The Most Revolutionary Act

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

The Most Revolutionary Act

Vaccine Expert: Young, healthy people may not need bivalent Covid boosters,

COVID-19 Bivalent Booster Available – Mercer County Ohio Health District

Anjellee Khemlani

Yahoo News

One of the country’s top vaccine experts has stirred debate in recent weeks by suggesting that not everyone should get the latest COVID-19 vaccine boosters and that the CDC is “overselling” the new shot.

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and a member of the FDA’s committee of outside vaccine experts, told Yahoo Finance there are three main groups of people who will benefit the most from the bivalent booster based on current evidence — those who are older than 75, have chronic diseases, or are immunocompromised.

For healthier, younger individuals, the vaccine’s impact isn’t as strong, he said.

“I just don’t think it’s going to make much of an impact in otherwise healthy young people. We really should focus on those three groups who are most likely to benefit, because the goal of the vaccine is to protect against serious illness. It’s the only reasonable goal, it’s the only attainable goal,” he said.

The clinical results of the first COVID-19 vaccines in 2020 had surprised experts with strong protection against mild illness, but subsequent variants eroded that level of protection over time. However protection against severe illness and death remains strong — and that should remain the focal point, Offit said.

He noted that some reports about his comments have misconstrued his claim to suggest that younger individuals shouldn’t get the booster. He stressed instead that it’s a matter of “low risk, low reward.”

“We’re not going to be able to stop mild illness, we’re not going to be able to stop transmission, and to try and do that with frequent boosters … doesn’t make a lot of sense,” Offit said.

That’s because boosters only buy a few extra months of protection against mild illness before the antibodies wane, he said, and studies have shown that the vaccines do not prevent transmission.


The Rise of Fauci and the U.S. Biosecurity State — Who Was Behind It?

By  Dr. Joseph Mercola

Dick Cheney, as vice president, was responsible for putting all biodefense research under the auspices of Dr. Anthony Fauci and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, making Fauci the sole decision-maker on biodefence and scientific research.

  • America’s focus on biosecurity began in earnest during the second Bush administration. Dick Cheney, as vice president, was responsible for putting all biodefense research under the auspices of Dr. Anthony Fauci and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).
  • Since 2003, Fauci has been responsible for civilian biodefence research and early development of medical countermeasures against terrorist threats from infectious diseases.
  • There’s no meaningful administrative distinction between biodefence and scientific research in general, and Fauci has been the sole decision maker for all of it, with no oversight.
  • Fauci has followed in Cheney’s footsteps, using the same tactics to deceive the American public into war. Cheney leaked false information to the press, and then used that press coverage to justify the invasion of Iraq. Fauci supervised the writing of a paper denouncing the lab leak theory, and then used that paper as “evidence” that SARS-CoV-2 arose naturally.
  • COVID-19 is a war against the public, for the purpose of forcing us into a New World Order, a One World Government run by a globalist cabal, where “biosecurity” is the justification for the removal of Constitutional rights and freedoms.

As reviewed in “Why Government Health Care Kills More People Than It Helps,” the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) couldn’t have botched its COVID-19 response any more if it tried.

On Aug. 17, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky even publicly admitted the agency’s failures, stating, “we are responsible for some pretty dramatic, pretty public mistakes from testing, to data, to communications.”

To save face, Walensky is reorganizing the agency, but considering the extent to which CDC officials have lied, obfuscated and broken laws intended to protect public health, it is highly unlikely that the CDC will ever be able to recover its credibility.

Abolish the CDC

The CDC is corrupted beyond salvage, and as noted by Brownstone Institute founder and president Jeffrey Tucker, the only way to fix a captured bureaucracy is to get rid of it.


The rise of the American biosecurity state

To understand how and why the CDC has morphed into an agency that works against, instead of for, the public good, we need to take a look at the history of American biodefense. Two journalists have recently dedicated articles to this issue.

In an Aug. 29, Unherd article, Ashley Rindsberg reviewed how Dr. Anthony Fauci rose to power as the highest paid federal employee, sitting at the “very top of America’s biodefense infrastructure,” with near-unlimited authority, at least as it pertains to science; what gets funded and what doesn’t.


According to Rindsberg, the Bush administration “came to power with biological weapons and infectious disease very much top of mind, with Cheney seeking to address the gaping hole in America’s national security left by the country’s lack of a coherent biodefense strategy.”

Biodefense became an even more prominent concern in the aftermath of 9/11, when letters containing anthrax were sent out to members of media and two U.S. senators.


Biodefense for the 21st Century

Just six days before 9/11, Joe Biden, then-chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had led a hearing on the threat of bioterrorism and the spread of infectious diseases.

Subsequent to that hearing, in June 2002, President Bush signed the “Biodefense for the 21st Century” directive, the aim of which was to advance a “comprehensive framework” for U.S. biodefense, based on the assumption that America could be devastated by a bioweapons attack.

The directive outlined “essential pillars” of the U.S. biodefense program, including threat awareness and vulnerability assessment, prevention and protection, surveillance and detection, response and recovery. The year before, in June 2001, senior policymakers had also performed a two-day tabletop simulation of a smallpox attack called Dark Winter.


