More than 300 Scientific Papers on Covid Retracted for Fraud

By Dr Eddy Betterman

Retraction Watch has been keeping a close eye on Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “science” papers over the years, noting in a summary list that more than 300 of them have been retracted since publishing due to compromised ethical standards and concerns about validity and credibility.

The list, which has been growing since April 2020, makes no distinction between withdrawal and retraction because journals that make such a distinction “have typically done it to justify not saying anything about why a paper was retracted, and to sometimes make a paper disappear without a trace,” the group says.

As of this writing, there are 330 covid papers total that have been retracted, along with 19 more that have received “expressions of concern.”

Gunnveig Grødeland, a senior researcher at the University of Oslo‘s Institute of Immunology, says that many researchers compromised their ethical standards during the “pandemic” either to try to get more of their publications approved or to take deliberate shortcuts for quick publishing.

“While it is understandable for some articles to be updated or changed to be published in a different form, some have been retracted because the researchers did not obtain informed consent during the research,” reported Exposé News about the matter.

“Grødeland pointed out that other articles have been withdrawn after the editors noticed that the strategies the papers mentioned were giving the wrong impression in the media of being recommended as actual treatment or prevention of covid-19. She said these sorts of articles had to be withdrawn as they claimed things that neither the authors of the articles nor their institutions could vouch for.”

(Related: Because much of what passes today as “science” is fraudulent, a lot of what constitutes modern medicine is as well – and this is why doctors who question the status quo continue to face suppression and discrimination.)

Even “prestigious” journals like The Lancet published fake covid “science” that was later retracted or withdrawn

It was not just obscure journals that published covid junk science, either. It was reputable names like The Lancet and Science that had to tuck their tails between their legs and quietly admit through retraction or withdrawal that they had made some serious publishing errors.

Science also published a fraudulent study examining the spread of the so-called “Omicron,” or moronic in anagram, variant of covid throughout South Africa. That paper was retraced after social media users pointed out that some of the samples used could have been false positives, seeing as how PCR testing was fraudulent and wrong from the very beginning.

One study published in The Lancet directly interfered with further investigation by governments into the merit of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a remedy for covid. Both the World Health Organization (WHO) and various national governments actually halted their HCQ research because of this bogus study, which falsely claimed that the widely used drug increases the risk of heart arrhythmia and mortality for covid patients.

Most of the now-retracted papers admittedly came from less reputable journals like the International Journal of Audiology, which published somewhere around 60 different bogus covid studies. One of them claimed that covid was associated with hearing loss, tinnitus, ringing in the ears, and vertigo, only to have its authors later admit that this claim is false.

Another paper was retracted by the editor of ScienceDirect “on the basis that there is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable.” The paper in question had falsely attributed many “covid deaths” to the disease itself when most of them were actually caused by co-morbidities and other things unrelated to covid.

[…]

Via https://dreddymd.com/2023/06/08/scientific-papers-on-covid-retracted-for-fraud/

Genetically Engineered Salad Greens Coming to Grocery Stores — and They Won’t Be Labeled

By Dr. Joseph Mercola

Pairwise, an agricultural biotechnology company, created Conscious Greens Purple Power Baby Greens Blend, the first CRISPR-edited food available to U.S. consumers.

Story at a glance:

• Pairwise, an agricultural biotechnology company, created Conscious Greens Purple Power Baby Greens Blend, the first CRISPR-edited food available to U.S. consumers.
• The company used CRISPR, or clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat, to edit mustard greens’ DNA, removing a gene that gives them their pungent flavor.
• The greens are first being rolled out in restaurants in St. Louis, Springfield, Massachusetts, and the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, before heading to U.S. grocery stores — beginning in the Pacific Northwest.
• In 2022, researchers with Boston Children’s Hospital revealed that using CRISPR in human cell lines increased the risk of large rearrangements of DNA, which could increase cancer risk.
• Because regulators don’t consider gene-edited foods to be genetically modified organisms (GMOs), they don’t have to be labeled.

Mustard greens are a nutrient-dense source of vitamins and minerals, but their bitter flavor makes them unpalatable to many. To remedy the problem, Tom Adams, cofounder and CEO of Pairwise, told Wired, “We basically created a new category of salad.”

The agricultural biotechnology company, founded in 2017, had raised $90 million by 2021, and $115 million total, “to bring new varieties of fruits and vegetables to market.”

Its first product, Conscious Greens Purple Power Baby Greens Blend, is also the first CRISPR-edited food available to U.S. consumers.

Gene-edited mustard greens coming to U.S. stores

Pairwise scientists used the gene-editing technology known as CRISPR, to edit mustard greens’ DNA, removing a gene that gives them their pungent flavor.

The greens are first being rolled out in restaurants and other locations in St. Louis, Springfield, Massachusetts and the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, before heading to U.S. grocery stores — beginning in the Pacific Northwest.

Pairwise is careful to describe itself as a “pioneering food startup,” trying to distance itself from its true biotechnology roots.

[…]

The company has also built a glossy PR campaign to make its motives seem altruistic and necessary to improve Americans’ diets.

[…]

But are CRISPR foods really better — or do they pose unknown, and potentially serious, risks to the environment and the people who eat them? Further, it’s not going to stop here. Pairwise is already working on using CRISPR to create blackberries with no seeds and cherries without pits.

The idea that genetic modification is going to compel people to eat mustard greens when they otherwise wouldn’t is also highly questionable. So the company’s claims that its gene-edited products will boost Americans’ nutritional intake are likely to fall flat.

Is CRISPR really an exact science?

CRISPR is being increasingly used to tinker with natural foods. In addition to altering taste, CRISPR is being used to extend shelf life and create foods that resist certain bacteria and viruses.

Whereas genetic engineering involves the introduction of foreign genes, CRISPR involves manipulating or editing existing DNA. It’s said to be “exceptionally precise.”

In an interview with Yale Insights, Dr. Gregory Licholai, a biotech entrepreneur, explained CRISPR this way:

“So as you probably know, our book of life is made of DNA. DNA itself is many millions of base-pairs, which is like a language. And within that language, there are certain regions which code for genes, and those genes are incredibly important because those genes go on to make up everything about us.

“There’s 40,000 proteins that become outputs of those genes and they are involved in our health, our wellbeing, and any defect in those genes becomes problematic and causes disease.

[…]

But CRISPR isn’t always an exact science. As is often the case when it comes to tinkering with genetics, gene editing has led to unexpected side effects, including enlarged tongues and extra vertebrae in animals.

Further, when researchers at the U.K.’s Wellcome Sanger Institute systematically studied mutations from CRISPR-Cas9 in mouse and human cells, large genetic rearrangements were observed, including DNA deletions and insertions, near the target site.

The DNA deletions could end up activating genes that should stay “off,” such as cancer-causing genes, as well as silencing those that should be “on.”

Risks of humans manipulating the genetic code

In 2022, researchers with Boston Children’s Hospital revealed that using CRISPR in human cell lines increased the risk of large rearrangements of DNA, which could increase cancer risk. Such rearrangements occurred up to 6% of the time.

