Biden White House Pressured Facebook to Censor Vaccine Skeptics on Private Messaging Service WhatsApp https://t.co/y2XR9ZVGlw via @BreitbartNews
— Komrade Deplorable (@astroloupicus) March 26, 2023
Corporatocracy
Alexandra Latypova – PANDEMIC STRATEGIES, LESSONS AND CONSEQUENCES, 21st- 22nd January 2023
You know, AI is already embedded with us. Think about it. Reality is not real anymore.
“If you are bargaining in good faith the audience might forgive you.” (Paraphrasing)
“The real culprit behind this 138% hike in the price of a carton of eggs,” says the letter, “appears to be a collusive scheme among industry leaders to turn inflationary conditions and an avian flu outbreak into an opportunity to extract egregious profits reaching as high as 40%.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/how-can-we-trust-institutions-lied
BY TYLER DURDEN
SATURDAY, JAN 14, 2023
Authored by Abir Ballan via The Brownstone Institute,
Trust the Authorities, trust the Experts, and trust the Science, we were told.
Public health messaging during the Covid-19 pandemic was only credible if it originated from government health authorities, the World Health Organization, and pharmaceutical companies, as well as scientists who parroted their lines with little critical thinking.
In the name of ‘protecting’ the public, the authorities have gone to great lengths, as described in the recently released Twitter Files (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) that document collusion between the FBI and social media platforms, to create an illusion of consensus about the appropriate response to Covid-19.
They suppressed ‘the truth,’ even when emanating from highly credible scientists, undermining scientific debate and preventing the correction of scientific errors. In fact, an entire bureaucracy of censorship has been created, ostensibly to deal with so-called MDM— misinformation (false information resulting from human error with no intention of harm); disinformation (information intended to mislead and manipulate); malinformation (accurate information intended to harm).
From fact-checkers like NewsGuard, to the European Commission’s Digital Services Act, the UK Online Safety Bill and the BBC Trusted News Initiative, as well as Big Tech and social media, all eyes are on the public to curtail their ‘mis-/dis-information.’
“Whether it’s a threat to our health or a threat to our democracy, there is a human cost to disinformation.” — Tim Davie, Director-General of the BBC
But is it possible that ‘trusted’ institutions could pose a far bigger threat to society by disseminating false information?
Although the problem of spreading false information is usually conceived of as emanating from the public, during the Covid-19 pandemic, governments, corporations, supranational organisations and even scientific journals and academic institutions have contributed to a false narrative.
Falsehoods such as ‘Lockdowns save lives’ and ‘No one is safe until everyone is safe’ have far-reaching costs in livelihoods and lives. Institutional false information during the pandemic was rampant. Below is just a sample by way of illustration.
The health authorities falsely convinced the public that the Covid-19 vaccines stop infection and transmission when the manufacturers never even tested these outcomes. The CDC changed its definition of vaccination to be more ‘inclusive’ of the novel mRNA technology vaccines. Instead of the vaccines being expected to produce immunity, now it was good enough to produce protection.
The authorities also repeated the mantra (at 16:55) of ‘safe and effective’ throughout the pandemic despite emerging evidence of vaccine harm. The FDA refused the full release of documents they had reviewed in 108 days when granting the vaccines emergency use authorisation. Then in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, it attempted to delay their release for up to 75 years. These documents presented evidence of vaccine adverse events. It’s important to note that between 50 and 96 percent of the funding of drug regulatory agencies around the world comes from Big Pharma in the form of grants or user fees. Can we disregard that it’s difficult to bite the hand that feeds you?
The vaccine manufacturers claimed high levels of vaccine efficacy in terms of relative risk reduction (between 67 and 95 percent). They failed, however, to share with the public the more reliable measure of absolute risk reduction that was only around 1 percent, thereby exaggerating the expected benefit of these vaccines.
They also claimed “no serious safety concerns observed” despite their own post-authorisation safety report revealing multiple serious adverse events, some lethal. The manufacturers also failed to publicly address the immune suppression during the two weeks post-vaccination and the rapidly waning vaccine effectiveness that turns negative at 6 months or the increased risk of infection with each additional booster. Lack of transparency about this vital information denied people their right to informed consent.
They also claimed that natural immunity is not protective enough and that hybrid immunity (a combination of natural immunity and vaccination) is required. This false information was necessary to sell remaining stocks of their products in the face of mounting breakthrough cases (infection despite vaccination).
In reality, although natural immunity may not completely prevent future infection with SARS-CoV-2, it is however effective in preventing severe symptoms and deaths. Thus vaccination post-natural infection is not needed.
The WHO also participated in falsely informing the public. It disregarded its own pre-pandemic plans, and denied that lockdowns and masks are ineffective at saving lives and have a net harm on public health. It also promoted mass vaccination in contradiction to the public health principle of ‘interventions based on individual needs.’
It also went as far as excluding natural immunity from its definition of herd immunity and claimed that only vaccines can help reach this end point. This was later reversed under pressure from the scientific community. Again, at least 20 percent of the WHO’s funding comes from Big Pharma and philanthropists invested in pharmaceuticals. Is this a case of he who pays the piper calls the tune?
The Lancet, a respectable medical journal, published a paper claiming that Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) — a repurposed drug used for the treatment of Covid-19 — was associated with a slight increased risk of death. This led the FDA to ban the use of HCQ to treat Covid-19 patients and the NIH to halt the clinical trials on HCQ as a potential Covid-19 treatment. These were drastic measures taken on the basis of a study that was later retracted due to the emergence of evidence showing that the data used was false.
In another instance, the medical journal Current Problems in Cardiology retracted —without any justification— a paper showing an increased risk of myocarditis in young people following the Covid-19 vaccines, after it was peer-reviewed and published. The authors advocated for the precautionary principle in the vaccination of young people and called for more pharmacovigilance studies to assess the safety of the vaccines. Erasing such findings from the medical literature not only prevents science from taking its natural course, but it also gatekeeps important information from the public.
A similar story took place with Ivermectin, another drug used for the treatment of Covdi-19, this time potentially implicating academia. Andrew Hill stated (at 5:15) that the conclusion of his paper on Ivermectin was influenced by Unitaid which is, coincidentally, the main funder of a new research centre at Hill’s workplace —the University of Liverpool. His meta-analysis showed that Ivermectin reduced mortality with Covid-19 by 75 percent. Instead of supporting Ivermectin use as a Covid-19 treatment, he concluded that further studies were needed.
