Methinks we are experiencing the first stages of UFO disclosure from the US government. It’s coming out in drips rather than big press conferences. No need to scare the masses.
Methinks we are experiencing the first stages of UFO disclosure from the US government. It’s coming out in drips rather than big press conferences. No need to scare the masses.
This will prevent war, not sanctions, not threats, not foreign interference. If you are not Korean, this conflict has nothing to do with you. Go home and fix your own countries, and take all them hypocrites pontificating in Vancouver with you.
The Associated Press
Posted: Jan 17, 2018
The rival Koreas have agreed to form their first joint Olympic team and have their athletes march together during the opening ceremony of next month’s Winter Olympics in the South, according to Seoul’s Unification Ministry.
The ministry said the two sides reached the agreement during talks Wednesday in the border village of Panmunjom.
Athletes from the two Koreas will march together under a “unification flag” depicting their peninsula during the opening ceremony and will field a women’s ice hockey team, according to a joint statement released by the ministry.
The measures require approval by the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The South Korean ministry said the two Koreas will consult with the committee this weekend.
North Korea will send a delegation of about 550, including 230 cheerleaders, 140 artists and 30 taekwondo players for a demonstration, the statement said.
What a waste of time. How can you have this conference without China or Russia? This is simply an exercise in futility and a waste of money and effort.
Also, if these countries really cared about the world they would be focusing on the countries that already have a nuclear arsenal: China, France, Russia, India, Pakistan, and the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons to terrorize a whole nation, the USA. Who gave these countries permission to hold weapons of mass destruction?
So stop pontificating, go home and fix your own countries. And stop pretending that you have the moral high ground. You don’t. Hypocrites.
Perhaps few double standards in international relations could be so sharply exposed as the US-Canada hosted Conference in Vancouver today focused on the traded threats between the United States and North Korea.
The US possesses an estimated 9,600 nuclear missiles, enough to eliminate life on earth multiple times – were it not vapourised in a mere few nuclear strikes.
Donald Trump has threatened North Korea with “fire and fury”, suggesting that it may be necessary to “totally destroy” the small nation.
It has been widely reported that the US has a “decapitation programme” to eliminate the North Korean President and government and presumably with it the capitol city and more. Further, Trump apparently thinks the possible eradication of a nation and possibly near geographical neighbours can be encapsulated in his infantile taunt:
“ …I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!” (Twitter, 4.49 pm, 2nd January 2018.)
There are huge uncertainties as to the ability of North Korea to deliver a nuclear payload to the US or even a US appropriated island such as Guam. However there is no uncertainty that since the Trump Presidency the chilling threats of annihilation from Washington have spurred North Korea to accelerate what they regard as a defensive weapons system.
The Vancouver Conference could have been a perfect place, in a beautiful city to invite a delegation from North Korea and for dialogue, communication and walking in the shoes of others. “Hermit nation” sneers the West. No, ostracized, cut out, diplomatically dismissed and threatened with annihilation.
But North Korea, it’s largest trading partner, China and Russia who know more than a bit are not invited. And as usual the victim is excluded. No lessons from the horrors inflicted on Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and indeed the former Yugoslavia previously, to name just a few other slaughtering arrogances
The way to stop N Korea “threatening” is to stop near 60 years of real genocidal threatening and include the country in all discussions, instead of accusing it of being “isolated” because West is isolating it.
Vancouver is surely another devastatingly missed opportunity where those threatening the entire planet have posh, multi course dinners and fine wines pat them selves on the back, whilst others live daily with the searing terror a false nuclear alarm in the US State of Hawaii suffered two days ago.
Let us hope that this assessment is wrong and that there are those who can embrace the chance to turn things around and persuade the war hawks that theirs is the path to insanity and even the – literally – world’s end.
As Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote:
“The bitterest tears shed over graves are for words left unsaid and deeds left undone.”
Felicity Arbuthnot is a Veteran War Correspondent and Associate Editor of Global Research
As if the United Nations has any power whatsoever. What we need is an independent international court of justice free from the influence and meddling of the USA and Israel.
In deliberate contempt of the United Nations and the international community, the Netanyahu government in Israel has advanced plans to attack Iranian cities and nuclear power centres by colluding with Trump to use American naval and air forces to deploy submarine-launched cruise missiles (SLCM) operating from the Gulf of Oman, plus the use of F35-delivered, devastating nuclear bombs to destroy the government of the sovereign state of Iran and install a puppet administration under US-Israeli control.
They apparently intend to attack the key nuclear research sites of Teheran, Bushehr, Arak, Bonab, Ramsar, Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan amongst others (Iran of course, has only a civil, nuclear power program unlike Israel that has an estimated military arsenal of up to 400 nuclear warheads), in a criminal attempt to effect regime change intended to cripple Iran and its economy in order to install Israel as hegemon of the Middle East.
Such an attack would be in gross violation of the Charter of the United Nations and would automatically designate the Trump administration as a perpetrator of war against a sovereign member state. Israel, of course, has already achieved pariah status having, in recent years, under the Likud government of Binyamin Netanyahu, perpetrated the assassination of various political opponents in Dubai, Teheran and the Middle East as well as on board the Turkish registered humanitarian aid vessel, the Mavi Marmara, on the high seas in international waters. Furthermore, the state of Israel is the only secret nuclear weapon state in the world and it sits outside of the IAEA and the internationally agreed treaties and conventions that keep world peace.