[…]

In another warning, researchers attempted to use CRISPR-Cas9 to repair a mutation linked to hereditary blindness in human embryos.

But when they did, it led to “genetic havoc” in about half of the cells, triggering them to lose entire chromosomes.

[…]

What’s more, Licholai said, is that genes edited with CRISPR may be transferred to other organisms and become part of the environment:

[…]

And therein lies the problem. Once released into the environment, there’s no turning back — and no way of knowing what other changes could occur from this genetic manipulation, at a worldwide scale.

FDA says gene-edited beef Is ‘low risk’

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced in March 2022 that Recombinetics’ gene-edited cattle received a low-risk determination for marketing products, including food, made from their meat.

“This is the FDA’s first low-risk determination for enforcement discretion for an IGA [intentional genomic alteration] in an animal for food use,” the FDA reported.

The animals’ genes were modified to make their coats shorter and slicker. The genetic modification to their coats is intended to help them better withstand heat stress, allowing them to gain more weight and increase the efficiency of meat production — but at what cost?

While a lengthy approval process is typically necessary for gene-edited animals to enter the food market, the FDA streamlined the process for gene-edited cattle, allowing them to skirt the regular approval process.

The agency stated the gene-edited beef cattle do not raise any safety concerns because the gene modifications result in the same genetic makeup seen in so-called “slick coat” cattle, which are conventionally bred.

But in 2019, Brazil stopped its plans to allow a herd of Recombinetics’ gene-edited cattle after unexpected DNA changes were uncovered.

As with the FDA, Brazilian regulators had determined that Recombinetics could proceed without any special oversight since their gene-editing involved modifying cattle with a naturally occurring trait.

In this case, instead of altering the cattle’s coats, Recombinetics was editing the cattle to be hornless — until something went wrong. A piece of bacterial DNA used to deliver the desired gene had become pasted into a cow’s genome, essentially rendering it “part bacteria.”

Regardless, in 2022, Recombinetics stated its gene-edited meat products would be available to “select customers in the global market soon” while general consumers would be able to purchase gene-edited meat in as few as two years.

Gene-edited foods aren’t labeled

Because regulators don’t consider gene-edited foods to be GMOs, they don’t have to be labeled. However, 75% of Americans want gene-edited foods to carry a label.

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/crispr-gene-edited-salad-greens-cola/

 

Deciphering India’s Oral History via the Mahabharata

Episode 7 Epic History: The Mahabharata

A History of India

Michael Fisher (2016)

Film Review

The Mahabharata, the third Sanskrit epic Fisher analyzes, is the longest literary text in history. Twice the length of the Bible, it consists of 18 major and ten minor books.

Devout Hindus believe that Vyasa dictated the Mahabharata to the elephant-headed god Ganesha, the overcomer of obstacles. However historians believe it was composed over 900 years – between the 5th century BC and the 4th century AD.

Translated as “The Great Account of the Ancient Bharata Royal Dynasty,” this epic poem principally concerns detailed military encounters between rival Hindu kingdoms.

Very briefly the plot concerns the descendants of King Shantanu, who ruled Hasanapura on the upper Ganges River. An extremely virtuous man, he initially went straight to heaven (instead of being reborn). However after having impure thoughts about Ganga, the goddess of the Ganges River, he was forced to be reincarnated.

Somehow convincing the goddess to be reincarnated with him, she set a condition that he never question any of her actions. After watching her drown seven healthy infant sons, he questions her following the birth of the eighth. Although this results in her immediate return to heaven, she allows the 8th son, Bishina, to survive. In turns out all the previous sons were reincarnated gods cursed for a minor fault.

Shantanu then remarries a fisherwoman, who arranges for her illegitimate son to impregnate her daughters-in-law. One of them, Kunti, also has six sons by six gods (sun god, Dharma, Indra, the god of fierce winds and the twin gods of prosperity) by chanting a divine mantra. Known as the Pandavas, her six youngest sons become known as the Pandavas and claim the throne through their indirect relation to Shantanu.

The Kauravas are cousins of the Pandavas, who also claim the Hasanapua throne. After many battles, the families eventually agree to divide the kingdom.

The Pandavas get the forested area, which they burn to build the capitol city of their Kuru kingdom Indraprastha (now New Delhi). Their King Judistera ends up losing his kingdom and being sold into slavery, along with his family, in a game of dice (in which his dharma* forces him to compete). After demanding a rematch, he loses again, with a new penalty of 12 years in exile and one year in disguise.

He returns from exile to face a renewed war with the Kauravas. Prior to battle he engages in dialogue with Prince Krishna, his chariot driver, adviser and and brother-in-law. This dialogue becomes known as the Bhagavad Gita or the Lord God’s song.

After an 18 day battle, all the warriors break dharma and nearly all die. The result is the start of Kaliyaga, the thousands of years of disorder, immorality and war we live in today.

---

*Dharma is a Hindu concept referring to  an individual’s duty fulfilled by observance of universal law, righteousness, social duties and good qualities.

Film can be viewed free on Kanopy.

https://pukeariki.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/video/366254/366185

Man Paralyzed by COVID Shot He Didn’t Want

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.

Injured by the COVID-19 vaccine — that his employer forced him to get — Stephen “Steve” Wenger is now unable to work full-time and is facing more than $70,000 in medical bills, he said in an exclusive interview with The Defender.

 Stephen “Steve” Wenger, a longtime construction project manager in the telecommunications industry and former volunteer firefighter who was in excellent health, was “dead set” against receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.

But when faced with an ultimatum from his employer — get the vaccine or lose his job — Wenger reluctantly got vaccinated.

Within days, he found himself unable to stand up or move around. He crawled on his “hands and knees” into a hospital emergency room, he said.

Wenger ended up spending more than three months in the hospital, paralyzed from the waist down. He was diagnosed with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), “a neurological disorder that involves progressive weakness and reduced senses in the arms and legs” according to the National Institutes of Health.

Wenger, now 57, shared his story with The Defender, including his negative experience with the federal government’s Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP). He provided medical documentation to The Defender to corroborate his story.

‘It was either get vaccinated, or you can’t come to work’

“I was absolutely dead set against getting the vaccine,” Wenger told The Defender. “I swore I wouldn’t get it.”

Wenger was working on a project on the Navajo reservation in the desert Southwest when COVID-19 hit. “The Navajo people got really hit hard with COVID,” he said. “And I was working with these guys on a daily basis.”

His employer didn’t adopt an official mandate policy, but Wenger was nevertheless given an ultimatum.

[…]

On May 18, 2021, Wenger visited a local pharmacy and received his one and only dose of the Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) COVID-19 vaccine.

“I distinctly remember sitting there with the guy giving me the vaccine, and I said to him, ‘I hope I don’t regret this someday.’ I’ll never forget that,” Wenger said. “When I said that, I certainly didn’t think I was going to regret it.”

