Retired child and adolescent psychiatrist and American expatriate in New Zealand. In 2002, I made the difficult decision to close my 25-year Seattle practice after 15 years of covert FBI harassment. I describe the unrelenting phone harassment, illegal break-ins and six attempts on my life in my 2010 book The Most Revolutionary Act: Memoir of an American Refugee.
Speckin Forensics Laboratories based out of Lansing, Michigan, was retained to acquire forensic images of six hard drives in Fulton County, Pennsylvania on July 13-14, 2022.
The private forensics firm, whose “examiners have presented testimony in over 30 states”, produced a county commissioned report on September 15, 2022, which revealed “several deficiencies” that directly contradict the “contractual terms and conditions” provided to Fulton County by Dominion Voting Systems.
The report alleges that Fulton County’s log files show “an external IP address” located in Quebec, Canada, and that an unauthorized “python script” had been installed after the certification date.
Moreover, the system’s security patch had not been updated since April 10, 2019, and default usernames and passwords had not been changed since the time of installation.
The report says, “This python script can exploit and create any number of vulnerabilities including, external access to the system, data export of the tabulations, or introduction of other metrics not part of or allowed by the certification process.”
What’s more, this “external IP address” was found on the very same adjudication workstation that contained the “post certification python script”.
On Monday, Ukraine slaughtered 16 civilians, including two children, with 155mm NATO shells, according to the head of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), Denis Pushilin. The projectiles hit two adjacent neighborhoods, decimating residential and commercial areas – including a market that had previously suffered fatal attacks.
Scenes of death are nothing new for residents and reporters here in Donetsk, which is intermittently the target of Ukrainian attacks, like the one that hit its central region on August 4, killing six people, including an 11-year-old ballerina, her grandmother, and her ballet teacher.
But the carnage on Monday was worse than anything I’ve seen in my months of reporting here. Chunks of flesh littered the street – part of a hand, a foot, an ear. Someone had put a dead man’s phone on his stomach. It was ringing, the cheery ringtone incongruous with his lifeless body and the scenes and stench of death around him.
For most people, the concept of war is a distant one, and deaths are normalized by media reporting the numbers of victims and destroyed buildings – so most who hear of civilians being killed don’t really understand what a scene like this looks or smells like.
For the locals, it is also normalized, in its own way, after over eight years of Ukrainian attacks – a tragically grotesque kind of normality, where the post-bombing routine starts soon after the last explosions die down.
When I arrived at the scene, locals were already sweeping up glass shards and boarding windows, preparing to reopen their shops. Inspectors from the Russian Investigative Committee were on site collecting shrapnel and measuring the shell’s impact point, to determine the nature of the armament. When asked about what happened, they were careful to state that they could not say anything until the conclusion of their investigation.
An emergency vehicle arrived and workers began loading the bodies, or body parts, onto stretchers, clearing them away.
About 100 meters away, there was a gaping hole in the side of an apartment building. The shell had struck right where writing on the wall indicated the direction to the nearest basement, which was to be used as a bomb shelter. Doors to such stairways are generally permanently left open, so that anyone caught up in shelling might have a chance to survive, if they can make it to the door and basement in time.
Victims of another Ukrainian assault, which took place on Saturday, didn’t have that option. The center of Donetsk was hit by at around ten bombs over the course of 30 minutes around noon. At least four civilians were killed, one of whom I saw still on the ground. Some minutes later, her body was taken away. One of the shells hit a car driving along Artema Street, setting it ablaze and killing two civilians. By the time I reached that site, the vehicle had burned out, the dead taken away. Workers were already repaving the roads, sweeping debris and glass from sidewalks.
Western weapons killing Donbass civilians
When Russian and Donbass voices state that Ukraine is killing Donbass civilians with Western weapons, the reply is silence, derision, or inversion of reality: claims that Russia is bombing Donbass – which any ordinary resident here would disprove easily, having been under Ukraine’s shelling for over eight years.
War correspondent, Christelle Neant, wrote of Saturday’s bombings:
“After submitting the photos of the shrapnel I found on the spot to Adrien Bocquet, who is now a NATO weapons expert for the DPR’s representation in the JCCC (Joint Monitoring and Co-ordination Center on Ukraine’s War Crimes), he confirmed that they were American 155mm shells, some fired from Caesar guns and others from TRF1 guns.
The famous TRF1 guns that can fire (banned) 155mm cluster munitions, which I had mentioned in June, and which the Western press had assured that France had not supplied to Ukraine! Before learning at the beginning of September that Paris had indeed sold them to Kiev!”
Europeans in Germany, France and Italy recently held “#StopKillingDonbass” actions, denouncing the sale of Western weapons to Ukraine, and calling for it to end. It was rather fitting that the actions occurred the day after Ukraine bombed central Donetsk again.