The suppression of potentially life-saving treatments was instrumental for the emergency use authorization of the Covid-19 vaccines as the absence of a treatment for the disease is a condition for EUA (p.3).
Many media outlets are also guilty of sharing false information. This was in the form of biased reporting, or by accepting to be a platform for public relations (PR) campaigns. PR is an innocuous word for propaganda or the art of sharing information to influence public opinion in the service of special interest groups.
The danger of PR is that it passes for independent journalistic opinion to the untrained eye. PR campaigns aim to sensationalise scientific findings, possibly to increase consumer uptake of a given therapeutic, increase funding for similar research, or to increase stock prices. The pharmaceutical companies spent $6.88 billion on TV advertisements in 2021 in the US alone. Is it possible that this funding influenced media reporting during the Covid-19 pandemic?
Lack of integrity and conflicts of interest have led to an unprecedented institutional false information pandemic. It is up to the public to determine whether the above are instances of mis- or dis-information.
Public trust in the Media has seen its biggest drop over the last five years. Many are also waking up to the widespread institutional false information. The public can no longer trust ‘authoritative’ institutions that were expected to look after their interests. This lesson was learned at great cost. Many lives were lost due to the suppression of early treatment and an unsound vaccination policy; businesses ruined; jobs destroyed; educational achievement regressed; poverty aggravated; and both physical and mental health outcomes worsened. A preventable mass disaster.
We have a choice: either we continue to passively accept institutional false information or we resist. What are the checks and balances that we must put in place to reduce conflicts of interest in public health and research institutions? How can we decentralise the media and academic journals in order to reduce the influence of pharmaceutical advertising on their editorial policy?
As individuals, how can we improve our media literacy to become more critical consumers of information? There is nothing that dispels false narratives better than personal inquiry and critical thinking. So the next time conflicted institutions cry woeful wolf or vicious variant or catastrophic climate, we need to think twice.
CIA, USAID, State Department undermined socialist Lula, and helped put authoritarian Bolsonaro in control of South America’s largest nation.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/usual-suspects-attempted-coup-against-lula-brazil/5804148
By Kurt Nimmo
Global Research, January 10, 2023
There is an important element omitted from the emerging narrative on Brazil and the attack on the elected government of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
First, though, let’s take a look at the current situation in Brazil. According to the establishment “newspaper of record,” The New York Times,
Thousands of supporters of Brazil’s ousted former president, Jair Bolsonaro, stormed Brazil’s Congress, Supreme Court and presidential offices on Sunday to protest what they falsely believe was a stolen election, the violent culmination of years of conspiracy theories advanced by Mr. Bolsonaro and his right-wing allies.
Jair Bolsonaro is characterized as the “Trump of the Tropics,” possibly an unfair comparison as Bolsonaro’s politics were far more radical and destructive than anything Trump could get past Congress or, for that matter, his own inner circle.
If we assume the election was fair, then it can be said the people of Brazil re-elected Lula, and the attack on Brazil’s Congress, Supreme Court, and presidential offices represent a coup attempt. Maybe Bolsonaro supporters organized the sacking on their own, and maybe they had help.
First and foremost, the USG is adamantly opposed to Lula holding office.
In 2021, the CIA was involved in removing Lula from Brazil’s political landscape. Brasilwire reported on June 3, 2021,
In a White House ‘Background Press Call by Senior Administration Officials on the Fight Against Corruption’, a Biden administration official admitted that the CIA and other parts of the U.S. intelligence apparatus were involved in assisting the “War on Corruption” which jailed former president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and elected Jair Bolsonaro.
Reading through an official White House transcript, we learn the State Department and USAID were involved in, as Antony Blinken put it, “anti-corruption work in all of our bilateral context, as well as in multilateral fora,” in other words, in plain speak, making sure political enemies, designated as corrupt, are removed from the political landscape.
Former President Lula Declared Winner in Brazil
USAID, as former director John Gilligan admitted, functions as “a graduate school for CIA agents,” and at any given time “many AID offices were infiltrated from top to bottom with CIA people… It was pretty obvious what they were up to… The idea was to plant operatives in every kind of activity we had overseas, government, volunteer, religious, every kind.”
Jair Bolsonaro is on excellent terms with the CIA. He is, after all, the first Brazilian leader to visit CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. “He was accompanied by his Justice Minister Sergio Moro who had jailed main opponent Lula da Silva before the 2018 election, on now annulled charges,” Brasilwire reported. “In contrast, Bolsonaro has never visited ABIN, Brazil’s moribund equivalent of the CIA.”
Moreover, the Atlantic Council supported collaboration with Brazilian prosecutors in the attempt to get rid of Lula, according to a Brasilwire report. The Atlantic Council is an influential think tank “staffed with military, CIA, and their attendant politicians; and CEOs from strategic industries, like oil and media. It has strong connections to NATO, and is a central part of the modern military-industrial congressional complex,” according to WikiSpooks.
All of this is either ignored or underplayed by the corporate propaganda media. For instance, it would be rare indeed for USG involvement in Operation Lava Jato, the ostensible “anti-corruption” project in Brazil, to be mentioned, let alone investigated by the likes of The New York Times or The Washington Post, both hardly strangers to CIA misinformation campaigns.
A petition filed with the Federal Supreme Court (STF) by the defence of ex-president Lula presents such new evidence that ex-judge Sergio Moro colluded with foreign authorities in conducting the process which led to the arrest of the Workers Party leader, and his subsequent barring from a run for the presidency in 2018.
So, now we have “right-wing protesters” storming government offices, violently agitating for the overthrow of Lula. Considering the above, it is fair to say the USG and USAID (now doing much of the CIA’s dirty work) are involved behind the scenes in the storming of government offices.
I don’t know this for a fact. It is speculation based on history.
More to the point, the 1964 coup in Brazil was organized by JFK and the CIA. For all the lionization of Kennedy, it should be remembered he was an ardent anti-communist. Kennedy believed Brazilian President Goulart was too chummy with anti-colonial and anti-American activists in Latin America, many of them undoubtedly communists, such as Che Guevara, killed in Bolivia with CIA assistance in 1967.