However, within days, he experienced a reaction to the shot.

“Seven days later, I started having issues walking,” Wenger said. “[My wife and I] were in Sedona [Arizona] … and we were at the bottom of this really steep hill, and we had to walk up this hill, and I remember I felt kind of tired and rundown that day … I felt like I was climbing Mount Everest. My legs felt like they were in cement.”

Wenger didn’t immediately make the connection to his recent vaccination.

“It’s one of those things where you really don’t put two and two together,” he said. “It’s just kind of like, okay, maybe I’m just tired or having a bad day. So, I just blew it off.”

But later that evening, when he went out to dinner, his symptoms grew worse.

“I’m sitting in the restaurant, in a booth, and I had to get up and use the restroom,” he said. “I stood up and I did a 90-degree pivot and just lost my balance and literally almost fell on this other couple’s dinner, on this other couple’s table.”

Within days, back at work on the Navajo reservation, Wenger’s legs gave out.

“I was lying there sprawled out on the concrete,” Wenger recalled. “I got home, was having issues walking again, falling, losing my balance.”

At home, his daughter, a registered nurse, encouraged him to go to the hospital.

“I finally went to the ER,” Wenger said. “My wife literally pulled up in front of the door. I rolled out of the door, and I crawled on my hands and knees into the ER.”

Wenger told The Defender that just prior to this sequence of events, he had been researching some of the symptoms he was experiencing, and thought maybe they had something to do with Guillain-Barré syndrome, a condition where the body’s own immune system attacks the body’s nerves.

In the ER, healthcare providers administered a lower lumbar puncture, after determining he had no reflex response. The results of that examination led to his hospitalization “right there on the spot,” and ultimately, his CIDP diagnosis.

It was ‘a living hell’

The next three months were “a living hell,” Wenger said, as his condition worsened.

He said:

“When I went in, initially I was having problems walking, but my hands and my arms still worked. That numbness or that loss of use was creeping up. And eventually, all of a sudden, I couldn’t use my right arm. And then, my left arm was just barely functional.”

It reached a point where he couldn’t even pick up a fork, he said. “They have these foam pads that they put on the silverware so that if you can’t grip … you’d have a bigger surface to grab,” Wenger said. “Well, my hands were so weak that my fingers couldn’t even pick it up. The weight of a fork was too much for me to pick up.”

By that time, he was essentially a quadriplegic, he said. “The whole time I was at Mayo Clinic, the only way I could get in and out of bed was [with] overhead lifts. They would put me into a sling, and they would lift me out of bed, set me down in a wheelchair.”

Wenger said he remained in this condition for approximately two months. “The one thing that I could still do was urinate in the urinal bottle. And it got to the point where, finally, I was in bed one night and I hit the call button. I just said, ‘I can’t do it anymore.’”

At that point, he said, he was 100% dependent on other people for everything. “You basically surrender all your dignity, everything. I mean, there’s nothing left.”

[…]

Today, he still has no feeling from the knees down, his fingertips are still numb and he has issues with dexterity. Nevertheless, he has returned to work on a part-time basis.

“I’m unable to do my original job,” he said. “So, I’m on Social Security disability right now, but I work part-time at a hardware store.”

Despite his continued improvement, Wenger said he doesn’t expect a full recovery.

[…]

‘Insurance is … an absolute nightmare’

Though rituximab has helped Wenger improve, issues with insurance companies have caused delays in treatment — placing his health and recovery at risk.

“The last dose [of rituximab] I had was in December,” Wenger said, “and it actually came two months late because of some insurance issues. Insurance is a nightmare, an absolute nightmare.”

During that two-month period, Wenger developed a cold or the flu, which triggered his CIDP and caused him to relapse.

“CIDP is no joke,” Wenger continued. “It’s the gift that keeps on giving. Once you’ve got it, you’ve got it. You don’t get rid of it. It’s always there. It can come back at any time.”

He will likely continue intravenous immunoglobulin therapy for the rest of his life and will continue taking rituximab indefinitely.

“Seeing how quickly I relapsed in December, I think they’ll keep me on that for a while at least,” he said. “So that’s my life.”

Wenger’s insurance payments increased from $200 to $850 per month and his deductible more than doubled, from $6,000 to $13,000 — an amount that was then reset when his previous employer changed insurance carriers.

His medical expenses reached $70,000. In conjunction with a sharp drop in income, from six figures down to $27,000 on disability insurance, Wenger estimated his “real cash financial loss” as ranging between $250,000 and $300,000.

[…]

Government vaccine injury program ‘insulting’ to victims

Wenger filed a CICP claim that is still pending.reviewing his case.

[…]

A year later, “I still have nothing,” Wenger said, remarking on the fact that only recently, CICP approved its first three COVID-19 vaccine injury claims — at a total of $4,500.

[…]

Wenger was referring to a separate vaccine injury compensation program, VICP, which covers vaccines routinely administered to children and pregnant women. CICP, on the other hand, focuses on countermeasures implemented during emergencies such as pandemics and was established under the aegis of the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act of 2005.

Although the federal government’s national emergency and public health emergency related to COVID-19 both ended on May 11, the liability shield for COVID-19 vaccines under the PREP Act will remain in effect until at least December 2024.

Vaccine-injured ‘the dirty little secret nobody wants to talk about’

[…]

Wenger praised the work of React19 and its founder, Brianne Dressen, who was injured by the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine during its clinical trial. He said he works “with some of the greatest people” through the organization, and has met other vaccine-injured individuals who provide each other emotional support.

In May, Dressen and others sued President Biden and other members of the federal government, alleging the U.S. government colluded with social media companies to censor them when they posted stories about their personal vaccine injury experiences.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/steve-wenger-janssen-covid-vaccine-injury

 

The US Campaign Against Breastfeeding

Dr Mercoloa

Story at-a-glance

• According to the World Health Organization (WHO), between 2011 and 2016, only 40% of infants under the age of 6 months were being exclusively breastfed, worldwide
• Thanks to growing awareness of the science behind the “breast is best” slogan, breastfeeding rates in the U.S. have risen from a low of 24% in 1971 to 81% in 2016
• The global goal is to get 70% of infants exclusively breastfed for the first six months by 2030. To achieve that, the World Health Assembly introduced a nonbinding resolution in early 2018 to encourage breastfeeding and stress the health benefits of breastfeeding
• In a move that shocked the world, U.S. delegates opposed the resolution, demanding that language calling on governments to “protect, promote and support breastfeeding” be deleted
• The American delegation threatened countries with sanctions lest they reject the resolution. It was even suggested that the U.S. might cut its financial support to the WHO. Russia ultimately introduced the resolution

Editor’s Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published July 24, 2018.

What’s the optimal food for your newborn baby? Common sense would tell you that a mother’s breast milk is as optimal as infant nutrition could possibly get, yet that fact — indisputable as it may seem — is something that makers of infant formula have spent decades’ trying to sweep under the carpet.¹ Following the development of manufactured infant formula, mothers were told breastfeeding was unnecessary.

