Friday, June 14, 2024

SARS-CoV-2 and covid vaccine accelerate biological ageing

Qatari researchers find SARS-CoV-2 accelerates biological ageing
By Rhoda Wilson on June 13, 2024

Since 2021, Walter Chestnut has been investigating whether SARS-CoV-2’s spike protein causes accelerated biological ageing.

On Monday, researchers from Qatar published a paper that explored and summarised research on biological ageing markers in covid patients.  This paper confirmed Chestnut’s hypothesis that the spike protein induces accelerated ageing.

The hallmarks of ageing are a set of biological processes that contribute to the ageing process and are characterised by a progressive loss of physiological integrity, leading to impaired function and increased vulnerability to death. These hallmarks were first proposed by Carlos López-Otín and his colleagues in 2013 and have since been widely accepted as a framework for understanding the molecular basis of ageing.

There are nine hallmarks of ageing.  The Qatari researchers focused on two: epigenetic alterations and telomere attrition.

Epigenetic alterations are changes in gene expression that occur without altering the underlying DNA sequence, which can lead to altered cellular function and behaviour. Telomere attrition is the shortening of telomeres, the protective caps on the ends of chromosomes, which can lead to cellular senescence and genomic instability.

The Qatari researchers found “multiple studies utilising different epigenetic clocks unveiled epigenetic age acceleration and telomere shortening in covid-19 patients, particularly in severe cases.”

Yesterday, Chestnut published an article about the newly published study, comparing it to his own research.  While both the Qatari researchers and Chestnut focus on SARS-CoV-2, we should bear in mind that covid injections induce cells in the bodies of recipients to produce the spike protein that is found on the surface of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

In November 2021, I published a post on Twitter (now X) demonstrating how the Spike Protein of SARS-CoV-2 induces all nine “hallmarks of ageing” as defined in the classic paper by Carlos López-Otín et al.

I had formed the hypothesis in early 2021 and by November enough had been published to prove it in theory. The paper published yesterday proves it in fact.

Here is my post from November 2021: ‘Hallmarks of Ageing and the Spike’.

The findings published yesterday focus on two of the nine hallmarks of ageing that the spike protein induces. These are epigenetic alterations by methylation and telomere attrition.

Let’s first look at DNA methylation.

    A study conducted by Mongelli et al. determined the Biological Age (bAge) of 117 individuals who had recovered from COVID-19 (referred to as post-COVID-19) and 144 healthy participants using pyrosequencing focusing on CpG islands that have previously been identified as reliable indicators of bAge developed by Beckaert et al. The results indicate an increase in bAge among the post-COVID-19 group with an acceleration of DeltaAge by approximately 5.25 years, beyond the normal range (26, 46).

    The calculated EAA showed a significant DNAm age acceleration across different clocks including Horvath, Hannum, PhenoAge, and GrimAge clocks in severe COVID-19 patients (48). Similarly, non-severe COVID-19 cases exhibited significant DNAm age acceleration in the Horvath, Hannum, skin&blood, and GrimAge clocks. Further analysis of epigenetic age dynamic acceleration across each COVID-19 disease phase revealed an acceleration from the initial phase, which was partly reversed in later phase.
    The impact of COVID-19 on “biological ageing”, Frontiers Immunology, 10 June 2024

As I wrote in November 2021, the spike protein induces this:

    Viral Protein: Spike protein        
    Host Machinery: ACE2R             
    Epigenetic Change: Methylation at CpG site
    An immune epigenetic insight to COVID-19 infection, National Library of Medicine, 9 March 2021

The other aspect of biological ageing that yesterday’s paper focused on is telomere shortening.

    In a prospective study, telomere length in hospitalized COVID-19 patients revealed a significantly higher proportion of COVID-19 patients with shorter telomeres when compared to the control cohort. Telomere attrition was associated with a higher risk of critical disease, defined as admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) or death without ICU (59). In another study on COVID-19 survivors, significant telomere shortening was observed following absolute human telomere length measurement (26). A similar finding was reported by Sanchez-Vazquez et al. where telomeres in severe COVID-19 cases were observed to be shorter than those in patients with mild COVID-19 symptoms (53, 60).
    The impact of COVID-19 on “biological ageing”, Frontiers Immunology, 10 June 2024

Once again, as I wrote in November 2021, the spike protein alone induces telomere shortening.

    We predict that S2 spike RNA treated AEC2 will produce less telomerase activity in this peak of 24h. The reduction in the activity can be quantified with G-quadruplex-intercalating porphyrin telomerase inhibitor. Further, the telomerase activity can also be quantified with PCR based Telomere Repeat Amplification Protocol (TRAP).
    SARS-CoV2 Spike and Telomerase RNA’s Compared to Arrive at an Explanation for Increased Ageing in Alveolar Cells in Severe COVID-19, Journal of Bacteriology and Parasitology

What concerns me is that the forest is not being seen, only the trees. Isn’t it clear? Repeated exposures to the spike protein will almost certainly continually induce these effects. Three exposures? Thank you very much for fifteen years of your life! Capisce?

If there is a silver lining in all of this, it is that since we understood the fundamentals correctly here, it is much more likely that the therapeutics we have been discussing are perhaps more likely to ameliorate these conditions. I will keep working. As always.

About the Author

Walter Chestnut is an American web developer, market strategist, covid researcher and the principal investigator at WMC Research, a website that contains hypotheses, which are intended to stimulate studies, additional research and dialogue about covid-19.  In 2021, he co-authored an opinion piece in France-Soir with the late Luc Montagnier about SARS-CoV-2 accelerating biological age.  He also publishes articles on a Substack page titled ‘WMC Research’ which you can subscribe to and follow HERE https://wmcresearch.substack.com/

Covid injections meet the criteria for biological weapons !

Dr. Francis Boyle: Covid injections meet the criteria for biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction
By Rhoda Wilson on June 12, 2024

Last week, the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals agreed that mandating covid-19 “vaccines” violates the individual human rights of teachers and other staff of Los Angeles School Unified Districts (“LAUSD”), remanding a lower court’s dismissal of their case against the LA County School District’s vaccine mandate for employees.

This gives some hope that Dr. Joseph Sansome’s case – which if successful, compels Florida’s governor to stop distributing covid injections – will be moved forward in the courts.  After being dismissed the case is now in the Appellate Court. An appeal to which Dr. Francis Boyle has added his affidavit.

“It is my expert opinion that, [the covid injections] meet the criteria of biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction according to Biological Weapons [Convention],” his affidavit states.

At the end of last month, Dr. Francis Boyle submitted an affidavit to strengthen an appeal against a decision to dismiss a legal case filed to compel Florida Governor Ron DeSantis to prohibit the distribution of covid injections.  If successful, the case will also compel Florida’s Attorney General to confiscate vials of vaccines.

The case is being brought by psychotherapist Dr. Joseph Sansone.  The first formal written application, the ‘Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandamus’ (“the writ”), was filed with the Florida Supreme Court on 3 March 2024.  The case was then transferred to the Circuit Court on 20 March 2024.

On 9 April, the Circuit Court dismissed the case. On 14 April, Dr. Sansome filed a motion for reconsideration.  This motion was denied the following day.  So, on 22 April, Dr. Sansome filed a motion for rehearing. The following day, this motion was also denied.  Later that day, on 22 April, Dr. Sansome filed a notice of appeal.

On 27 May, he filed an appellate brief with the Appellate Court or Court of Appeals.  The appellate brief is a document submitted to an appeals court by a lawyer, outlining the legal arguments as to why their client should win the case.

You can follow the court case on Dr. Sansome’s Substack page ‘Mind Matters and Everything Else with Dr. Joseph Sansone’.  His latest article on the subject was published on 6 June 2024, HERE.

Included in the writ, are affidavits from medical legal advisor and biotech analyst Karen Kingston and Dr. Ana Maria Mihalcea. Now, Harvard-educated law professor Dr. Francis Boyle has added his affidavit to the case.

Dr. Boyle is considered one of the world’s leading legal experts on biological weapons and he drafted the US Biological Weapons and Antiterrorism Act (“the Act”), which was passed into law in 1989 to implement the Biological Weapons Convention and to criminalise the development, production and possession of biological weapons.

In his affidavit for Dr. Sansone’s case, Dr. Boyle stated that covid injections violate the Act. He asserted that “covid-19 injections,” “covid-19 nanoparticle injections,” and “mRNA nanoparticle injections” are biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction which violate Biological Weapons 18 USC § 175; Weapons and Firearms § 790.166 Fla. Stat. (2023).
Dr. Francis Boyle’s Affidavit

Pursuant to 28 USC 1746, I, Francis A. Boyle declare under penalty of perjury that the statements contained herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

I am Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. I received an AB (1971) in Political Science from the University of Chicago, then a JD degree magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, and AM and PhD degrees in Political Science from Harvard University.

I have advised numerous international bodies in the areas of human rights, war crimes and genocide, nuclear policy, and bio-warfare. In 1985 I publicly called for and then drafted the US domestic implementing legislation for the Biological Weapons Convention, known as the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, that was approved unanimously by both Houses of the US Congress and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush with the approval of the United States Department of Justice. See my book Biowarfare and Terrorism (Clarity Press: 2005).