Tragically, in addition to support from Trump, the Netanyahu administration is also propped-up by the Conservative government of Theresa May who naively issues export licences to supply Israel with military equipment notwithstanding that the current Israeli Prime Minister is under investigation regarding multiple allegations of serious corruption. This allegedly corrupt politician desperately wants one last throw of the dice before he is removed from office, by attacking his sworn enemy, Iran, with American troops and planes. That is his goal regardless of the potentially massive loss of life that would invariably ensue.
The pro-Israel triumvirate of Trump, Netanyahu and May is an unfortunate political phenomena of our times – hopefully however, one with a truncated future as Europe and the world reacts to the unbridled aggression of the current Jabotinsky-style, Zionist policies reminiscent of 1947.
Aggression against Iran, or any other UN member state, without specific sanction by the Security Council, is a patent violation of international law and a very real threat to global peace and security. The national electorates of both the United States and the United Kingdom are fully cognizant of this fact and its inherent threat to their own survival in this nuclear age. The Israeli government of Binyamin Netanyahu, of course, has no such concerns.
Late last year, China’s Xi Jinping said it was time for the nation to “take center stage in the world.” There are many ways for China to do this, including promoting globalization, boosting foreign aid, and developing advanced technologies. Another critical step in taking “center stage” is to be at the center of the global economy. To achieve this, China is, among other things, trying to internationalize its currency.
For the past 70 years, the US dollar has been the world’s dominant currency. Two-thirds of the world’s $6.9 trillion allocated foreign exchange reserves are held in US dollars. The yuan took a major step towards broader international adoption in 2016 when the IMF decided to include it in the basket of currencies that make up the Special Drawing Right, an alternative reserve asset to the dollar.
Still, as of the third quarter of 2017, just over 1% of foreign exchange reserves were held in yuan, according to the latest data from the IMF. Now, there are signs that this is about to increase.
The Chinese yuan hit a two-year high against the US dollar this week, after the German Bundesbank said that it would include the yuan in its reserves for the first time. “The notable development from the European point of view over the past few years has been the growing international role of the renminbi in global financial markets,” Andreas Dombret, a member of the central bank’s executive board, reportedly said at a conference in Hong Kong (paywall). The decision was made last year and no investments have been made yet, as preparations are still in process. The French central bank then revealed that it already held some reserves in yuan.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) inherited the mantle of covert action operations as a legacy from its OSS predecessor, which had had considerable success in conducting disinformation operations during World War 2. But there was from the start considerable opposition to continuing such programs as they were both expensive and subject to devastating blowback when they were identified and exposed. In Western Europe, powerful domestic communist parties were quick to publicize US intelligence missteps, but nevertheless the ability to manipulate the news and information media to place stories critical of the Soviets and their allies led to major programs that funded magazines and books while also seeking to acquire a cadre of journalists that would produce pieces on demand proved too tempting to ignore.
There has been considerable ex post facto examination of the CIA’s use of covert funding mechanisms including the Congress of Cultural Freedom to fund writers and magazines in Europe, the best known of which were The Paris Review and Encounter out of London. As there was a low intensity war going on against communism, a conflict which many patriotic writers supported, funding magazines and finding contributors to write appropriate material was relatively easy and hardly challenged. Some senior editors knew or strongly suspected where their funding was coming from while some did not, but most didn’t ask any questions because then as now patrons of literary magazines were in short supply. Many of the writers were in the dark about the funding, but wrote what they did because of their own personal political convictions. The CIA, seeking value for money, would urge certain editorial lines but was not always very aggressive in doing so as it sought to allow the process to play out without too much interference.
Opinion magazines were one thing, but penetrating the newspaper world was quite a different story. It was easy to find a low or mid-level journalist and pay him to write certain pieces, but the pathway to actual publication was and is more complicated than that, going as it does through several editorial levels before appearing in print. A recent book cites the belief that CIA had “an agent at a newspaper in every world capital at least since 1977” who could be directed to post or kill stories. While it is true that US Embassies and intelligence services had considerable ability to place stories in capitals in Latin America and parts of Asia, the record in Europe, where I worked, was somewhat mixed. I knew of only one senior editor of a major European newspaper who was considered to be an Agency resource, and even he could not place fake news as he was answerable both to his editorial board and the conglomerate that owned the paper. He also refused to take a salary from CIA, which meant that his cooperation was voluntary and he could not be directed.
CIA did indeed have a considerable number of journalist “assets” in Europe but they were generally stringers or mid-level and had only limited capability to actually shape the news. They frequently wrote for publications that had little or no impact. Indeed, one might reasonably ask whether the support of literary magazines in the fifties and sixties which morphed into more direct operations seeking journalist agents had any significant impact at all in geopolitical terms or on the Cold War itself.