In 1823 the Monroe Doctrine declared South and Latin America, indeed the entire western hemisphere, as USG property not to be claimed or occupied by other nations and empires. It later became the exclusive domain of US agricultural corporations and that domain was protected by USG Marines, as Major General Smedley Butler described in his short book, “War is a Racket.”
Considering the history of the USG, in collision with US corporations, and the “racket,” as Butler described it, we can assume this latest outbreak of violence in Brazil is designed to once again get rid of a politician not following neoliberal orders.
Lula’s Workers Party (Partido dos Trabalhadores) was formerly described as a straight-up socialist party but is now viewed as middle-of-road social democratic by many observers. In 1998, Lula cut all mention of socialist proposals from his political rhetoric. Despite his professed distance from socialism and the ideology of the Workers Party, it was decided by the financial elite in New York and London that Lula had to go.
This is Bolsonaro’s last hurrah, even if he said previously that he accepted the result of the election, and even though he may not be involved in the current effort to shock and awe the Lula government. Like so many other autocrats and psychopathic leaders and dictators before him, Bolsonaro and his supporters are being manipulated by the USAID, CIA, and the Biden State Department.
I seriously doubt this latest act of violence was cooked up entirely by outraged Bolsonaro supporters.
*
This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Kurt Nimmo on Geopolitics.
Kurt Nimmo is a regular contributor to Global Research.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Kurt Nimmo, Global Research, 2023
How can you possibly have overlooked the COVID vaccine as a possible cause of the huge rise in excess deaths? The evidence is in plain sight.
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/an-open-letter-to-the-british-heart
Dear British Heart Foundation,
I just finished reading an article in the Telegraph entitled “Critics claim Covid jabs are causing heart problems – do they have any proof?” where you were quoted as saying:
The British Heart Foundation told The Telegraph: “The scientific consensus is that the benefits of Covid vaccination, including a reduced risk of severe illness or death, far outweigh the very small risk of rare side effects like myocarditis or pericarditis for the vast majority of people, especially as people get older.
I was wondering if your staff would be open to publicly discussing this statement with me and a team of expert cardiologists including Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Aseem Malhotra as well as MIT Professor Retsef Levi (the senior author of Increased emergency cardiovascular events among under-40 population in Israel during vaccine rollout and third COVID-19 wave and Dr. Ryan Cole, one of the few pathologists in the US who specializes in COVID vaccine pathology?
The evidence is in plain sight; why are you ignoring it?
There is a large amount of evidence in plain sight that your recent comprehensive report on this subject has completely missed. The evidence shows that the COVID vaccine is, in fact, the most likely cause of all the cardiac issues experienced throughout the world. It is the elephant in the room.
To our utter astonishment, the COVID vaccine wasn’t even listed as a possible cause of cardiac death in the report, even though we can clearly show it is the major driver of the increased number of events.
For example, this analysis by the brilliant UK Professor Norman Fenton shows that the only thing that correlates with the excess deaths is the COVID vaccine. Did he get it wrong? Your comprehensive document never refutes his analysis. In fact, I haven’t seen anyone anywhere in the world show that he got it wrong and provide the correct analysis. Why do you think that is?
After the Schwab paper proved the COVID vaccines can kill people by damaging their hearts, where was the outcry from the British Heart Foundation? Did I miss this?
Where is the call to halt the COVID vaccine program in your report? It appears it was overlooked.
I have more data. Lots more data.
There was a study done on 175 people who got vaccinated in Puerto Rico. Do you know how many were diagnosed with myocarditis after the shot? The number will knock your socks off. I guarantee it. It makes the 29% rate of heart injury post-vaccine in the Thailand study look like a rounding error. I’ll share the data with you when we meet.
I think it is telling that nobody in the world accepted my offer to bet $1M that the vaccines killed more people than they saved. Not even the drug companies were willing to risk money on this.
In short, nobody in the entire world is willing to put their money where their mouth is when it comes to their statements on vaccine safety and efficacy.
That should give you pause… if the vaccine is so safe, why isn’t anyone willing to bet on a “sure thing” bet to get $1M?
Have you talked to any geriatric medical practices?
I am curious… have you ever picked up the phone and called a few large geriatric practices to see what is really going on?
It’s always good to do a “reality check” just to make sure that what you are being told in the medical literature is actually consistent with what is happening on the ground. Trust, but verify is important nowadays if you want to know the truth.
It’s not hard to do. The first large geriatric practice I spoke with has nearly 1,000 patients over 65 and they see around 11 deaths each year. It fluctuates every year with sigma= 3.3, exactly as predicted from Poisson distribution statistics. But in 2022, they had 36 deaths which is a 7.5 sigma event. So that couldn’t have happened by chance. The excess deaths were all attributed to the COVID vaccine by the doctor and nurse in that clinic. They can’t go public for fear of having their medical licenses revoked, but I can supply you with the de-identified patient records and case histories for all the deceased so you can verify this yourself. The 25 excess deaths in 2022 cannot be explained any other way as far as we know. This is highly statistically significant.
How can you ignore evidence like this?
Can you find any geriatric practices anywhere in the world where all-cause mortality dropped after the COVID vaccines rolled out?
I look forward to a public discussion.
It’s important that we get to the truth, isn’t it?
Up until now, the medical establishment had stubbornly insisted that fake sweeteners are perfectly safe for human consumption. All concerns to the contrary were dubbed as “conspiracy theories” – that is until covid jabs started killing people and a cover story was needed
Why, all of a sudden, are the dangers of artificial sweeteners being thrust to the forefront of the public health conversation? The natural health community was mocked or ignored for pointing out their dangers previously, but the narrative appears to have shifted now that distractions are needed for covid jabs.
https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-12-30-science-admits-artificial-sweeteners-cause-sudden-death.html
by: Ethan Huff
Friday, December 30, 2022
The British Medical Journal (BMJ) published a study recently that links the consumption of artificial sweeteners like aspartame (Sweet’N Low) and sucralose (Splenda) to cardiovascular disease.
A curiously timed endeavor, French researchers decided to take a closer look at fake sweeteners in the context of heart disease right as millions of people “fully vaccinated” for covid are suffering heart effects – and in some cases, sudden death.