How biodefense became Fauci’s domain

In 2002, the Bush administration quintupled biodefense spending to $317 million. That same year, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), broke out in China, and in 2003, just as SARS was being contained, H5N1 avian influenza emerged.

The back-to-back outbreaks acted as fuel for the erection of a biosecurity state, and in 2003, the Bush administration increased the annual biodefense budget to $2 billion — a staggering sum at the time.

Bush also earmarked another $6 billion for the development and stockpiling of vaccines over the next decade.

But funding was only part of the challenge.

To truly prepare for a bioweapons attack, research had to be conducted and coordinated, and to that end, Cheney brought all biodefense research programs under the purview of a single entity — the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, or NIAID, led by Fauci.

So, since 2003, Fauci has been responsible for “civilian biodefense research with a focus on research and early development of medical countermeasures against terrorist threats from infectious diseases and radiation exposures.”


As the head of the biodefense infrastructure, Fauci has, for decades, had an open channel straight into the top office of the White House. He’s also exempt from oversight.

For all these years, he’s had carte blanche to approve and run whatever biodefense research he wanted, without anyone telling him otherwise.

It also explains why he’s the highest-paid employee in the federal government, making more than the president himself.

A significant portion of Fauci’s $417,600 annual salary is compensation for his biodefense research leadership.

COVID-19 is Fauci’s grandest failure

As the top dog of biodefense research, it was Fauci’s job to prevent COVID-19 from devastating the U.S.

Instead, in 2017, he confidently announced that then-president Trump would “no doubt” have to face a “surprise infectious disease outbreak,” and then went on to issue a never-ending series of conflicting recommendations as head of the White House Coronavirus Response team.

Fauci also led efforts to suppress discussion about the origin of COVID-19, as detailed in “Liars, Propagandists and The Great Reset.”


The dangers of biodefense research are obvious

For years, a number of critics have warned that biodefense research could result in the very thing we’re trying to avoid, namely an infectious disease outbreak, as even the highest-security laboratories are prone to leaks and accidents.

One such critic is Richard Ebright, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University.

In 2003, he warned that the burgeoning biodefense endeavor, while well-intentioned, “may perversely have exactly the opposite effect.”

Fauci, ever the defender of risky research (and as we now understand, for selfish reasons), dismissed Ebright’s concerns as “spurious.”



Four Regions Vote to Join Russia: What’s Next?


The Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics (LPR and DPR) along with Kherson Region and part of Zaporozhye Region in southern Ukraine have voted to join Russia in referendums that were held between September 23 and 27.

In Lugansk, more than 98% of voters have supported the idea to join Russia, official figures show with all the ballots counted. Donetsk has shown similar results with more than 99% of voters supporting the move. Both Zaporozhye and Kherson regions have process all the ballots by late Tuesday, with 93% and 87% of voters respectively backing the split from Ukraine and reunification with Russia.

The process of integrating new regions into Russia may take some time as it requires the approval of the country’s parliament and the president. But Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said on Friday that he was “convinced it will be fast enough.” 

Under the Russian constitution and the federal law on the accession of new constituent members, the procedure includes several steps. Once the regions willing to become part of the Russian Federation submit their proposals to Moscow, the president should inform parliament and the government on the matter, Senator Konstantin Kosachev explained in a Telegram post last week.

If a political agreement on the accession is reached, “draft international treaties on the admission of foreign states or parts of them” to Russia should be developed, Kosachev, the vice speaker of the upper house of parliament, said. These agreements regulate issues such as the name and status of new territories, citizenship, succession, the functioning of public authorities, the operation of legislation, and so forth.

After these treaties are signed, the Russian Constitutional Court should verify if they comply with the country’s supreme law. If there are no violations, the next step will be the ratification of the documents by the lower house, the State Duma, and their approval by the upper house, the Federation Council.

Simultaneously, a draft federal constitutional law on the admission of new constituent units to Russia should be submitted to the Duma. If approved, it then goes to the upper house for consideration.

“This law enters into force no earlier than the entry into force of the international treaties themselves,” Kosachev noted.

Moscow warned earlier that if the Donbass republics and the two southern Ukrainian regions united with Russia, it would consider any attempts by Kiev to retake them as attacks on its own land. “Immediately the Russian Constitution will come into force in relation to these territories where everything is very clearly stated in this regard,” Peskov told journalists last week.

Shortly after the regions decided to hold referendums, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a partial mobilization that involved calling to arms some 300,000 reservists, according to the military. Media reports have suggested that Moscow allegedly plans to mobilize up to a million.

Kiev considers the territories willing to join Russia to be under illegal occupation and said it would not recognize the results of the referendums. Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has ruled out any possibility of talks after the voting.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba stated last Tuesday that “Ukraine has every right to liberate its territories and will keep liberating them, whatever Russia has to say.”

The EU and the US have already called the voting a “sham.” US Secretary of State Antony Blinken told CBS on Sunday that the LPR, DPR, Kherson and Zaporozhye regions “will never be recognized” as part of Russian territory. He added that Kiev had “every right” to take them back.