More insidious was so-called Operation Mockingbird, which began in the early 1950s and which more-or-less openly obtained the cooperation of major American publications and news outlets to help fight communist “subversion.” The activity was exposed by Seymour Hersh in 1975 and was further described by the Church Commission in 1976, after which point CIA operations to influence opinion in the United States became illegal and the use of American journalists as agents was also generally prohibited. It was also learned that the Agency had been working outside its founding charter to infiltrate student groups and antiwar organizations under Operation Chaos, run by the CIA’s controversial if not completely crazy counterintelligence Czar James Jesus Angleton. As the wheel of government frequently ends up turning full circle, we appear to be back in the age of disinformation, where the national security agencies of the US government, including CIA, are now suspected of peddling stories that are intended to influence opinion in the United States and produce a political response. The Steele Dossier on Donald Trump is a perfect example, a report that surfaced through a deliberate series of actions by then CIA Director John Brennan, and which was filled with unverifiable innuendo intended to destroy the president-elect’s reputation before he took office. It is undeniably a positive development for all Americans who care about good governance that Congress is now intending to investigate the dossier to determine who ordered it, paid for it, and what it was intended to achieve.
Reprinted with permission from the American Herald Tribune.
“The official line pursued by the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia, who are our allies in many ways, is almost one that would lead us to war,” Macron told reporters”
( Op-ed) — According to four-star General Wesley Clark, in a 1991 meeting with Paul Wolfowitz, then-under-secretary of defense for policy at the Department of Defense, Wolfowitz seemed a little dismayed because he believed the U.S. should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein in Operation Desert Storm but failed to do so. Clark summarized what he says Wolfowitz said:
“‘But one thing we did learn. We learned that we can use our military in the region, in the Middle East, and the Soviets won’t stop us. We’ve got about five or ten years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes, Syria, Iran, Iraq, before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.’” [emphasis added]
This was certainly the case in the years that followed, as the United States used the pretext of 9/11 to attack both Afghanistan and Iraq with little to no substantive resistance from the international community. This trend continued as the Obama administration heavily expanded its operations into Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and even the Philippines, to name a few, right up until the U.S. led a cohort of NATO countries to impose regime change in Libya in 2011.
At the time, Russia withheld its veto power at the U.N. Security Council because it had received assurances that the coalition would not pursue regime change. After NATO forces began bombing Muammar Gaddafi’s palaces directly, a furious Vladimir Putin questioned: “Who gave NATO the right to kill Gaddafi?”
Following Gaddafi’s public execution on the streets of Sirte, Putin’s criticism of NATO’s betrayal went even further. He stated:
“The whole world saw him being killed; all bloodied. Is that democracy? And who did it? Drones, including American ones, delivered a strike on his motorcade. Then commandos – who were not supposed to be there – brought in so-called opposition and militants and killed him without trial. I’m not saying that Gaddafi didn’t have to quit, but that should have been left up to the people of Libya to decide through the democratic process.”
No one appreciated it at the time, but America’s unchallenged ability to intervene anywhere and everywhere it chooses ended on that day. Fast forward to Barack Obama’s plans to implement an extensive strike plan against the Syrian government in 2013, which never transpired due strong Russian opposition and widespread protests in the U.S. A few years later, Russia directly intervened in Syria at the request of the Syrian government and effectively implemented its own no-fly zone in significant portions of the country. Donald Trump’s April 2017 strike on the Syrian government was only conducted after his administration first notified the Russians through a deconfliction hotline set up to manage the Syrian conflict.
However, Russia isn’t the only country that is tired of America’s foreign policy, and the recent “emergency U.N. Security Council meeting” to discuss the current situation in Iran is a testament to that. Even Washington’s traditional allies cannot withhold their criticism of America’s desire to police the world.
“However worrying the events of the last few days in Iran may be they do not constitute per se a threat to international peace and security,” French Ambassador to the U.N. Francois Delattre said. “We must be wary of any attempts to exploit this crisis for personal ends, which would have the diametrically opposed outcome to that which is wished.”
Russia went even further, bringing up America’s own behavior and treatment of protesters as a counter-argument to the notion that Washington is motivated by human rights concerns in Iran.
“By your logic, we should have initiated a Security Council meeting after the well-known events in Ferguson,” said Russian U.N. Ambassador Vasily Nebenzya, addressing the U.S. delegation.
Iran also insisted the matter was an internal affair and not something for the U.N. to weigh in on, and China agreed, with their ambassador calling it a purely “domestic issue.”
French President Emmanuel Macron even went so far as to accuse the U.S., Israel, and Saudi Arabia of instigating a war with Iran.
“The official line pursued by the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia, who are our allies in many ways, is almost one that would lead us to war,” Macron told reporters, according to Reuters. Instead, Macron called for dialogue with Tehran as he warned against the approach adopted by the aforementioned three countries.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan also came to Iran’s aid during the protests with Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, openly stating:
“Iran’s stability is important for us…We are against foreign interventions in Iran.”
At the end of last year, Erdogan stated that U.S. sanctions on Iran were not binding on Turkey as it sought to outmaneuver them. At the time, Hurriyet news quoted Erdogan as saying “[t]he world does not consist of the U.S. alone.”
America’s influential decline was most evident in Donald Trump’s recent Jerusalem debacle, which saw the Trump administration issue stern threats to the entire world, warning they needed to vote in favor of Washington’s interests at the U.N. Most of the world chose to ignore those threats and gave the United States a giant “middle finger,” so to speak, voting overwhelmingly against the Trump administration.
While Washington is more than capable of unilaterally attacking other countries both covertly and overtly with an ever depleting list of allies, what is becoming increasingly clear is that it may not be able to do so without active opposition from the rest of the world, including nuclear powers Russia and China, which refuse to stay silent as the U.S. tries to shape the world in accordance with its geopolitical desires.