Up until now, the medical establishment had stubbornly insisted that fake sweeteners are perfectly safe for human consumption. All concerns to the contrary were dubbed as “conspiracy theories” – that is until covid jabs started killing people and a cover story was needed.
It appears as though some elements of “science” are now attempting to peg all this excess heart damage and sudden death among the fully jabbed on artificial sweetener consumption, which is suddenly on the radar as a health threat after decades of denial. (Related: Covid jab spike proteins cause heart attacks.)
For their research, this new study’s authors looked at 103,388 participants in the web-based NutriNet-Santé cohort. All across the board, they found that artificial sweetener consumption is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular conditions such as coronary heart disease and cerebrovascular disease.
“The findings from this large-scale prospective cohort study suggest a potential direct association between higher artificial sweetener consumption (especially aspartame, acesulfame potassium, and sucralose) and increased cardiovascular disease risk,” the paper concludes.
“Artificial sweeteners are present in thousands of food and beverage brands worldwide, however, they remain a controversial topic and are currently being re-evaluated by the European Food Safety Authority, the World Health Organization, and other health agencies.”
Artificial sweeteners are dangerous, but so are covid injections
While it is certainly true that fake sweeteners are destructive to health, the timing of this study’s publishing in a prominent, widely respected medical journal is suspect.
Why, all of a sudden, are the dangers of artificial sweeteners being thrust to the forefront of the public health conversation? The natural health community was mocked or ignored for pointing out their dangers previously, but the narrative appears to have shifted now that distractions are needed for covid jabs.
It is true that cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are the leading cause of death all around the world. This was true before covid jabs were unleashed, and it is still true today. What is not true is the claim that spiking rates of CVD and associated sudden death are some kind of “mystery” that can be explained away by things that people were already doing previously.
The study does not mention covid, vaccines, or excess deaths, but its publishing at this point in time is being used by the media to suggest that the reason why more people these days are suffering stroke and heart attack events is due to even just minimal fake sweetener consumption.
“Basically, what they saw is that people who had as little as two packets a day, or like four ounces of soda, which you know, most sodas are more than four ounces,” said Mona Shah, MD, a cardiologist at Baptist Health Holistic.
“They had a nine percent higher risk of heart attack and 18 percent higher risk of stroke.”
Shah also warned that fake sweeteners disrupt healthy metabolism, which is why she recommends natural alternatives like stevia and monk fruit.
“I think the body’s kind of like, well should I secrete insulin? Wait, this is not real sugar. Or you know, so the whole balance between insulin and glucose over time is getting totally screwed up.”
If you enjoyed reading this story, you will find more like it at Sweeteners.news.
Sources for this article include:
by: JD Heyes
Tuesday, December 27, 2022
The inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine cores (the original mRNA, not the one currently used for COVID vaccines) is speaking out again about how best to decouple ourselves from the rapidly encroaching tyranny of Western governments and their medical establishments.
Dr. Robert Malone, who has just published a new book, “Lies My Government Told Me: And the Better Future Coming,” analyzes the tyranny citizens of Western ‘democracies’ currently face and how to get out from under it, according to Lifesite News.
The report notes that the first part of the new tome examines how medical and scientific facts were censored by governments during the recent COVID-19 pandemic and how it was used to help usher in more authoritarianism by supposed democracies. The second part of the book attempts to answer this question: “Who or what is behind it all?” — while Malone goes on to point out that he thinks it all comes from a combo of opportunism and bad actors with nefarious intent.
The final part of the book focuses on how we can create a better future with a focus on creating decentralized local governments and communities while also creating the potential to network with each other on a national and international level — while still remaining self-governed and independent.
Malone also notes that a great way to avoid falling into the trap of groupthink that then leads to policy disasters is to develop independent problem-solving groups that do not have any interaction with each other. Only after those groups have created their own ideas and solutions do they then come together to share, analyze, and then find common ground.
“In my view, Malone has been one of the most prominent leaders in helping us understand the scientific truth of what’s actually happening with COVID and the COVID shots. Malone and his wife Jill actually published one of the first books on COVID prevention and treatment. They self-published it as an e-book on Amazon in early February 2020. Amazon deleted it the following month,” Dr. Joseph Mercola noted at Lifesite News.
“After repeated inquiries as to why the book was removed, Amazon finally cited ‘violation of community standards.’ ‘It was the first time we’d ever heard that phrase,’ Malone said. Since then, of course, it’s become the key excuse used by tech platforms of all kinds to justify the censorship of plain truth. The removal of that book was just a small foretaste of what was to come,” Mercola noted further.
Malone has been effectively ‘cancelled’ from society — this brilliant doctor and researcher — after appearing on the DarkHorse podcast with Steve Kirsch in June 2021. He’s been defamed publicly, deplatformed, and his scientific achievements scrubbed from Wikipedia (which is noted to be a left-wing propaganda outlet anyway).
As Malone himself has said, he was kicked off Twitter under the old management after he posted a completely fact-based and professionally produced video from the Canadian COVID Care Alliance documenting how Pfizer fraudulently conducted its trials for the coronavirus vaccines. All findings presented in the video were true then and they remain true today, Mercola notes.
“The production quality was excellent and I just retweeted it. LinkedIn at the same time also whacked me. The other day I was noodling around and for some reason clicked on a link to somebody’s LinkedIn… and it brought me to this page that said something to the effect that I should reactivate my account,” Malone told Mercola.
“I thought, well, what do I have to lose? So, I filed for that and did their necessary little paperwork and they came back and said, due to my continuing violations after having been kicked off of LinkedIn, I’m permanently banned,” he added.
“And I’m scratching my head going, ‘What were the continuing violations when I was kicked off of your platform?’ It’s kind of circular, but I mean, none of this has to make sense. It’s whatever they say it is. That’s the big lesson. Reality is whatever they say it is,” he noted further.
Sources include:
“It’s been bought by corporations and the military-industrial complex.”
This is the end of the farce
Here we go, the beginning of the end of the farce.
http://mileswmathis.com/opioid.pdf
by Miles Mathis
First published December 12, 2022
Like the Covid and vaccine deaths, the Fentanyl genocide was/is not an accident. It is mass murder
once again by Big Pharma, and it wasn’t done just for profit since Pharma is only half the equation.