Formula offered greater freedom for busy moms, and the promotion of the obnoxious idea that breastfeeding in public is shameful fueled the transition, making more moms defer to the bottle rather than their breast. For years, women could even be fined for “public indecency” if caught breastfeeding in public. In 2018, Utah became the last state to enact laws protecting the rights of breastfeeding mothers by permitting nursing in public.²

As of April 2018, all 50 states must provide workplace protection for nursing mothers, however many suffer discrimination for needing time to express milk. In terms of nutrition, moms have, and still are, told there’s “no difference” between bottle feeding and breastfeeding, yet nothing could be further from the truth.

There is very little similarity between the two, from a nutritional perspective. Unfortunately, marketing materials have a way of giving mothers the false idea that formula may actually provide better nutrition.

Now, even the pro-breastfeeding slogan “breast is best” has been usurped and turned into “fed is best”³ — meaning, as long as your baby is well-fed, it doesn’t matter if it’s breast milk or formula. A recent bioethical argument in the journal Pediatrics even advises pediatricians it’s time to stop referring to breastfeeding as something “natural.”⁴ How did we get so off course? You might as well argue against the naturalness of urination.

Only 4 in 10 Infants Are Exclusively Breastfed for 6 Months

According to a January 2, 2018, report⁵ by the World Health Organization (WHO) on infant nutrition, between 2011 and 2016, a mere 40% of infants under the age of 6 months were being exclusively breastfed, worldwide. Only 33 countries have breastfeeding rates higher than 50%, while 68 nations have rates below 50%.

Thanks to growing awareness of the science behind the “breast is best” slogan, breastfeeding rates in the U.S. have risen dramatically in recent decades, from a low of 24% in 1971⁶ to 81.1% in 2016.⁷

The global goal is to get 70% of infants exclusively breastfed for the first six months by 2030, and to achieve that, the World Health Assembly, which is the decision-making body of the WHO, introduced a nonbinding resolution in early 2018 to encourage breastfeeding and stress the health benefits of breastfeeding.

The resolution stressed that decades of research show breast milk is the healthiest choice, and urged governments to rein in inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes.

US Government Backs Formula Makers

In a move that shocked the world, the U.S. delegates opposed the resolution, demanding that language calling on governments to “protect, promote and support breastfeeding” be deleted.⁸ They also wanted to erase a passage calling on policymakers to restrict promotion of foods that can have adverse effects on the health of young children.

The global delegation was even more shocked when the Americans started threatening countries with sanctions lest they reject the resolution. It was even suggested that the U.S. might cut its financial support to the WHO.

[…]

A Mother’s Choice

A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) denied the agency had anything to do with the threats leveled at Ecuador, telling The New York Times the DHHS had sought to modify the original draft resolution¹¹ because it “placed unnecessary hurdles for mothers seeking to provide nutrition to their children.”

According to the DHHS, women may not be able to breastfeed for a variety of reasons and “These women should have the choice and access to alternatives for the health of their babies, and not be stigmatized for the ways in which they are able to do so.” This is an incredibly weak rebuttal, as encouraging breastfeeding and promoting its health benefits in no way diminishes a woman’s right or ability to opt for formula if she finds she cannot breastfeed.

Formula makers have also tried to distance themselves from the embarrassment. Still, while witnesses at the assembly meeting claim they saw no evidence of formula makers trying to wield their influence, there’s no denying they’ve spent a lot of money lobbying to protect their market share, which means minimizing the importance of breastfeeding.

According to a MapLight analysis,¹² the three leading formula companies, Abbott Laboratories, Nestle and Reckitt Benckiser, have spent $60.7 million lobbying lawmakers in the U.S. over the past decade.

Lucy Sullivan, director of 1,000 Days, a mother and infant nutrition advocacy group, told The Atlantic,¹³ “What this battle in Geneva showed us is that we have a U.S. government that is strongly aligned with the interests of the infant-formula industry and dairy industry, and are willing to play hardball.”

As is customary, the DHHS held stakeholder listening sessions with various industry groups prior to the World Health Assembly meeting, where the dairy, grocery and infant formula groups all had their say about the proposed resolution.

What surprised everyone was “how forcefully the U.S. delegates acted on the trade groups’ opposition,” The Atlantic writes.¹⁴ While it may have been more aggressive than usual, as you will see below, the U.S. has an embarrassing history of pushing the use of infant formula over breast milk.

Health Benefits of Mother’s Milk

From a nutritional science point of view, there’s simply no dispute that breast milk is the optimal food for newborns and young infants.^15,16 Breastfeeding also has a number of health benefits for the mother, and it’s the least expensive alternative. Below is a summary of some of the key health benefits for mother and child.

Infant formula, on the other hand, has been linked to an increased risk of infant death. In her paper, “Marketing Breast Milk Substitutes: Problems and Perils Throughout the World,” published in the Archives of Disease in Childhood in 2012, June Brady starts out by highlighting the U.S. government’s shameful lack of support of proper infant nutrition, choosing instead to cater to the formula makers’ right to profit.

[…]

Via https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/06/07/campaign-against-breastfeeding.aspx

 

Covid Hospital Death Trap Killed 97.2% Over 65

Dr Mercola

Story at-a-glance

• Within weeks of the pandemic outbreak, it had become apparent that the standard practice of putting COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation was a death sentence; 76.4% of COVID-19 patients (aged 18 to 65) in New York City who were placed on ventilators died. Among patients over age 65 who were vented, the mortality rate was 97.2%
• The recommendation to place COVID patients on mechanical ventilation as a first-line response came from the World Health Organization, which allegedly based its guidance on experiences and recommendations from doctors in China. But venting COVID patients wasn’t recommended because it increased survival. It was to protect health care workers by isolating the virus inside the vent machine
• Data suggest around 10,000 patients died with COVID in NYC hospitals after being put on ventilators in spring 2020. Other metropolitan areas also saw massive spikes in deaths among younger individuals who were at low risk of dying from COVID. It’s possible many of these deaths were the result of being placed on mechanical ventilation
• The WHO must be held accountable for its unethical recommendation to sacrifice suspected COVID patients by using ventilation as an infection mitigation strategy — especially considering they’re now trying to get unilateral power and authority to make pandemic decisions without local input
• Showing how the WHO’s recommendation to put patients on mechanical ventilation resulted in needless death among people who weren’t at great risk of dying from COVID is perhaps one of the most powerful talking points a country can use to argue for independence and rejection of the WHO’s pandemic treaty

Within weeks of the pandemic outbreak, it had become apparent that the standard practice of putting COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation was a death sentence.¹

By early April 2020, many doctors were already questioning their use, as data² showed 76.4% of COVID-19 patients (aged 18 to 65) in New York City who were placed on ventilators died. Among patients over age 65 who were vented, the mortality rate was a whopping 97.2%.