(Natural News) According to scientists, “winter weight gain” could be partly caused by a lack of sunlight exposure during winter.
Researchers from the University of Alberta have announced that the according to the results of their study, the fat cells under our skin shrink once exposed to the “blue light” emitted by the sun.
Peter Light, the senior author of the study, said, “When the sun’s blue light wavelengths — the light we can see with our eye — penetrate our skin and reach the fat cells just beneath, lipid droplets reduce in size and are released out of the cell. In other words, our cells don’t store as much fat.”
Light, who is a professor of pharmacology and the director of UAlberta’s Alberta Diabetes Institute, explains that the fact that individuals who live in a northern climate are not exposed to enough sunlight eight months in a year could be the reason for winter weight gain.
The professor cautions that the results are an initial observation and that exposing one’s self to sunlight can have a negative effect on one’s health instead of being a guaranteed way to lose weight. Light comments that he and his team have yet to determine the “intensity and duration of light” required to activate this particular pathway.
Light believes that their discovery holds potential and that future studies could be built on the results of their study. It might even result in “pharmacological or light-based treatments” for health concerns such as obesity and diabetes. Light also posits that this mechanism could be one reason why the number of fat cells produced in childhood often “stay with us into adulthood.”
He acknowledges that there is a lot of literature that tries to explain why “our current generation will be more overweight than their parents” and that this could be linked to the debate about what should be considered as “healthy sunshine exposure.” (Related: Sunlight emerging as proven treatment for breast cancer, prostate cancer and other cancers.)
The researchers chanced upon the discovery while they were looking into how they can bioengineer fat cells that can produce insulin when exposed to light. The team is studying this procedure in the hopes of discovering a way to make life easier for type 1 diabetes patients.
The study results revealed that the fat cells stored near our skin could be “a peripheral biological clock.” While Light says that it’s too early to tell, it’s possible that the light we receive through our eyes which regulates our circadian rhythm (that directs sleep-wake patterns), could similarly impact “the fat cells that can be found near our skin.” The molecular pathway the researchers discovered was initially identified as “being activated by the eye” following exposure to the blue wavelengths in sunlight.
The pathway could act “in a sensory manner” and that it sets the amount of fat that we burn as the seasons change. People gain weight in winter and it is burned off during summer. This could be an “evolutionary process,” and there is data that supports this. Unlike other mammals, human fat can be found all over the body, just beneath the skin.
Losing weight requires regular exercise and following a healthy diet, but if you’re looking for food that can help you lose weight, check out the list below:
You can read more articles about vitamin D-rich foods and healthier food options at Food.news.
by Mike Adams
Tuesday, January 16, 2018
So predictable. The mainstream propaganda media — all now functioning as prostitutes for the pseudoscience vaccine industry — are claiming a “flupocalypse” is devastating America. The solution? You’re all supposed to get injected with the mercury-laced flu shot, of course, in order to “do your part” to halt the complete destruction of human civilization now being implied by the media propagandists. (These are all the same media outlets that also claim global warming is causing all the freezing cold weather across America, so their grip on scientific reality is obviously lacking.)
“California hospitals face a ‘war zone’ of flu patients,” screams a panicked Los Angeles Times headline. True to the war zone hysteria, the imagery of “triage tents” is invoked to try to mirror scenes from actual battlegrounds. From the LA Times article:
Hospitals across the state are sending away ambulances, flying in nurses from out of state and not letting children visit their loved ones for fear they’ll spread the flu. Others are canceling surgeries and erecting tents in their parking lots so they can triage the hordes of flu patients.
Filled with words like “crisis” and “fear” and “war zone” and “trenches,” the article is a masterpiece of flu vaccine propaganda, relentlessly equating the common flu with scenes from D-Day or the trenches of World War I. This mindless hysteria is predictably interwoven with pseudoscience medical advice that pushes the very same useless flu shot vaccines that contributed to the crisis in the first place. Via the LA Times:
Doctors say that people who haven’t yet gotten the flu shot should still get it. It takes about two weeks to take effect.
The CDC even cancelled its planned nuclear attack survival lecture to shift its focus to the flu outbreak, claiming the flupocalypse was more important than surviving a nuclear attack. (Which gives you a fascinating look into the CDC’s propaganda priorities, doesn’t it?)
From there, the LA Times invokes the exact same unproven quack science propaganda pushed by every vaccine cultist in America: The claim that even when flu shots don’t work, they can “reduce the severity” of the flu. Huh? Here’s how the LA Times dutifully parrots the same quackery and propaganda:
National health officials predict the shot may only be 30% effective this year, though the vaccine can reduce the severity and length of the illness for those who get sick.
Even the “30% effective” claim, by the way, is complete quackery. There’s actually no clinical trial to back that up. The statistic is literally fabricated by the vaccine industry, pushed out as “fact” and then obediently repeated by every media outlet without a single fact to back it up.
Citing no study whatsoever — because no such studies exist — the LA Times spreads flu vaccine propaganda and quackery that out-paces the spread of influenza itself. In truth, the three best things you can do to prevent the flu are:
And yes, these assertions are supported by literally thousands of published, peer-reviewed scientific studies. You can find them all at Science.NaturalNews.com which now carries over 12 million NIH (PubMed) abstracts, and we’re also publishing several science stories each day at Science.news (watch for more reporting there on immune-boosting, evidence-backed supplements). As just one example of science-supported evidence for these supplements protecting people from influenza, read this piece entitled High-dose zinc supplements found to speed recovery from colds and flu by 300%, which cites a study conducted at the University of Helsinki and published in Open Forum Infectious Diseases.