Behind Pharma is an even more evil entity: the Phoenicians who want you dead.
Yes, as usual, I will not beat around the bush here. The time for that is past. I am going to tell you how
it is and I am going to tell you in the opening paragraph. If you want political words and longwinded
proofs and pages of statistics, you can go to others for that. They exist all over the place and aren’t hard
to find. The evidence already stacks to the Moon that the middle class is being targeted, both
financially and physically. Some of that evidence is covert and some are overt. Meaning, some are right
out in the open while some are hiding under a shallow frosting of lies, but aren’t hard to find once you pull
the blinders off and start looking.
What started me writing was news today that Walgreens and CVS have agreed to pay $10.7 billion to
settle lawsuits against them for cooperating in and profiting from the opioid crisis. I knew something
like that was going on, but it hadn’t ever penetrated my skull until now, I guess. I don’t even take
aspirin, so stories about drug crises don’t really register with me. I have trouble comprehending the
whole event from either side, predator or victim. I still don’t really understand how these places could
be involved, because I had always assumed this was a street drug thing, with users being sold the drugs
by illegal pushers. Hence the big drug busts, where we see ICE or Interpol bagging ten tons of Meth or
Fentanyl pills or something. I assumed they weren’t finding those in the backrooms at CVS. So I
looked it up. The first thing that came up on a general search was this story from CBS in 2020 from
San Francisco, where a Walgreens pharmacist had been arrested for impersonating a pharmacist and
illegally filling 745,000 prescriptions over eleven years. Over 100,000 of those were for opioids.
But the story makes no sense on any level. We are told the pharmacist pled not guilty and has not yet
been convicted, so why did Walgreens agree to settle? You would expect them to wait for a verdict.
Also, how do you impersonate a pharmacist? According to the story, she was previously a licensed
pharmacy tech, but her license expired in 2008. This lady then used the license number of someone
else with the same name to keep working. That sounds very unlikely. It sounds like a cover for
something else to me. And, even if true, that doesn’t make the prescriptions illegal. As long as a
doctor prescribed them, they are legal. You could not promote an opioid crisis with such a paper
technicality, and I fail to see how Walgreens could have caught the fraud or be liable for it: which is
exactly the point of this article. That is what they want you to think.
The whole story is being spun to make Walgreens and the doctors involved look innocent, putting all the blame on this rogue pharmacist. But with or without a license, all this pharmacist did was fill a legal prescription—at least
according to the story. So how do you promote an opioid epidemic by filling valid prescriptions? That
question is never asked in the article, much less answered.
Also, the number doesn’t seem to work at a glance, does it? Eleven years times 365 days is 4015 days,
divided into 745,000 prescriptions, which is 185 per day. But she probably only worked five days a week,
which would give us 260 per day, or 37 per hour, or about one every two minutes. You have been to
Walgreens. Does it take about two minutes to get your order? And is there only one lady working
there at a time? No, they admit she was—at best—a pharmacy tech, which means she would be
supervised by a pharmacist. Which means she wouldn’t get credit for every prescription filled every
minute.
If Walgreens and CVS are admitting guilt here, it can’t just be for a few unlicensed pharmacy techs
filling real prescriptions. There must be a concerted effort by everyone involved—doctors, pharmacies,
big companies, governments, and regulators—to promote this genocide. It simply could not happen
otherwise. So why would government entities later prosecute these companies for fraud? I can only
guess: one party decided after the fact to turn on the other parties and shake them down for part of their
share. Like bank robbers after a job. In return for keeping the sums low and spinning the blame onto
minor players, as we saw in San Francisco, those parties agree to play ball. And the public is given the
impression something is being done, while almost nothing is.
Is paying a fine really the correct remedy to this? Hundreds of thousands of people have been
murdered for profit or worse things than profit, and that is supposed to be remedied by fining these
companies a few billions? No, when someone kills another person with a gun or knife, we don’t fine
him a few thousand and tell him to go home, do we? So why are the directors of these companies still
on the streets? Why are their chief medical officers still on the streets?
I also rewatched Tucker Carlson’s interview with Dr. Malhotra today, and there we are reminded that
Vioxx killed 60,000 Americans, more than Vietnam. In a settlement, Merck paid about $600 million*
to be released from civil liability in the US, a tiny fraction of profits. And after fees only $9,000 per
death. Your husband is dead? Here’s $9,000, beat it! It later came out that Merck knew the lethal side
effects of Vioxx and that data had been fabricated but went ahead with its sales anyway.
The Malhotra interview is very damning for Pharma and the medical profession, but he actually spends
a lot of the interview defusing this bomb (of the vaccines as well as Vioxx). Although he allegedly lost
his father to the vaccine, he doesn’t seem very angry about it. I find his sangfroid maddening, and also
suspicious. As usual, he is sure to tell us he took the vaccine, and we see he isn’t sick or dead, so that is
a defusing right there. I am not sure I believe it. I would assume he didn’t take it. He then tells us that
pre-Covid vaccines are one of the safest things ever, so he is again generally pro-vax: highly suspicious
since it isn’t true. These mRNA “vaccines” are the worst, but many (perhaps all) previous vaccines
have been oversold or dangerous, and not just for their mercury or other adjuvants. But his comment
that really jumped out at me came later in the interview at min. 38:30, where he says the problem is a
“pandemic of misinformed doctors and misinformed and unwittingly harmed patients”. Really?
Unwittingly? So it was all just another honest mistake, eh, Dr. Malhotra? These doctors didn’t know
any better? It wasn’t outrageous and malevolent fraud, promulgated at best for profit and at worst as an
abetting of mass murder? But Malhotra had already said that this huge vaccine crisis had come down
from some great “psychopathic entity”, which he had implied was at the corporate level if not higher.
So, again, do you stop a huge psychopathic entity by slapping it on the wrist? That can only encourage
further psychopathy and murder, which is exactly what we have seen: accelerating levels of raw
criminality. At this point, not convicting these mass murderers is the same as abetting them.
