droves, realizing the entire childhood vaccination program has been misrepresented, just like the COVID shots are being misrepresented.

For example, I recently interviewed Dr. Robert Malone, who stated:

“I’m now completely in the same camp as Bobby Kennedy, in that I believe the entire vaccine enterprise needs to be revisited, and it’s unequivocal.

“We do not have the data to support the safety and efficacy of the current pediatric vaccine schedule, and all of the components of the pediatric vaccine schedule need to be reassessed for risk-benefit ratio. Both as individual products and as combined products.”

[…]

Why did two-thirds of toddlers drop out of Pfizer’s trial?

[…]

In “How Vaccine Trials Routinely Rig the Results,” I also discussed other red flags, such as the fact that 3,000 of the 4,526 children (aged 6 months through 4 years) enrolled in Pfizer’s pediatric COVID trial were excluded, without explanation.

Oftentimes, trial participants drop out or are excluded due to severe side effects. Here, we don’t know why two-thirds of the participants were eliminated, and according to Dr. Clare Craig, a diagnostic pathologist, a 66% dropout rate should have been sufficient to deem the trial null and void (see video below).

[…]

It’s all about securing indemnification

As explained by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., in the short video clip above, they need this last remaining age group to be included under the EUA, because once the emergency is finally declared “over,” the next phase of liability shielding requires that the shots receive approval by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fda-cdc-american-children-childhood-vaccine-program-cola/

Inventing Diagnoses to Cover Up Vaccine Injury — a Con as Old as Vaccination Itself

People injured by COVID-19 vaccines may not realize it, but the pretense that post-vaccination injuries and deaths are just “sad coincidences” — far from being unique to the pandemic jabs — is a trick as old as vaccination itself.

The shot pushers and their media enablers have taken cover-up tactics to absurd new heights by, for example, chalking up the rash of fatal heart attacks and overnight deaths in athletes and young adults to a fluky condition referred to variously as “sudden adult death syndrome” or “sudden arrhythmic death syndrome” (SADS).

What the COVID-19 vaccine-injured do not necessarily recognize, however, is the pretense that post-vaccination injuries and deaths are just “sad coincidences” — far from being unique to the pandemic jabs — is a trick as old as vaccination itself.

Facilitated by well-honed semantic and statistical flimflam, public health officials’ core strategy for perpetuating their fiction is to profess innocence — making unabashedly unsubstantiated pronouncements about vaccine safety, on the one hand, while on the other hand, declaring themselves “baffled” by ailments that emerge in the aftermath of a given vaccine’s rollout.

From 1899 to 2022 — has anything changed?

In an astonishingly frank and prescient book, “The Fallacy of Vaccination,” published in 1899, Dr. Alexander Wilder called attention to the “growing conviction” among “profounder thinkers and observers” that vaccination was not only “utterly useless as a preventive” but “actually the means of disseminating disease afresh where it is performed.”

[…]

Wilder also blew the whistle on the suppression and concealment of vaccine adverse events and deaths, describing a fellow physician’s urging of his “professional brethren to be slow to publish fatal cases of smallpox after vaccination” and outlining other shenanigans that sound all too familiar today:

[…]

“Even when death occurs as the result of vaccination, the truth is concealed and the case represented as scarlet fever, measles, erysipelas [bacterial skin infection], or some ‘masked’ disease, in order to prevent too close questioning.”

The intentionality of the suppression seemed obvious to Wilder, who added, “Further argument is met by stolid silence, and by an apparent concert of purpose to exclude carefully all discussion of the matter from medical and public journals, and to denounce all who object.”

Similar sleight-of-hand was on full display during the recent Novavax-focused meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

In the ably summarized live-blog account by internist Dr. Meryl Nass — a member of the Children’s Health Defense scientific advisory committee — Nass noted CDC’s faking of COVID-19 data to hide the far-greater hospitalization and death rates among the COVID-19-vaccinated as compared to the unvaccinated.

Conveniently for the CDC, Nass noted, the only charts not “up to date by the day” were those presenting vaccination status versus outcome.

However, despite CDC’s “mumbo jumbo,” Nass pointed out, the agency was unable to hide the higher rate of myocarditis in mRNA-vaccinated males within a week of dose two — 75.9 times higher for 16- to 17-year-olds and 38.9 times higher in 18- to 24-year-olds.

Polio: another example of ‘mumbo jumbo’

With New York State recently reporting a case of “vaccine-derived polio,” and U.K. scientists declaring a “national incident” after allegedly finding “genetic sequences” of poliovirus in London sewage water, it appears public health authorities might be preparing to resurrect polio as the bogeyman du jour.

At first blush, the concession that nearly all modern paralytic polio cases are iatrogenically (inadvertently induced) caused by the oral polio vaccine — shared by no less than the World Health Organization and CDC — seems unexpectedly and refreshingly candid.