But nutrition, predictably, is mentioned nowhere in the LA Times story or other media propaganda pieces. That’s because their sole purpose is to promote the “flupocalypse” mass hysteria and tie it to a nationwide flu vaccine push that demands mindless, fact-less obedience to medical quackery. Why doesn’t the LA Times teach its readers how to prevent the flu with nutrition and natural substances? Because that obviously doesn’t promote the profits of the corrupt vaccine industry, which dictates nearly all infectious disease coverage published by the dishonest media.
The story also utterly fails to mention that flu shots contain mercury, a brain-damaging heavy metal that’s intentionally used as a vaccine preservative called Thimerosal. This toxic mercury is what’s responsible for the increase in spontaneous abortions in pregnant women who receive the shot, as was shockingly demonstrated by a CDC-funded study published last year. Notably, the LA Times article makes no mention whatsoever of the dangers of flu shots given to pregnant women.
That’s no oversight. The vaccine industry propagandists deliberately withhold such information from the public, even knowing that unborn babies will be killed by those vaccines due to mercury toxicity. The LA Times also withholds this information from the public, actually contributing to the vaccine-induced abortions in women across California. (Then again, life-hating leftists love to abort babies by any means, so this is fully aligned with their overall mission in the first place.)
One flu shot vaccine insert sheet (see photos, below) actually admits:
There are, however, no adequate and well controlled studies in pregnant women. Because animal reproduction studies are not always predictive of human response, FLULAVAL should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed.
As my own ICP-MS (mass spec) laboratory tests confirmed years ago, flu shots contain 25,000 higher concentration of mercury than what the EPA allows in the public water supply. The LA Times seems to be utterly unaware of this scientific reality.
Vaccines, by the way, also contain brain-damaging formaldehyde and MSG, not just mercury. This fact is openly admitted by the CDC, yet completely ignored by the propaganda media.
A medical study conducted at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center found that women who received flu vaccines had a weakened immune system response in subsequent years.
Lisa Christian, PhD, the lead researcher on the study, concluded, “Growing evidence shows that those who received a flu shot in the prior year have lower antibody responses in the current year.”
The study proves yet again that the official narrative of the flu shot industry — and its complicit corporate-run media — is false and deliberately deceptive. Far from offering bulletproof protection, flu shots actually make people more vulnerable to influenza infections, which of course contributes to more people catching the flu and then falsely thinking they need more flu shots for “more protection.”
Yet it is the flu shots themselves that are leading to an increase in influenza infections. The flu vaccine, in other words, perpetuates the myth that flu vaccines are needed by ensuring influenza spreads more rapidly than would otherwise occur. In effect, flu vaccines spread the very infections that generate more demand for flu vaccines. The structure is a “perfect” self-perpetuating medical hoax rooted in fake science and relentless media propaganda.
Even more shockingly, the “flupocalypse” propagandists never mention the scientific facts surrounding flu vaccines, which is that they are almost never subjected to clinical trials or other rigorous scientific methods to determine whether they work.
Case in point? This insert sheet from the Flulaval flu vaccine, which openly admits, “…there have been no controlled trials adequately demonstrating a decrease in influenza disease after vaccination with FLULAVAL.”
If you keep reading the FLULAVAL insert, it says in black and white text, “Safety and effectiveness of FLULAVAL in pediatric patients have not been established.”
The same insert also says, “FLULAVAL has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or for impairment of fertility.”
Keep in mind, too, that a study published in Human & Environmental Toxicology found that mercury-laced flu vaccines caused a 4,250 percent increase in fetal deaths during the 2009 flu season.
In every “flupocalypse” story being published by the propaganda media today, there’s never any mention of flu shot side effects. Yet according to the flu shot insert sheets themselves, those side effects include:
• Eye pain and chest pain
• Dizziness, tremors and losing consciousness (syncope)
• Convulsions and seizures
• Gullain-Barre Syndrome
• Cranial nerve paralysis or limb paralysis
• Swelling of the brain
• Partial facial paralysis
If there really is a “flupocalypse” across America, it’s not because people didn’t get enough flu shots. It’s actually because flu shots promote weakened immunity, resulting in increased vulnerability to influenza infections in subsequent years.
Think about it: Why is the flu now spreading so aggressively across California, which is the only state in America that mandates vaccine compliance by law? (SB 277)
It’s the flu shot itself, you see, that creates influenza vulnerability. To top it off, the propaganda media deliberately withholds reporting on the flu-busting properties of vitamin D, vitamin C, zinc and anti-influenza herbal remedies. This is all by design, as their goal is to keep their readers ignorant and sick, while pushing toxic vaccine pseudoscience and medical quackery disguised as “facts.”
It’s not just the LA Times, of course: The exact same quack science propaganda push is aggressively pursued by USA Today, the New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN. The mission of all these fake news outlets is the same: Keep their audience uninformed, ignorant and diseased in order to appease their Big Pharma advertisers that profit from the ongoing treatment of illness.