When Malhotra starts back peddling and soft selling this due to bias and conflicts of interest, he
seems to me to be framing this as far less than it is, for the benefit of his promoters. He was paid to
defuse this bomb by admitting what we already know but trying to talk us down from the obvious
solution. We see it again later when Tucker points out that the US seemed to encourage obesity during
the pandemic rather than discourage it, by closing gyms, etc., despite it being known obesity was the
leading co-morbidity. He says he doesn’t believe this was part of a planned population reduction but
asks Malhotra to explain it. Malhotra says it is due to “the corporate capture of public health” and
again tries to pass it off as conflict of interest. Conflicts of interest? He says Gates was also invested
in Mcdonalds’ and Coke so that somehow explains it. These people wanted to make money from
vaccines and junk food at the same time: genocide explained away. Malhotra literally says that and
then drops it, as if he has answered Tucker’s question, and they move on. But Tucker somehow fails to
notice that doesn’t refute the genocide theory, it confirms it. These people were invested in junk food
because they knew that promoting it was a plank of the genocide: keep everyone at home living on
Domino’s pizza and Coke. Mandate all the upper-end restaurants to close so that people would be
forced to drive thru Wendys’ or Taco Bell. Close all the Mom&Pop stores so people would be forced to
shop at Walmart: then you only have to poison Walmart.
From there the interview sort of unwinds, as both Malhotra and Tucker play dumb, pretending they
don’t understand how this worked, how it happened, or what can be done. Tucker continues to say that
people are basically good, which isn’t to the point, obviously. This isn’t about people in general, it is
about the psychopaths, so I don’t know why he and Malhotra can’t stay on target. Or, actually, I am
pretty sure I do know: it is more misdirection.
In the closing minutes, Malhotra actually says that if Trump knew what he knew, he would flip his
position on vaccines. Except that we are almost three years out on Covid, so it is kind of late for
Trump or anyone else to be claiming ignorance. If Trump doesn’t already know what Malhotra knows,
we can only call him grossly incompetent or senile. Nothing Malhotra is saying is new: it has been up
at places like Infowars and Zerohedge for a year and a half and could have been intuited by anyone
with a brain long before that. Nothing Malhotra is saying is new to me, though he passes it off as fresh
off the medical presses. Plus, this interview is a couple of weeks old and we know Trump watches
Tucker. There is no way he isn’t aware of it. Has Trump rushed to Twitter or Social to admit his
mistake? No, and he won’t, because he has been in on this genocide from the start.
But back to the opioid crisis. It is prong two of this attack on worldwide populations, dwarfed
somewhat by the vaccines, but still incredibly potent. The setting in San Francisco of the pharmacist
story reminded me of my research on Haight-Ashbury for my Manson/Tate paper, where I found
government agents had been planted there to disseminate many dangerous drugs through whatever
means possible: fake prescriptions, passing them out at parties, introducing them through Esalen and
other CIA fronts, the works. And not just LSD, but also PCP, STP, and everything else. It later came
out in leaks and department declassifications that this was a targeted attack, planned for years by a
consortium of government agencies, at the behest of. . . some great hidden psychopathic entity that was
at the reins of the CIA, FBI, DIA, Justice, and even local police. So this goes back many decades, and
San Francisco was an early hub. CIA has grown exponentially since the 1960s, and it has now taken
over everything. It can place people anywhere it likes. . . and that anywhere of course includes
pharmacies. So I think what we are seeing here is evidence government drug pushers have actually
inserted themselves into major pharmacy chains. What better way to achieve their goals directly?
If doctors refuse to prescribe these deadly drugs or aren’t keeping up with orders in any way, the drugs
can be dispensed with forged signatures and any other fraudulent paperwork required. At that point, the
street pushers of the 1960s have moved indoors, with a Walgreens or CVS pharmacy sign over their
heads to lend legitimacy. Do the users care one way or the other? No. Once they have been
hooked, they no longer care about legal or illegal, street or pharmacy. All they care about is their fix.
But for those just getting snared, the apparent legitimacy of the pharmacy is a great convenience. For
the levels of genocide envisioned by the Great Psychopath, street pushing was not enough. It requires
the cooperation and infiltration of all non-governmental institutions, from schools and universities to
hospitals, pharmacies, groceries, malls, and cinemas. It requires a full-spectrum implementation.
This is what is happening and you would have to already be zonked on some drug cocktail not to see it.
And there is only one solution: prosecute these maniacs to the fullest extent of the law, either locking
them in some deep dark dungeon filled with rats or throwing them from the nearest cliffs in a vast
civic ceremony of cleansing. Anything short of that will just send the signal to the next round of
psychopaths to murder even more of us in the next wave. The plans are already in place for that, so
you better decide quickly.
Added last minute: Watching Tucker Carlson tonight I learned you can kill yourself with opioids
over-the-counter now, buying them at the grocery store or minimart under the name Za-Za or Tianaa,
aka gas station heroin. It is a 46 billion dollar industry killing people right and left, but our vaunted
FDA is doing. . . nothing, of course. There are existing laws against this, but no one at any level—
Justice, FBI, attorneys general, or DAs—are doing anything about it. Why? I just told you: they want
you dead.
Added December 15: In continuing to study this, I discovered something else shocking: at the very
same time Johnson&Johnson was pushing its Covid vaccine as safe and effective, it was part of a $26
billion-dollar fraud settlement nationwide, brought by state Attorneys General for its part in the opioid
crisis. McKinsey&Co, a management/consulting firm I have mentioned many times in these papers,
was also involved in this settlement, agreeing to pay over half a billion. McKinsey is one of those huge
firms like Burson-Marsteller that comes up like clockwork in my research since it is a Phoenician Navy
hub of skullduggery. The Enron scandal came out of McKinsey, and so did the 2007 financial crisis, as
even Wikipedia admits. Also involved in this opioid settlement are drug distributors McKesson,
Cardinal, and AmericSourceBergen. But my point is, it was always amazing to me that average people
were trusting these vaccine makers and Big Pharma in general, given their horrendous track record.
But it was even worse than we knew in the case of Johnson&Johnson, as you see. Somehow they
managed to push this vaccine genocide right on the heels of the Oxycontin/Fentanyl genocide,
murdering you WHILE they were being tried for murder and admitting guilt. How did they do that?