Russia sent troops into Ukraine on February 24, citing Kiev’s failure to implement the Minsk agreements, designed to give the regions of Donetsk and Lugansk special status within the Ukrainian state. The protocols, brokered by Germany and France, were first signed in 2014. Former Ukrainian president Pyotr Poroshenko has since admitted that Kiev’s main goal was to use the ceasefire to buy time and “create powerful armed forces.”

In February 2022, the Kremlin recognized the Donbass republics as independent states and demanded that Ukraine officially declare itself a neutral country that will never join any Western military bloc. Kiev insists the Russian offensive was completely unprovoked.



20,000 Injuries and Deaths: The Flu Disappeared in 2020 But Not the Flu Shot

by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News

Prior to the COVID-19 plandemic in 2020, the yearly influenza vaccine was the most dangerous vaccine in the United States in terms of injuries and deaths recorded in the Government VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) database.

When the world was told that a deadly new virus had arrived in 2020, the flu basically disappeared, as there just were not enough people dying to inflate both influenza and COVID death statistics.

According to the CDC, here are the total amount of flu deaths during the 5 years preceding 2020:

  • 34,000 deaths in the 2018-2019 flu season
  • 61,000 deaths in the 2017-2018 flu season
  • 38,000 deaths in the 2016-2017 flu season
  • 23,000 deaths in the 2015-2016 flu season
  • 51,000 deaths in the 2014-2015 flu season (Source.)

These were of course “estimated deaths” that the CDC calculated each year, and we have documented many times during those 5 years that these numbers were greatly inflated in order to scare the public into getting the flu shot each year. See: The Disappearance of the Annual Flu Which was Replaced with COVID-19

Here are the current number of flu deaths since 2020 according to the CDC:

And yet even though the CDC’s estimated flu deaths have fallen by up to 5,000% since 2020, the number of flu vaccines sold in the U.S. reached a record high at the end of 2020, the last year flu vaccine sales data is available, at 193.8 MILLION doses.

The pro-vaccine crowd may be tempted to reply that the increase in flu vaccine distribution resulted in a decrease in flu deaths, but when the 2021-2022 flu season began, the corporate media stated this year’s flu season vaccine was NOT a good match for the varieties of flu viruses circulating, and that this was going to be a “bad flu season.”


Since 2020 through the most current statistics added to the VAERS database last Friday, September 23, 2022, there have been 20,190 cases of flu vaccine injuries filed, including 185 deaths, 498 permanent disabilities, 237 life threatening events, 2255 visits to the ER, and 1095 hospitalizations. (Source.)

Using a couple of different search techniques in VAERS to try and find cases where people have already received both a COVID-19 vaccine and a flu shot since this recommendation was made, I found several cases where people apparently took the White House’s and the CDC’s advice (given in September, 2021) and got both vaccines together, and then suffered an adverse event.


The most common side effects these children who have received BOTH a flu shot and a COVID shot together at the same time are experiencing are dizziness and fainting within minutes of receiving both shots.

Other recorded side effects included myocarditis (heart disease), inflammation of the brain and spinal cord (encephalomyelitis), seizures, convulsions, organ failure, cardiac shock, rashes, vomiting, and hearing and vision loss.

These are a sampling of the multitude of cases I found of children who received BOTH a COVID-19 vaccine and a flu vaccine at the same time. This list is NOT exhaustive, just the ones I could find (54).


VAERS ID: 1713577: 12-year-old girl from Virginia

Patient experienced vasovagal syncope just minutes after receiving her second Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine and the seasonal influenza vaccine together.


VAERS ID: 1757449: 17-year-old boy from Maine

Patient states they “blacked out” soon after vaccination. Patient was unresponsive for approximately 3 minutes. Patient also states they felt “Dizzy” soon after vaccination.

VAERS ID: 1848995: 7-year-old boy from California


At approximately 1055, as the client was standing next to his mother, he began to slouch over the vaccination table and vaccinator RN”s assisted client to the ground. Client lost consciousness for approximately 2 seconds.


VAERS ID: 1848851: 8-year-old girl from Minnesota

Syncopal episode (fainting) with subsequent emesis (vomiting)

VAERS ID: 1929158: 11-year-old girl from Georgia

Patient received Pediatric Pfizer dose in left deltoid. She then received Flucelvax in right deltoid. Upon receipt of 2nd vaccine, patient fainted and lost consciousness for a few seconds.


VAERS ID: 2019711: 11-year-old boy from Arizona

Patient was getting a haircut when he slumped over in the chair and passed out unconscious for 15-20 seconds. When he came to, his eyes were blood shot and he was disoriented (not sure what happened). He said that he suddenly became dizzy before blacking out.


VAERS ID: 1831616: 15-year-old boy from Ohio

Patient passed out in store about 1 hour after his vaccines.


VAERS ID: 2021990: 17-year-old girl from California

Patient lost consciousness as observed by accompanying guardian. Per guardian, patient also had a short seizure and skin color turned pale.