None of this happens by coincidence. It’s all a strategy for maximizing pharma profits while demanding absolute obedience to a quack science “vaccine cartel” regime that rejects all real science or evidence that contradicts its pseudoscientific dogma.
Stay informed by reading Medicine.news, which is about to be revamped to carry significantly more science-based medicine articles describing the therapeutic properties of natural substances. And if you really want to avoid the flu, don’t let the toxic pharma industrial complex inject you with heavy metals and viral fragments. Simply boost your natural immunity using the nutrition, healing foods and lifestyle habits that your body was designed to leverage for your protection.
I have received a letter from Margaret Huang, Amnesty International’s executive director. She is fundraising on the basis of President Trump’s “chilling disregard for our cherished human rights” and his exploitation of “hatred, misogyny, racism and xenophobia,” by which he has “emboldened and empowered the most violent segments of our society.”
Considering the hostility of Identity Politics toward Trump, one can understand why Ms. Huang frames her fundraiser in this way, but are the Trump deplorables the most empowered and violent segments of our society or is it the security agencies, the police, the neoconservatives, the presstitute media, and the Republican and Democratic parties?
John Kiriakou, Ray McGovern, Philip Giraldi, Edward Snowden, and others inform us that it is their former employers, the security agencies, that are empowered by unaccountability and violent by intent. Certainly the security agencies are emboldened by everything they have gotten away with, including their conspiracy to destroy President Trump with their orchestration known as Russiagate.
The violence that the US government has committed against humanity since the Clinton regime attacked Serbia was not committed by Trump deplorables. The violence that has destroyed in whole or part eight countries, murdering, maiming, and displacing millions of peoples, was committed by the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes, their secretaries of state such as Hillary Clinton, their national security advisers, their military and security establishments, both parties in Congress. The murder of entire countries was endorsed by the presstitute media and the heads of state of Washington’s European, Canadian, Australian, and Japanese vassals. Trump and his deplorables have a long way to go to match this record of violence.
Whether she understands it or not, Ms. Huang with her letter is shifting the violence from where it belongs to where it does not. The consequence will be to increase violence and human rights violations.
The most dangerous source of violence that we face is nuclear Armageddon resulting from the neoconservative quest for US hegemony. Since the Clinton regime every US government has broken tension-easing agreements that previous administrations had achieved with Moscow. During the Obama regime the gratuitous aggressions and false accusations against Russia became extreme.
Why doesn’t Amnesty International address the reckless and irresponsible acts of the US government that are violating the rights of people in numerous countries and pushing the world into nuclear war? Instead, there have been times when Amnesty International aligns with Washington’s propaganda against Washington’s victims.
By jumping on the military/security complex’s get Trump movement, human rights and environmental organizations have increased the likelihood that rights and environment will be lost to war.
There can be no doubt that Trump is undoing past environmental protections and opening the environment and wildlife to more destruction. However, the worst destruction comes from war, especially nuclear war.
Would things be different if the liberal/progressive/left had rallied to Trump’s support in reducing tensions with Russia, in normalizing the hostile relations that Obama had established with Moscow? Would the support of the liberal/progressive/left have helped Trump resist the pressures from the neoconservative warmongers? In exchange for support for his principal goal, would Trump have mitigated industry’s attacks on the environment and vetoed the renewal of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that violates human rights?
We will never know, because the liberal/progressive/left could not see beyond the end of its nose to comprehend what it means for the environment and for human rights for nuclear powers to be locked into mutual suspicion.
Thanks to the failure of the liberal/progressive/left and to the presstitute media to understand the stakes, the military/security complex has been successful in pushing Trump off his agenda. The damage that a mining company and offshore drilling can do to the environment is large, but it pales in comparison to the damage from nuclear weapons.
Yesterday, I exposed the fact that most “flu” is not the flu.
For example, here is a quite suggestive quote from Peter Doshi’s report, “Are US flu death figures more PR than science?” (BMJ 2005; 331:1412):
“[According to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001—61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.”
Today, I want to look at the mind control aspect of this insanity.
If someone says, “You have the flu,” he means you have one thing and other people who have the flu have the same thing.
It is caused by a virus, and everyone who has the flu has that virus.
If you say, “No, the so-called flu could be caused by many different things,” people might appear to agree with you, but they’re still thinking, “The flu is one thing.”
They won’t let go. That’s called mind control.
Person A has a cough, fatigue, headache, and fever. Why? A combination of stress, exposure to cold weather, and contaminated indoor air.
Person B also has cough, fatigue, headache and fever. Why? A combination of junk food, nutritional deficits, and a toxic pain reliever.
Do persons A and B have the same thing?
No, they don’t. If they did, the causes would be the same. And they aren’t.
Now take 10,000 people who have the above list of symptoms. But none of them has the flu virus. Do any of them have the flu? No. Do they all have the same thing? No, because the combination of causes and the precise nature of each cause are not the same from person to person.
If 10,000 people have the flu virus, do they all have the flu? No. People with strong immune systems don’t get sick. People with weak immune systems do get sick. The determining factor is the condition of the immune system, not the presence of the virus. Therefore, the tight equation, “flu virus equals flu,” is false.
Understanding all these factors rearranges the thought process vis-à-vis “the flu.”
“Flu outbreak across America” is a generality. It doesn’t hold together. Once you take it apart, you see something different.
You’re no longer in a state of hypnosis about “the virus.”