These actions were followed by the release of a petition against arms supplies to Ukraine, which stated:
“Today, contrary to the fundamental principles set forth in Article 2 of the UN Charter, in particular, the principles of sovereign equality and the peaceful settlement of international disputes, our countries supply Ukraine with weapons that cause massive deaths and injuries of civilians in Donbass, including children.”
It concludes: “We demand an end to the financing of state terrorism and genocide against the people of Donbass, as well as the ongoing violations of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and other acts of international humanitarian law since 2014.”
At this point, there is no safe region in Donetsk, nowhere is off-limits for Ukraine’s bombings, not maternity hospitals, nor busy markets. The issue does, however, appear to be off-limits for the reporting of Western corporate-owned media.
The latest update of the U.S. Government’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) today (Friday, September 23, 2022) records the death of a 37-year-old Oklahoma man two days after receiving the JYNNEOS/BAVARIAN NORDIC monkeypox vaccine.
He was vaccinated on September 7th, and died two days later on September 9th. (Source.)
This is the second recent death reported to the public since the vaccines were made available just 3 months ago (June, 2022).
The first death was a Hollywood makeup artist, who died 9 days after receiving a monkeypox vaccine. (Source.)
According to the CDC, as of September 20th, 684,980 doses of the monkeypox vaccine have been administered, the bulk of them being in July and August. (Source.)
With less than .1% of the public now being vaccinated with the monkeypox vaccine, there have been 719 cases filed in VAERS, including 1 death, 1 permanent disability, 3 life threatening events, 56 emergency room visits, and 4 hospitalizations. (Source.)
These 719 cases have recorded 2,212 symptoms, and excluding injection site reactions and mistakes in injecting the vaccine, the most prevalent symptoms seem to be skin conditions, including:
Urticaria – very itchy weals (hives)
Pruritus – itchy skin
Hyperhidrosis – excessive sweating
There were 19 reports of “Loss of consciousness.” (Source.)
The CDC has stated that they want to expand the injection of people with the monkeypox vaccine to children.
W E B Du Bois: The Fight for Equality and the American Century, 1919-1963 (Vol 2)
By David Levering Lewis
Henry Holt and Company (2002)
Although Lewis depicts the early civil rights activist as personally flawed, he also heavily emphasizes his amazing flexible intellect. Even in advanced age, DuBois had a remarkable ability to adjust his world view with changing political circumstances. changed.
As Lewis puts it:
In the course of his long, turbulent, career, then, W E B Du Bois attempted virtually every possible solution to the problem of twentieth-century racism – scholarship, propaganda, integration, cultural and economic separatism, politics, international communism, expatriation and third world solidarity. First had come culture and education for the elites, then the ballot for the masses; then economic democracy; and finally all these solutions in the services of a global ideal of economic and social justice.
Volume two begins after World War I, when Du Bois was the founder and editor of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) magazine The Crisis: A Report of the Darker races. Initially DuBois fully supported the NAACP agenda to address racism by installing as many “Talented Tenth”* African Americans as possible in academic and professional positions. The NAACP reasoning was that professional African Americans would use their economic power and political influence to improve the lot of the Black masses.
In 1934, a dispute over his promotion of Black economic independence (which violated the NAACP’s strict de-segregation policy) and his growing interest in Marxism led to his resignation from the NAACP to teach at Atlanta University. Following the termination of his Atlanta University contract in 1944 (he was 74), he returned to the NAACP and his prior leadership role in the Pan-African Congress (which he helped found in 1919). He was formally dismissed from the NAACP four years later (just before his 80th birthday), after some of his articles caused the FBI to label the NAACP as a communist front.
In 1951, he was indicted by a grand jury for failing to register the antiwar Peace Information Center (disbanded in 1950) as “the agent of a foreign government.” Although the court dismissed the case, the State Department refused to return his passport until the Supreme Court struck down their policy (in 1958) of suspending passports of political dissidents. In 1961, the first Ghanaian president Kwame Nkrumah offered him a position compiling an Encyclopedia Africana. He joined the Communist Party USA the day before his flight left.
At age 95, he became a Ghanaian citizen when the US, once again, refused to renew his passport. He died a year later.
The book discusses in depth a number of of Du Bois’s significant accomplishments in the second half of his life:
His public feud with Marcus Garvey, largely over the latter’s financial mismanagement of a campaign to resettle African Americans in Liberia.**
His introduction to mainstream American historians of the technologically advanced kingdoms across the African continent prior to the arrival of Europeans.
His campaign, along with African American actor/singer and playwright Paul Robeson, to keep the US out of World War II.