VAERS ID: 2436380: 14-year-old boy from Colorado


VAERS ID: 1855102: 9-year-old boy from Iowa

Shortly after receiving his vaccines he was sitting on a chair and then started to pass out and fell to the floor. He was out for about 5 seconds.


VAERS ID: 2440039: 17-year-old boy from California

Patient appeared to be having a seizure for a short time (estimated to be less than a minute) after receiving his vaccines. The adverse event happened about a minute after receiving the vaccines.


VAERS ID: 1942394: 8-year-old boy from Pennsylvania

pt got 2 vaccines – flu and 2nd covid vaccine , pt fainted – gave water and put ice pack on back

VAERS ID: 2043579: 16-year-old boy from Michigan

Pt received pfizer vaccine first, followed by flucelvax. Pt fainted after flucelvax (10sec post flucelvax, <2min post pfizer covid vaccine).


VAERS ID: 1959935: 8-year-old girl from Virginia

After vaccination, the patient fainted in the administration room. \


VAERS ID: 2446442: 13-year-old boy from Indiana

Patient began feeling very warm about 4 minutes after receiving the vaccine combination. Patient was waiting in the car for the 15 minute suggested wait period. Patient”s caregiver stated that about 5 minutes after receiving the vaccines, the patient blacked out in a seizure like behavior and was out for about 25 seconds. When he became responsive, he vomited and complained of an overall numb feeling.

VAERS ID: 2032631: 11-year-old girl from Florida

Patient became lightheaded about 5 minutes after vaccine administration. She then started to sweat and turn white and finally fainted. After lying her on the floor she woke up almost immediately.

VAERS ID: 1858332: 8-year-old boy from Kentucky

Pt. received two vaccinations around 3:10pm. He was fine immediately following the injections. He stood up to wait for his father to be vaccinated. After the father”s first injection, patient fell back against the plastic cart of supplies and started to lose consciousness.


VAERS ID: 2057988: 14-year-old boy from Pennsylvania

patient received a flu vaccination and a Pfizer covid vaccination. Patient fainted after vaccination but quickly regained consiousness

VAERS ID: 1858775: 9-year-old boy from Kentucky

After receiving both vaccines patient was walking around the store with his mom and told her he didn”t feel good. Patient proceeded to pass out and hit his head. Patient peed his pants and felt light-headed until the ambulance arrived and they checked him out.

VAERS ID: 1885954: 16-year-old boy from Missouri

Patient passed out briefly while walking down an aisle roughly three minutes after vaccine was administered.


VAERS ID: 1913283: 14-year-old girl from Texas

Patient woke up this morning and felt very dizzy, fell and hit her face, causing a nosebleed and possible fracture of nasal bones. She was seen at ER where they ran testing, observed her for an hour and sent her to our office

VAERS ID: 1914226: 9-year-old girl from California

Patient collapsed about a couple of minutes after vaccines.


VAERS ID: 1912790: 10-year-old boy from North Dakota

Dizzy and Faint, pt seated and given a cold pack with orange juice and crackers. Outcome: pt reports feeling “better than before” after 15 minutes.

VAERS ID: 2005824: 15-year-old boy from Indiana



VAERS ID: 1868039: 9-year-old boy from Texas

Patient passed out shortly after vaccination.


VAERS ID: 1876449: 5-year-old boy from New York

Immediately after administering both vaccines, patient passed out for few seconds, Once he woke up, he did not feel well and started vomiting.


VAERS ID: 1732144: 12-year-old boy from Washington

 Nausea (feeling of needing to throw up); Blurred vision; High pitched ringing noise

VAERS ID: 1898199: 9-year-old girl from Kansas

Patient fainted immediately after giving 2nd vaccine.


VAERS ID: 1826456: 17-year-old boy from Oregon

chest pain, shortness of breath, likely myocarditis

VAERS ID: 2140504: 7-year-old girl from Nebraska

Beginning about 2 days after the vaccine, patient began reporting headaches. The headaches were severe enough to require medication, ice, rest, removal from her classroom at school, and then medical intervention. Various treatments have been attempted but she continues to report frequent headaches and migraines.


VAERS ID: 1870113: 11-year-old girl from Minnesota

Patient presented to clinic as walk in for a COVID-19 vaccine and flu vaccine. Patient received both vaccines as indicated above. Patient stood up and proceeded to the door in which she became faint with syncope response.


VAERS ID: 1948381: 11-year-old boy from Texas

Covid19 and Flu vaccine were given on Nov 17,2021. On Dec 6th patient started to endorse severe headaches that waxed and waned for 7 days and somnolence . On Dec 13 was admitted after MRI confirmed signs of acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (Inflammation of the brain and spinal cord.)


VAERS ID: 1902125: 5-year-old girl from South Carolina

Patient received both vaccines in our office on 11/22/21 and around 6pm that evening she started with fever and urticaria (hives). Her fever got up to 102 and her parents treated it with Tylenol and Motrin rotating.