“Yes, but all these people getting sick…showing up at hospitals…they must all have the same thing…”
No. They might have similar symptoms, but that doesn’t mean “they have the same thing.”
If you want one factor, which combined with other immune-suppressing factors, might be at work, why not start with the freezing weather across America? That could be a clue. But it’s far from the whole story.
Person C has cough, fatigue, headache, and fever. In his case, it’s caused by a combination of freezing weather, five toxic medicines on his night table at the nursing home, and a forced change of diet that increases the load of empty calories.
Person D has cough, fatigue, headache, and fever. In her case, it’s caused by grief over the loss of a loved one, a bad reaction to the flu vaccine, and a power outage that cut off heat in her home for two days.
And so forth, on and on.
Casually blaming “the virus” is a response dictated by the stimulus of news and government propaganda about “the flu.”
And the propaganda ignores the most important factor: the condition of a person’s own immune system. THAT is a non-medical situation; and increasing the power of one’s own immune response requires something the medical system refuses to recognize—all the actions a person could take under the general banner of “natural health.”
From which the medical system makes zero money.
This is called a clue.
“Let’s see. We can tell people that when they get sick with ‘flu symptoms,’ they have the flu, and it’s all about the virus. Then we can sell flu vaccines and drugs like crazy. OR we can tell them these so-called flu symptoms come from different combinations of causes, which in many cases are environmental and should be identified—and most importantly, we can tell them they need to strengthen their immune systems through ‘natural’ methods—and then we make no money and go out of business and end up pumping gas in Death Valley. Hmm. Which choice do we make? Let’s take a vote…”
(New piece up at my other blog OUTSIDE THE REALITY MACHINE entitled “More on why I named my site NoMoreFakeNews in 2001”. Click here.)
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
One of the most ingenious propaganda weapons ever developed is that the powerful nations of the West—led by the United States—have a moral responsibility to use military force to protect the rights of people being repressed by their governments. This “responsibility to protect” (R2P) always had a dubious legal standing, but its moral justification also required a psychological and historical disengagement from the bloody reality of the 500-hundred-year history of U.S. and European colonialism, slavery, genocide and torture that created the “West.”
This violent, lawless Pan-European colonial/capitalist project continues today under the hegemony of the U.S. empire. This then begs the questions of who really needs the protection and who protects the peoples of the world from the United States and its allies? The only logical, principled and strategic response to this question is citizens of the empire must reject their imperial privileges and join in opposing ruling elites exploiting labor and plundering the Earth. To do that, however, requires breaking with the intoxicating allure of cross-class, bi-partisan “white identity politics.”
Neocons like William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Pearl were the driving forces in pushing for the war in Iraq. They understood if they wanted to sell war, “Americans” needed to believe the conflict was about values, not interests. The neocons dusted off and put a new face on that old rationalization for colonialism—the white man’s burden. Interventions were to bring democracy and freedom to those people who were struggling to be just like their more advanced models in the white West. Liberal interventionists further developed those ideas into “humanitarian interventionism” and the “responsibility to protect.”
The fact that the United States and Europe can wrap themselves in the flag of morality, practice savior politics and get away with it is a testament to the enduring psychopathology of white supremacist ideology.
The most extreme expressions of this cognitive dissonance occurred during the Obama administration, when the notion of U.S. exceptionalism was used to justify continuing the barbarism of the Bush administration’s so-called War on Terror. With this justification and the outrageous assertion that it was defending democracy, the U.S./EU/NATO axis of domination committed crimes against humanity and war crimes that resulted in the deaths of millions, while millions more were displaced and ancient cities, nations and peoples were destroyed.The result? International Gallup and Pew research polls have consistently shown the peoples of the world consider the United States the greatest threat to world peace on the planet.
National Security Strategy Under Trump: More of the Same
When the Trump administration released its National Security Strategy, Liberal pundits suggested it was a significantly different than any previous U.S. strategy. But beyond some specific references to putting “America” and its citizens first in relationship to the economy, and the reactionary stances of tightening border security and enforcing strict immigration policies, Trump’s strategy did not stray much from the post-Cold War strategy of the preceding years.
The difference that did exist was more in style than substance. The Trump administration completely dispensed with all pretexts used by previous administrations. Even domestic law, like the War Powers Act that was ignored by the Obama administration continues to be of no concern for the new Trump administration. Now it is Trump’s “America first” with no concern for international law or accepted standards of behavior.
Unchecked by the countervailing power of the Soviet Union, the bi-partisan National Security Strategy produced in the 1990s that committed the U.S. state to pursue policies that would ensure continued U.S. economic, political and military hegemony through the 21st century—the “new American century”—is still the overall strategic objective of this administration.Even explicitly naming China and Russia as “competition” that threatens to harm the country’s security was not that much of a departure since the centerpiece of U.S policy has been checking any state that challenged U.S. power in any region. The Trump administration named threats to U.S. interests—North Korea in Asia, Russia in Eurasia, Iran in West Asia, with jihadist groups included in case the United States needed a War on Terror (WOT) justification for U.S. interventions anywhere in the world.
While Neocons and liberal interventionists in previous administrations sugarcoated U.S. geo-strategic objectives to mask hegemony, the Trump rhetoric is crude, direct and unambiguously aggressive. Protecting U.S. interests in the 21st century means relying on military aggression, war and subversion.