If you were older than 65, you were 26 times more likely to survive if you were NOT placed on a vent.³ A small study from Wuhan, China, put the ratio of deaths at 86%,⁴ and in Texas, 84.9% of patients died after more than 96 hours on a ventilator.⁵

In a widely-shared YouTube video⁶ (above) posted March 31, 2020, Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell, a critical care specialist at the Mount Sinai Health System in New York, warned that “we must change what we are doing if we want to save as many lives as possible.” Sidell was adamant that doctors were “treating the wrong disease” and that putting COVID patients on mechanical ventilation was all wrong.

[…]

Why Were COVID Patients Put on Vents?

The recommendation to place COVID patients on mechanical ventilation as a first-line response came from the World Health Organization,⁷ which in early March 2020 published a COVID-19 provider guidance⁸ document to health care workers, based on experiences and recommendations from doctors in China.

According to the WHO, treatment needed to be rapidly escalated to mechanical ventilation. Ideally, patients should be placed on it immediately.⁹ What escaped the public was the primary reason why. Venting COVID patients wasn’t recommended because it increased survival; rather, it was to protect health care workers by isolating the virus inside the mechanical vent machine.

Using less invasive positive air pressure machines could result in the spread of infectious aerosols, the WHO warned. In other words, they put patients to death to “save” staff and other, presumably non-COVID, patients.

[…]

Even Dr. Anthony Fauci, in a mid-June 2022 lecture (above), admitted that placing patients on mechanical ventilation did more harm than good.

[…]

Yet government treatment guidelines, to this day, include invasive mechanical ventilation.¹² If the White House Coronavirus Task Force knew in the summer of 2022 that venting patients caused more harm than good, why didn’t they instruct hospitals to stop using it? Or at bare minimum, strongly advise against it?

And why did the government continue to financially incentivize the use of mechanical ventilation after they’d realized how bad it was? While many hospitals did cut down on their use of mechanical ventilation toward the end of 2020 and beyond, it still hasn’t been entirely replaced with noninvasive strategies shown to be far more effective.¹³

Many ‘COVID Patients’ Didn’t Have COVID

The matter becomes even more perverse when you consider that many “COVID cases” were patients who merely tested positive using faulty PCR testing. They didn’t have COVID but were vented anyway, thanks to the baseless theory that you could have COVID-19 and be infectious without symptoms.

Hospitals also received massive financial incentives to diagnose patients with COVID — whether they had it or not — and to put them on a vent. They also received bonuses for using toxic remdesivir, and they were paid for each COVID death as well. The entire system was set up to reward hospitals for misdiagnosing, mistreating and ultimately killing patients.

China also benefited from the WHO’s misguided advice. While the U.S. clamored for more ventilators, Chinese hospitals started relying on them less and instead they were being exported in huge quantities.¹⁴

How Many COVID Patients Were Killed by WHO’s Bad Advice?

Just how many COVID-19 patients were killed by being placed on mechanical ventilation in the spring of 2020? That’s a question attorney and author Michael P. Senger tries to answer in his May 25, 2023, article “The Great COVID Ventilator Death Coverup.”¹⁵

[…]

Inpatient Mortality Around the US, 2020 Through Present

Senger goes on to show the same all-cause mortality graphs for hospital inpatients for each of the largest cities in the U.S.: Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. All show massive spikes in hospital deaths, especially among the elderly (65 and older), around the same time periods as NYC. He also produced charts for deaths on the state level, as follow:²⁰

[…]

A Morally Indefensible Coverup

Senger points out that, in speaking with other attorneys, most agree that hospitals face virtually no risk of litigation over ventilator deaths, for the simple reason that everyone perceived COVID to be a global emergency, and during emergencies, you just do the best you can with what you have and what you know.

[…]

Even so, “the situation is morally inexcusable,” Senger says, adding that we do need to get to the bottom of how and why these patients died. I agree. While Senger wants the truth to understand what happened and to honor the diseased, I would add that we need the truth in order to avoid making the same mistake again, because there will be a next time.

The WHO Must Be Held to Account

The WHO must be held accountable for its unethical recommendation to sacrifice suspected COVID patients by using ventilation as an infection mitigation strategy — especially considering they’re now trying to get unilateral power and authority to make pandemic decisions without local input.

Showing how the WHO’s recommendation to put patients on mechanical ventilation resulted in needless death among people who weren’t at great risk of dying from COVID is perhaps one of the most powerful talking points a country can use to argue for independence and rejection of the WHO’s pandemic treaty.

They simply cannot be trusted to make sound medical decisions for the whole world. No one is. We need to allow local medical experts to make the calls in situations like this, and to collaborate and share information between themselves. The top-down one-size-fits-all medical paradigm that the WHO wants to implement is nothing short of disastrous, and the COVID pandemic response proves it.

Also, let’s not forget that the misuse of mechanical ventilation created the appearance that COVID was exceptionally deadly, regardless of your age, which in turn helped promote acceptance of the experimental COVID shots that are now a leading cause of frequent sickness, chronic disability and excess deaths. Of course, that’s also being covered up.

In the final analysis, the WHO’s handling of the COVID pandemic will undoubtedly go down as the worst in medical history. Can we really trust them to make better decisions in the future?

I think not, which is why we must do everything in our power to prevent the U.S. from signing the pandemic treaty. Better yet, we need to exit the WHO entirely. To that end, I urge you to contact your local House representatives and Senators and urge them to:

1. Support the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act^{24,25,26,27,28}
2. Withhold funding for the WHO
3. Support U.S. withdrawal from the WHO

[…]

Via https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/06/07/covid-death-coverup.aspx?ui=26ae5a785a45f97d5e56bf4c7d0c2d6b647952a589d7936d74fc35371b657d40&sd=20210209&cid

Endotoxin Contamination of Lab-Grown Meat

A recent research paper released by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory makes public for the first time (to my knowledge) the dangerous endotoxins released during the production of lab grown meat. According to the paper, endotoxins, well know for their role in numerous chronic and autoimmune diseases, are a critical component of the outer membrane of Gram-negative bacteria used to produce artificial meat.

In a section entitled “The Endotoxin Challenge,” the paper minimizes the risk of these lab-produced endotoxins to human beings, by explaining numerous techniques used to “reduce” their concentration:

The Endotoxin Challenge

These TEAs highlighted many of the technical challenges related to ACBM production, but growth medium refinement was identified as one of the most important considerations for nearterm analysis. One aspect of this refinement is the endotoxin reduction/removal for each growth medium component. Endotoxins, also known as lipopolysaccharides (LPS) are a critical component of the outer membrane of Gram-negative bacteria. Endotoxins contain a hydrophilic polysaccharide fraction, which is covalently bonded to a hydrophobic lipid known as lipid A (Magalhães et al., 2007). Gram negative bacteria are ubiquitous to the environment and are commonly found in tap water (Vaz-Moreira et al., 2017). In cell culture the presence of endotoxin can have a wide variety of effects. For example, at an endotoxin concentration as low as 1 ng/ml it reduced pregnancy success rates by 3 to 4-fold during in vitro fertilization of human IVF embryos (Dawson, 1998; Fishel et al., 1988; Snyman & van der Merwe, 1986). Gram negative bacteria shed small amounts of endotoxin into the environment when they proliferate and shed large amounts when they are inactivated (Corning, 2020).