However, public health authorities have no intention of conceding that the official story of poliomyelitis (where “myelitis” refers to spinal cord inflammation) is otherwise full of more holes than Swiss cheese.

There is, and always was, ample evidence to suggest that poisoning — whether by lead arsenate, DDT, or later, the toxic ingredients in polio vaccines themselves — is the most credible explanation for the paralytic symptoms and deaths that were labeled as “polio.”

In fact, early public health luminary Bernard Greenberg, founding chair of the biostatistics department at the University of North Carolina School of Public Health, testified before Congress that polio vaccination had “actually increased incidents of polio” and that “misuse of statistical methods had made the opposite seem true.”

Greenberg was referring to a change in the diagnostic criteria for “paralytic poliomyelitis.” implemented in the mid-1950s, which began to require at least 60 days of paralytic symptoms to earn the diagnosis, versus previously, just 24 hours of such symptoms.

As Greenberg did not hesitate to point out, the victory claimed by the first polio vaccines, which began to be administered around the same time, was entirely undeserved.

In the present day, “acute flaccid paralysis” and “acute flaccid myelitis,”, which have a clinical picture virtually identical to polio, are the diagnoses of choice for childhood paralysis cropping up all over the world, including in the U.S.

In countries like India, where tens of thousands of children have developed acute flaccid paralysis, doctors explicitly linked the condition to oral polio vaccination. But decades of published reports also associate paralysis with other childhood vaccines, such as pertussis-containing and aluminum-containing vaccines.

In fact, historical reports of spinal cord inflammation, including not just poliomyelitis but other forms of myelitis, track closely with pediatric vaccination trends, and with the concurrent rise in the practice of pediatric injection.

Earlier generations of doctors even described polio cases that followed pediatric injections as “provocation paralysis,” while more recent generations of clinicians have noted the similarity between “polio” and injection injuries dubbed “traumatic neuritis.”

On the current vaccine schedule for American children, clinical trial or post-marketing data link 17 different vaccines to “myelitis,” “encephalomyelitis,” “acute disseminated encephalomyelitis” and/or “transverse myelitis.”

Transverse myelitis also has been making an appearance with COVID-19 vaccines.

Sidestepping the obvious explanation

Since the “polio” era, there are many other examples of diagnoses intended to obfuscate rather than elucidate vaccination as a cause of illness and death — and gaslight sufferers.

These include autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

Among the environmental causes put forth as plausible triggers for the neuroimmune disorders labeled as “ASD,” heavy metal poisoning — principally via vaccination — is one of the most consistent contenders.

Meticulous landmark papers published in 2004 and 2012 demonstrated strong parallels between the brain effects of mercury intoxication and ASD brain pathology. Later papers furnished similar evidence with respect to aluminum.

As for SIDS, the diagnosis first entered into vogue around the same time (in the early 1970s) that the vaccine load for children in the U.S. doubled.

Although the 1970s vaccine schedule appears restrained by today’s immoderate standards, young children of that decade not only began receiving 13 vaccines instead of seven, but also went from mostly receiving one shot at a time to often getting two at once, including five one-two punches of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) and oral polio vaccine — both subsequently taken off the U.S. market due to their troublesome adverse event profile.

SIDS deaths, which by definition affect “seemingly normal, healthy infants,” and toddler deaths categorized as “sudden unexplained deaths in childhood” typically occur “in close temporal association following vaccination,” with nine of 10 SIDS deaths occurring around the same time as two- and four-month “well-baby” visits.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/vaccine-injury-cover-up-covid-vaccination/

‘The Special Relationship’: How the British Reconquered the United States and Established an Anglo-American Empire

Diagram Description automatically generated

“Neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organisation will be gained without … a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States…”

– Winston Churchill, ‘Iron Curtain Speech’, 1946

This will sound like an outrageous statement to many. How could the British have reconquered the United States?! They never won any war against her and by the 20th century had always fought alongside the United States as a trusted ally. And isn’t it rather the opposite, doesn’t the United States dictate British foreign policy at this point?

It is true, Britain never won a war against the United States, and it was understood by the mid-19th century that the British would never succeed in conquering the United States externally. Rather, if they were to be successful, she would need to be conquered from within, to which this paper is dedicated to telling the story of.

Two Opposing Systems

During the American Civil War, British support for the Confederate army had reached a point where Britain would have certainly militarily intervened on their behalf if it had not been for Tsar Alexander II deploying the Russian navy on both eastern and western coasts of America for seven months in support of Lincoln’s Union. Russia was prepared to go to war with Britain in order to keep the United States whole.

Tsar Alexander II explained in an interview with pro-industry American banker Wharton Barker on Aug. 17, 1879 why he thought it important that Russia should take such a strong stance in America’s Civil War (published in The Independent March 24, 1904):

“…All this I did because of love for my own dear Russia, rather than for love of the American Republic. I acted thus because I understood that Russia would have a more serious task to perform if the American Republic, with advanced industrial development were broken up and Great Britain should be left in control of most branches of modern industrial development.”