Building the U.S. anti-war movement as the responsibility to protect from Empire
Fifty years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stated the obvious: he United States was the greatest purveyor of violence in the world. He also said the public allowing this violence would lead to a kind of national spiritual death that would continue to make the U.S. state a danger to the world.
That spiritual death has not quite happened completely. Yet accepting the “inevitability” of violence and the necessity for waging war is now more deeply ingrained in the collective consciousness of individuals in the United States than it was 50 years ago when King warned of the deep malady of U.S. society. For most of the 21st century, the United States has been at war. Culturally, mass shootings, the wars on drugs and terror, violence and war as entertainment, livestreamed videos of horrendous police-executed murders as well as of a head of state being sodomized with a knife have resulted in what Henry Giroux refers to as a “culture of cruelty.But the very fact that the authorities need to lie to the people with fairy tales of the responsibility to protect in order to give moral coverage for the waging of war is an acknowledgement that they understand that there is enough humanity left with the public that it would reject U.S. warmongering if it was only seen as advancing narrow national interests.
It is this remaining moral core—and the objective interests of the clear majority of the people to be in opposition to war—that provides the foundation for reviving the modern anti-war movement.
Baltimore was the site of the rebellion in response to Freddie Gray’s murder by the domestic military we refer to as “the police.” There, a couple of hundred activists will convene January 12 to kick off a new campaign to close all U.S. foreign bases. This gathering is the result of a new coalition of forces—both old and new—to revive the U.S. anti-war movement. This conference comes on the heels of another meeting that took place just a few months ago in Washington, D.C., where some of the same forces came together to kick-off a campaign to “divest from the war machine.”
Strategically these efforts are designed to be the first steps toward building the confidence, institutional strength and programmatic focus of a new, reinvigorated, broad-based, anti-war, pro-peace and anti-imperialist movement in the United States We are opposing the warmongering both corporate political parties have normalized.
The difficulties and challenges of this endeavor are not lost on the various organizations, networks and coalitions that are part of these efforts. We all recognize that there are no shortcuts to the delicate reconstructing of our existing forces and the challenge of expanding those forces by bringing in new formations. The ideological and political differences that have surfaced among left and progressive forces around issues of war and imperialism make it more challenging.But the imperative of expressing solidarity with the victims of U.S. warmongering must take precedence over our differences and should serve as a basis for building political unity.
Solidarity, however, is not enough for those of us in the Black Alliance for Peace (BAP). We recognize its importance as a baseline principle for (re)-building a broad anti-war movement. Our common interests with other oppressed peoples, nations and states that find themselves in the cross-hairs of U.S. imperialism demands we offer more than solidarity—we must stand as allies.
Those of us building the Black Alliance for Peace understand we cannot afford the comforting myths of U.S. benevolence that attempts to conceal the naked deployment of U.S. state power in service of Western capitalist/colonialist interests. And so, we view with suspicion, if not treat with disdain, our comrades who support U.S. interventions, even when they frame that support with “leftist” justifications. For oppressed nations and peoples of the world, the U.S. white supremacist, colonial/capitalist patriarchy is and remains the principle contradiction. There must not be any nationalist sentimentality or equivocation on that position.
We saw how the anti-war opposition that emerged during the Bush years in opposition to lawless state-sanctioned violence, dissolved during the Obama administration. Liberals and major elements of the “left” objectively aligned themselves with the U.S./EU/NATO axis of domination through their silence or outright support in the name of opposing authoritarian regimes.
Jan 17, 2018
The common practice of using patient self-report screening questionnaires rather than diagnostic interviews conducted by researchers has resulted in overestimates of the prevalence of depression, according to an analysis in CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal)
The most prescribed drugs in the world are psychoactive compounds that works as narcotics and analgesics. They are biotransformed by the liver into several metabolites. It is highly dependent on metabolism by the Cytochrome P450 pathway. More and more doctors are receiving incentives from pharmaceutical companies to promote these many antipsychotics. They make up more than 20% of the top prescribed medications. Many have questioned how pharmaceutical intervention for depressive symptoms rose by thousands of percentage points in just a few decades.
Medical and scientific journals from Nature to The New England Journal of Medicine allowed their columns to be infiltrated for years by blatantly dishonest research reporting and ghost written articles commissioned by Pharma but signed by distinguished professors frequently in receipt of seven-figure research and consultancy funding. But the studies themselves were all flawed.
“These studies misrepresent the actual rate of depression, sometimes dramatically, which makes it very difficult to direct the right resources to problems faced by patients,” said Dr. Brett Thombs of the Lady Davis Institute of the Jewish General Hospital and McGill University, the study’s lead author. “Self-report questionnaires are meant to be used as an initial assessment to cast a wide net and identify people who may be struggling with mental health issues. However, we need to conduct a more thorough evaluation in order to determine an appropriate diagnosis and whether there may be other issues to address.”
The authors suggest that researchers often use self-report questionnaires because diagnostic interviews are time-consuming and expensive to administer.
“In addition,” said Thombs, “Studies with dramatic results tend to be accepted by higher impact journals and attract more attention from the public than studies with more modest findings. This may also encourage some researchers to report results from questionnaires rather than conducting appropriate diagnostic interviews.”
“Addressing overestimation of the prevalence of depression based on self-report screening questionnaires” was published January 15, 2018.