His publication of a definitive history of Reconstruction to correct its misportrayal in standard history books prior to World War II.
His unsuccessful campaign to get a declaration of Black rights included in the UN Charter and Declaration of Human Rights.
His open opposition (along with Robeson’s) to Truman’s hostility towards the Soviet Union (which Lewis blames largely on Truman’s incompetence and reliance on ultra-conservative advisors), the Marshall Plan,** NATO and the Korean War.
His visit with Nikita Khrushchev in 1958, leading to the latter’s creation of an African Institute to support the growing Pan-African campaign of decolonization.
*Talented Tenth – a term devised by white philanthropists designating the “leadership class” of African Americans in the early 20th century.
**As Lewis points out, Garvey was the first civil rights activist to mobilize large masses of poor and working class Blacks, hosting crowds as large as 25,000 in Madison Square Garden.
***Marshall Plan – although ostensibly a humanitarian aid program to war-torn Western Europe, DuBois saw the Marshall Plan as hostile to the Soviet Union (which was excluded, despite taking the brunt of human and economic war casualties) and apt to polarize East/West relations.
The NY Times, updated yesterday, presents CDC’s numbers for Americans who have received at least one booster: 109.6. There are 333 million Americans.
Thus the needle remains at 32.9% of Americans who have received at least one booster.
That number (33%) has not risen in September despite the shiny new useless bivalent boosters that don’t even work in animals and cleverly avoided any testing in humans.
According to the Wall Street Journal, “Since the new boosters became available earlier this month at pharmacies, doctors’ offices and elsewhere, about 4.4 million people have received a new booster shot, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Thursday.” The article also claims that “After some 77% of adults got the primary series, however, roughly 52% got the first booster” according to CDC.
But that isn’t right. 4.4 million divided by 333 million Americans is 1.3%.
At the September 1 ACIP meeting, which I live-blogged, CDC told the committee that 49% of those eligible (who have completed a primary series) had gotten a booster. Well, here it is September 23, and guess how many of those eligible have gotten a booster (as of September 21)? 48.7% according to CDC’s website. Yet 49% (Those claimed to have gotten a booster on Sept 1) plus 1.3% (those claimed to have gotten a COVID bivalent booster since Sept. 1) equals 50.3%.
Is 48.7% the same as 50.3% or “roughly 52%”? I don’t think so, even with the New Math.
In an interview with The Defender, Hunter Lundy, an attorney representing plaintiffs in two lawsuits alleging cellphones caused plaintiffs to develop brain cancer, said he was frustrated with the legal system’s slow pace, but that he believes the “truth is going to come out.”
A judge this month is hearing evidence in a lawsuit filed in 2011 by a group of individuals who developed cancer, allegedly as a result of radiation from their cellphones. Depending on how the judge rules, the lawsuit could finally head to a jury trial.
Evidentiary hearings in Murray v. Motorola began Sept. 12 in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, and are scheduled to continue until Sept. 30. Expert testimony will be presented during the hearings before the case goes before a jury.
In a parallel case that may have repercussions for the D.C. case, a similar lawsuit before a federal court in Louisiana — filed by the widow of a man who died of an aggressive form of brain cancer allegedly caused by cellphone radiation — also is headed to trial.
The D.C. case is proceeding without the plaintiffs being able to present a significant category of evidence pertaining to the defendants’ liability. However, that evidence will be heard in the Louisiana case.
In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Hunter Lundy, a lawyer representing plaintiffs in both cases, discussed the evidence and expert testimony and the potential significance rulings in this case could have.
D.C. case: lawsuit filed in 2001 finally headed to a jury
The six plaintiffs had developed brain tumors beneath where they held their cellphones. Additional plaintiffs joined the case in 2010, 2011 and thereafter — with the number of plaintiffs now exceeding 80, according to Lundy.
The defendants are a who’s who of major telecommunications companies, including AT&T, Bell Atlantic, Bell South, Motorola, Nokia, Qualcomm, Samsung, Sanyo, Sony, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon and many other companies.
The lawsuit also names the Federal Communications Commission and the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CITA), an industry lobbying group.
After 21 years and multiple delays, many of the plaintiffs have since died.
Despite efforts on the part of the defendants to get the lawsuit dismissed or relocated to federal court in Maryland, the case was initially remanded from the D.C. District Court to the D.C. Superior Court — where the complaints were dismissed in 2007, before being partially reinstated in 2009, by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals.
The case continued to wind through the courts, with evidentiary hearings finally beginning this year.
Lundy discussed key details about the lawsuit, stating that the plaintiffs alleged: “the radiation frequency … the microwave radiation coming out of cellphones increased the risk of individuals getting brain tumors.”