In other words, Tsar Alexander II understood that the United States had created the only economic system (known as “The American System”) that was capable of competing and defeating Britain’s slave-based economic policy of free trade. (For an overview of what is The American System refer here and here.)

In stark contrast to this sentiment, Lord Robert Cecil, who later became Marquess of Salisbury, a very prominent position in British peerage and who served three times as Prime Minister of Britain, had this to say in Parliament during the American Civil War:

“The Northern States of America never can be sure friends because we are rivals, rivals politically, rivals commercially…With the Southern States, the case is entirely reversed. The population are an agricultural people. They furnish the raw material of our industry, and they consume the products which we manufacture from it. With them, every interest must lead us to cultivate friendly relations, and when the war began they at once recurred to England as their natural ally.”

In other words, the cotton plantations that ran on slave labour in the American South, were in service of the British Empire’s global cotton trade which also ran on slave labour from India and conducted terrible exploitation of its British cotton workers.

The American Civil War was about two different economic systems in opposition to each other, and it was the South that was the “natural ally” to the British Empire.

However, the Union won the Civil War and the United States managed to keep itself whole. The South had to end its slave labour and the United States managed to push back on Britain’s slave-based economic policy (for more on this story refer here).

In fact, many leaders throughout the world, during this period were pushing back on Britain’s slave-based economic policy of free trade enforced by the British East-India Company. With leading opposition coming out of Germany, Russia, Japan and China, in addition to the United States.

In 1879, Otto von Bismarck broke Germany’s free trade system implementing an American style tariff policy for his nation. The kinship between Germany and the United States became so strong at this time that Otto von Bismarck’s speech in the parliament (1879) was quoted by McKinley on the floor in US Congress.

[…]

Otto von Bismarck was heavily organising for the building of the Berlin to Baghdad railway, which after much resistance and delay would only be completed in 1940. If this has been accomplished during Otto von Bismarck’s life, the Middle East could have avoided the Sykes Picot carving up.

In 1869, Japanese modernizers working directly with the Lincoln-Carey strategists ran the Meiji Restoration which industrialized Japan.

In the 1880s and 90s, Lincoln-Carey Philadelphia industrialists were contracted for huge infrastructure and nation-building projects in China. Hawaiian Christian missionary Frank Damon, having participated in the Carey group’s strategies at a very high level, helped instigate, shape, and build the Sun Yat-sen organization that gave birth to modern China.

Sun Yat-sen referred to his admiration of Lincoln’s USA as the basis for a new multipolar system saying:

“The world has been greatly benefited by the development of America as an industrial and a commercial Nation. So a developed China with her four hundred millions of population, will be another New World in the economic sense. The nations which will take part in this development will reap immense advantages. Furthermore, international cooperation of this kind cannot but help to strengthen the Brotherhood of Man.”

It was crystal clear that the leadership of the world had embarked upon a common path and was desirous to enter a new age where slavery might truly become a thing of the past; that the individual was from henceforth to be seen as sacrosanct, that after centuries of brutal war the world was finally ready for peace and was willing to uphold liberty and freedom for all.

Was it just a dream?

No, it was not just a dream, although it was just as fleeting. The reason for this is found in the list of names below.

Text Description automatically generated

[…]

Via https://cynthiachung.substack.com/p/the-special-relationship-how-the

Denmark bans Google software and laptops in schools

Reclaim The Net

Privacy Concerns

Last year, officials in a municipality in Denmark were ordered to conduct a risk assessment on Google’s processing of personal data. Last week, the country’s data protection agency Datatilsynet ruled that Google services used in schools, including Drive, Gmail, and Docs, do “not meet the requirements of the EU’s GDPR data privacy” rules and banned their use in schools.

The data protection agency said that Google’s terms and conditions allow the transfer of data to other countries, yet the GDPR regulations stipulate that data should be stored in data centers within the region.

The ban of Google services also applies to Chromebooks, which are widely used in schools across Denmark. Technically, the ruling applies to schools in the Helsingor municipality. But Datatilsynet said it expects other municipalities “to take relevant steps” in light of its ruling in the Helsingor municipality.

“We know that students and schools expect the technology they use to be legally compliant, responsible, and safe. That’s why for years, Google has invested in privacy best practices and diligent risk assessments, and made our documentation widely available so anyone can see how we help organizations to comply with the GDPR,” a spokesperson for Google told TechCrunch.

“Schools own their own data. We only process their data in accordance with our contracts with them. In Workspace for Education, students’ data is never used for advertising or other commercial purposes. Independent organizations have audited our services, and we keep our practices under constant review to maintain the highest possible standards of safety and compliance.”

[…]

Via https://reclaimthenet.org/denmark-bans-google-software-and-laptops-in-schools/