VAERS ID: 1993435: 11-year-old boy from Georgia

Received COVID vaccine #1 (Pfizer for 5-11 yr) on 11/22/21 and two days later on 11/24/21, parents state when asked to perform simple task, he became significantly emotional, laid on garage cement floor, curled up and continued to cry for 2-3 hours. He has not had episodes like this previously. The emotional episodes has continue to reoccur since 11/24/21.

VAERS ID: 1954575: 10-year-old girl from Missouri

Seizure occured 20-30 minutes after basketball game.


VAERS ID: 2204294: 9-year-old boy from California

Client and his mother reported the client developed dizziness, weakness, “like he had no strength,” about 5 hours after the vaccine that lasted 15-20 minutes.


VAERS ID: 1928586: 11-year-old girl from Iowa

Patient received both shots and then a few minutes later she fell backwards.


VAERS ID: 1942056: 8-year-old girl from Virginia

A few hours after 2nd COVID-19 vaccine, my daughter developed a facial twitch on her right check cheek.


VAERS ID: 2233852: 11-year-old boy from Michigan

Case-patient had first Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine on 12/18/2021 and illness onset for MIS-C was on the same day.


VAERS ID: 1968450: 10-year-old girl from Alaska

a few minutes after vaccine administration patient informed her mother that she felt like she couldn”t hear and had some visual disturbance as she couldn”t see out of her left eye. Patient then vomited once.


VAERS ID: 1970404: 9-year-old boy from Alaska

A technician administered the flu and covid vaccines, then walked back to the pharmacy. About a minute later someone in the lobby reported an emergency, I (pharmacist) went to the lobby area to see the matter. Patient was on the floor and appeared to be waking up, his mother stated she thought he had convulsed then fainted.


VAERS ID: 1989874: 10-year-old boy from Wyoming

Approximately 5 minutes after receiving both vaccinations patient had what father, an MD, described as focal seizure. Patient went rigid and lost consciousness briefly.


VAERS ID: 2028700: 17-year-old girl from Texas

Patient briefly lost consciousness and had two convulsions after which she woke back up and acted normally once again. Patient did feel light headed afterward

VAERS ID: 2075279: 13-year-old boy from California

Approx. 10 minutes after vaccination patient was pale, clammy, dizzy and said he was having trouble catching his breath. His breath, he said he had trouble seeing and that his arm felt numb.


VAERS ID: 2397848: 12-year-old girl from Florida

Chronic Autoimmune Urticaria daily since the begin of February, full body Angioedema sporadically since May, facial mostly eyes and lips

VAERS ID: 2069198: 16-year-old girl from California

Patient reported chest tightness and dull pain in center of chest that varied in intensity that occurred 3 days after receiving the COVID Pfizer booster vaccine.


VAERS ID: 2123895: 14-year-old girl from Michigan

7th facial nerve inflammation. Patient woke up and could not close her eye on the right side of face and had facial paralysis on the right side of face in eye brow, cheek, and tongue and facial drooping and can”t laugh or whistle. VAERS ID: 2411161: 14-year-old girl from California

Eyes rolled back, shaking, fainted for 5 seconds, regained consciousness, and was confused on what happened


Ancient Korean History: The Consolidation of Class Society

figure Archives - Gwangju News

Episode 25: Korea – The Unified Silla

Foundations of Eastern Civilization

Dr Craig Benjamin (2013)

Film Review

After allying with the Tang Dynasty to defeat the Kuguyo and Paechche,* the Silla Dynasty repelled attempts to establish a Tang colony on the Korean peninsula. Continuing to rule the southern Korean peninsula from 57 BC to 935 AD. In 721 AD, they built a strong defensive wall (in the vicinity of Korea’s current Demilitarized Zone dividing North an South Korea) against the Parhae kingdom. The latter was formed by Kuguyo refugees fleeing the Silla army. 

Eventually both the Parhae and Silla kingdoms agreed to pay tribute to the Tang Dynasty to fend off further military incursions. Chinese cultural influence in both states was massive, with thousands of Buddhist monks and students traveling to the Tang capitol Chang’an to study. Kongju, the capitol of Silla, was laid out in a grid pattern just like Chinese cities.

In Silla members of the nobility, limited to members of the True Bone Clan, could own as many as 3,000 slaves. In 788 AD, Silla adopted a Confucian civil service exam for allocating government appointments, but only members of the True Bone Clan were allowed to take it.** Low born Silla intellectuals, referring to themselves as the Head Rank Six, tended to push back against Chinese influence by promoting native Korean culture. The latter featured a knowledge of advanced math used to build an astronomical observatory and Buddhist temples, highly advanced wood block printing  and enormous cast bronze bells that were far superior to anything produced in China or Japan.

Determined to break the power of the monarchy, the Head Rank Six led a 20-year rebellion in the late 9th century, leading to the eventual collapse of the dynasty. During a 150-year period of great instability, the nobility ceased fighting each other for throne to focus on a flourishing trade with China. Referred to as the Castle Lords, they abandoned the capitol to establish castles around the coast they defended with their own private armies.