The plaintiffs further alleged that “the cell phone industry, the manufacturers and the carriers knew when these [cellphones] were put out on the market that they had dangers that they didn’t warn people about,” said Lundy.
However, Lundy said that the main thrust of the case concerns gliomas — tumors that impact the brain and spinal cord.
According to Lundy, “There are several kinds of gliomas … the most prevalent one is the glioblastoma,” a type of malignant glioma.
Other gliomas, such as acoustic neuroma, are benign, Lundy told The Defender, but form on the cerebral nerve inside the brain, growing without their victims being aware of them. Eventually, their growth leads to hearing loss and their removal results in residual brain damage.
Ultimately, most such cases result in death, said Lundy. With glioblastoma, for instance, diagnoses range from having three to four months — to five years at most — to live.
The victims were impacted by first-, second- and third-generation analog cellphones produced in the 1980s and 1990s. “The antennas were up at the top of the phone and some of them were operated on three watt and greater power,” Lundy said, whereas “Today you’ve got smartphones operating on a quarter watt.”
Lundy told The Defender:
“There was a long period of years in which people were getting high exposure from cellphone radiation because they were using them so much … and there wasn’t sufficient information, instruction or warning by the industry to the user of the dangers involved. That’s the thrust of the case.”
“Our argument is that if you continue to use the analogue [phones] and you use the second- or some of the third-generation [devices], you’ll see a linear effect” regarding radiation exposure and latency, Lundy added, where the effects of such radiation become apparent over time.
As an example, Lundy referred to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II, where “it was still 40 years before … you saw tremendous numbers of cancers developing.”
Although the plaintiffs were from different parts of the U.S., the initial lawsuits — later combined into the current case — were filed in the District of Columbia “because [of] the idea that the lobbying institutions of the wireless industry [are] located in D.C.,” said Lundy.
However, these lobbying groups — and the rest of the defendants — “don’t want us to have a trial in front of a jury,” said Lundy, which resulted in the defendants using a variety of delay tactics.
In 2013, a Frye hearing was held, during which, according to Lundy, the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses “had to pass a standard before they could testify in front of a jury.”
“The Frye standard had to be met where you proved that the methodology used by the expert … was generally accepted in the scientific community,” Lundy said.
In the period between 2013 and 2015, the five experts put forth by the plaintiffs were approved according to the Frye standard and a trial was held, Lundy said. However, the defendants, on appeal, were able to get the case reversed and to get the standard by which the plaintiffs’ experts were evaluated changed, to the Daubert standard.
According to Lundy, in this second standard, “you had to prove that not only was the science [accepted], you had to prove that it was reliable and that it was readily available.”
“In the interim,” according to Lundy, “we have been through several judges.”
Ultimately, the plaintiffs were not allowed to supplement the opinions of the initial experts with new witnesses and new science, unless it “somehow [was] related to the old opinion,” Lundy said. This hamstrung the plaintiffs and subsequent judges hearing the case, he added.
But “We’re going forward with other witnesses … and then the case will be submitted to the court again and there will probably be post-hearing briefs,” Lundy said. “At some point, the court will make a ruling and then both parties will have a right to appeal … and so, the process goes on.”
Louisiana case an opportunity for more expert testimony to be presented
The related case, Walker v. Motorola et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, may present an opportunity for plaintiffs to present expert testimony that was shut out of the D.C. case.
According to Lundy, this lawsuit has the potential to quickly go to trial.
“Ahead of what’s going on in D.C., we just want a case to go to trial somewhere … we need a ruling before people go forward,” Lundy told The Defender.
Referring to the D.C. case, Lundy said:
“We haven’t been able to get … liability document production, discussing the development of the products, the interaction between risk management and others.
“So I think in Louisiana, if we prevail, we will get the discovery [of such evidence]. It’s a different ballgame.”
In the Louisiana case, the family of Frank Aaron Walker sued the telecommunications industry, alleging the pastor’s death from an aggressive brain cancer was brought on by cellphone radiation, the health risks of which the industry has known for decades.
According to the suit, the telecommunications industry “suppressed credible cell phone safety concerns and has conspired to conceal or alter results of safety studies to make them more ‘market-friendly.’”
Walker was “a 25-year user of cell phone products,” the suit claims, before dying on Dec. 31, 2020, age 49, following “a two-year battle with glioblastoma that included extensive radiation, chemotherapy and surgery.”
During this two-year period, Walker experienced severe symptoms including “seizures, visual auras, excessive fatigue, migraines, light sensitivity, memory problems, psychological and emotional stress, anxiety, and depression,” the lawsuit alleges.