Animal cell culture is traditionally done with growth medium components which have been refined to remove/reduce endotoxin (Corning, 2020). The method of endotoxin reduction or elimination is highly dependent upon the properties of the substance being purified (EMD Millipore, 2012). There are a multitude of methods employed for the separation of endotoxin from growth medium components and these include use of LPS affinity resins, two-phase extractions, ultrafiltration, hydrophobic interaction chromatography, ion exchange chromatography, and membrane adsorbers (Magalhães et al., 2007). In turn, the use of these refinement methods contributes significantly to the economic and environmental costs associated with pharmaceutical products since they are both energy and resource intensive (Wernet et al., 2010).

The paper’s authors seem more concerned about the environmental cost of removing endotoxins from lab-grown meat. I myself am more concerned about the potential harm to human health. I also have no confidence whatsoever in government regulatory regimes to ensure that lab-grown meat will be free of disease-causing endotoxins.

Over the past 10 years, researchers have identified numerous chronic and auto-immune diseases caused by the endotoxins released by gram negative gut bacteria: coronary artery disease, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, Parkinson’s Disease, obesity and type 2 diabetes, and autism, Alzheimer’s schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder and chronic fatigue.

 

 

Steve Bannon and China’s Deep State

By Matthew Ehret

“I consider Xi Jinping the most dangerous enemy of open societies in the world.

–George Soros, 2021

“China has emerged as the greatest economic and national security threat the United States has ever faced”

–Steve Bannon, 2019

China’s Government in Exile

On June 4, 2020, purged billionaire deep state operative Guo Wengui (aka: Miles Guo), now operating from New York City, established a new organization called ‘The New Federal State of China’ with a shiny new flag, constitution and cheesy anthem – devoted entirely to the overthrow of the Chinese government… which will undoubtedly happen any day within Guo’s wildest imagination.

When this project was unveiled, Steve Bannon and Guo stood shoulder to shoulder on the Asian millionaire’s $28 million yacht in the New York harbor with the statue of liberty featured in the background and planes carrying flags announcing the new Federal State of China flying overhead.

Since escaping arrest from China in 2014, Guo soon partnered up with Steve Bannon, financing his War Room broadcast, and co-founding several media platforms and foundations such as GTV, Gnews, the Rule of Law Foundation and Rule of Law Society.

Introducing Miles Guo

Miles Guo represented a typical local oligarch in China accumulating a vast fortune which peaked at over one billion dollars in 2014 when he headed Zenith Enterprises real estate and Beijing Morgan Investments (a JP Morgan tentacle inside China).

While never becoming a member of the Communist Party,  unlike disgraced deep state figure Jack Ma of Alibaba and Davos fame, Guo had made his fortune much like the Russian oligarchs of the liberalizing 1990s — via blackmail, bribery and plunder. In 1980s China, just as we saw across 1990s Russia, a vast predatory looting occurred into the hands of conscience-free pirates beholden to their western controllers in London and Wall Street.

Guo was among the first batch of young sociopaths who played a role in the attempted Soros-fueled color revolution led by Soros-asset Zhao Ziyang (former Premier 1980-1987 and then head of the Chinese Communist Party from 1987-89).

When Zhao was removed from power during his attempted coup d’état at Tiananmen Square in June 1989, leading to Soros’ lifetime ban later that year, Guo was one of the hundreds of Zhao assets arrested, spending nearly two years in jail during the early 1990s [1].

Upon his release, Guo quickly went back to work rebuilding his empire using no shortage of dirty tricks and help from leading figures centered around China’s powerful ministry of state security and billionaire Shanghai Clique of former CPC chairmen Jiang Zemin (1989-2002) and Hu Jintao (2002-2012).

Guo’s luck ran out in 2014 when he found himself facing dozens of charges of bribery, extortion, blackmail, and rape. Guo’s inevitable prosecution was fueled by a much larger crackdown of China’s deep state led by Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption campaign.

Upon Xi Jinping’s victory as General Secretary of the CPC in 2012, Guo’s luck ran out when he found himself facing dozens of charges of bribery, extortion, blackmail and rape. Guo’s inevitable prosecution was fueled by a much larger crackdown of China’s deep state led by an unprecedented anti-corruption campaign.

Xi Jinping Drains the Swamp

Between 2012-2022, over 4.7 million Chinese party officials faced punishment for bribery and corruption charges, while CIA front groups tied to the National Endowment for Democracy were cut off from their western support. US Intelligence operatives including disgraced neo-con John Bolton admitted as much in a Nov. 10, 2021 Bloomberg article which read:

“Xi’s sweeping efforts to change China’s domestic politics and consolidate his control also have taken a toll on American intelligence… The shift from a system of ‘collective’ leadership under former Presidents Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao toward one dominated by Xi means that the CIA has had to go from focusing on the inner circles of seven or even nine top leaders to, effectively, just one.”

Some examples of high officials purged from positions of vast power within China include Ministry of State Security officials Ma Jian (vice minister for Public Security from 2006-2015) and Zhou Youngkang (minister of public security from 2002-2007) who were arrested and sentenced to life in prison in 2015 and 2018 respectively.

According to investigative reporter Pepe Escobar, both men were handlers of Miles Guo and were close allies to Ling Jihua (Chief of Staff to Hu Jintao) who was found guilty of bribery and sentenced to life in prison in 2016. Another associate of this hive was Sun Zhengcai who found himself ousted as a Politburo member and sentenced to life in prison in 2018. On top of this list, former vice minister of police Sun Lijun was arrested in 2022 on corruption charges, Chinese Interpol Chief Meng Hongwei was jailed for 13.5 years in 2019 on bribery charges while former Justice Minister Fu Zhenghua was given a suspended death sentence in 2021.

The list goes on much longer, but you get the point.

Miles Guo Comes to America

While his handlers and associates went to prison, Guo’s usefulness within China dried up and so he joined thousands of other billionaire traitors receiving sanctuary abroad where he was put to work in the USA conducting asymmetrical warfare operations against his homeland.

In January 2021, two Bannon-Guo controlled think tanks named The Rule of Law Society and Rule of Law Foundation financed the report conducted by Hong Kong-based researcher Dr Li Meng Yan painting China as the singular agency which unleashed COVID-19 onto the world. Although this claim was not based on any actual evidence, its conclusions were amplified across think tanks, government agencies, and western press outlets while ignoring the 320+ Pentagon-controlled biolabs scattered across the face of the earth.

Among Guo’s close friends has been none other than Tony Blair (who wrote Guo a letter of recommendation when he applied to purchase his first $60 million condo in New York in 2015) and Connie Morgan, heiress to the JP Morgan dynasty who is also a leading supporter of Guo’s Federalist State of New China.