Significant events during this lengthy period of instability include

  • An organized peasant revolt in 889 AD, in which the Red Thousand Bandits seized the region south of the Silla capitol Kongju.
  • The sacking of Parhae by militarized Khitan steppes nomads in 926 AD, leading the entire Parhae nobility to flee south to Silla.
  • The sacking of the royal palace in Kongju in 927 AD by the Castle Lord Kyongsun, who killed the king and installed himself on the throne.
  • The crushing of Kyongsun’s regime in 934 by Wang Kon, a Koguyo from Parhae.

The abdication of the last Silla king in 935 AD in favor of Wang Kon (later known as King Taejo), who went on to reunify the entire peninsula. The Koryo dynasty he established (from which the modern name Korea is derived) would rule unified Korea for 500 years.

* See Prehistoric Korea

**Many Silla farmers and artisans were debt-slaves.

***Confucius advocated for government to accept qualified officials from all social classes.

Film can be viewed free with library card on Kanopy

Swedish experts report explosions at Nord Stream pipeline sites

Swedish experts report explosions at Nord Stream pipeline sites

Scientists in Denmark and Sweden registered underwater explosions near the Nord Stream pipelines on Monday, when several major leaks were reported. Sabotage is now believed to be behind the damage.

“There is no doubt that these were explosions,” seismologist Bjorn Lund of Sweden’s National Seismology Centre (SNSN) told public broadcaster SVT on Tuesday.

The Danish military released aerial footage of the leaks, showing large spots and visible bubbling in the water. Nord Stream 1 suffered two leaks northeast of the Danish island of Bornholm, while Nord Stream 2 was damaged south of Dueodde, a beach located at the island’s southernmost tip, the military noted.

Earlier in the day, Moscow said it has been looking into the reasons behind the leaks, suggesting the pipelines were targeted in an act of sabotage. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that currently “no option can be ruled out” on the causes of the incident.

The Nord Stream 1 pipeline was completed in 2011. Construction work on Nord Stream 2 began in 2018, and suffered numerous delays due to political pressure and sanctions from the US. The pipeline was finished and pressurized in September 2021, but never actually got online.

Two days before the start of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, the German government put its certification on indefinite hold, and has repeatedly rejected any suggestions, both domestic and from Moscow, to open the pipeline.



Russian Pipelines to Germany Apparently BLOWN UP

Hal Turner Radio Show

A few hours ago (Monday night), the pressure in Nord Stream 2, the undersea gas line connecting Russia and Germany, plummeted and began leaking gas bubbles into the Baltic sea near the Danish island of Bornholm.  Less than an hour ago reports of pressure drops in ***BOTH*** Nord Stream lines 1 & 2 ! ! !   The photo above was taken by military helicopter over one of the rupture sites, showing gas bubbling to the surface of the sea.

The Baltic Sea pipeline which had never been put into operation seems to have been DESTROYED.

The leak was noticed for the first time, Monday night (European time).  A spokeswoman for the gas network operator, GASCADE, confirms that pipeline sensors registered a massive drop in pressure in the pipeline, and sounded alarms.

According to the Nordstream 2 operators, the pressure dropped from 105 bars to 7 bars.

German media is reporting that a leak in the newly built pipeline is most likely the result of sabotage.

After it became clear that Russia was planning to enter Ukraine militarily, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz stopped the project.

Whether an accident is behind the pipeline rupture or sabotage is unclear for the time being.  However, an accident on the ultra-modern line is unlikely.


The timing of the incident, during a European supply crisis, and after serious setbacks for Russia in the Ukraine war, suggests sabotage.

Most recently, the German AfD and Left Party had campaigned to open the pipeline to mitigate the gas price crisis in Germany.

The relatively shallow depth of the Baltic Sea at the location of the leak means that the damaged pipeline will be readily accessible by submersible and possibly even divers.

Over the coming days and weeks, we should expect to see a forensic investigation into the failure to determine the cause.

However the dramatic drop in pressure to only 7 bar (~60 m of water) suggests that the pipeline may have filled with seawater. If that’s the case, it may be that the pipeline will require such extensive repairs that restoring it to operability is cost prohibitive.

Prior to any investigation, Western media is likely to push the theory that Russia is behind this sabotage. Which makes little sense since there is no reason for Russia to destroy their own infrastructure they both spent billions constructing and have complete control over.

Who most clearly benefits from such a disaster? Since the same time last year, the US has more than doubled the volumes of gas it is sending to Europe.


In this context, it is readily apparent that the US has been motivated not only to spark and maintain the conflict between Russia and Ukraine but also in subordinating Europe to temporarily buoy its own flailing economy.

At the center of the conflict is Nord Stream 2, the newly built natural gas pipeline connecting Russia and Germany. The significant economic integration that is set to occur between Russia and Europe’s biggest economy represents a direct threat to US hegemony.

Prior to this leak, the only thing preventing flow through the pipeline was a regulatory block placed in February by German Chancellor Scholz at the behest of the US. Earlier today, protests demanding the pipeline be opened erupted in Germany. The timing is simply incredible.

If a pipeline is closed simply due to a regulatory block, the only impediment to opening the valves is political. But if a pipeline is destroyed, there is no need to worry about a change in Chancellor.