Similar to the D.C. case, the defendants in the Louisiana lawsuit include several major telecommunications industry players, such as AT&T, Cricket Communications, CITA, Motorola, the Telecommunications Industry Association and ZTE.
In a 2021 press release issued after the lawsuit was filed, Lundy stated:
“For generations, the telecom industry has fought the release of scientific studies and information regarding ties between mobile phone use and brain tumors. The industry manipulated the science to the detriment of consumers.
“With this lawsuit, Mr. Walker’s family hopes to help reveal the telecom industry’s secrets and hold them accountable for harm done to consumers.”
In the same release, Lundy alleged the telecommunications industry “downplayed, understated, and/or did not state the health hazards and risks associated with cell phones.”
The press release also quoted Walker’s widow, April Marie Walker:
“Throughout his battle with cancer, Frank never lost his faith or his sense of humor, but he suffered terribly.
“Our family’s hope now is that we can force the telecom industry to let consumers make informed choices about the products we buy.
“If the telecom industry knew holding a cell phone next to one’s head is dangerous, then the public should have known this information.”
In remarking on the broader significance of this case, Lundy said:
“There needs to be an exposure of truth. I just believe everybody should be accountable.
“We have not been allowed to do liability discovery. We have done scientific discovery and evidence about science. But we do not yet have the industry’s documents.
“I think we’ll be able … to do liability discovery here in federal court in Louisiana when we go forward.”
Industry concealed studies linking cellphone use to brain and DNA damage, plaintiffs allege
The Louisiana lawsuit also cites a significant number of scientific studies and industry actions taken since the 1980s, “including the firing, defunding or denigration of researchers who discovered adverse effects associated with cell phone use.”
“At all times herein mentioned, Defendants were aware of numerous studies and experiments that demonstrated the health hazards of RF radiation dating back to the late 1940s and continuing to this day, yet Defendants have consistently maintained to the public at large that cell phones are absolutely safe.”
The lawsuit alleges “scientific and medical research, published in peer-reviewed literature, has demonstrated a correlation between biological effects and the exposure to RF radiation within the radio frequency band of 300 megahertz to 2.4 gigahertz,” noting, however, that such peer-reviewed journals are not typically read by the general public.
Radiation exposure standards adopted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), initially in the 1960s, and subsequently modified in the 1980s and 1990s, “excluded cell phones,” states the lawsuit, as “the cell phone industry manipulated the research and pressured members of the ANSI Safety Committee to exempt cell phones from regulation and compliance.”
However, as scientific and public concern over radiation produced by cellular phones increased in the 1990s, “defendants, individually and through their trade associations … undertook with public fanfare to fund scientific studies to prove the safety of cell phones,” resulting in the formation of the Scientific Advisory Group in 1993.
Subsequently, industry associations CTIA and Telecommunications Industry Association hired an expert, Dr. George Carlo, to direct the Scientific Advisory Group and conduct research into cellular phone radiation. However, as the lawsuit states:
“When this industry-funded research failed to corroborate the industry’s claims of safety and, in fact, presented new evidence supporting health concerns, the industry responded by terminating the research funding and publicly disparaging Dr. Carlo as well as suppressing and minimizing the results of his studies.”
Nevertheless, numerous other scientific studies followed, calling into question the industry’s claims regarding the safety of their mobile devices. These studies are cited in the lawsuit and include:
A 1995 University of Washington study conducted on rats exposed to “radiation similar to the type of radiation emitted from the antenna of a cell phone,” found the radiation caused damage to DNA. The industry funded research that aimed to disprove these fundings, but which ultimately confirmed them, leading the industry to refuse to publish the results.
Another scientist who subsequently replicated the DNA damage found by the University of Washington research had his findings “suppressed” by the industry, pressuring him and threatening to withdraw funding.
A 1996 study of Air Force personnel found those exposed to RF radiation had a “risk of brain tumors 1.39 times higher … versus those not exposed.”
A 2000 study by Sweden’s Orebro Medical Center “found the risk of tumors developing on the same side of the head cell phone users hold their cell phones is significantly higher than it is for the other side.”
In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched a decade-long multinational research study, the “Interphone Study,” ultimately finding that “the use of cell phones for a period of 10 years or more can increase the risk of glioblastomas by 40% in adults” and that “tumors are most likely to occur on the side of the head most used for calling.”
A 2002 Swedish study found “the risk of developing brain tumors from first-generation cell phones … was as much as 80% greater than those who did not use cell phones.”
Another Swedish study, in 2003, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, which in turn operates under the aegis of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “found electromagnetic fields (EMFs) emitted by certain cell phones damaged neurons in the brains of rats.”