Mainly by being in control of the media. It isn’t that these stories were completely suppressed or
censored, because they weren’t. You could find this information online if you wanted to. But the
mainstream wasn’t reporting it, so most people missed it. When the mainstream mentioned it, it was
only as a passing story. They never gave it any context, warning you—as they should have—that the
same companies pushing the vaccines were—at that very moment—losing huge government lawsuits
for fraud.
What is even more uncanny is that people weren’t listening as I was trying to educate them on these
things back in 2020. I wasn’t aware of the J&J Oxycontin settlement, since I think it was still in the
future, but I was telling those around me not to trust Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J, since they had previously
been fined billions for massive fraud. Although that information was easily available from places like
Wikipedia, most people brushed me off as a conspiracy theorist. They simply didn’t want to hear it,
seeming to be in some hurry to kill themselves with a dangerous faux-vaccine. I can’t think of one
person locally who listened to me or followed my advice, much less thanked me for saving their lives.
But I do know many who ignored me and are now regretting it. The only way I can explain that is
prestige: in their eyes, those on TV had some unnamed prestige, just by being on TV or being promoted,
while I had none. And, perhaps even more importantly, they trusted “medical professionals” and their
own doctors, which we now know was a huge mistake. I wish I could say all that is over, and people
will never trust doctors or the government again. . . but I can’t say that. The government and medical
profession have been lying to us all our lives and getting caught at it, but no one ever seems to catch
on. No doubt your average citizen will find some way to bury all this as well and go on as before,
acting the gull to every passing fraudster.
And in other news, I have to ask: why is Alex Jones now doing big interviews with Kanye and Nick
Fuentes? It seems to me he is self-destructing on purpose since any sane man who wished to “restore
his reputation” after the Sandy Hook thing would avoid those two guys above any others. This is
especially obvious with Nick Fuentes, and Alex has absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose
by being seen with him. Fuentes has no real following and has made a career out of blackwashing
himself and everyone around him. He is clearly a Jewish agent sent in to make conservatives look like
KKK loonies. He couldn’t be a more obvious tarbaby if he covered himself in Karo syrup before every
public appearance. The same can be said for Kanye, who is way overacting his part. It is ludicrously
obvious that he is also an agent, being paid to say stupid things and create fires and diversions. My
first guess would be he is half-Jewish himself through his mother and is working for the ADL as a
make-work project. That doesn’t mean I think he should be censored or otherwise shut down, but it
does mean I think he should be avoided. I certainly wouldn’t make any alliances with him right now, so I
don’t know why Jones or Trump would.
Continue:
How Twitter Collaborated With “The Biden Team” To Cover Up The Hunter Laptop Story
https://www.infowars.com/posts/elon-musk-releases-the-twitter-files/
In a greatly anticipated Friday night drop of what was expected to be a cache of information involving the censoring of Hunter Biden’s notebook story days ahead of the 2020 presidential election, moments ago Elon Musk – who worked in collaboration with the notoriously independent gonzo journalist Matt Taibbi of “Vampire Squid” fame – has published the “Twitter Files.”
Shortly before their release, Matt Taibbi sent the following email to his substack subscribers:
Dear TK Readers:
Very shortly, I’m going to begin posting a long thread of information on Twitter, at my account, @mtaibbi. This material is likely to get a lot of attention. I will absolutely understand if subscribers are angry that it is not appearing here on Substack first. I’d be angry, too.
The last 96 hours have been among the most chaotic of my life, involving multiple trips back and forth across the country, with a debate in Canada in between. There’s a long story I hope to be able to tell soon, but can’t, not quite yet anyway. What I can say is that in exchange for the opportunity to cover a unique and explosive story, I had to agree to certain conditions.
Those of you who’ve been here for years know how seriously I take my obligation to this site’s subscribers. On this one occasion, I’m going to have to simply ask you to trust me. As it happens, there may be a few more big surprises coming, and those will be here on Substack. And there will be room here to to discuss this, too, in time. In any case, thanks for your support and your patience, and please hold me to a promise to make all this up to you, and then some.
https://api.banned.video/embed/638a9b0894cc1f7c63f3f076
Moments later Elon confirmed that he did, in fact, work with Taibbi:
And this is what Taibbi has been tweeting in the past few minutes (link here):
1. Thread: THE TWITTER FILES
2. What you’re about to read is the first installment in a series, based upon thousands of internal documents obtained by sources at Twitter.
3. The “Twitter Files” tell an incredible story from inside one of the world’s largest and most influential social media platforms. It is a Frankensteinian tale of a human-built mechanism grown out the control of its designer.
4. Twitter in its conception was a brilliant tool for enabling instant mass communication, making a true real-time global conversation possible for the first time.
5. In its early conception, Twitter more than lived up to its mission statement, giving people “the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers.”
6. As time progressed, however, the company was slowly forced to add those barriers. Some of the first tools for controlling speech were designed to combat the likes of spam and financial fraudsters.
7. Slowly, over time, Twitter staff and executives began to find more and more uses for these tools. Outsiders began petitioning the company to manipulate speech as well: first a little, then more often, then constantly.
8. By 2020, requests from connected actors to delete tweets were routine. One executive would write to another: “More to review from the Biden team.” The reply would come back: “Handled.”
9. Celebrities and unknowns alike could be removed or reviewed at the behest of a political party:
10. Both parties had access to these tools. For instance, in 2020, requests from both the Trump White House and the Biden campaign were received and honored. However:
11. This system wasn’t balanced. It was based on contacts. Because Twitter was and is overwhelmingly staffed by people of one political orientation, there were more channels, more ways to complain, open to the left (well, Democrats) than the right.
12. The resulting slant in content moderation decisions is visible in the documents you’re about to read. However, it’s also the assessment of multiple current and former high-level executives.
… Okay, there was more throat-clearing about the process, but screw it, let’s jump forward
16. The Twitter Files, Part One: How and Why Twitter Blocked the Hunter Biden Laptop Story
17. On October 14, 2020, the New York Post published BIDEN SECRET EMAILS, an expose based on the contents of Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop:
18. Twitter took extraordinary steps to suppress the story, removing links and posting warnings that it may be “unsafe.” They even blocked its transmission via direct message, a tool hitherto reserved for extreme cases, e.g. child pornography.