During a June 4, 2022 event celebrating the second anniversary of the Federalist State of New China (and anniversary of the failed Tiananmen Square color revolution), Guo interviewed Ms. Morgan where the heiress explained that the Morgan clan are American heroes for having bailed out the USA in times of financial crisis in 1903 and 1913 which was re-emphasized by Guo who proudly felt that he had set the record straight once and for all.

[…]

A Word on Steve Bannon 

It is worthwhile to take a moment to review the role played by Guo’s close associate and devout anti-China Cold Warrior Steve Bannon who President Trump rightly booted from his team in August 2017.

Between 2017 to the present, Bannon has worked hard to coral Trump supporters in America and the European right into a new anti-Chinese united front while reviving the neo-con “clash of civilizations” doctrine with a vengeance — except modified for an alt-right audience distrustful of the conventional tactics of mainstream neocons.

One of the main conduits Bannon chose to unleash this assault early on was titled the Committee on Present Danger-China which he founded alongside a group of intelligence operatives, raging neocons and grifters in March 2019.

[…]

Bannon has also found himself working ever more tightly with the anti-Beijing CIA-funded cult Falun Gong which has been banned from China since 1999 and used by the CIA as a propaganda weapon against China claiming anecdotal evidence of Beijing-sponsored organ harvesting and killing of religious minorities.

[…]

Bannon has interfaced closely with the Falun Gong on a variety of projects including promoting the Falun Gong-affiliated Epoch Times which serves as the crown jewel in the Falun Gong’s New Tang Dynasty media empire. Bannon has even produced a Falun Gong-financed film titled Claws of the Red Dragon — putting him into the same boat as his left-handed mirror image George Soros who also supports the Falun Gong through Open Society Foundation’s partner organization Freedom House.

The contradiction arising from this alliance of pro-Trump sociopaths working with anti-Trump sociopaths only makes sense when you look at the anti-human game from the top down rather than the bottom up.

Setting the Stage for a New Crusade

It is here, that we start getting a fuller picture of the nature of the false ‘left vs right’ game being played, as we look at a City of London-based think tank which Bannon leads called the Dignitatis Humanae Institute located within an 800 year old monastery.

[…]

Games within Games: How Not to Get Played

In an August 22, 2016 Daily Beast article, journalist Ronald Radosh described a conversation he had with Bannon two years earlier saying:

“… we had a long talk about his approach to politics. He never called himself a “populist” or an “American nationalist,” as so many think of him today. “I’m a Leninist,” Bannon proudly proclaimed. Shocked, I asked him what he meant. “Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down and destroy all of today’s establishment.”

On October 21, 2021 Bannon poured fuel onto the Liberal-narrative of “MAGA insurrection” on January 6, 2021 by calling for “20,000 shock troops to take over the government”.

[…]

Footnote

[1] When the bloodbath failed to be sparked, with only 200-300 deaths (many of which being PLA soldiers), the plan was aborted and the most radical provocateurs beholden to the Soros operation were carried off to safer grounds in the USA and Canada under an MI6/CIA operation titled “Operation Yellowbird”. With the vast assistance of Hong Kong triads, these inciters were snuck out of China where many received luxurious rewards and scholarships at Ivy league universities in the USA forming what the Washington Post’s Gavin Hewitt described as “the nucleus of a democracy movement in exile”. Much has been written on the truth of Tiananmen Square’s events in 1989, and for any honest person evaluating the evidence presented on the topic (such as here, or here, or here), the case should be considered closed.

[…]

Via https://matthewehret.substack.com/p/steve-bannon-and-chinas-deep-state

Russia Claims Evidence of Avian Flu Pathogens with Up to 40% Human Lethality at US Biolab in Ukraine

Jim Hoft

Back in March 2022, RINO Senator Mitt Romney accused former Democrat Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of spreading ‘treasonous lies’ for simply talking about the US-funded biolabs in Ukraine.

“There are 25+ US-funded biolabs in Ukraine which if breached would release and spread deadly pathogens to US/world.” Gabbard said at the time.

“We must take action now to prevent disaster. US/Russia/Ukraine/NATO/UN/EU must implement a ceasefire now around these labs until they’re secured and pathogens destroyed,” she added.

 

Tulsi Gabbard made her statement based on testimony from the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in Eurasia, Victoria Nuland.

Victoria Nuland admitted during testimony before a US Senate committee the existence of biological research labs in Ukraine.

Less than 24 hours later, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said that reports of biolabs in Ukraine were fake news propagated by Russia.

The Democrat-fake news-media complex then attacked anyone who brought up the biolabs in Ukraine.

US Department of Defense Finally Comes Clean – Admits in Public Document that There Are 46 US Military-Funded Biolabs in Ukraine

Mitt Romney lashed out at Tulsi Gabbard, saying,

“Tulsi Gabbard is parroting false Russian propaganda. Her treasonous lies may well cost lives.”

Then this happened– Russia released alleged captured documents from Ukraine exposing evidence of US Military Biolabs in Ukraine.

Russia made the accusations in front of the United Nations General Assembly.

The Pentagon in June 2022 finally admitted in a public statement that there are 46 US-funded biolabs in Ukraine.

This is after months of lies and denials by Democrats, the Biden regime and their fake news mainstream media!

The Pentagon FINALLY came clean.

Now Russia is accusing the US of experimenting with Avian flu pathogens at a US biolab in Ukraine with a lethality rate up to 40% in humans.

⚡️@mod_russia: Documents seized in the veterinary laboratory of the Biosphere Reserve in Askania Nova, Kherson region, confirm the involvement of the Kharkov Institute of Veterinary Medicine in the work of 🇺🇸 UP-8 & P-444 Projects and preparations for the Flu-Fly-Way project. pic.twitter.com/BoB4yB7Y8N

— Russian Embassy in USA 🇷🇺 (@RusEmbUSA) May 26, 2023

 

⚡️ Read in full briefing by @mod_russia on US military-biological activity.

▪️ Evidence of the research of dangerous pathogens in Ukraine
▪️ Development of biological weapons by the US
▪️ Establishment of BSL-4 biolabs abroad by the US

📖 https://t.co/ocZoPmxSB4 pic.twitter.com/kDngcI1uix

— MFA Russia 🇷🇺 (@mfa_russia) May 26, 2023

Russian officials announced their findings on Friday.

The Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation continues to analyse the military and biological activities of the U.S. and its allies in Ukraine and elsewhere in the world.

We noted earlier that during the special military operation, documentary evidence was obtained confirming that employees of the Biosphere Reserve in Askania Nova, Kherson region, were studying the migration routes of migratory birds and selecting and transferring biological material abroad.

The task force of the Russian Ministry of Defence together with officers of the Federal Security Service and Rosselkhoznadzor have confirmed the collection and certification of avian influenza virus strains with a high potential for epidemic spread and the ability to cross the species barrier, particularly the H5N8 strain, whose lethality in human transmission can reach 40%. Remember that 1% of new coronavirus infections result in death.