A four-year study performed by Reflex, with funding from the European Union, in 2004 found that “radio waves from cell phones damage DNA and other cells in the body and that the damage extended to the next generation of cells.”
In 2011, the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) “declared the RF radiation emitted from cell phones to be ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans.’”
Also according to the lawsuit, in the period since the IARC’s 2011 declaration, “more than 1,000 additional scientific studies have been published in peer-reviewed literature further supporting the causal link between cell phone radiation, brain tumors and health effects.”
The lawsuit states that “several experts have analyzed this new information and concluded cell phone radiation should be classified as a ‘probable human carcinogen.’”
Some of these subsequent studies include:
A 2015 study out of Jacobs University in Germany, finding (and replicating the results of a 2010 German study) that “weak cell phone signals can promote the growth of tumors in mice,” at “radiation levels that do not cause heating and are well below current safety standards.”
A 2016 study by the U.S. National Toxicology Program, finding that “male rats exposed to cell phone radiation developed higher rates of cancer” and also “caused DNA breaks in the male rats’ brains.”
However, according to Lundy and to the lawsuit, the telecommunications industry tacitly began to address these [cancer] concerns beginning in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
Lundy told The Defender that “the fact that they, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, as they started making patent applications to change the design of their phones, started to move the antennas because they had a problem,” is indicative of this shift, adding:
“And we know enough to know that the London [insurance] market quit writing coverage for the wireless industry in the early 2000s, so they know something and are seeing something that we haven’t seen.”
The Louisiana lawsuit cites 13 examples of the telecommunication industry’s moves to quietly reduce RF exposure from mobile devices, dating back as early as 1991.
Lundy: ‘The truth is going to come out’
Lundy cited the long history of lawsuits involving the tobacco industry as an example of this, saying:
“The cigarette industry never lost a case for 30 or so years. But when [tobacco industry whistleblower] Dr. Jeffrey Wigand disclosed the fact that they were manipulating nicotine to addict 13-year-olds, I mean, the whole climate shifted.”
According to Lundy, truthful information regarding children’s health, in relation to the use of cellular phones, is of particular importance:
Lundy told The Defender:
“There’s other countries … that have barred the use of cellphones for kids that aren’t 16 years of age yet … we know that the skull is not fully developed until they’re 25. So we’re talking about children having radiation going into their brain very young.
The prevalence of myocarditis among young people is now so high that a hospital system in New York has created a commercial that aims to normalize it as just another childhood pathology.
NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, which operates more than 200 locations throughout Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, Westchester and Putnam Counties, as well as 10 hospital campuses, created a video called “Pediatric Patient Story – Suri (30s version)” that was published on September 6 – you can watch it below.
As you will notice, a caption in the video explains that the patient featured, Suri, thought the condition was just a “bad stomach ache,” but that it later “turned out to be myocarditis, a serious inflammation of the heart.”
“Our multidisciplinary pediatric critical care team worked to regulate her heartbeat – and got her back to feeling like herself,” the hospital brags in the video. (Related: A Nordic study found that covid injections greatly increase a person’s risk of myocarditis.)
Critics blast NewYork-Presbyterian, telling hospital: “Do not normalize myocarditis in children”
The sad reality is that this promo video has undertones of trying to normalize myocarditis in children, even though the condition was never a problem before Operation Warp Speed.
Before the Trump administration unleashed covid “vaccines” at the behest of Tony Fauci and Big Pharma, myocarditis in children was virtually non-existent. Today, it is rapidly spreading among the “fully vaccinated.”
One account on Instagram called “cops4freedom” posted a clip of the NewYork-Presbyterian video along with a caption about “Do Not Normalize Myocarditis in Children.” Many others on YouTube and elsewhere had similar criticisms.
“This makes me sad and angry,” one of them wrote about the video.
“Absolutely disgusting,” added another.
“Geez and now they are making it sound ‘Oh! It’s normal and you’ll be fine!” wrote someone else.
There is absolutely nothing normal about heart inflammation in a child – except, of course, if that child was injected with experimental gene modification chemicals such as those in Pfizer and Moderna’s messenger RNA (mRNA) shots.
As you may recall, the “authorities” have been telling everyone for going on almost two years now that myocarditis in the fully jabbed is “mild” and “rare.” They also systematically buried any and all evidence suggesting otherwise.
Now, out of nowhere, a New York hospital system has decided to normalize myocarditis in children because apparently it is not quite as mild and rare as previously claimed.
According to the data contained in the government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), upwards of 90 percent of all myocarditis cases end up requiring hospitalization. Does that sound mild to you?
VAERS data also shows that cases of both myocarditis and pericarditis, the latter being another form of heart inflammation, have skyrocketed ever since Operation Warp Speed was launched.