19. White House spokeswoman Kaleigh McEnany was locked out of her account for tweeting about the story, prompting a furious letter from Trump campaign staffer Mike Hahn, who seethed: “At least pretend to care for the next 20 days.”
20. This led public policy executive Caroline Strom to send out a polite WTF query. Several employees noted that there was tension between the comms/policy teams, who had little/less control over moderation, and the safety/trust teams:
21. Strom’s note returned the answer that the laptop story had been removed for violation of the company’s “hacked materials” policy: https://web.archive.org/web/20190717143909/https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hacked-materials
22. Although several sources recalled hearing about a “general” warning from federal law enforcement that summer about possible foreign hacks, there’s no evidence – that I’ve seen – of any government involvement in the laptop story. In fact, that might have been the problem…
23. The decision was made at the highest levels of the company, but without the knowledge of CEO Jack Dorsey, with the former head of legal, policy and trust Vijaya Gadde playing a key role.
24. “They just freelanced it,” is how one former employee characterized the decision. “Hacking was the excuse, but within a few hours, pretty much everyone realized that wasn’t going to hold. But no one had the guts to reverse it.”
25. You can see the confusion in the following lengthy exchange, which ends up including Gadde and former Trust and safety chief Yoel Roth. Comms official Trenton Kennedy writes, “I’m struggling to understand the policy basis for marking this as unsafe”:
26. By this point “everyone knew this was fucked,” said one former employee, but the response was essentially to err on the side of… continuing to err.
27. Former VP of Global Comms Brandon Borrman asks, “Can we truthfully claim that this is part of the policy?”
28. To which former Deputy General Counsel Jim Baker again seems to advise staying the non-course, because “caution is warranted”:
29. A fundamental problem with tech companies and content moderation: many people in charge of speech know/care little about speech, and have to be told the basics by outsiders. To wit:
30. In one humorous exchange on day 1, Democratic congressman Ro Khanna reaches out to Gadde to gently suggest she hop on the phone to talk about the “backlash re speech.” Khanna was the only Democratic official I could find in the files who expressed concern.
31. Gadde replies quickly, immediately diving into the weeds of Twitter policy, unaware Khanna is more worried about the Bill of Rights:
32. Khanna tries to reroute the conversation to the First Amendment, mention of which is generally hard to find in the files:
33. Within a day, head of Public Policy Lauren Culbertson receives a ghastly letter/report from Carl Szabo of the research firm NetChoice, which had already polled 12 members of congress – 9 Rs and 3 Democrats, from “the House Judiciary Committee to Rep. Judy Chu’s office.”
34.NetChoice lets Twitter know a “blood bath” awaits in upcoming Hill hearings, with members saying it’s a “tipping point,” complaining tech has “grown so big that they can’t even regulate themselves, so the government may need to intervene.”
35. Szabo reports to Twitter that some Hill figures are characterizing the laptop story as “tech’s Access Hollywood moment”:
36. Twitter files continued: “THE FIRST AMENDMENT ISN’T ABSOLUTE”
Szabo’s letter contains chilling passages relaying Democratic lawmakers’ attitudes. They want “more” moderation, and as for the Bill of Rights, it’s “not absolute”
37. An amazing subplot of the Twitter/Hunter Biden laptop affair was how much was done without the knowledge of CEO Jack Dorsey, and how long it took for the situation to get “unfucked” (as one ex-employee put it) even after Dorsey jumped in.
38. While reviewing Gadde’s emails, I saw a familiar name – my own. Dorsey sent her a copy of my Substack article blasting the incident
39. There are multiple instances in the files of Dorsey intervening to question suspensions and other moderation actions, for accounts across the political spectrum
40. The problem with the “hacked materials” ruling, several sources said, was that this normally required an official/law enforcement finding of a hack. But such a finding never appears throughout what one executive describes as a “whirlwind” 24-hour, company-wide mess.
41. It’s been a whirlwind 96 hours for me, too. There is much more to come, including answers to questions about issues like shadow-banning, boosting, follower counts, the fate of various individual accounts, and more. These issues are not limited to the political right.
42. Good night, everyone. Thanks to all those who picked up the phone in the last few days.
* * *
The release was telegraphed one week ago, when Musk acknowledged that revealing Twitter’s internal discussions surrounding the censorship of the New York Post‘s Hunter Biden laptop story right before the 2020 US election is “necessary to restore public trust.”
Recall that the Post had its Twitter account locked in October 2020 for reporting on the now-confirmed-to-be-real“laptop from hell,” which contained still-unprosecuted evidence of foreign influence peddling through then-Vice President Joe Biden – including a 2015 meeting with an executive of Ukrainian gas giant Burisma.
Users who tried to share the link to the article were greeted with a message saying, “We can’t complete this request because this link has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially harmful.”
Then, days after Musk’s tweet, Twitter’s former head of Trust and Safety, Yoel Roth, admitted it was a ‘mistake’ to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story.
In his first public appearance since becoming an ex-employee, Roth suggested that the Hunter Biden laptop story was simply ‘too difficult’ for Twitter to verify. Alternatively, the company could have perhaps simply trusted the Post, one of America’s oldest publications that doesn’t have a reputation for fabricating bombshell stories – like Twitter does with countless anonymous bombshells from other major publications.
“We didn’t know what to believe. We didn’t know what was true. There was smoke,” Roth said during an interview at the Knight Foundation conference, as noted by the Epoch Times. “And ultimately for me, it didn’t reach a place where I was comfortable removing this content from Twitter.”
“It set off every single one of my finely tuned APT28 ‘hack and leak campaign’ alarm bells,” he said, referring to a notorious team of cyberspies affiliated with Russian military intelligence. “Everything about it looked like a hack and leak.”
When asked whether it was a mistake to censor the story, Roth replied, “In my opinion, yes.”
Would Roth have suppressed the story if it was a Don Jr. laptop full of incriminating evidence?
* * *
Finally, it will be very interesting to see which “independent”, “impartial” and “objective” members of the Mainstream Media cover the Twitter Files, which, unlike all that Russia collusion bullshit, was a real and actionable attempt to interfere with US democracy by covering up one of the most explosive political stories of a generation, not to mention an event that would have swayed the 2020 presidential election.
Tales from the Conspiratum 