Despite efforts by the Reserve’s staff to destroy the biomaterials by cutting off the power to the refrigeration units and destroying the cryopreservoir with liquid nitrogen, specialists from the 48th Central Research Institute of the Russian Ministry of Defence found traces of genetic material of highly pathogenic avian influenza, Newcastle disease virus, and avuloviruses even in the samples that had undergone decomposition.

According to the employees who remained in the Reserve, the Ukrainian side offered them a large cash reward for removing or destroying the research results.

Documents seized in the Reserve’s veterinary laboratory confirm the involvement of the Kharkov Institute of Veterinary Medicine in the work of the American UP-8 and P-444 Projects and preparations for the Flu-Fly-Way project.

Their goal was to evaluate the circumstances in which the transmission of diseases associated with economically significant infections may become uncontrollable, result in economic harm, and constitute a threat to food security.

It is necessary to emphasize that once more that the U.S. Department of Defense, an organisation that has nothing to do with the research of bird migratory routes, commissioned the projects.

[…]

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-claims-they-collected-evidence-avian-flu-pathogens-lethality-rate-up-40-humans-us-biolab-ukraine/5821329

Club of Rome “Limits to Growth” Author Promotes Genocide of 86% of the World’s Population

Dennis Meadows, one of the main authors of the Club of Rome’s The Limits to Growth, is an honorary member of the Club of Rome and a member of the World Economic Forum. If you thought his ideology had softened and become less anti-human since the publishing of his book, you’d be wrong. 

Here’s a 2017 video of Meadows musing over his hopes that the coming inevitable genocide of 86% of the world population could be accomplished peacefully under a “benevolent” dictatorship. He said:

“We could [ ] have eight or nine billion, probably, if we have a very strong dictatorship which is smart … and [people have] a low standard of living …  But we want to have freedom and we want to have a high standard of living so we’re going to have a billion people. And we’re now at seven, so we have to get back down.  I hope that this can be slow, relatively slow and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal, you know, so that people share the experience.”

As will become apparent at the end of this article, it is no coincidence that Meadows’ words echo the words in the 1995 Global Biodiversity Assessment first presented at the United Nations climate change conference COP1 which stated:

An ‘agricultural world’ in which most human beings are peasants, should be able to support 5 to 7 billion people … In contrast, a reasonable estimate for an industrialised world society at the present North American material standard of living would be one billion.

Global Biodiversity Assessment, UNEP, 1995, pg. 773

What the advocates of this ideology seem to omit mentioning is that, according to Worldometer, the population of the world is currently over 8 billion which doesn’t stack up with their fear-mongering predictions. There’s a good reason they avoid real-world scenarios because their models are a sleight of hand, they manipulate the data.

While many are now familiar with the manipulation of predictive modelling by Neil Ferguson during the covid-19 crisis, a network of powerful Malthusians have used the same tactics for the better part of the last century to sell and impose their agenda.

Malthusians are the disciples of Thomas Malthus (1766 – 1834).  Malthus promoted the mathematical thesis that population levels will always tend towards geometric growth, while agricultural resources will tend to arithmetic growth resulting in relatively forecastable “crisis points.” Malthus believed that social engineers representing the British Empire must use these “crisis points” to scientifically manage the “human herd.” Malthus believed that nature bestowed upon the ruling class certain tools that would allow them to accomplish this important task – namely war, famine and disease.

Established in 1968, the Club of Rome quickly set up branches across the Western world with members whom all agreed that society’s best form of governance was a scientific dictatorship.

It is a globalist non-governmental organisation (“NGO”) that convenes meetings between heads of state, members of royal families, business leaders, international financiers, academic scholars, laboratory scientists, and administrators of global governance institutions, such as the United Nations (“UN”), the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (“IMF”), and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (“OECD”). Modelled after the “Round Table” structure of the Bilderberg Group, the Royal Institute for International Affairs (“RIIA”), and the Council on Foreign Relations (“CFR”), the Club of Rome facilitates meetings where delegates plan the global economy through public-private stewardship of the world’s natural and human resources in accordance with the Malthusian ecology of sustainable development.

In 1972, the Club of Rome’s The Limits to Growth published the results of computer-simulated forecasts calculated by a team of statisticians recruited from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”).   It was the culmination of a two-year study undertaken by the MIT team under the nominal heading of Jay Forrester and Dennis Meadows.  The Limits to Growth is arguably the most influential book about “sustainability.”   It became the bible and blueprint of the new anti-humanist movement that birthed today’s Green New Deal agenda.

The Club of Rome’s The Limits to Growth is not only Malthusian in principle, but a survey of its bibliography reveals that it is also backed by extensive citations from an array of Malthusian-eugenicists and affiliated institutions that have been dedicated to population control.

A 2012 article celebrating the book’s 40th anniversary stated: “It is worth revisiting Limits [to Growth] today because, more than any other book, it introduced the concept of anthropocentric [human caused] climate change to a mass audience.”  It’s worth revisiting Limits to Growth for other reasons as well.

One reason is that The Limits to Growth was the first of its kind to fuse global temperature with economic variables like population growth, resource loss, and the under-defined category of “pollution.” By utilising linear equations to extrapolate trends into the future, Meadows and his co-authors, one of whom was his wife, had set the stage for two major fallacies:

• The fabric of physical space-time shaping the discoverable universe is intrinsically non-linear and thus not expressible by any form of linear equations regardless of the computing power involved. Human creative mentation is most explicitly non-linear as it is tied to non-formalisable states of existence like inspiration, love of truth, dignity, and beauty which no binary system can approximate.  The Club of Rome programmers ignored these facts and assumed the universe was as binary as their software.
• The data sets themselves could easily be skewed and re-framed according to the controllers of the computer programmers who aspired to shape government policy. We have already seen how this technique was used to drive fallacious results of future scenarios under the hand of Imperial College’s Neil Ferguson and the same technique has been applied in ecological modelling as well.

Another reason to revisit The Limits to Growth is to highlight the influence it had and still has on supranational organisations.  For decades, New Age guru Barbara Marx Hubbard – who called for one-fourth of the human population to be culled to usher in a New World Order – championed transhumanism and Malthusian sustainable development, which is the crux of The Great Reset and the Fourth Industrial Revolution.  Hubbard’s Malthusian overpopulation theories were partly inspired by The Limits to Growth. In fact, in Hubbard’s Book of Co-Creation, there are multiple passages which warn of Malthusian “limits to growth” that could lead to ecological catastrophes. She also met personally with Club of Rome co-founder, Aurelio Peccei who prompted the World Economic Forum to adopt the Malthusian tenets of The Limits to Growth at the World Economic Forum’s Third Annual Meeting in 1973.

Last, but not least, we have Club of Rome member and author of Limits to Growth, who manipulated his predictive modelling, hoping that a dictatorship will slowly and “peacefully” cull 86% of the world’s population.

[…]

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/author-limits-growth-promotes-genocide-86-world-population/5818133