Those at greatest risk of developing myocarditis or pericarditis post-injection are young, adolescent males, according to a study that was recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).
That study looked at data in VAERS, which shows that the primary outcome post-injection is myocarditis, while the secondary outcome is pericarditis.
“According to the study, VAERS received 1,991 reports of myocarditis (391 of which also included pericarditis) after receipt of at least 1 dose of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine and 684 reports of pericarditis without the presence of myocarditis,” reports The Gateway Pundit.
“Of the 1991 reports of myocarditis, 1,626 met the CDC’s case definition for probable or confirmed myocarditis.”
The referendum on September 23-27 in the Donbass and southern Kherson and Zaporozhye regions of Ukraine on their accession to Russian Federation is, prima facie, an exercise of the right of self-determination by the native population who reject the western-backed regime change in Kiev in 2014 and the ascendancy of extreme nationalist forces with neo-Nazi leanings in the power structure.
But it has other dimensions, too. In all probability, the referendum will overwhelmingly opt for accession to Russian Federation. In Donbass, it is a straightforward question: “Do you support the entry of the DPR into the Russian Federation as a subject of the Russian Federation?” For Kherson and the Zaporozhye Cossacks, the referendum ascertains three sequential decisions: secession of these territories from Ukraine; formation of an independent state; and its entry into the Russian Federation as a subject.
In 2014, all legal procedures for the admission of Crimea and Sevastopol to the Russian Federation were completed in four days. An expeditious process can be expected this time around too. There is huge mass support within Russia for reunification with the ethnic Russian populations in the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine who suffered severe persecution during the past 8-year period, including brutal violence, at the hands of extremist Ukrainian nationalist elements in control of the state apparatus. This is a highly emotive issue for the Russian people.
In the post-cold war era, the genie of self-determination was first let out of the bottle by the West during the dismemberment of the former Yugoslavia. Although the US midwifed the secession of Kosovo from Serbia as far back as in 1999 -2008, the entity is yet to be accorded recognition by the UN. Serbia rejects the secession despite sustained western pressure.
That said, the Kosovo precedent will not stop the western powers from condemning the accession of regions of Ukraine to the Russian Federation.
The big question today is about the Russian calculus. President Vladimir Putin has surely factored in that the accession of the “Russian regions” of eastern and southern Ukraine is an immensely popular decision in the domestic opinion. He has never hidden that he is acutely sensitive about the hopes and aspirations of his nation. The most revealing (and authoritative) comments on this topic have come from the former President Dmitry Medvedev.
Medvedev wrote in his Telegram channel: “Referendums in Donbass are of great importance not only for the systemic protection of the inhabitants of the LNR, DNR (Donbass) and other liberated territories, but also for the restoration of historical justice.”
In Medvedev’s opinion, these plebiscites “completely change the vector of Russia’s development for decades.” He adds, “And not only our country. Because after they (referendums) are held and the new territories are accepted into Russia, the geopolitical transformation in the world will become irreversible.”
Most important, Medvedev forewarns, “An encroachment on the territory of Russia is a crime, the commission of which allows you to use all the forces of self-defence.”
Furthermore, he says, once the process of annexation of the new territories is completed, “not a single future leader of Russia, not a single official will be able to reverse these decisions. That is why these referendums are so feared in Kiev and in the West. That is why they need to be carried out.”
What emerges is that Russia has given up hopes of any negotiated settlement. Moscow was initially optimistic that Kiev would negotiate, but the bitter experience turned out to be that President Zelensky was not a free agent. The US-UK tandem undermined the accord negotiated by Russian and Ukrainian officials in Istanbul in April under Turkish mediation. The Biden Administration holds the stop watch for the proxy war. And Washington’s timeline is linked to the weakening and destruction of Russian state, which has been the ultimate US objective. Lest we forget, Joe Biden played a seminal role in installing the new regime in Kiev in 2014 and in moulding Ukraine as an anti-Russian state.
Suffice to say, the referendum on Wednesday is Russia’s only available course of action under the circumstances, while Kiev maintains a maximalist position as advised by the US, UK and Poland.
The accession of Donbass, Kherson and Zaporozhye creates a new political reality and Russia’s partial mobilisation on parallel track is intended to provide the military underpinning for it. The accession signifies a paradigm shift insofar as any further attacks on these regions can be construed by Moscow as attacks on Russia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.
Certainly, Kiev’s wanton attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure in Donbass, Kherson and Zaporozhye will trigger Russian reaction. Any attack will be considered aggression and Moscow reserves the right to respond “adequately.” The fact the Russian deployment in these territories will be significantly augmented and upgraded signals the willingness to use force.