This relentless pursuit of monopoly control over Europe’s energy supply is the most clear demonstration of how Europe is being imperialized by the U.S. Thus it is no coincidence that, in the absence of communist leadership, Europe is seeing a rise in fascist governments as a result.

We’re going to have to wait for the investigation, but if you wanted to sabotage a new undersea pipeline while making it appear as an accident, one way to do it would be to trigger a very small submarine landslide.




Marines dismiss case against Japan-based lance corporal who refused COVID-19 vaccine

U.S. Military Will Require Covid-19 Vaccine - The New York Times
By Jonathan Snyder
Stars and Stripes

Lance Cpl. Catherine Arnett, 24, of Fort Worth, Texas, was charged with two counts under article 87 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, missing troop movements on May 27 and May 14, and one count under article 92, disobeying a direct order on May 7.

Arnett was not charged with refusing the vaccine, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing spokesman Maj. Rob Martins told Stars and Stripes in July. The court-martial came from her refusal “to board multiple flights to complete the separation process which occurred after she refused the COVID-19-vaccine,” he wrote.

Arnett said she would not board those flights because the orders stemmed from the 2021 Defense Department mandate on COVID-19 vaccination, which she considers unlawful.

Her court-martial was placed on an indefinite delay on Aug. 22 after her lawyer cited a federal judge’s Aug. 18 order that temporarily bars the Corps from punishing or discharging Marines who refused the vaccine on religious grounds.

A status hearing for Arnett’s case was scheduled for Tuesday, but the aircraft wing’s commander, Maj. Gen. Eric Austin, decided on Wednesday to dismiss it.

“In weighing the considerations for both the Marine Corps and the Marine, within the context of the most recent injunction for COVID-19 vaccine refusal cases, the commanding general has decided to dismiss [Arnett’s] COVID-19 related charges,” Martins, the wing spokesman, said in an email Monday.

Arnett was unavailable to comment on the dismissal on Tuesday.

The Marine said she refused the COVID-19 vaccines because they are tested or produced using stem cell lines that descend from fetuses aborted in the 1970s and ’80s. Her request as a Catholic for a religious exemption, she said, was denied by the Marine Corps and again on appeal.



New Study Supports Retracted 2020 Study Showing Unvaxxed Kids Healthier Than Vaxxed

By  Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge

A new study by James Lyons-Weiler, Ph.D. and Dr. Russell Blaylock supports the conclusions of a study by Dr. Paul Thomas, published in November 2020 and later retracted after an anonymous reader expressed concerns.

In November 2020, a study that carefully examined 10 years’ worth of data from a pediatric practice in Oregon run by Dr. Paul Thomas was published. Five days following the publication of the study, Thomas’ license was suspended.

A month after that, the journal decided to inform the authors that an anonymous reader had expressed some concerns about the study.

This single reader’s comments that involved bad guesswork led ultimately to the journal’s decision to retract the paper, leaving the authors stunned.

The authors knew that the reader’s concerns had already been addressed during peer review, and expected the journal to rule in favor of not retracting the paper. The journal editorial board knew this, too.

The concern centered primarily on the question of whether the large differences in the number of medical visits required for attention to specific health conditions like anemia, gastroenteritis, asthma, ear infections and many others, were due to parents who did not vaccinate not showing up to their well-baby and well-child visits.

Because Thomas’ license was suspended, he had to focus on his case and try to keep his life from falling apart; the medical board kept postponing the hearing, and no hearing had occurred.

In fact, no hearing has been held to date.

James Lyons-Weiler, Ph.D. suggested to Thomas that perhaps the medical board had overreached by applying a penalty without due process, a fact that Thomas then shared with his lawyer.

When his lawyer wrote the medical board pointing out that Thomas had suffered a penalty without due process, they offered to reinstate his license, pending the outcome of a hearing, on the condition that he do no more research.

This clearly shows the agenda of the medical board was not to ensure that the children in the practice were receiving good pediatric medical care.

It is now clear that the singular priority of the medical board was to shut down Thomas’ practice of abiding by informed consent — as required by Oregon state law for all medical procedures — and to prevent him from sharing any additional findings from the 10 years of data that had been collected from his practice.

New study supports earlier conclusions by Thomas

Today, the study is revived by a second study, this time conducted by Lyons-Weiler and his medical collaborator, Dr. Russell Blaylock.

In this second study, the following questions were addressed:

  1. Which group of patients adhered to the regular well-child visit better, the vaccinated patients or those who had refused vaccines?
  2. In groups of patients matched for health check visitation usage, which adverse health outcomes following vaccination differed between vaccinated patients and those who refused vaccines?
  3. After adjusting for healthcare visitations and age, do vaccines still significantly affect overall adverse health conditions in a manner independent of their interaction with healthcare visitations and age?
  4. Did older patients in the practice who stopped vaccinating experience a decrease in the adverse health outcomes that have been attributed to vaccines?