It is my expert opinion that, ‘COVID-19 nanoparticle injections’ or ‘mRNA nanoparticle injections’ or ‘COVID-19 injections’ meet the criteria of biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction according to Biological Weapons 18 USC § 175; Weapons and Firearms § 790.166 Fla. Stat. (2023).

I hereby certify that the stylistically edited transcript of an interview I had with Stew Peters is a fair and accurate statement of my professional opinion on the matters set forth therein. See the attached Exhibit.

Respectfully submitted by Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law

Signature:

Date: 5/27/2024
Interview with Stew Peters

Dr. Sansone has not provided the “attached exhibit” as mentioned in Dr. Boyle’s affidavit.  However, in a Substack posted in April 2023, Dr. Sansone highlighted a Stew Peters’ interview stating: “This is Dr. Boyle’s interview on Stew Peters talking about his endorsement of the ban the jab resolution that I authored.”

The interview Dr. Sansone was referring to is the video below.  In this interview, Dr. Boyle argued that covid-19 is a bioweapon, not a natural virus.

In 2013, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (“DARPA”) awarded Moderna Therapeutics up to $25 million to research and develop its messenger RNA therapeutics.  “DARPA is the Pentagon,” Dr. Boyle said. “The Pentagon bought, paid for, envisioned these mRNA frakenshots.”

“I should also point out that Fort Detrick was involved in the development of covid-19 – the offensive biological warfare weapon – at the University of North Carolina BSL3 [Biosafety Level-3 laboratory],” he said.

“So, the Pentagon is both sides of the argument here – they’re developing the weapon and the alleged vaccines which is also a weapon,” he added.

https://rumble.com/v2hfur4-breaking-fda-directly-involved-with-engineering-covid-19-at-fort-detrick-an.html

Another interview Dr. Boyle had on The Stew Peters Show was titled ‘Plandemic Elites BROKE Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act: Author Of 1989 Law: Covid Is A Bioweapon!’ which was aired on 24 February 2023.

Dr. Francis Boyle mentioned the powerful documentary film “Anthrax War” during this important discussion. Investigative journalist Vanessa Beeley published the film on her YouTube channel way back in early 2020, and YouTube has since removed the film, not surprisingly, for “violating YouTube’s terms of service”.

YouTube’s censoring action should be seen as proof positive that what Dr. Francis Boyle is saying in this interview reflects nothing less than the absolute truth. People can watch the film (embedded via Rumble.com) at the following link:

2009 Documentary Connects With Pandemic 2020. – THE ONENESS of HUMANITY

https://onenessofhumanity.wordpress.com/2020/03/22/2009-documentary-connects-with-pandemic-2020/


Why all the fuss over vaxx deaths. Death is nothing to be scared of and the Daily Mail has proof, see below for “startling visions and unexplained incidents that prove death is nothing to be scared of”.
Sarcasm over.

Here’s a conspiracy theory and I know I’m right about this one.

The deep state knows that the huge increase in deaths is being noticed by even the dumbest of the sheeple and they need to do something about it to prevent the perpetrators of the scamdemic and vaxx deaths from being led to the gallows – or death by lethal injection which would be more appropriate.

So they have started a propaganda campaign to placate the masses. It is a form of propaganda that was used in WW2.

Over the last few months the Mail has been running articles about how death is not to be feared, it can fun. I’ve lost count, here are some examples.

“Hospice nurse reveals REAL reasons why NOBODY should be afraid of dying – as she details exactly what happens to the body when it begins to ‘shut down'”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-13268527/hospice-nurse-dying-afraid-common-death-body-myths.html

“I’ve seen death and it’s nothing to be scared of: One night, I saw an angel comforting a dying patient. Countless others have told me about their spellbinding visions. There is nothing to fear”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13480909/death-scared-angel-dying-patient-spellbinding-visions-fear.html

“How you can foresee when a loved one will die, reveals DR PENNI SANTORI who has a PHD on near-death experiences. I’ve witnessed startling visions and unexplained incidents that prove death is nothing to be scared of”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-13514637/foresee-loved-one-die-DR-PENNI-SANTORI-PHD-near-death-experiences-witnessed-starting-visions-unexplained-incidents.html

“I’ve studied near-death experiences for eight years and seen countless people die, says DR PENNY SARTORI. Here are the wonderful things you see and hear when you pass on – and why it’s nothing to be scared of…”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-13513503/studied-near-death-experiences-seen-people-die-wonderful-scared.html

There have been many more of those.

See – nothing to be scared of. You should look forward to going to Carousel.

This form of propaganda was used in WW2 – a noted example being in a very enjoyable film called “The Halfway House”.

“A group of travellers, each with a personal problem that they want to hide, arrives at a mysterious Welsh country inn. There is a certain strangeness in the air as they are greeted by the innkeeper and his daughter (Mervyn Johns and his real life daughter Glynis Johns). Why are all the newspapers a year old? And why doesn’t Gwyneth seem to cast a shadow?”

It turns out that the innkeeper and his daughter are dead. They have come back to tell the people that they need not fear death.

This was to counteract the public’s grief and depression caused by their loved ones being slaughtered in the contrived war.

https://ok.ru/video/2472806451813

Merck peddling harmful HPV vaccines

Dr. Christopher Exley: Merck must be brought to justice for peddling harmful HPV vaccines
By Rhoda Wilson on June 13, 2024

No so-called vaccine, probably including covid products, has maimed and killed more adolescents over the past twenty years than Merck’s HPV vaccine – Gardasil.

Highlighting a paper titled ‘A reactogenic “placebo” and the ethics of informed consent in Gardasil HPV vaccine clinical trials: A case study from Denmark’ published on 31 May 2024, Dr. Christopher Exley said:

“There are a number of lawsuits ongoing looking to bring Merck, the pedlar of Gardasil HPV vaccines, to justice. This paper and our collective efforts can help to bring this to pass.”

We have reproduced Dr. Exley’s Substack article below, taking the liberty to embed the videos he mentioned in it.

HPV Vaccine
By Dr. Christopher Exley

There are no “top trumps” on the worst of vaccines that include an aluminium adjuvant. However, so-called vaccines against the human papilloma virus (“HPV”) must give most a run for their money.

Herein I simply wish to direct you to critical comment and information on this subject. I hope that this will be sufficient to deter you from subjecting yourself or your child to this evil vaccine.

I say vaccine and not vaccines because we were at least able to knock GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix on the head. This leaves us with Merck’s Gardasil vaccines. No so-called vaccine, probably including covid products, has maimed and killed more adolescents over the past twenty years.

I have always and rightly been outspoken about this evil product and herein I would like to share this with you. Let’s start about ten years ago with an interview I gave for Christina England. The interview would be aired at a conference on HPV that she had organised [see https://www.bitchute.com/video/45nc7lV0WMWz/].

A few years later I gave an interview to Courtenay Heading on the Isle of Man [see below]. Courtenay Heading is a giant of free speech and specifically targeting the independent government of the Isle of Man where he lives.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/uXMjZF5axMem/

Courtenay had organised a meeting on HPV and I followed our interview with a Keynote Presentation [see https://www.bitchute.com/video/9hxxiqeMvKuj/].

I will finish this brief exposition with the most important paper yet published on this subject. This paper has survived the extreme rigours of publication bias and prejudice within mainstream scientific publishing and has earned the respect of the editorial team at the International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine, a reputed journal.

The paper is open access please make sure that you read it in its entirety and share it and disseminate it as widely as possible. There are a number of lawsuits ongoing looking to bring Merck, the pedlar of Gardasil HPV vaccines, to justice. This paper and our collective efforts can help to bring this to pass.

No more children must be maimed and killed by this evil and worthless product.

About the Author

Christopher Exley is an English chemist known for his research on the health effects of aluminium exposure. He is one of the most knowledgeable and widely cited aluminium researchers in the world.

Dr. Exley graduated in 1985 with a degree in Biology (Univ. Stirling) and in 1989 with a PhD in the ecotoxicology of aluminium (Univ. Stirling). In 1992 he moved to Keele University with Professor JD Birchall FRS OBE to establish what is now The Birchall Centre. In 2015 Dr. Exley was elected Fellow Royal Society of Biology.

At Keele University he became Professor of Bioinorganic Chemistry and group leader of the Bioinorganic Chemistry Laboratory. After he started publishing research that called into question the safety of the aluminium used in vaccines he became the subject of disciplinary hearings.

In 2020, he challenged the covid shutdowns which stopped his ongoing research.  He criticised the government’s hypocritical policies that allowed birdseed workers to continue their employment but shut down scientists.  For leaving the comment “So the birdseed people were able to continue working but scientists were not” he was again singled out for disciplinary action. A difficult situation became intolerable when Keele University refused to accept a research donation from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to support Dr. Exley’s work. Thirteen months later, the university shut down Dr. Exley’s website.

Dr. Exley believes that it wasn’t only due to outside pressure for his research showing aluminium in the brain caused Alzheimer’s but also the peer-reviewed published science that his prolific team was producing about how aluminium, found in adjuvants, gets into the brain, that made Keele University administrators want to silence him.

After the Vice-Chancellor successfully prevented Dr. Exley from obtaining research funding from any philanthropic organisations, personal donations or charities, Dr. Exley felt he had no choice but to leave his job.

Read more: How a University, its major funders and a Newspaper killed reliable research into the toxicity of Aluminium adjuvants in Vaccines

Foreign DNA (as in covid vaccine) injected into our bodies can influence behaviour and diets

Dr. Bhakdi told us that the clot shots take over the brain and “they change the very essence of who you are. You can’t think, you can’t reason. You are not the same person.”

This was a thoroughly fascinating read. Cellular Memory exists in the body, even without a donor transplant. For instance, if a person experiences trauma, he or she will hold onto that trauma in the physical body, even if that person has tried to emotionally or mentally suppress the memory. This, in turn, will tax your immune system. Look up Dr. Joe Dispenza. His story is remarkable, as is message. Stay safe and healthy everyone!

Can foreign DNA in our bodies influence behaviour and diets – and even our souls?
By Rhoda Wilson on June 12, 2024

Recipients of organ transplants report inheriting their donor’s traits such as behaviours and diets. Some scientists argue that this is due to physiological and psychological imprinting.  However, the hypothesis of microchimerism appears to be more compelling.

Microchimerism is the presence of cells (or DNA) from one person in another genetically distinct person.  It can occur naturally, for example, during pregnancy, when foetal cells transfer to the mother’s bloodstream and vice versa. And it can occur artificially from organ/tissue transplantation or blood transfusion, where donor cells can persist in the recipient’s body for years.

According to Dr. Mathew Maavak, the experimental gene therapy injections known as “vaccines” allegedly cause microchimerism.

Because organ transplant recipients report inheriting traits from donors, possibly through microchimerism, Dr. Maavik asks the question: Can foreign DNA control your soul?

Can foreign DNA control your soul? — Part 1
By Dr. Mathew Maavak

Can Biotechnology Control Human Behaviour? That was the title of a thought-provoking article penned by Guy Hatchard for the Brownstone Institute recently. The article was partly based on a paper published by the journal Transplantology which documented “the experiences of individuals who received a range of donated organs including hearts, kidneys, liver, and lungs.” According to the Hatchard:

    In all, 87% of subjects experienced marked unusual changes that challenged their behaviour, sense of identity, and personal preferences. First-person reports and evidence from donor families confirm that some of these effects involve the transfer of personality traits such as food or behavioural preferences from the donor to the organ recipient. For example, an avid meat eater might become a vegetarian who cannot face meat on their plate.

    This is an unexpected result that challenges conventional ideas. This study points to the distributed location of memory throughout physiology and its close association with a variety of organ systems. It amply illustrates how little the life sciences understand about the interface between consciousness and matter.


But has this phenomenon been conclusively established, at least in terms of correlation? The Transplantology paper conducted a cross-sectional study among 47 participants (23 heart and 24 other organ recipients) which is an admittedly

small sample but its observations have been echoed by other studies.
Repository of the soul?

Dr James Kneller, a cardiac electrophysiologist, has described how an organ, particularly the heart, within the transplant

recipient, may borrow “certain personality traits, preferences, and even character features from the donor. It is as though

the transplanted heart contains the mind and soul of the donor which then finds expression in the recipient…So, while

heart transplant is extending the life of the recipient, it is also giving new life to the donor.”(Emphasis added)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVwIm0VL5w8

Kneller’s succinct YouTube presentation included several startling examples. He described how the heart from a dead

cyclist had triggered a new passion for the pastime in a recipient; how a dead stuntman’s heart likewise sparked a new

athletic fad in an executive who had no prior interest in sports, along with an uncanny predisposition towards a particular

singer whom the deceased donor had once adored. In a similar fashion, a 47-year-old woman, who received the heart of

a teenage boy killed in a motorcycle accident, soon developed a craving for beer, green peppers, Snickers bars and

KFC after her transplant. She began to feel more aggressive, assertive, tougher and fitter. Even her walk became more

manly and she eventually lost the desire to have a boyfriend.

While most examples cited thus far could be described as “fascinating,” others were outright disquieting. In one particular

case, the dead donor began to appear in the dreams of the recipient and promised “never to be separated” from her.

Kneller recounted how the heart of a suicide victim led the recipient to gravitate towards, and later marry, the widow of the donor. The recipient ultimately committed suicide in a manner that was identical to the donor.

In yet another case, an eight-year-old girl who received the heart of a 10-year-old female murder victim began to experience dramatic post-operative nightmares about the donor’s murder which, upon further investigation by a psychiatrist, led to the identification and arrest of the murderer.

Kneller cautioned against underestimating the hidden dynamics of the heart. He noted how recipients of artificial hearts –  one where the heart is replaced by a mechanical contraption  – may completely lose their sense of “emotion, warmth and empathy.”  

Apart from the human heart, a transplanted liver may cause a similar behavioural effect. Rather curiously, the Malay word for the figurative heart or soul is “hati”but literally, it refers to the liver. Was this knowledge of distributed physiological memory known to the ancients?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPcv8yzpM18

Alongside a biblical explanation, Kneller proffered a scientific theory for this phenomenon. Both the brain and heart are “electrical organs” which operate in symbiosis with each other. The “electrical density of the heart is reportedly 5,000 times stronger than the brain” and it generates an electromagnetic aura that extends to 10 metres in radius around the person.

Imagine what happens when the electromagnetic auras of people overlap. Crowded social settings can affect people in more ways than one – even when active interactions i.e. conversations are absent. Close physical contact between people, such as the holding of hands, can also synchronise heartbeats. In such instances, a person’s brain wave (measured via EEG) may begin to mirror another’s heartbeat (measured via ECG). The level of resonance should be stronger when intense physical intimacy is involved. Heartbeat synchronisation can also occur between a much-loved pet and its owner.

The interactions between the heart, cerebral spinal fluid and the brain is a complex one as each continuously attempts to influence the whole. This is a medical necessity as biological systems need to continuously adapt to deal with new physiological and psychological circumstances i.e. exercise, intimacy, work, sudden injuries or the introduction of particular foods, toxins or microbes. These adjustments are performed 24/7/365. As I have written many times before, the human body is the ultimate complex adaptive system (“CAS”) – one which is nearly impossible to deconstruct through
Cartesian means.

There is a famous saying that “you are what you eat” but I have also lived by the dictum that “you are who you mingle with.”

Ever been with people who appear nice or considerate on the surface but whose presence ignites certain negative

reflexes, memories or trains of thought? Ever attended church services that had constantly induced a sense of uneasiness or even anxiety? Can this be explained away by human electromagnetic auras? Or is there something deeper at work here, involving physiological, mnemonic (memory) and spiritual elements?

Here is a personal example. A few years back, I was invited to attend my primary school reunion dinner. I had lost touch with my old classmates and could not remember most of them. But I was hit with a sudden blast of nostalgia upon receiving the invitation. Apart from recalling old sights, smells and innocent experiences, Boney M songs began to pervade my mind as they were hugely popular during my childhood.

Upon meeting these people, however, the sweet sense of nostalgia was instantly replaced by a crude blast from the past. Everyone was nice to me. Yet my mind (and perhaps my body too) could visibly discern the ubiquitous one-upmanship of yore. Certain reflexes which were long dormant began to resurface. I began to feel sick, beginning with my gut.

My experience was akin to a dog returning to its vomit as the Bible puts it (Proverbs 26:11). The human mind and body routinely sift memories in order to optimise the potentials of the person. Nostalgia can be a deceptive pit for the unwary.  

So, what caused me to view the past through a rose-tinted lens, at least in the days leading up to the reunion and a short period thereafter? Maybe, it had to do with Boney M whose tunes once ruled the airways and which defined the zeitgeist of my childhood? Maybe it had to do with the common notion of the “good old days” when “life was simpler”? Were these collective experiences imprinted into my mind and body? Or maybe, I had forgotten that Boney M album covers were once gratuitously sickening, in stark contrast to their songs? When bonds are forged in the cauldrons of contradictions, character deficiency and malice, false memories may be a primary outcome. A person’s collective experience and character can literally be deposited in the heart. As the Bible puts it: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9).

Your social circles should have the right auras. Redress them before it is too late. 

Microchimerism

A transplanted heart can create new hobbies, predilections and even a newfound desire to kill. The phenomenon where organ recipients inherit donor traits is a fascinating and controversial area of study. Some scientists argue that transplantation may cause physiological and psychological imprinting. As a result, several terms have been coined to describe this arcane phenomenon, including:

1. Cellular Memory: According to this hypothesis, cells within an organ may retain “memories” or characteristics of the donor, which can be transferred to the recipient. Although cellular memory is not widely accepted in the scientific community due to a lack of empirical evidence, it is a term often used in discussions about post-transplant changes in recipients.

2. Donor-Derived Traits: This is a more general term referring to any characteristics or behaviours that appear in the recipient post-transplant and seem to be attributable to the donor. These traits can range from changes in preferences and habits to alterations in personality.

3. Transplant Acquired Characteristics: Similar to donor-derived traits, this term refers to new characteristics or changes that a recipient acquires after receiving a transplant, potentially linked to the donor’s traits.

4. Psychosocial Changes: This term is used more broadly to describe changes in a recipient’s psychological state or social behaviours following an organ transplant. These changes can be influenced by the stress and emotional impacts accompanying a major medical procedure.

All the conditions described above appear to be nuanced terminologies which describe the same underlying phenomenon. They are part of what some researchers call the “systemic memory hypothesis” which suggests that cells, tissues, or entire organisms in biological systems have a form of “memory” that influences their responses to environmental stimuli or stressors based on past experiences. (Systemic memory can be applied to environmental and computational systems as well).

There is however one other hypothesis that explains post-transplant trait changes in a more expansive manner.

5. Microchimerism: This refers to the presence of a small number of cells in an individual that originates from a genetically different individual. This condition, which can occur after organ transplantation, might provide a biological basis for the transfer of some donor traits.

The microchimerism hypothesis appears to be the most compelling one in the context of donor trait transfer. The common denominator across all human organs is the DNA which is unique to the person. Perhaps this is where particular traits are subtly encoded? Perhaps the DNA is the “repository of the soul” or at least an extension thereof? If so, it can also be the ultimate gateway for the manipulation of the soul.

It is important for the layman to differentiate between “genetic imprinting” and “microchimerism.” Both occur naturally but the distinction between the two has now been somewhat blurred by advancements in biotechnology, particularly the CRISPR-Cas9 method. Think of experimental gene therapies aka “vaccines” for starters! It allegedly causes both genetic imprinting and microchimerism.

Natural genetic imprinting involves the silencing of certain genes inherited from either parent. Such imprinting is crucial to the suppression of defective genes upon conception. Natural microchimerism, on the other hand, involves the presence of a small number of cells in a person that originate from another genetically distinct person. This can occur naturally, such as during pregnancy when cells from the foetus migrate into the mother’s body and vice versa. Foetal cells can persist in the mother’s body for decades after pregnancy and microchimerism has been implicated in various autoimmune diseases and other conditions. It can also occur during organ transplantation and blood transfusion.

But what about artificial gene imprinting and microchimerism? I have touched on some of the dangers associated with gene-edited chimerism in the following article. It reads like a depressing Jurassic Park script.

Now, if the organ of a human donor can induce changes – for the better or worse – in a recipient, imagine what could happen when you have a heart transplanted from a genetically modified pig. Two such recipients did not survive beyond 60 days but that is not deterring medical researchers from “perfecting” the cutting-edge technique.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5zsSYxtDRk

After watching the clip above, I was reminded of the biblical account of the man possessed by legions of demons in Mark 5:1-13. Was that account included in the Bible to warn us of peculiar End Times dangers?

Finally, I strongly recommend a specific prayer – expressed according to the wisdom of the believer – before or after one receives a new human organ or blood transfusion. I would also be obliged if the reader can enlighten me on what else the Bible says on this subject matter.

We shall explore this topic further in Part 2.

- - -
About the Author

Mathew Maavak holds a PhD in Policy Studies and is affiliated with the Big Data Excellence Centre.  He specialises in systems science, global risks, strategic foresight, geopolitics and governance. He is a Malaysian expert on risk foresight and governance.

Dr. Maavak has published numerous Op-Eds on a variety of eclectic subjects for over 20 years – by “connecting the dots” in a disjointed world.  He has written articles for various publications including Eurasia Review, Modern Diplomacy and Business Standard. He has also appeared on CCTV (China), Sputnik (Russia), and other media outlets, sharing his expertise on global issues.

He is the author of a Substack page titled ‘The Eye Opener’ which you can subscribe to and follow HERE https://drmathewmaavak.substack.com/

Joe Biden is the most corrupt US president

This article shows how Joe Biden is really a DINO (Democrat In Name Only; read: charlatan) as opposed to a RINO (Republican In Name Only; charlatan) who can bridge the partisan divides and work with Republican senators to get big things done even though on domestic policies he has often been blocked by the Party of Republican billionaires whose members of Congress agree with Biden only on his foreign policies, since virtually all of America’s congresspeople are likewise neoconservatives (that being the billionaires’ foreign policy, on which they are all united).

Each of the Parties campaigns against the other Parties, each of which represents its respective mega-donors, all of whom together control the public (with the help of their ‘news’-media), so that the Government will never represent the public, but will instead represent some coalition of all of the billionaires — regardless of what the public needs. And this has even been repeatedly confirmed by scientific empirical studies in political science. So, this is the type of dictatorship that the U.S. Government actually is. The result is that a majority of Americans are dissatisfied with their Government, regardless of which Party is in power.

It’s corrupt politicians, and it’s stupid voters who refuse to recognize the corruption of, and in, ‘our own side’ — not only the other’s. It’s not democracy, because it’s thoroughly corrupt, on all sides. Democracy is rejection of the corrupt system, and of corrupt candidates.

Biden has a long record of lying to voters, even about his own personal record, and winning ‘elections’ on that basis. Of course, the most-publicized example of this has been about Hunter Biden’s laptop and its contents, which revealed astounding evidences that the U.S. President has been receiving 10% kick-backs from international-corporate deals that are done with the participation of his son Hunter Biden, but which America’s Democratic Party ‘news’-media hide and allege (without any proof at all) are ‘Russian disinformation’.

Biden is the most corrupt president in U.S. history
By Eric Zuesse
June 13, 2024

It’s a fact that gets no attention from ‘historians’ and from America’s ‘news’-media, but a consistently established fact nonetheless. As always, for a recent example, the New York Times left it hidden, when they headlined on June 10th “How the Federal Election Commission Went From Deadlock to Deregulation”, as they mentioned only in passing, that “At the center of the shift [to allow unlimited corruption] is Commissioner Dara Lindenbaum, a Democrat who has repeatedly crossed the aisle to vote with her Republican colleagues since President Biden appointed her and she was confirmed by
the Senate in a 54-38 vote in 2022.” In other words: on the topic of corruption, Biden supports traditional Republican-Party views that have previously been pushed for by Republican politicians, who get a bigger proportion of their campaign-funding from the rich and their corporations than Democrats do.

On two issues, Joe Biden has, in fact throughout his career, followed through to implement Republican-Party views, instead of Democratic-Party views: the issues on which he does this are his pushing and leading (though only behind the scenes) for more legalized political corruption, and for legal protection of continuing racial segregation — and each of these two issues is a major ‘libertarian’ (for the super-rich) part of Republican-Party viewpoints (which might be called “hyper-capitalism” — and which the Democrtic Party has only in recent decades come to support also). Saint John Hunt, Roger... Best Price: $3.40 Buy New $5.99 (as of 05:30 UTC - Details)

On 25 October 2019, Lee Fang at The Intercept headlined “JOE BIDEN’S SUPER PAC IS BEING ORGANIZED BY CORPORATE LOBBYISTS FOR HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY, WEAPONS MAKERS, FINANCE”, and he reported that among the billionaires who were planning a PAC to support Joe Biden’s campaign was Bernard Schwartz. On that same day, I headlined “Biden Backer — Former Lockheed Leader — Convinces Biden to Sell-Out”, and I reported that the “Former Lockheed leader” who was leading this effort, was Schwartz, himself, formerly a Chairman of Lockheed Martin, the company that sells more to the U.S. Government than does any other — it’s by far (p. 8) the largest federal ‘defense’ (actually aggression) contractor.

In other words: if Biden does become re-elected the U.S. President, then he will be (as he has been) heavily in debt to the world’s biggest weapons-maker, a corporation whose profits are totally dependent upon selling to the U.S. Government and to its allied governments such as in NATO, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Israel. This is exactly the opposite of what America’s Founding Fathers urged subsequent generations of Americans to do. They were very wise. Joe Biden is not. But he’s cunning about how to serve his megadonors.

Only an uninformed person would expect such a President to be seeking Mid-East peace. Biden would instead be seeking the standard neoconservative’s objective, “Peace Through Strength” — in other words, fear-mongering the public against ‘America’s enemies’, and ‘love’-mongering for ‘America’s allies’ (such as NATO, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc.). That’s the opposite of what, for example, George Washington urged the American people to do.

Biden’s relying upon people such as Bernard Schwartz to place him into the White House is the worst possible form of selling himself out — selling-out to America’s “Military Industrial Complex” or “MIC.”

But the reason why such people as Schwartz want Biden to become and remain the President is that, consistently, Biden has been precisely such a war-monger or “neoconservative” as they are, have always been wanting — such as when Biden helped to lead Democrats in the U.S. Senate who backed the 2003 invasion of Iraq. That wasn’t a ‘mistake’ by him as he now claims — it was the way Joe Biden has always been. And, the former Chairman of Lockheed Martin knew that Biden still remains that way.

On 23 October 2019, Luke Darby at GQ magazine, had headlined “How Biden Helped Strip Bankruptcy Protection From Millions Just Before a Recession”. Joe Biden was the leading Democrat in Congress backing and pushing for the George W. Bush and Republican-backed ‘bankruptcy reform’ bill which passed, in the Senate, with 18 Senate Democrats for the ‘bankruptcy reform’ bill, while 25 Democrats were against it. All 55 Republicans were for it.

In the U.S. House, the Independent Bernie Sanders voted against. All 229 Republicans were for. 73 Democrats there were for, 125 were against. Biden led that minority of Democrats who helped to pass this Republican bill.

A lot of Biden supporters said that Biden was “a real Democrat” and that Sanders was no Democrat at all (since he’s an Independent who merely caucuses with the Senate’s Democrats). But Sanders voted like most Democrats did, and Biden voted like all Republicans did.

Back when the ‘bankruptcy reform’ bill first was first being drafted in 1999, the Washington Post headlined “Creditors’ Money Talks Louder in Bankruptcy Debate”  and reported that,

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), a key Judiciary Committee member who hails from the home base of credit card issuers MBNA Corp. and First USA, opposes the liberal faction’s bill. “I’m not the senator from MBNA,” he said.

Luke Darby’s article noted that, MBNA hired Joe Biden’s son Hunter in 1996. Even after Hunter became a federal lobbyist in 2001, he stayed on at MBNA as a consultant at a fee of $100,000 per year, meaning he was pulling in a six-figure salary at the same time his father was pushing for the industry’s top priorities. Biden’s interests were so aligned with MBNA’s that in 1999 he was forced to defend himself by declaring, “I am not the senator from MBNA.”

Joe Biden has always expected voters to ignore his record and simply trust his promises because he’s a “regular Joe” like they are. He promises that he won’t keep promoting invasions of countries (such as Iraq) that never even so much as threatened the United States, and that he won’t keep supporting corporations that were his biggest financial backers. So, he said (and says), voters should just trust him to do the right thing. According to Open Secrets, headlining in 2008, ”The Money Behind Biden”, “His largest contributor over time has been credit card giant MBNA Corp.,” the credit-card issuer, “which, despite being acquired by Bank of America a few years ago, remains atop the list of Biden’s major contributors.” That company knew how to repay a debt, and they had a big debt, to him, to repay. In fact, while the ‘bankruptcy reform’ bill was being drawn up, during the 2000 political campaign-cycle, MBNA wasn’t merely Biden’s #1 donor, but its employees donated over twice as much to his campaign as did his #2 donor during that cycle, and he delivered the goods so well that they owed him now even more.

And, like Lee Fang said, it’s not only credit-card companies, but, “JOE BIDEN’S SUPER PAC IS BEING ORGANIZED BY CORPORATE LOBBYISTS FOR HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY, WEAPONS MAKERS, FINANCE”.

And Senator Biden was very grateful to all of them after he won the Democratic nomination. It would be as usual in American politics, one corrupt politician up against another corrupt politician, each of whom is trusted by the voters in his own Party. Truth, to them, makes no difference; but, in a land where truth makes no difference, does “democracy” even mean anything, other than an empty slogan, and ‘constitutional’ formalities?

On 27 November 2007, C-Span showed a Joe Biden Town Hall. A brief clip from that was posted online as “User Clip: Joe Biden 2007, Money in Politics”, and here’s my transcription from what I consider to be the most revealing (about Biden’s values) part of it:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4817532/user-clip-joe-biden-2007-money-politics&start=3322

“User Clip: Joe Biden 2007, Money in Politics”

27 November 2007, Iowa Town Hall

(0:40-) People who accept money [from lobbyists] aren’t bad people. But it’s human nature. You go out and bundle $250,000 for me, all legal, and then you call me after I am elected, and say “I would like to come and talk about something.” You didn’t buy me, but it’s human nature, you helped me. I’m going to say, “Sure, come on in.” … What it does mean, it means that the front of the line is always filled by people whose pockets are filled, people who are special interests. Most of you are no part of any special interest.

He went on there to promise that if elected President he will change that, by campaigning constantly (AFTER winning the Presidency — not BEFORE) against the corrupt system which had made him President. He thinks that his audience will believe in the tooth-fairy, if only he tells them that the tooth-fairy exists and that he’s it. The deceptive irrelevant line from all of the corrupt candidates is the same: “I’m the most electable one!” But corrupt people constantly lie, and nobody is actually certain whom the “most electable” one is; but that’s really not even the question here. What the Democratic primaries are actually about isn’t about beating Trump. He’s not even a candidate in the Democratic primaries. They’re not about ‘beating Donald Trump’, but instead about whom the person will be that’s going to be running against Trump in the general election. The primaries won’t be selecting the next President. They will only narrow the field of contenders, to two. Which two? That’s the question here.

Furthermore: the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Republican National Committee (RNC) design and run the primaries, and don’t at all represent their voters but instead their mega-donors, who contribute over half of their campaigns’ funding and also control their ‘news’-media so as to put on the show that will fool the voters to think that if they choose between a candidate who represents one group of billionaires, against another candidate who represents a different group of billionaires, then that constitutes a “democracy” — but it doesn’t. Each of the Parties is a closed self-appointing club of members each of whom represents a group of billionaires, and the show that the club puts on for its voters is only to fool them, and all of the winners will follow-through only on the promises to their megadonors, not to their mere voters. (This fact has even been proven empirically by massive quantitative data.) They call that “democracy.” They lie.

As the People’s Party (which seeks a real revolution for democracy in America) reported on 28 September 2023,An incumbent president has never lost a party primary [no matter how bad the incumbent happens to be]. In 2017, the DNC stated in court that its presidential primaries are a charade and that it picks the nominees. It stated that, as a private corporation, it is under no obligation to be impartial or follow its own rules. The court upheld this argument.

Furthermore, the DNC and the Biden campaign are essentially the same entity. Biden appointed DNC Chair Jamie Harrison, who is shutting down debates and rearranging the primary schedule according to Biden’s wishes. In February, the entire DNC unanimously endorsed Biden. The president’s campaign dictates the rules of the primary and can change them at will. At the convention, the party can even choose a nominee who didn’t run in the primary, as it did in 1968. This means that even if Biden dropped out, the DNC would still install someone like Gavin Newsom.

The Biden campaign is also the biggest donor to the DNC. Donations to the Biden Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee with the DNC, financially sustain the party. It brings in hundreds of millions of dollars from big donors that flow to the DNC, all fifty state party organizations, and their vast array of staff, consulting firms, and vendors. The entire party ecosystem and everyone who profits from it would collapse if the party nominated Kennedy. This is why the party rigged the election against Bernie twice and why it will never choose RFK Jr. The party would rather lose with an establishment candidate who keeps the corporate money flowing than win with a populist.

Each of the Parties campaigns against the other Parties, each of which represents its respective mega-donors, all of whom together control the public (with the help of their ‘news’-media), so that the Government will never represent the public, but will instead represent some coalition of all of the billionaires — regardless of what the public needs. And this has even been repeatedly confirmed by scientific empirical studies in political science. So, this is the type of dictatorship that the U.S. Government actually is.

The result is that a majority of Americans are dissatisfied with their Government, regardless of which Party is in power. On 4 October 2023, Gallup headlined “Support for Third U.S. Political Party Up to 63%”, and reported “Sixty-three percent of U.S. adults currently agree with the statement that the Republican and Democratic parties do ‘such a poor job’ of representing the American people that ‘a third major party is needed.’” (Gallup said nothing there about the people whom the U.S. Government does represent: its billionaires.)

Of course, lots of Democrats think that any Democrat will be better than Trump. And lots of Republicans believe that Trump is better than any Democrat. There is a sucker born every second; and, so, people believe this way, and their Party thus ends up having lousy individuals carrying its banner, such as both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were in 2016. Both Parties deserved to lose, but that (a Hobson’s choice) isn’t a democracy. It’s corrupt politicians, and it’s stupid voters who refuse to recognize the corruption of, and in, ‘our own side’ — not only the other’s. It’s not democracy, because it’s thoroughly corrupt, on all sides. Democracy is rejection of the corrupt system, and of corrupt candidates. It’s demanding better than that. It’s not only the donors — the mega-donors (the people who really are seeking special personal favors and NOT good government) — who are corrupt, and who always do “buy” politicians, such as Joe Biden (and Donald Trump). It’s also stupid voters, who make things bad for everyone except the corrupt and the corrupters. No actual democracy consists of the corrupt and the corrupters. That’s just a fact which all of the resolutely stupid voters ignore because they’re so attached to their chosen tooth-fairies, which all of the mainstream ‘news’-media (which are controlled by billionaires) feed to them. (Even many non-mainstream media are also controlled by billionaires; and, so, neither the Government nor its press is trustworthy in such a corrupt country.)

On 22 January 2020, the Washington Post headlined a 6,000-word article about the day in politics “The Daily 202: Joe Biden talks Ukraine, but not impeachment, in Iowa”, and reported that “The centerpiece of Biden’s pitch is that he can bridge the partisan divides and work with Republican senators to get big things done.” It was actually true: Biden was clearly aiming to become the ‘Democratic’ President who could be ‘bipartisan’ with congressional Republicans, and sign into law legislation that until his occupancy of the White House had been only decades-long Republican and billionaires’ dreams, but under a Biden Presidency would now become his proud “bipartisan achievements.” He could turn out to be the most effective Republican (but of the Democrat-in-name-only, hyper-hypocritical, type of) President ever — a truly bipartisan-fascist President. It would be a fitting culmination to his career. And it has been. He never dealt with an American coup, or sanction, or invasion, that he didn’t support — and each of them was bipartisan, even though on domestic policies he has often been blocked by the Party of Republican billionaires, whose members of Congress agree with Biden only on his foreign policies, since virtually all of America’s congresspeople are likewise neoconservatives (that being the billionaires’ foreign policy, on which they are all united).

And Biden has a long record of lying to voters, even about his own personal record, and winning ‘elections’ on that basis. Of course, the most-publicized example of this has been about Hunter Biden’s laptop and its contents, which revealed astounding evidences that the U.S. President has been receiving 10% kick-backs from international-corporate deals that are done with the participation of his son Hunter Biden, but which America’s Democratic Party ‘news’-media hide and allege (without any proof at all) are ‘Russian disinformation’. On 21 July 2023, I headlined about this “The Significance of the Congressional Probes into FBI-Biden Corruption”, but even the Republican Senators and Representatives who have done impressive investigations into this have failed to gain any support for prosecution of the President on bribery and conspiracy charges, and treason — all of which charges are supported by the massive evidence — in order to bring these federal crimes to a jury trial, because only a few of the Republican billionaires support that, because exposing it to a broad segment of the public would bring the entire corrupt house-of-cards crashing down — and much of their fortunes with it. Instead, the U.S. Government hides it from the public and has prosecuted — and, on 11 June 2024 convicted — only Hunter Biden and not his father, and for his illegal possession of a gun, not for the far-more-important briberies, whose evidence is on Hunter Bden’s laptop, the same laptop that contained massive evidence also of those bribery-kickback conspiracy operations but which still aren’t being heard in any court.

Although Warren Harding has been considered by historians to have been the most corrupt of America’s Presidents, his corruptness has been dwarfed by Biden’s. Furthermore, even Clinton’s, Bush’s, Obama’s, and Trump’s, have been strong competitors (though not nearly as strong as Biden’s) for that title.

After all: even in most of the “Third World” countries, very few of the heads-of-state have nearly as much evidence against them of bribery, conspiracy, and treason, as America’s President Biden does.

What, then, are the options for Americans, in the upcoming November 5th Presidential election? To vote on the basis of any of the Parties’ thoroughly rigged-by-the-rich political show would be stupid, but another fact is that around 63% of Americans do want an alternative to it. The only independent candidate who has any chance to actually win the election is RFK Jr.; and all of the others have none at all but are purely “spoiler” candidates (to throw the win to either the Republican or the Democrat, like Nader in 2000 threw it to Bush). Back in the year 2000, there was a real and large difference between Bush and Gore; but since then, that hasn’t really been so in the Presidential contests: the differences have been only theatrical. This clearly is the case between Trump vs. Biden. However bad one of those two is, the other is at least nearly as bad; and neither of them has had better than a poor record during his four-year term; so, the question is: Do those approximately 63% of Americans who reject both Parties find such a choice acceptable? What are their options?

Either they could vote for Kennedy, who really would be a change, or else they would vote for either the Democrat or the Republican. If they vote for either Trump or Biden, they don’t REALLY reject both of the Parties. Any such person was then merely engaging in theater to answer Gallup’s question there in that way. But any of them who was SERIOUS about it, would be voting for Kennedy, simply BECAUSE there exists no clear evidence that he would be a rotten President, as all have been during recent decades, going back at least to the time of JFK who was assassinated in 1963.

To any of my fellow-Americans who still are concerned not to vote for a candidate who might possibly (like Nader did in 2000) throw the ‘election’ one way or the other (as opposed to being an authentic possibility to win the U.S. Presidency), I ask: Would you prefer a violent revolution in this country? Have you even thought about that possibility? Because things are heading in that direction. Would you really prefer the change to happen violently? I wouldn’t. I therefore thank RFK Jr. for giving me, at long last, a possible alternative to that outcome.

- - -
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

FDA is a front organisation only; no technicians, no equipment, no testing

FDA is a front organisation: There are no technicians in the buildings, no equipment and no sample testing occurs
By Rhoda Wilson on June 12, 2024

Katherine Watt has been corresponding with a reader who is researching the history of US public health and regulatory agencies.  Records before 1973 are difficult to locate.  However, what has become clear is that the origins of these agencies are not what they make them out to be.

Why are they lying about their origins?  Because, Watt says, “they have maintained a bunch of empty office buildings that serve only as mailing addresses … There are no technicians in the buildings, there’s no equipment and no sample testing occurs.”

Katherine Watt is a mom, Catholic, and paralegal from Pennsylvania, USA. On her Substack page ‘Bailiwick News’ she documents how, since at least World War II, US Congress has been waging war on the people by passing legislation which makes it easier and easier for them to be destroyed – legally – by the pharmaceutical industry.

One of Watt’s Substack readers is researching the pre-1972 statutory and regulatory history of some of the USA’s public health agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) and the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”).

The reason why 1972 is relevant is that in that year the regulation of biological products transferred from the NIH Division of Biologics Standards to the FDA Bureau of Biologics.  “In 1973, FDA published a consolidated set of biological product manufacturing non-regulations in the Federal Register,” Watt explained.

“Administrative rule-making by FDA since 1973 is relatively easy to locate,” she said.  However, “administrative rule-making by NIH prior to 1973 is more difficult to locate.”

Commenting on Watt’s article below, Dr. Mike Yeadon said:

    It looks like deception may have been going on a very long time before “covid vaccines” were a thing.

    If Katherine Watt is right, there are entire administrative processes that exist only on paper, but there are no staff overseeing the technical aspects implied. Effectively, no practical regulation of vaccines (safety, efficacy and quality) has ever existed.

    Nothing would surprise me anymore. After all, as I have said repeatedly, there are in the “covid-19 vaccines” numerous, independent, unnecessary and (to those with relevant expertise) obvious toxicity risks, none of which have been evaluated (because they’re intentional, they’re there by design).
    Dr. Mike Yeadon on Telegram, 11 June 2024

Below we have republished excerpts from Watt’s article that are relevant to Dr. Yeadon’s comment above.  Watt’s article briefly describes the research her reader has undertaken and Watt’s response to one of her reader’s questions.

On FDA Buildings as Virtual Mailboxes to Project the Public Illusion of Biological Product Manufacturing Regulation
By Katherine Watt

One of the questions the reader is trying to answer has to do with whether biological regulation authority was ever statutorily established by [the US] Congress, for NIH and its precursor organisations, going back to the late 1800s.

Modern-day NIH and FDA officials present historical accounts of how the biological product and vaccine manufacturing regulatory systems began and developed.

But from her research so far, the reader has concluded that their origin-story claims are not supported by the text of the statutes they cite.

During an email exchange recently, she raised the question “Why are they lying” about their statutory and/or administrative origins?

I sent her a reply with my hypothesis about why NIH and FDA lie about their origins and evolution.

Watt’s Reply

The “why they are lying” question is one that I’ve been mulling for a few months.

My hypothesis is that they have maintained a bunch of empty office buildings that serve only as mailing addresses (virtual mailboxes), without having any actual technical staff, laboratory equipment, or application and sample processing procedures.

They do that so that they can have fake forms for vaccine manufacturers to fill out. These included both the establishment license application, ELA, and product license application, PLA, from 1973 to the mid-1990s.

The ELA + PLA application process became, in the mid-1990s, the biologics license application, or BLA, by eliminating even the ostensible/fake requirement for establishment inspections and licensing, and by breaking up the “responsible head” at the factories, into multiple responsible people, so that no one would be responsible.

The factory employees, who are also just a handful of paper pushers with no scientific knowledge or responsibility, in a building whose equipment just makes immunotoxic junk and puts it in vials and slaps labels on it, filled out the application forms and mailed them to the FDA addresses (Bureau of Biologics in 1973, all its NIH predecessors and FDA successors, Centre for Biologics Evaluation and Research – CBER now).

The application forms arrived at that address where another one or two paper pushers put them in a filing cabinet and then shredded them a few years later.

Since the advent of electronic filing systems, the application and licensing forms have been filed, transferred and stored electronically, and deleted at regular intervals.

There are no technicians in the buildings, there’s no equipment and no sample testing occurs.

It’s all a front: statutes, regulations, procedures, application forms, buildings, addresses, offices, labs, approved applications and licenses sent by the FDA back to the factories, everything.

A handful of people at pharma companies know it.

A handful of people at the FDA know it.

And everyone else just assumes that a different, specialised department with specialised staff, equipment and procedures is handling it somewhere in the factory, and somewhere within the FDA.

You can read Watt’s full article HERE which is the ninth in a series of articles on “FDA non-regulation of non-medicines, including vaccines, more accurately understood as intentionally immunotoxic poisons.”


Comments:

UK’s MHRA chief till recently was June Raine who makes no secret of the fact that MHRA is an enabler for Big Pharma, not a Regulator!!!!!! In other words it has left its role of gamekeeper and gone over to the side of the poachers !
Debi Evans of UK Column has been keeping a close eye on Madame Rain’s activities, attending MhRA’s and generally putting the heat under her. I strongly recommend you looking at Debi Evans’ stuff, it’s excellent. June Raine has doubtless gone off to enjoy her reward for her betrayal of the Britis public’s health.


This should tell everyone all they need to know about food and drug approval and regulation. It is a scam. That tells me that all safety claims should be called into question.

FDA is a cog in the pay-to-play supply of products and all part of the corporate monopoly. It has no liability for pushing unsafe and dangerous products so it is a front organisation to pretend to people that some product is safe.



I am British, I am a tea drinker, have been all my life. Upon arriving in the US I start making my cups of tea. Over an extended period of time the cups of tea started to make me feel ill. So I started to experiment, bottled water instead of osmosis filtered, inspected the sugar how can you change sugar a chemical maybe? US tea is garbage I only drink PG Tips or some other brand I know. Only ever use 2% milk that is all.

The extended life milk supermarkets are pushing … I switched that out and used 2% organic only milk and all the issues went away. Contacted the FDA, they just FOB you off that all milk is the same … then why was I able to solve the problem if everything is the same. At that point I knew the FDA lie and if they lie about milk they probably lie about everything else.



Want another FDA scam? Importing electronics parts into the USA came in through DHL. I got a massive import tax ….
But in the breakdown of the import tax total was a $40 fee for the FDA.
F@cking priceless I do not eat or consume electronics but they get a cut.

Does not surprise me at all.
ONE other thing I think about, besides others, is that the treasonous FDA calls many substances GRAS=generally recognized as safe. Therefore, GRAS substances can be added to food products without their testing them, and the FDA allows manufacturers to police their own ingredents as okay. I actually want to know what is in my food. I want to know if there is extra water, or salt, vinegar, etcetera added..

Here is a blurb from the FDA website. Notice that if it was approved before 1958, when things were much more basic and unknown, when our testing and technology was much less sophisticated, when fewer food additives and chemicals were used, its’ overwhelmingly believed to be okay!.
Do I trust the FDA (or other government agencies? Nope….The FDA had a direct hand in approving/accepting GMO’s, glyphosate, and more nasties.
The Substances Added to Food inventory includes the following types of ingredients regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA):

Food additives and color additives that are listed in FDA regulations (21 CFR Parts 172, 173 and Parts 73, 74 respectively), and flavoring substances evaluated by FEMA* and JECFA*.
    Generally Recognized as Safe (“GRAS”) substances that are listed in FDA regulations (21 CFR Parts 182 and 184).
    Substances approved for specific uses in foods prior to September 6, 1958, known as prior-sanctioned substances (21 CFR Part 181)


Articles:
https://www.consumerreports.org/food-safety/gras-hidden-ingredients-in-your-food/
https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2022/04/ewg-analysis-almost-all-new-food-chemicals-greenlighted-industry-not-fda
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/fda-loophole-allows-possi_b_9182800

Dr Naomi Wolf's statement on UK media censor Ofcom

Dr. Naomi Wolf’s statement to the Royal Courts of Justice in Mark Steyn v. Ofcom
By Rhoda Wilson on June 12, 2024

Yesterday, Mark Steyn took the UK’s media regulator state censor Ofcom to court.

The Royal Courts of Justice heard the case of Steyn v. Ofcom, which centres on Ofcom having penalised former GB News presenter Mark Steyn for having Dr. Naomi Wolf on his show and allowing her to tell Britain about reproductive damage reported in the Pfizer documents.

In October 2022, Dr. Wolf appeared on GB News’ Mark Steyn Show.  Ofcom said it received 422 complaints that alleged Dr. Wolf’s comments were “dangerous” and included misinformation that went unopposed.  In May 2023, Ofcom concluded its investigation and said it was particularly concerned by Dr. Wolf’s “significant and alarming claim” that mass murder was taking place through vaccinations, which she repeated three times without significant inclusion of challenge or context.


You can watch the offending clip from the Mark Steyn Show below.
https://rumble.com/v2nx14i-dr.-naomi-wolf-and-mark-steyn-ofcom-offending-clip.html

If you are unable to watch the video above on Rumble you can watch the interview on BitChute, which includes a second interview of Dr. Wolf on the Mark Steyn Show.

Further reading: Mark Steyn and Dr. Naomi Wolf have Become Targets of Ofcom Censorship, The Exposé, 16 October 2022

“Even the BBC is now acknowledging covid-19 injection damage as is the New York Times. Our findings have brought Pfizer to pre-2016 revenue levels and forced the most powerful institutions in the world, from major media outlets to Britain’s media regulator body, to be held accountable for lying and harming people,” Naomi Wolf and Amy Kelly wrote in a Substack article last month.

After leaving GB News, Steyn began his own media outlet called Steyn Online.  Before the hearing yesterday, Steyn wrote:

    As you know, last year my first and second Statements of Claim against the UK media censor Ofcom were accepted for judicial review by the High Court of England. The hearing was supposed to be held in March, but Ofcom were washing their hair that month so it was postponed for a few weeks – until today.

    I seriously doubt any members of the press will be in attendance. Certainly, GB News (despite being named as an “interested party”) will not be. But my friend Naomi Wolf, likewise convicted by Ofcom with no right to defend herself, will be there. (Ofcom in the Dock, Mark Steyn, 11 June 2024)

Yesterday, Dr. Wolfe published her response to Ofcom.



Statement of Dr. Naomi Wolf to the Royal Courts of Justice, London, United Kingdom

Dear Mrs Justice Farbey

I am here today because Ofcom, the media watchdog agency, concluded that my presentation of information from scientific reports about the Pfizer injection, on Mark Steyn’s TV show in October 2022, caused “harm.” Ofcom also referred to me in public documents as a “conspiracy theorist,” using that discrediting characterisation of my work, as part of its decision to penalise Steyn for airing the show in which I brought forth the evidence I did.

I wish to describe to the court please the nature of the evidence I presented on GB News. I then wish to describe my credentials, and lastly, I wish to make some points about the history of censorship.

The material I described to Mark Steyn is not my work. I am a non-fiction writer and journalist. I am not a medical doctor or a scientist. The material I presented is from scientific reports compiled by 3,250 highly credentialled doctors and scientists, the WarRoom/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Analysis research team (see addendum), that convened from 2021 to the present, to read through and issue reports based upon the 450,000 internal documents released under court order due to a successful lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration by US attorney Aaron Siri. These are internal
Pfizer documents submitted to the FDA for the purpose of securing the Emergency Use Authorisation that allowed for the rollout in the US of an experimental injection that bypassed normal trials. They are primary internal documents produced by Pfizer-BioNTech, that date from November 2020 to February 2021 and that record the 43,000 plus adverse events and more than 1,220 deaths recorded by Pfizer in those three months.

The documents go into detail about serious side effects and explain their mechanisms; the Pfizer documents contain internal reports on stroke, liver damage, kidney damage, many forms of blood clotting and blood damage (including the thrombotic thrombocytopenia that recently triggered the withdrawal of the AstraZeneca vaccine in the UK in 2024; we broke that story in 2022); many neurological events including dementias, epilepsies and Guillain-Barre syndromes, and serious respiratory issues.

The documents include a section in which 80 per cent of the pregnant women lost their babies and another section in which two babies’ deaths in utero were due to “maternal exposure” to the vaccine, in Pfizer’s words. There is a great deal of information in the Pfizer documents, including charts, showing damage to women’s menstrual cycles, including serious damage such as haemorrhaging, passing tissue and bleeding every day. There is documentation of lipid nano-particles (the fatty casing for the mRNA) accumulating in the ovaries of women — more with each injection. There is documentation of damage to babies from nursing from vaccinated mothers and of one baby who died of multi-organ system failure after ingesting a vaccinated mom’s breast milk. The Pfizer documents contain a warning to vaccinated
men not to have intercourse with women of child-bearing age. These are just some of the findings that our doctors and scientists summarized in their now 104 reports.

Ofcom seeks to portray this material as “harmful.” But can findings be “harmful” if they are true? I am a reporter and I base my opinion on facts.

The reports’ accuracy is not in doubt. They have been published on hundreds of news outlets globally for nearly three years, and we have received no lawyer’s letter from Pfizer of any kind, let alone stating that anything in them is incorrect.

The Reports were published in book format: ‘The WarRoom/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Analysis Reports’, hardcover, PDF and eBook. This book was a Top Ten Amazon Bestseller, including selling in the UK. One of the reports was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. A second volume of these reports, to whose citation Ofcom still objects, is being published in September 2024 by a major US imprint, Simon and Schuster: ‘The Pfizer Papers: Pfizer’s Crimes Against Humanity’. The book is currently for sale on Amazon UK.

My team and I have presented these findings, at the following bodies’ request, to EU Parliamentarians such as MEP Christine Anderson; to MEPs in The Netherlands; to the staffs of US Congressman Tom Massie and US Senator Ron Johnson; to Wyoming State Senators Tim Salazar and Bo Biteman; to the Australian Parliament, twice;  to MP Andrew Bridgen of the UK Parliament, and to scores of professional gatherings of physicians and hospital administrators, as well as at universities. Our Volunteers presented the material I shared on Mr. Steyn’s show to the Brazilian Parliament and will
soon present it to the Government of South Korea. Our findings are being syndicated and republished by Israeli, British and Dutch news sites.

The evidence I presented on Mr. Steyn’s show is also summarised in a book of mine titled ‘Facing the Beast’, which has been published in Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands and was a bestseller in Europe as well as in the US.

In short, all over the world, including in Britain, this same work for which Ofcom has penalised Mark Steyn and attacked me reputationally, has been published and is widely recognised and honoured, including by many governing bodies. So not only is Ofcom out of alignment with other governments in free societies around the world, but it is also pushing back to suppress material that many UK citizens already know to be both factual and important.

As a result of this material, as well as other research, judicial decisions are turning against the manufacturers of this injection and against those governing bodies that suppress people’s right to information about it. Two state Attorneys General, of Missouri and Louisiana, sued the White House for violating the First Amendment in pressuring social media companies to smear and censor critics of the vaccine. This lawsuit showed that the origin of the attacks on my reputation, which Ofcom echoed, started with the US White House unlawfully targeting a tweet of mine about the risk to women from
injections. This lawsuit has been successful to date and the US Supreme Court is deciding the case. A California court just ruled that lawsuits against vaccine mandates could proceed.

Last month, the AstraZeneca vaccine was suspended worldwide, including in the UK.

Can all these thoughtful senior government leaders, these parliaments, these judges and courts, these publishers and news outlets outside of Britain, be wrong, and Ofcom alone be right?

Is there a risk that the rest of the world will base common sense reasoning on the important information in our reports, and the UK, whose information stream is held hostage by Ofcom, will be isolated from life-saving information?

Now let me go please to my own CV. Ofcom told the world that I was a “conspiracy theorist”. By doing so, the agency immeasurably damaged my career and reputation.

I am a Yale graduate, a Rhodes Scholar, and was twice a graduate student at Oxford University. I earned a DPhil from Oxford in 2015, in English Literature. I have written eleven non-fiction books, nine of them international bestsellers. I wrote a book, ‘The Beauty Myth’, that is credited with being a key part of the “Third Wave” of feminism, including in Britain. I advised President Bill Clinton’s re-election campaign and was an advisor to VP Al Gore’s campaign for presidency of the US.

I have been published in every major Western European and North American news outlet, including having been a columnist for The Guardian, The Sunday Times of London, and Project Syndicate. My books have been published by major US and UK publishers, including Random House, Simon and Schuster, Chatto and Windus, Penguin, Vintage and Virago Press. I have appeared many times on most major network and radio shows in Britain and North America, from CNN to MSNBC to CBS, NBC and ABC in the US, to BBC, Channel 4, “Women’s Hour”, ITV and countless regional shows. I have published opinion pieces and features for decades internationally – from The Washington Post to Time to The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, and in the UK, in The Guardian, The Sunday Times, as mentioned above, in Marxism Today, Oxford Magazine, the Daily Mail, The Evening Standard, The Telegraph, The Express, and Metro.co.uk. I have been asked to lecture worldwide, from Penn to Northwestern to Tufts; I have lectured at New College, Oxford University and to undergraduates of the English Faculty at Oxford, and at St Catherine’s College, Oxford University. I lectured repeatedly at Rhodes House, with a leadership program I designed to train the Rhodes Scholars as public intellectuals. I lectured at the University of Chester, and, in the US, I was a Fellow at Barnard College and a professor at SUNY. I had a Rothermere American Institute Fellowship at Oxford University. My Oxford  DPhil re-explored a lost hero of British LGBTQ history, John Addington Symonds. It became a bestselling book, ‘Outrages’, which was a Blackwell’s selection. I brought my work to many UK literary festivals, including the Edinburgh and Hay Book Festivals.

I built a successful civic tech company, DailyClout, which makes US legislation transparent to all and socially sharable.

It would take chutzpah, as my grandmother would say, for Ofcom to seek to smear a CV such as mine, as I was one of the most respected female intellectuals in Europe and America, pre-2021/2022. However, Ofcom did, and their megaphone was much bigger than mine. While I was unable to face them to defend myself, Ofcom brought the power of government amplification to bear down against my reputation in Britain and worldwide. As a result, I have lost the devoted and robust following of readers and publishers I had in Britain and other countries, lost investor funds in my company, and lost any
possibility to speak to my former audiences or publish in my former UK outlets. The damage to my reputation is incalculable. And Ofcom’s vague smear against me is false. I am not a ”conspiracy theorist” but a reporter and non-fiction writer recognised around the world for decades for my fact-based journalism and non-fiction – though indeed under attack since 2021, when I reported on harms to women from mRNA injections; harms that many peer-reviewed studies have now confirmed.

Lastly, I wish to speak about censorship. My DPhil and the book based on it traced the history of censorship law in Britain and America. What I learned from that research, is that there is ultimately no such thing as censorship because the truth always surfaces eventually. In other words, censorship by the state simply does not work.

The UK used to be the home of free speech. It had some of the most robust debates in the world, until the mid-19th century, and a long history of relatively strong press freedom. That changed in 1857, with the Obscene Publications Act.

With the Comstock Laws in the US almost two decades later, the idea of sweeping state censorship was entrenched in democracies where it had not been before.

Since 1857 to the present, many subjects have been targeted by UK and US censors. In Britain, content about same-sex relationships was unlawful to publish. So was sexually suggestive material of any kind. Then medical information about birth control became targeted by legal punishments. In 1877, Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh were tried for the crime of publishing a decades-old pamphlet on birth control. A great deal of what is now considered classical British and American literature has been censored by the State: from D H Lawrence’s ‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover’, to ‘The Well of Loneliness’ by Radclyffe Hall; from James Joyce’s ‘Ulysses’to George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’.

My point is that censoring pamphlets on birth control did not stop birth control information from becoming known over time. Censoring discussion on gay men and lesbians did not stop homosexual or lesbian relationships from taking place or eventually from being discussed. Censoring ‘Animal Farm’stopped no one eventually from reading and valuing ‘Animal Farm’.

What you decide in this courtroom will be a decision for history. And history changes. The truisms that were accepted about the mRNA vaccines in 2022 are already out of date in 2024. Eventually, everyone will know that Mark Steyn was right to let me share sober data about risks from an experimental injection, a version of which has already this year been pulled from the UK market. Please decide with this question in mind: will Britain remain a free nation in which people can absorb different points of view, and decide for themselves? Or will they be subject to a nanny agency, whose brief is so wide in “chilling” open debate and serious reporting, that the censors of 1857 could scarcely have foreseen the sweep of its powers?

Britain’s greatest writers, such as John Milton, always argued for free speech. ‘The Aeropagitica’, Milton’s 1644 defence of freedom of speech, was controversial when it was published. But it saw the light of day. With Ofcom chilling ideas before they can even emerge into the light of public consideration, will Britain have John Miltons in the future? Or a James Joyce, or a Radclyffe Hall, or an Orwell? Can such writers and journalists survive now in Britain with Ofcom keeping watch? (We are fighting the same fight for free speech in America too.)

Martin Luther King Jr. argued that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. The arc of a moral media is long as well, but I wager it bends toward truth.

Please may this Court consider how gravely the people of Britain – the birthplace and earliest home of free speech and a free press — deserve free expression, as do the people of mine; so that we can make informed decisions for ourselves, as adults; and so that we can have living cultures at all.

Thank you for the chance to make this statement.

Sincerely,
Dr Naomi Wolf, CEO, DailyClout


[Dr. Wolf’s statement as published on her Substack is followed by an Addendum which describes the
WarRoom/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Research Group leadership credentials and key appearances, and a sample of the WarRoom/DailyClout research volunteers’ professional experience and education.  You can see these lists at the bottom of her Substack article HERE https://behindthefdacurtain.substack.com/p/dr-naomi-wolf-responds-to-uk-media]

Saturday, June 8, 2024

Mis-Disinformation is to justify censorship...

All the talk about misinformation is to justify censorship
By Rhoda Wilson on February 7, 2024

In recent years, there has been an upsurge of concern about online misinformation and disinformation, with efforts to thwart it. In many cases, claims about false information serve to justify censorship. To better understand what’s going on, it’s useful to examine assumptions underlying the anti-misinformation enterprise.

The following is extracted from the article ‘Misinformation or Public Debate?’ written by Brian Martin and published by Propaganda in Focus.  You can read the full article HERE.

For the purposes here, there’s no need to delve into the differences between misinformation and disinformation, between being wrong sincerely versus intentionally. There’s enough research on self-deception to question whether intent can be reliably determined.

For decades, there have been fierce public controversies over health-related issues, including nuclear war, smoking, nuclear power, pesticides, fluoridation and genetically modified organisms.

In every one of these debates, partisans have claimed their opponents were wrong, misguided, biased or concealing the truth. However, the language of misinformation was not deployed. What today is called misinformation would, years ago, just be called being wrong and being wrong was seldom treated as a justification for censorship.

In 2019, the World Health Organisation listed “vaccine hesitancy” as one of the top ten threats to global health. Vaccine hesitancy refers to “the reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines.”

Here, for consideration, are five assumptions that seem to underlie much of the concern about alleged covid vaccine misinformation and disinformation.

  •     Misinformation warrants censorship.
  •     Authorities decide what counts as misinformation.
  •     Value judgements underlying the authorities’ position are not questioned.
  •     False claims that serve powerful groups are ignored.
  •     Censorship is an appropriate response to misinformation.

Regarding assumption #4, it’s worth noting that the intelligence agencies in many governments are well-versed in disinformation operations. Media coverage might mention foreign disinformation, but not disinformation by their own governments. Consider also the conclusion by eminent scientist John Ioannidis that most published research findings are false. How often are wrong research findings labelled misinformation?

Using the five assumptions above, censorship would be justified in a wide range of controversial issues, such as nuclear war, smoking, pesticides, and climate change. In practice, though, this has not occurred, at least not systematically. The movement against nuclear weapons, which was especially prominent in the 1980s, was not systematically censored in the West. Nor were peace campaigners condemned for promoting “nuclear weapons hesitancy.”

The historical experience concerning such issues suggests that much of the current alarm being drummed up about misinformation and disinformation is a way of justifying censorship and discrediting genuine disagreement about policies.