Meanwhile, Russia’s special military operations will continue until its set objectives are fully realised. Which means, even more territories may come under Russian control, creating ever newer facts on the ground, whilst the track of dialogue has become extinct. And, of course, all this will be playing out at a juncture when Europe descends into recession, as sanctions against Russia boomerang. It is improbable that European public will support their governments to enter into a war with Russia over Ukraine. Kiev and its mentors in Washington and London need to factor all this very carefully.
Do they know something that they aren’t telling us? As you will see below, Walmart, Target and other major U.S. retailers are literally canceling billions of dollars in orders ahead of the coming holiday season. I have never heard of such a thing happening before, and under normal conditions it wouldn’t make any sense at all. The holiday season is typically the busiest time of the year for retailers, and at this time in 2021 there was actually a great deal of concern that there wouldn’t be enough inventory due to global supply chain problems. But now everything has changed. All of a sudden major retailers are feverishly canceling orders, and this would only make sense if a severe economic downturn was imminent.
John David Rainey, Walmart’s EVP and CFO, said it had cleared most summer inventory, was reducing exposure in electronics, home and sporting goods, and canceled “billions of dollars in orders” to realign inventories. He said, “Our actions in Q3 will allow us to make significant progress toward rationalizing absolute levels and mix, which will enable our stores to be well positioned ahead of the holiday season.”
It is extremely odd that Walmart would decide to do such a thing.
Recently I had an opportunity to stroll through a Walmart, and there were plenty of inventory holes.
So what would make them suddenly cancel “billions of dollars” in orders that they thought that they were going to need for the holiday season?
Perhaps some enterprising reporter will be willing to ask them such a question.
Target said it had reduced its “inventory exposure in discretionary categories” throughout Q2 by canceling more than $1.5 billion of orders in these categories and marking down products.
Target is much smaller than Walmart is, and so for Target to cancel so many orders is a really big deal.
And it turns out that Kohl’s and Under Armour have also been canceling large numbers of orders as well…
Kohl’s has also pulled back on order receipts and increased promotions to get through an inventory glut.
“We have taken action to address inventory, including increasing promotions, being aggressive on clearing excess inventory and pulling back on receipts,” said Kohl’s CFO Jill Timm in a call with investors.
Under Armour also said it made some proactive cancellations due to supply chain constraints to ensure that “the right inventory was coming in at the right time,” said interim president and CEO Colin Browne in a call with investors.
These retailers are obviously scared that they will end up stuck with massive amounts of inventory that they cannot sell.
Do they believe that economic activity during the months ahead will be much lower than they originally anticipated?
One corporate executive that is actually publicly admitting that he believes that a recession is coming is FedEx CEO Raj Subramaniam…
FedEx CEO Raj Subramaniam told CNBC’s Jim Cramer on Thursday that he believes a recession is impending for the global economy.
“I think so. But you know, these numbers, they don’t portend very well,” Subramaniam said in response to Cramer’s question of whether the economy is “going into a worldwide recession.”
The CEO’s pessimism came after FedEx missed estimates on revenue and earnings in its first quarter. The company also withdrew its full year guidance.
Sadly, he is right on target.
For months, I have been warning that the economic numbers were telling us that big trouble was on the way, and now everyone can see it.
But unlike the “Great Recession” of 2008 and 2009, this time we are also going to have to deal with raging inflation even as economic activity slows down all around us.
In fact, the Wall Street Journal is ominously warning that U.S. consumers “are set to pay even more this winter” as heating costs continue to soar to absolutely ridiculous levels…
U.S. utility customers, faced with some of their largest bills in years, are set to pay even more this winter as natural-gas prices continue to climb.
Natural-gas prices have more than doubled this year because of a global supply shortage made worse by the war in Ukraine, and they are expected to remain elevated for months as fuel is needed to light and heat homes during the winter. The supply crunch has made it substantially more expensive for utilities to purchase or produce power, and those costs are being passed on to customers.
The cost of living has been rising much faster than our paychecks have for quite some time now, and a lot more pain is on the horizon.
I really like how Brandon Smith recently summarized the current state of the U.S. economy…
A common refrain from people who are critical of alternative economists is that we have been predicting crisis for so long that “eventually we will be right.” These are generally people who don’t understand the nature of economic decline – It’s like an avalanche that builds over time, then breaks and quickly escalates as it flows down the mountain. What they don’t grasp is that they are in the middle of an economic collapse RIGHT NOW, and they just can’t see it because they have been acclimated to the presence of the snow and cold.
Economic decline is a process that takes many years, and while you might get an event like the market crash of 1929 or the crash of 2008, these moments of panic are nothing more than the wreckage left behind by the great wave of tumbling ice that everyone should have seen coming far in advance, but they refused.