The study results, which are found in the paper entitled “Revisiting Excess Diagnoses of Illnesses and Conditions in Children Whose Parents Provide Informed Permission to Vaccinate Them” show that the anonymous reader’s concerns were unfounded; the unvaccinated families made their well-child visits with greater frequency than the vaccinated families.

This study, funded by the public, answers the first questions.

The answer to the second question is “results vary,” but this may be due to smaller sample sizes reducing power (see the study for details).

The study split the patients into high, medium and low health care visitation usage blocks, and many of the adverse health effects are seen increased in the vaccinated group of patients within these blocks (blocks are groups of patients matched on health care visitation usage).

For the third question, the scientists found that after defining a model that included healthcare visit utilization and age, vaccines were still a significant factor that increased adverse health outcomes, many of which had previously been associated with vaccines.

Moreover, the authors also determined that vaccines were still significant following consideration of the interaction term between vaccination status and the other model factors.

Importantly, had the study authors not considered the interaction term, the results would have seemed to imply that vaccination was negatively predictive of adverse health outcomes.

In the model in which vaccines, health care visits per age and the interaction term was considered, the number of vaccines was a positive significant predictor of overall adverse health.

Interaction terms are usually ignored by studies that “adjust for” variables. Adding covariates into the model without considering the interaction term with the main effect — vaccines — can mask a significant effect on the rates of post-vaccination health issues, providing a misleading result.

It’s worth noting that breastfeeding — another correlate of lifestyle measures — had no significant singular or interaction effects.

Blaylock posed the final question to Lyons-Weiler, who conducted the data analysis.

When older children were studied, and those who had the most vaccines were compared to those to those of the same age who had fewer vaccines, a clear pattern emerged for most of the adverse health outcomes: the risk of having a higher adverse health outcome was higher in the most-vaccinated older children compared to the least-vaccinated older children to a degree that was larger than that expected given any variation between the two groups in healthcare visit utilization.

This reflects the positive health effects of vaccine cessation.

vaccine cessation
The age-matched effects of vaccine cessation. High Relative Risk values denote increased risk of a given health outcome in patients receiving more vaccines in the older age group (>1,500 days of age). The black bar shows the Relative Risk of HCV between these groups as a baseline.

The relative risk of adverse health outcomes in older children who continued to vaccinate compared to those who ceased vaccination in Thomas’ practice.

Combined, all of these results mean that the method developed by Lyons-Weiler to consider the number of office visits needed for adverse health outcomes represents a robust, reliable and rigorous advance in methodology for the study of adverse health outcomes following medical exposures, including vaccines.

The method, “Relative Incidence of Office Visits,” had already been shown to be more powerful.

Lyons-Weiler reports that this is necessarily so because the measure contains more information than mere rates of diagnosis.

The RIOV measure has a higher dynamic range than odds ratios and relative risks based on diagnosis only. Studies that focus on the rates of diagnosis are using a subset of RIOV but are only limiting their count of office visits to that for the initial diagnosis.

The authors estimated that vaccination increases the need for visits to the doctor for vaccine-related health outcomes at a rate of 2.56 to 4.98 new chronic-illness-related visits per unit increase in vaccination per year.

“That translates into far more chronic illness in vaccinating children than in those not vaccinating, a disease burden that is not considered in risk: benefit considerations when it comes to vaccine policies and laws,” said Lyons-Weiler.

The paper, which was subjected to blinded peer review, describes all of the details of the results, is open access, and is published in the peer-reviewed journal International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Research, and Practice.



CDC walks back COVID guidance again, finds lasting post-vaccine heart problems in young adults

Posted BY: RM | NwoReport

The CDC continues to erase distinctions by COVID-19 vaccination status in public health guidance as ongoing global research — including its own — documents the mediocre performance of COVID vaccines and their unexpectedly high rates of lasting harm in some groups.

Vaccination status is no longer used “to inform source control, screening testing, or post-exposure recommendations” for healthcare personnel, the Friday update to their CDC guidance says.

The agency “[c]larified” that healthcare facilities, including nursing homes, have discretion on whether to screen-test asymptomatic personnel. It also now says asymptomatic patients “in general” do not require “empiric use of Transmission-Based Precautions” after exposure to an infected person.

A CDC study of 12-29 year-olds with heart inflammation following mRNA vaccination, published last week in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, found that 1 in 6 still had not “fully recovered” at least 90 days after myocarditis onset, including 1 in 100 who hadn’t improved at all.

Myocarditis has increased so markedly among youth since vaccines were authorized for them that an Ivy League-affiliated hospital started running TV ads this month for its treatment in children. New York-Presbyterian marked the ad’s Sept. 6 YouTube video private less than two weeks later, following criticism that it was trying to “normalize” a vaccine-induced condition.

The CDC’s COVID-19 Response Team found more than 800 myocarditis reports to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System from Jan. 12 to Nov. 5, 2021 that matched the parameters for age and time since onset.

Excluding those without phone numbers or who couldn’t be reached, they studied 393 individuals whose healthcare providers, mostly cardiologists, completed a survey. The median age was 17 and overwhelmingly male. The team deemed four in five patients “fully or probably fully” recovered (320).


%d bloggers like this: