Statins are metabolic poisons!

Statins are NOT “Wonder Drugs” they are Metabolic Poisons that Kill One Cell at a Time.
By Patricia Harrity
Nov 10, 2023

The myth that lowering cholesterol with statins prevents heart attacks and strokes is still widespread in modern medicine. This is in spite of the fact that there has never been a consistent relationship between lowering LDL (so called “bad” cholesterol), heart attack, stroke, and death. The “lower the better” mantra often parroted by the “experts” is just not tenable or evidence based.

The Gravy Train
by Simon Lee, Science Officer, Anew UK

“Statins lower LDL, but they do not change outcomes in any significant fashion.” Dr. Jack Wolfson (cardiologist)

The statin industry generates $20 billion a year and has caused life-threatening nutrient deficiency in millions of otherwise healthy people.

There has been active discouragement to publish any negative studies on the effects of statins by those aboard the lucrative statin gravy train.

In the U.S. alone, 40 million adults take statins, despite the questionable effectiveness and safety they are still being recommended for many people. The use of lucrative statins doubled among U.S. adults from 2000 to 2011 in the false belief that they reduce heart disease risk.

Cholesterol is still largely vilified, and statin use is still heavily promoted. In spite of “target” cholesterol levels having been achieved, a systemic review by DuBroff et al published in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine stated:

“The negative results of numerous cholesterols lowering randomized controlled trials call into question the validity of using low density lipoprotein cholesterol as a surrogate target for the prevention of cardiovascular disease.”

Another systematic review and meta-analysis reached similar conclusions. According to one of the authors, Dr Maryanne Demasi:

“The study found no consistent relationship between lowering LDL-C with statins and death, heart attack or stroke. Statins are very effective at lowering LDL-C, but in some trials, which did not necessarily translate into a meaningful benefit for the patient. This contradicts the prevailing view…that there is a strong “linear” relationship between lowering LDL-C and cardiovascular outcomes from statin therapy.”

A Cochrane systemic review by Taylor et al found evidence of selective reporting of outcomes and failure to report adverse events.

In reality, high cholesterol levels have been shown to be protective in the elderly and heart failure patients. Low cholesterol patients had a higher incidence of intra-cerebral bleeds, depression, and cancer.

Statins have done nothing to slow the trend of rising heart disease but have increased the risk of many health problems linked to their use including diabetes, dementia, cancer, cataracts, musculoskeletal disorders (myalgia, muscle weakness, muscle cramps, rhabdomyolysis and autoimmune muscle disease), depression, erectile dysfunction, plus an increased risk of several infectious diseases.

All of these effects are dose dependant, persist during treatment and sometimes even after treatment has stopped.

The Gateway Drug

The negative effects of statins on human health are often described as “adverse reactions” or “side effects” of the drugs. These terms imply an unintended and unpredictable effect of a drug due to an unknown mechanism. The mechanism by which statins damage human health is known, it is entirely predictable, and it was entirely intentional.

Very little disease is ever attributed to statins because doctors refuse to acknowledge the harms that these widely prescribed drugs do and because the harms usually develop slowly in a group that often accepts the symptoms as an inevitable part of aging.

Because statins block the rejuvenating cell cycle, they accelerate the aging and dying process. If statins are taken for long enough, they can cause premature aging, hair loss, and blindness, because the skin, hair and eye lens are cholesterol rich.

In the skin and hair, cholesterol creates a watertight barrier. In the lens of the eye, cholesterol helps to create a cementing lubricating matrix that aligns the molecules in the lens. When cholesterol and lipid bound proteins are reduced in the eye lens cataracts can form.

Physicians usually specialise by organs, making it difficult for them to spot multiple organ failures, caused by common cellular injury, which can manifest as multiple problems in many different tissues and organs.

Statins kill people slowly. People are given 1/100th the dose that kills lab animals in weeks or months, so it takes years or decades for the same injuries to kill people.

Statins are therefore a highly profitable gateway drug to other expensive drugs and medical procedures used to treat the effects of the statins.

No Pain no Gain?

Fatigue and muscle pain are very common effects of statin use. A study of over 350 people taking statins found that 93% reported muscle pain and fatigue, and 85% reported weakness. This is not surprising because statins are known to deplete Coenzyme Q-10 (CoQ10), which is crucial for mitochondrial function. Mitochondria are like cellular batteries that generate energy for the entire body at the cellular level.

Many doctors are familiar with patients reporting muscle-related problems while taking statins but misinterpret study evidence, and presume the symptoms are unrelated, “telling patients that the symptoms are merely psychological, due to age, stress, or other factors.”

General myopathy (muscle pain and weakness) can sometimes develop into the more serious condition, rhabdomyolysis, in which the muscle cells break down and block the kidneys. This can result in permanent kidney damage and death from kidney failure.

The severity of muscle damage is not correlated with duration of statin use and in some cases the muscle damage does not resolve even when statins are discontinued.

When muscle cells are damaged, they release the enzyme creatine kinase (CK) into the blood which can be detected in lab tests. The pharmaceutical company Merck set the standard for this test at ten times above the upper limit of normal. This had the effect of reducing the reported incidence of statin induced myopathy from the clinically observed rate of 10-15% to just 0.5%.

Muscle biopsies are the gold standard for assessing muscle damage. When the Merck determined CK test levels were compared to biopsies, it was found that 57% of patients with an abnormal biopsy had a “normal” CK enzyme level.

This situation went unchallenged for 22 years until 2009. This is an egregious example of medical gaslighting because it convinced many people that their genuine statin induced muscle damage was “all in their head”.

Broken Hearts

“In contrast to the current belief that cholesterol reduction with statins decreases atherosclerosis, we present a perspective that statins may be causative in coronary artery calcification and can function as mitochondrial toxins that impair muscle function in the heart and blood vessels…Thus, the epidemic of heart failure and atherosclerosis that plagues the modern world may paradoxically be aggravated by the pervasive use of statin drugs. We propose that current statin treatment guidelines be critically re-evaluated.” Dr Harumi Okuyama et al (Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology)

More than fifty-five trials on statin use have been done with some trials spanning 12 years, in several countries, over the course of four decades. These trials have shown little or no impact on the risk of coronary heart disease  (CHD) mortality or morbidity.

Statins were approved for use on the basis of lowering blood LDL cholesterol levels. There was never any requirement to demonstrate a lowered Cardio-vascular disease  (CVD) risk, all that was required was an effect on this surrogate marker.

We now have a similar situation with the Covid-19 “vaccines” where the manufacturers point to induction of antibodies as proof of efficacy without having to demonstrate any real beneficial effect at all.

Ironically, for a drug which has been marketed to lower the risk of CVD, a strong association of statin use to the progression of coronary artery plaque has been identified.

Statins have also been correlated with a greater incidence of severe coronary artery stenosis, as well as an increase in the number of coronary vessels developing obstructive coronary artery disease. Furthermore, statins have been linked to an increase in the prevalence and extent of mixed calcific arterial plaque.

Five prospective studies have shown that statins do not induce any coronary calcium regression and evolution of coronary calcium continues regardless of statin treatment. The Veteran Affairs Diabetes Trial showed that statins accelerated progression of Coronary Artery Calcification

(CAC) in people with Type 2 diabetes without previous coronary artery disease, despite the fact that statin users had significantly lower and nearly “optimal” LDL-cholesterol levels.

Statins increase arterial calcification of vascular smooth muscle cells and mesenchymal cells and lower the lipid-rich core of atherosclerotic plaques, enhancing the density of cal-cification. This leads to accelerated progression of calcified atherosclerosis. Statins are associated with triple the risk of coronary artery and aortic calcification.

Statins activate the Atrogen-1 Gene which results in muscle atrophy, wasting, and damage and they cause CoQ10 deficiency resulting in cardiomyopathy. Lowering LDL with statins by 50%also lowers CoQ10 by 50% which increases the risk of heart muscle failure.

Statins inhibit the production of vitamin K2, which can be damaging to the heart, and they reduce ketone production. Ketones are essential nutrients for mitochondria and are important regulators of metabolic health and longevity.

It is clear that statins have been a colossal failure and a public health disaster. In 1900, CVD accounted for just 10% of all deaths worldwide.

By 2005, this had risen to 29% and the numbers are still rising. By 2015, CVD accounted for 30% of all deaths worldwide. CVD became the leading cause of death in all developing countries with modernised public water supplies in 2010.

The Brain Drain

Almost a quarter of the total amount of cholesterol in the body can be found in the central nervous system (brain and spinal cord). Cholesterol is an essential component of neurons and is essential for developing and maintaining neuronal function and plasticity. Cholesterol is critical for synapse formation, the connections between neurons, which enable thinking, learning, and forming memories.

Cholesterol plays an important role in the synthesis, transportation and metabolism of steroid hormones as well as lipid-soluble vitamins, both of which have an impact on synaptic integrity and neurotransmission.

Half of the brain matter consists of cholesterol and each neuron is wrapped in a protective myelin sheath which is mostly cholesterol.

Animal studies have shown that blocking cholesterol metabolism can cause the usually compact myelin sheath to unravel into an abnormally loose arrangement.

Defective myelination of the optic nerve can lead to blindness, whereas damage to other nerves can cause difficulties with hearing, touch, temperature control, and balance.

It is estimated that by 2030 75 million people will have dementia. Low levels of Low-Density Lipoprotein (LDL) ( “bad” cholesterol) have been linked to a higher risk of dementia, according to a study of nearly 4,000 people aged 50 and over.

High levels of LDL cholesterol were found to be inversely associated with dementia, even after controlling for other factors that might increase risk, including demographic characteristics, health behaviour, mood assessment and medical history. This association was so strong that the researchers concluded a high level of LDL cholesterol may be considered as a “potential protective factor against cognition decline”.

Cholesterol levels in the “high-normal” range are associated with better cognitive performance in people aged 65 years and over. Lower cholesterol levels are associated with cerebral atrophy which is “a typical anatomic syndrome of dementia.”

In one study, researchers tested the cognitive function of older adults with Alzheimer’s disease who were also taking statins. The patients stopped statins for six weeks, and their cognitive function significantly improved. When they resumed taking the statins, their cognition deteriorated to its original state.

A separate study found that among patients with early mild cognitive impairment, statin use was associated with more than two fold risk of progressing to dementia and “with highly significant decline in metabolism of posterior cingulate cortex” (the region of the brain known to decline most significantly in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s disease).

A strong association between lower cholesterol and Parkinson disease risk has been reported, such that each mmol/L increase in total cholesterol was accompanied by a 23% decrease in the risk of developing Parkinson disease.

Statins have also been linked to the neuromuscular degenerative disease Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease.

People taking statins are more likely to develop peripheral neuropathy which is characterised by weakness, tingling and pains in the hands and feet, and walking difficulties.

Diabetes and Cancer

A systematic review that included almost 47 million people found a link between statins and reduced insulin sensitivity, as well as insulin resistance. These are both major factors in the development of Type 2 diabetes. Statins were also found to reduce glycaemic control and raise fasting glucose levels.

“High” cholesterol is indicative of good overall nutritional status and health, whereas “low” cholesterol is linked to a higher risk of mortality and is associated with malnutrition and chronic diseases, including cancer.

Vinogradova et al have shown that long term statin use is associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer, bladder cancer and lung cancer. Women with “high” cholesterol had a 28% lower mortality risk than women with low cholesterol.

Blocking Mevalonate-the Pathway of Life

“We are now in a position to witness the unfolding of the greatest medical tragedy of all time. Never before in history has the medical establishment knowingly created a life-threatening nutrient deficiency in millions of otherwise healthy people.” Dr Peter H Langsjoen MD

Statins are inhibitors of the HMG-CoA reductase enzyme. This enzyme activates the mevalonate pathway in order to produce mevalonate which sustains cells. Mevalonate is cellular food, and it can be made from any food type. Mevalonate is used to make cholesterol and isoprenoids which are ubiquitous five-carbon molecules. This is the mevalonate pathway, and it is essential for cell renewal and life.

Both cholesterol and isoprenoids, stimulate the cell cycle whereby the cells grow, replicate their DNA, and divide into two cells. When a cell cycles it must grow (G1 phase), before replicating its DNA (S phase for DNA synthesis), then growing some more (G2 phase), and finally dividing into two new cells (M phase for mitosis). Without the cholesterol and isoprenoids provided by mevalonate none of this can happen.

Without the cell cycle, cells age and die

Isoprenoids are the largest and most diverse of over 25,000 molecules made by animals and plants. Some examples of isoprenoids include vitamin A which is crucial for good eyesight, vitamin E which is a powerful antioxidant with anti-cancer and heart protective properties, and CoQ10 which is crucial for providing cellular energy.

Blocking CoQ10 production hinders aerobic metabolism and is as potentially deadly as arsenic, cyanide, and carbon monoxide that likewise block aerobic metabolism in cells.

Cholesterol is also a major part of the cell cycle because it builds cell membranes and before a cell divides into two the membrane must grow. Without the mevalonate to make cholesterol and isoprenoids cells die.

Statins are potent HMG-CoA reductase poisons because the reductase has a 10,000 times greater affinity for a statin than it does for HMG-CoA which the statin mimics.

Human cells that are exposed to statins cultured in a lab stop growing, stop replicating, lose their normal appearance and die without producing progeny. Cells with the fastest turnover rates are affect the most ( intestinal cells, skin cells, red blood cells, liver cells ).

The effects of six FDA approved statins ( Pravastatin, Lovastatin, Simvastatin, Atorvastatin, Fluvastatin, Cerivastatin) on four common types of human cells (smooth muscle cells, fibroblasts, endothelial cells, myoblasts) were studied. All of these cell types stopped replicating in the presence of all of these approved statins.

Cerivastatin, the Bayer produced “superstatin” called Baycol, had to be recalled and removed from the market in 2001 following a series of rapid fatalities.

Dr Marvin D Siperstein did much of the pioneering work in this field. He discovered that mevalonate was crucial for DNA synthesis, cell growth and replication. He also discovered that cancer cells have a defective mevalonate pathway. His work remains largely ignored while less deserving people have been rewarded with Nobel prizes for their contribution to statin sales.

Statins are Deadly Mycotoxins

Statins are derived from mycotoxins which are toxins produced by fungi in nature. Fungi produce these toxic secondary metabolites to kill off competing microbial life. Statins are “anti-life” or “anti-bios”, in other words they are non-selective antibiotics that indiscriminately kill any cell, including human cells.

Cholesterol synthesis and cellular LDL cholesterol receptor synthesis are co-regulated. When statins inhibit cellular cholesterol synthesis the cell produces more LDL receptors to grab cholesterol from the blood thereby lowering blood LDL levels.

By pulling LDL cholesterol out of the bloodstream, statins cause elevated cellular cholesterol levels, which can be toxic and cause apoptosis, which is a type of programmed cell death.

Many mycotoxins can suppress the immune system, and many are carcinogenic by virtue of the molecule having a lactone ring. Statins have a lactone ring.

Conclusion: They Know What They Are Doing

“What became clear is that there was and is a plan. It has been a systematically executed endeavour to take over national health care by hiring and corrupting scientists and infiltrating every public health care agency in the country for profit. It is beyond malevolent.” James B Yoseph, Dr Hannah Yoseph M.D.

Merck scientists and the other statin developers clearly understood the risks of using a pathogenic fungal mycotoxin to lower what they called “bad” cholesterol.

One of these scientists was the Japanese scientist Dr Akira Endo. When Dr Endo was asked why he didn’t take a statin for his own high cholesterol he replied with the Japanese proverb “The indigo dyer wears white trousers.” Indigo dye is very toxic to humans, so the smart indigo dyer doesn’t wear the trousers that he sells to others.

A couple of 1990 Merck patents for adding CoQ10 to statins demonstrates that they had foreknowledge of the harms that statins would cause, but they did not use or disclose the CoQ10 antidote to statin poisoning.

Merck and other statin manufacturers successfully avoid public scrutiny by settling damage claims out of court.

It is clear that statins have been a colossal failure and a public health disaster. Calling the effects of statins “side effects” when they are really predictable primary effects is fraudulent and deceptive.

“Our medical system is now like two snakes wrapped around a pole sitting on top of a pile of dung and hissing at us, daring us to require it to change. We need to snatch its twin tails, break its backs and return it to the dung heap.” James B Yoseph, Dr Hannah Yoseph M.D.

References

1) Hit or miss: the new cholesterol targets. Robert DuBroff, Aseem Malhotra, Michel de Lorgeril BMJ Evid Based Med. 2021 Dec;26(6):271-278. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32747335/

2) Evaluating the Association Between Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Reduction and Relative and Absolute Effects of Statin Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Paula Byrne et al JAMA Intern Med. 2022 May 1;182(5):474-481 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35285850/

3) Just Say No to Statins HEALTH VIEWPOINTS Dr Joseph Mercola

4) Statins: The Lesser-Known Dangers, and a Good Alternative FEATURED DRUGS & TREATMENTS Vance Voetberg

5) Statins: Most Prescribed Drug with Hyped Benefits and Downplayed Side Effects by Vance Voetberg

6) Statins stimulate atherosclerosis and heart failure: pharmacological mechanisms. Harumi Okuyama et al (2015) Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology, 8:2, 189-199  https://doi.org/10.1586/17512433.2015.1011125

7) Statin Use Linked to Dementia. Dr. Joseph Mercola

8) How statin drugs really lower cholesterol and kill you one cell at a time. James B Yoseph. Hannah Yoseph M.D.

9) The Ugly Side of Statins. Systemic Appraisal of the Contemporary Un-Known Unknowns. Sherif Sultan, Niamh Hynes (2013) Open Journal of Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojemd.2013.33025 by Simon Lee, Science Officer, Anew UK

NZ Whistleblower Arrested for Exposing the Truth

NZ Whistleblower Arrested for Exposing the Truth: Here’s What They Didn’t Want You to See
“The data is legit; that's why they are arresting Barry. He's a hero for exposing the truth.”
4 Dec 2023

Statistician and whistleblower, Barry Young, also known as “Winston Smith,” 56, has been arrested by New Zealand authorities for exposing a damning database on COVID-19 vaccine deaths. However, the official charge was “dishonestly accessing vaccination data.” https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/former-te-whatu-ora-employee-appears-in-court-charged-with-covid-19-vaccination-data-breach/ADKOB4AKFNEIFKLBO5DEVVY47M/

Young, a Ministry of Health employee-turned-whistleblower, was responsible for managing New Zealand’s COVID-19 vaccination database. After discovering some disturbing trends, Young felt compelled to come forward. “I saw too much that I couldn’t do nothing anymore,” he said.

In a long-format interview with Liz Gunn, founder of the New Zealand Loyal Party, on November 30th, Mr. Young presented connections between specific COVID-19 vaccine batches and mortality rates. The data he shared was alarming:

Batch ID 1: Total Vaccinated 711, Death Count 152, 21.38% Dead

Batch ID 8: Total Vaccinated 221, Death Count 38, 17.19% Dead

Batch ID 3: Total Vaccinated 310, Death Count 48, 15.48% Dead

Batch ID 4: Total Vaccinated 364, Death Count 37, 10.16% Dead

Batch ID 6: Total Vaccinated 1006, Death Count 101, 10.04% Dead

Batch ID 2: Total Vaccinated 1018, Death Count 98, 9.63% Dead

Batch ID 7: Total Vaccinated 38, Death Count 3, 7.89% Dead

Batch ID 72: Total Vaccinated 5882, Death Count 278, 4.73% Dead

Batch ID 62: Total Vaccinated 18173, Death Count 831, 4.57% Dead

Batch ID 71: Total Vaccinated 11019, Death Count 498, 4.52% Dead

The underlying mortality rate in New Zealand should be only 0.75%, said Young. He added that these batches were across all age groups, so it should all average out to that 0.75% mortality rate.

At the bottom of the image with the batch data, it says, “Chances of these batches not being a killer are 100 billion to one!” Young clarified what that statement meant, explaining that the odds of death rates this high happening by chance are approximately 100 billion to 1.

“So statistically, what we’re saying is that there is no chance that this vaccine is not a killer,” Young declared.

The Case

Barry Young, 56, made two court appearances today at the Wellington District Court. During his initial procedural hearing in the morning, he was met with a standing ovation from a packed public gallery, The New Zealand Herald reported.

There are five key takeaways from the case, as outlined by Jeff Childers:

    They don’t deny the ‘leaker’ is (was) a health system employee, confirming Young’s claims.

    They insist — often and loudly — that he’s not a ‘vaccine expert,’ again consistent with Young’s claim to be an Oracle database administrator.

    They do NOT claim that Young’s data is fake, altered, compromised, or misrepresented in any way. So we can assume the Young Data is legit.

    Most tellingly, they allege Young was “spreading misinformation” but never described the alleged misinformation, not even a little. The closest they get is implying that Young generally accused the jabs of being unsafe, which is not a crime, even in New Zealand.

    Finally, it’s unsurprising Young was arrested, since after all he did leak confidential information. But it is shocking how fast they arrested him. By comparison, it took about 18 months to arrest Rebekah Jones, and then only after Florida police actually conducted an investigation. Young’s turbo-arrest looks like a cover up.

Entrepreneur and COVID-19 vaccine skeptic Steve Kirsch made a bold comment when Mr. Young was surrounded by the police. He said, “The data is legit; that’s why they are arresting Barry. He’s a hero for exposing the truth.”

Kirsch added, “This data destroys the ‘safe and effective’ narrative. That’s why they are trying to distract people from analyzing it.”

Kirsch later revealed, “Over the last month, I’ve had many talks with Barry. The charges are without merit. It was crystal clear that his intent in leaking the documents was to expose a crime (negligent manslaughter) being perpetrated by the NZ Ministry of Health and save lives. I guess in NZ, they don’t want you to do that.”

“Barry single-handedly has saved millions of lives because he proved you can leak data without affecting privacy, but that the data can show that a vaccine killed 10 million worldwide. This was thought to be impossible before Barry showed it was possible. He should be recognized internationally as a hero. What NZ is doing to him is misguided.”

The full interview with Barry Young is still available on Rumble. You can watch it via the video below:

https://rumble.com/v3ynskd-operation-m.o.a.r-mother-of-all-revelations.html

For more stories written and curated by The Vigilant Fox, be sure to subscribe to Vigilant News.

https://rumble.com/v403f0m-bombshell-new-zealand-vaccine-data-breach-steve-kirsch-reveals-shocking-fin.html

https://vigilantfox.substack.com/p/nz-whistleblower-arrested-for-exposing

Digital IDs will be mandatory to participate in society

Bill Gates ‘Digital IDS’ Will Be Mandatory To Participate in Society
By Patricia Harrity

The Expose News, Nov 7, 2023

On November 8th 2023, a virtual launch event took place for what was termed the “50-in-5” agenda.

The United Nations, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and partners of the Rockefeller Foundation are launching a campaign to accelerate digital ID, digital payments, and data-sharing rollouts in 50 countries under the umbrella of digital public infrastructure (DPI) by 2028.

The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) has announced plans to roll out “digital IDs” worldwide by the year 2030, and they will be mandatory for people who wish to participate in society, say Reclaim the Net, who advocate for free speech and individual liberty online,

Social Credit System

The push for DigitalPublic Infrastructure (DPI) which includes. “Digital IDs,” vaccine passports, and central bank digital currencies (CBDC) – is being championed by the globalist WEF and unsurprisingly is backed by Bill Gates along with the UN, and the European Union (EU).

The Sociable editor Tim Hinchliffe says “Advocates are adamant that DPI is essential for participation in markets and society — just like we saw with vaccine passports — only on a much broader scope and “If successful, DPI will give governments and corporations the power to implement systems of social credit that can determine where and how you can travel, what you are allowed to consume, and how you will be able to transact with your programmable money.

“Think individual carbon footprint trackers, Ultra Low Emission Zones (ULEZ), and CBDC programmed to restrict “less desirable” purchases — all of which are being pushed by proponents of the great reset.”(source)

The “50 in 5” Campaign

The “50 in 5” bills itself as “a country-led advocacy campaign. By 2028, the 50-in-5 campaign will have helped 50 countries design, launch, and scale components of their digital public infrastructure,” according to the official announcement. The 50 countries are designated as global testbeds, (guinea pigs) and the DPI’s will first in Africa (sub-Saharan, particularly) and India but the plan is to roll digital IDs globally by 2030 to include all citizens of UN member-states, according to Planet Today

“50 in 5” campaign is also unsurprisingly a collaboration between the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the United Nations Development Program, the Digital Public Goods Alliance, and Co-Develop. Co-Develop was founded by The Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Nilekani Philanthropies, and the Omidyar Network. The Digital Public Goods Alliance lists both the Gates and Rockefeller foundations in its roadmap showcasing “activities that advance digital public goods,” along with other organisations and several governments.

    Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) is essential for countries to improve their economies & the well-being of people.

    Join us for the launch of the #50in5 initiative to discuss how building inclusive DPI can foster strong economies & equitable societies:

https://t.co/SB2QDNJp2I pic.twitter.com/S01Rpxq1VP     — UNDP Digital (@UNDPDigital) October 25, 2023

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM95cxgHDhY

DPIs are being sold as a mechanism for financial inclusion, convenience, improved healthcare, and green progress. but is is an “all-inclusive phrase applied to a looming technocratic governance system powered by three foundational components: digital ID, digital payments like Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), and massive data sharing.”

The World Economic Forum

WEF published a series of articles in September essentially pushing for DPI enforcement and of course, WEF is out there “thinking about the children” like the best of them, “Children’s rights around the world can be boosted by investing in digital public infrastructures,” said one caption in an article published on September the 18th, 2023, entitled@

‘Two-thirds of child-related SDGs are off-pace to meet targets’: Here’s why we must invest in digital public infrastructure now.”

“2023 marks the halfway point for achieving the United Nations’ sustainable development goals (SDGs)“, the WEF reminds us, this halfway mark “is an opportunity to “assess and recalibrate” efforts to realise the rights of every child, everywhere and with only seven years to go, to the 2030 target, two-thirds of child-related indicators are off-pace to meet their targets, according to a new UNICEF report, For Every Child a Sustainable Future.

    1.9 Billion Children Left Behind – If recent progress continues, only 60 countries, home to just 25% of the child population, will have met their targets by 2030, leaving around 1.9 billion children in 140 countries behind.

    The world today looks unlikely to achieve the ambitious goals we set for children in 2015.

    Hunger – The world, is back at hunger levels not seen since 2005, and food prices remain higher in more countries than in the period from 2015 to 2019.

    Children are Lacking Foundational Skills – While in education, data shows that 600 million children and adolescents are not acquiring foundational reading and math skills and 11 million additional ten-year-olds lacking foundational skills.

The “Solution” to the “Problem”? The “problem” the WEF says, has been the pandemic, of course, which “worsened the situation,” and the digital public infrastructure is the “solution.” as it has been identified as a “key transition required for accelerating SDG action and results for children by 2030.”

Protecting the “rights or safety of children” has been a tactic used before by the unelected globalists, while promoting a technocratic system that will actually take away the rights of all individuals, including children.

Reclaim the Net, says that essentially, “DPI is a buzzword used in somewhat interesting/alarming concord by organizations such as the UN, but also the European Union (EU), the Gates Foundation, and of course, the World Economic Forum (WEF) is never quite out of any such picture.

“What DPIs are supposed to do, in the best case scenario, is aid development in a number of ways. Those looking deeper into platitudes and “corporatespeak” coming from these organizations, however, are dismissing the term and the policy as a ruse to speed up the introduction of digital IDs and payments, with a deadline of 2030.”

They conclude, “If you’re a citizen of a UN member-state, and your government (i.e., taxpayers) are contributing to various UN efforts and, you feel either uneasy or just insufficiently informed about all this, well, too bad. They’re going ahead anyway.”

Threading Narratives Together

Threading Narratives Together
by TDB
Aug 11, 2023

Having written about various intersecting agendas at play on the world stage, I wanted to gather my thoughts in weaving it all together as I currently see the state of play. I may well be wrong about this - I often am - but I do keep an open mind and try not to write off any new information; even when it can be painful to acknowledge new depths of depravity and evil.
mRNA injections

I have recently discovered Sasha Latypova’s Substack, who writes brilliantly about the biopharmaceutical industrial complex and the connections to the military industrial complex. Latypova’s writing, her composure throughout an interview with Steve Kirsch and also with Robert F. Kennedy Jr opened my eyes to pharma companies being thrown under the bus as sacrificial lambs. They are still wholly complicit and evil criminal enterprises nonetheless.

However, more evidence points to the U.S Department of Defense ordering the specifications for the mRNA covid-19 injections, with military terminology such as ‘countermeasures’ referred to in the contracts themselves, all indicative of war being waged against their own citizens.

Here you can view and download all the Covid-19 contracts (injections & test kits):
https://www.keionline.org/covid-contracts

Try downloading the Pfizer and Moderna contracts and using ctrl+F to search for words like ‘countermeasures’ and ‘manufacture’…

Latypova warns that all vaccines are transitioning to mRNA technology, and recommends not to vaccinate for anything unless absolutely necessary. I see this evidenced in local Thai media and elsewhere, as the flu ‘vaccine’ is being combined with the covid ‘vaccine’.

New mRNA injections for cancer, heart problems, and a host of other diseases are being touted as miracles by the fake stream media. This overwhelmingly suggests the pharma industries - and the government health bodies behind them / embedded within them acting as enablers instead of regulators - are cashing in on the side effects of the “safe and effective” covid injections.

There are more sinister developments brewing that we have yet to see actualise. I am referring to the reports of nanotech and unidentifiable foreign objects found in the bloodstreams of the vaxxed and unvaxxed and also by embalmers at funeral homes. I have read about the dangers of 5G - not just in general with radiation risks - but the speculation on how it could be weaponised, perhaps targeting the vaxxed as conductors / signal receivers. This is pure speculation. The concept may become more apparent once people start getting implantable tech.

A relevant side note here - a frightening piece from Mark Crispin Miller on horses dropping dead after being fitted with wireless transmitters / receivers.

The first round of mRNA injections is a global extermination event. A major culling. A mass infertility inducement. Future mRNA injections may continue this trend and also serve the purpose of testing tolerance levels of such new ‘technologies’ and limits of genetic modification.
Transgenderism, a genderless society, and normalising pedophilia

It was sickening to read about Zuckerberg’s Meta having an Instagram algorithm that recommends pedophilia groups to pedophile users. Meta knew.

Link to tweet. https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1666448337275346949

We’ll see if the legal proceedings are a whitewash. As reports show that many transgendered individuals have a history of abuse, I don’t think it is too much of a stretch to imagine that this in itself could be weaponised to expose more children to online predators. This in turn leading to more traumatised teens experiencing gender dysphoria, and ultimately transitioning with surgery, hormones, and puberty blockers.

Zerohedge article link.

I would recommend watching Plandemic 3 (https://rumble.com/v2s0gp8-plandemic-3-the-great-awakening-full-unedited-movie.html) for a historical look at previous periods of totalitarianism, tyranny, and communism, whereby gender identity was subverted to create a genderless society. Such as Mao’s China, whereby women had their heads shaved and were made to wear asexual clothes - the same was done to men. An attempt to remove sexual desire from the population, no more bipolarity of male and female. Rather than turning towards each other, the people then turn towards the state.

Screenshot from Endgame (2007) documentary.
https://odysee.com/@choobster:6/EndGameAlexJones:0

In our current totalitarian hellscape, the youth are willingly doing this to themselves.

This is being driven by western government’s obsession with the ‘T’ in the LGB[…]acronym. Drag queen story hour, pride month, and wokeism are inescapable. Companies are doubling down on the ‘S’ in the environmental, social, governance (ESG) movement.

The transgenderism movement is being weaponised to create a genderless society loyal to the state, to further the depopulation agenda by creating multiple generations of infertile individuals, and has darker undertones in its attempts to decriminalise sex with minors - as I recently covered linking to shocking reports written by the UN, the WHO, and their think tanks.

Transgenderism also provides a malleable foundation on which to make transhumanism more palatable to future generations - specifically in terms of augmentation, promises of enhancement, and to be whatever one wants to be in a metaverse, ultimately prioritising a person’s own customisable digital reality over the physical human lived experience.
Digital ID and CBDC

One app to rule them all? More like one concept. A digital ID that creates a permission-based society, allowing ‘freedom’ of movement only if the individual possesses the requisite social credit score. The digital ID looks set to include medical records (vaxxeeens), carbon footprints, and of course the central bank digital currency tokens. The tokens could be frozen due to bad behaviour deemed anti-government. The tokens could be allocated for certain foods (insects) and disallow other indulgences (meat & alcohol).

For now, downloading an app in order to enter this UK supermarket piloting a QR code system is a choice. In the future it may not be. All your purchasing habits tracked and monitored in real time. No app = no food. Welcome to the beginnings of the digital gulag.
Climate delusion

I have written about the plan for “absolute zero” to close all airports by 2050.

We could draw a link between the vax mandates seeing scores of pilots incapacitated and having “medical emergencies” with the net zero plan to abolish air travel. If there is no supply of qualified pilots because they are all mRNA injection injured, then even with a high demand for air travel, how can this be solved? Pilotless planes?

The climate delusion manipulates people’s legitimate concerns about the environment to gain public support for diminished standards of living through stealth. Carbon footprints and worthless carbon credit scams to simultaneously rule the serfs, whilst allowing corporations to circumvent curtailment to their operations, manufacturing production, and waste disposal.

The linkage to the CBDC is that these carbon metrics will be tracked in the digital ID app.

We are now seeing strong evidence of forest fires exacerbated in various parts of the world by a mixture of paid arsonists, drones, and potentially using directed energy weapons (DEWs).

Link to tweet.

Mark Crispin Miller’s recent post is recommended reading on this phenomena in Canada.

I have yet to release the final part of my series on the climate scam in Thailand, for which I have reason to believe that fires, and by extension the air pollution have been intentionally worsened to gain support for climate based policies on the political party front.

The ultimate goal of the climate delusion is not just for the parasite class to rule over serfs through neo-feudalism. It is to make up and coming generations see themselves as a cancer on the earth. Make them want their own demise, in order to ‘save’ the planet.
Transhumanism

For access to all I have written on this subject, you can visit this section of the stack.

Transhumanism has its roots in eugenics. Eugenics is the practice of state sponsored sterilisation of the disabled, mentally handicapped, or those otherwise deemed “unfit to breed.” In the film from 1934 called Tomorrow’s Children in which eugenics is advocated for,  a woman is told of plans to sterilise her and her family to avoid future generations of “feeble-minded” children being brought into the world. *Not my words - the words of eugenicists.

[link to full movie]

Whitney Webb wrote a brilliant piece - A “Leap” toward Humanity’s Destruction - in which she weaves the surveillance state agenda together with genomic surveillance, biodigital convergence and the overarching transhumanist agenda.

I draw the link between mRNA injections and transhumanism as the literal experimentation of genetically altering humanity. Testing limits of tolerance for lipid nanoparticles in order to perfect secrets to longevity for those at the top capstone of the pyramidal new world order hierarchy. Obviously there are batches of the mRNA injections designed to maim, sterilise, and kill too.

Aside from mRNA injections, other transhumanist ideals are slowly going mainstream with the promise of youthfulness attainment, regeneration of cells, and enhancement.

I found this particularly disturbing to read:
 
Waybackmachine (non pay-walled link).

The transgenderism movement is being introduced to children in schools, pushed and incentivised by governments, rewarding corporations with corporate equity index (CEI) and environmental social governence (ESG) point scoring systems.

I see a connection between subverting, inverting, or destroying biological gender with intersectionality and “gender fluidity”, climate delusions, and transhumanism.

If individuals experience gender dysphoria at a young age, they are likely to act on this through surgical procedures. Having altered their physicality through surgical and chemical means, they could be receptive to further augmentation via implantable technology (RFID chip / brain-chip). If they are particularly confused with their dysphoria, they may opt to go one step further and get rid of their physical bodies entirely.

If they also buy into the climate delusion, this could be an additional catalyst to reduce their carbon footprint, by exiting their emission-causing meatsuit and becoming entirely digital.

Predictive programming case in point; a 3 minute clip from an old BBC series “years and years” in which a teenage girl tells her parents exactly that:

There are more narratives and rabbit holes we could go down to weave this tapestry together, but I think that will suffice for this post. If you’re disappointed that I didn’t touch on AI, then you may find this post illuminating.

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

screenshot from Endgame (2007) documentary.

Don’t take the chip.

Reject CBDC.

Resist transhumanist augmentation, enhancement, and promises of unnatural longevity.

Stay human.

Be pro-humanity.

Nicholas Creed is a Bangkok-based journalistic dissident. Follow Creed Speech on Substack.

Originally published via Creed Speech Substack.
https://open.substack.com/pub/nicholascreed/p/threading-narratives-together

A Policy Error of Historic Proportions!

 "A Policy Error of Historic Proportions"
1997 letter to President Clinton by US cold warriors who opposed NATO expansion
Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
Mar 16, 2023

By JOHN LEAKE

When Dr. McCullough and I started this Substack, we agreed that he would primarily focus on COVID-19 scientific-medical scholarship, and I would investigate how the COVID-19 pandemic response is related to other major public policy issues. Occasionally, some of our readers have exhorted me to “stay in our lane” — that is, to remain focused on matters pertaining to the COVID-19 fiasco.

Because Substack is a free speech platform, and because we welcome critical opinions, I have never felt compelled to respond to these exhortations to “stay in our lane.” To some degree, I consider my critics to have a valid point. As Fitzgerald elegantly put it in The Great Gatsby, “Life is much more successfully looked at from a single window.”

On the other hand, I believe my critics are overlooking a point so obvious that it might as well strike them in the head with a baseball bat — namely, the same corrupt government nincompoops responsible for the COVID-19 fiasco are also responsible for every other catastrophic policy blunder they are currently afflicting on mankind.

For example, let’s take the U.S. government’s catastrophic mismanagement of its relations with Russia for the last thirty years. I have closely observed this disaster in the making since I moved to Vienna, Austria for an academic fellowship in 1996. On the plane to Vienna I read the July 15, 1996 Time Magazine cover story about how secret American advisors helped Boris Yeltsin to win that year’s presidential election.

Even at the time I remember thinking it was a bit presumptuous to think that it was perfectly okay for American agents to meddle in a Russian election, and I wondered how Americans would feel if it were reported that Russian agents had provided clandestine assistance to Bill Clinton in his 1996 presidential campaign against Bob Dole.

I read the Time cover story with keen interest, because for many years I’d been an avid student of 20th century Russian history. Yeltsin’s presidency marked the total triumph of American interests with respect to Russia, which had suffered a decisive loss of the Cold War. As I saw it — living in Austria, whose neutrality the Soviets had recognized and respected since 1955 — in 1996 it was up to the Americans to welcome and assist Russia in becoming a partner with the West.

The following year, I read the news of how the Clinton Administration had decided to expand NATO membership to the east, ever closer to Russia’s border, and I wondered about the rationale for doing this. Though I’d never really known what to make of Henry Kissinger, I found his “Balance of Power” thesis compelling.

1866 cartoon by Daumier, L’Equilibre Européen,

We humans are constantly making assurances of our good will and altruism, but it’s a rare man or woman indeed who doesn’t press his or her advantage if a disagreement arises. This is why the Soviet Premier Khrushchev refused to tolerate U.S. nuclear missiles in Turkey, and why President Kennedy refused to tolerate Soviet missiles in Cuba.

I therefore believed I understood why 50 major U.S. foreign policy experts—including top cold warriors such as Robert McNamara, Paul Nitze, Richard Pipes, and Stansfield Turner—wrote a letter to President Clinton on June 26, 1997, stating the following:

    We, the undersigned, believe that the current U.S.led effort to expand NATO, the focus of the recent Helsinki and Paris Summits, is a policy error of historic proportions. We believe that NATO expansion will decrease allied security and unsettle European stability for the following reasons:

    In Russia, NATO expansion, which continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum, will strengthen the nondemocratic opposition, undercut those who favor reform and cooperation with the West, bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold War settlement, and galvanize resistance in the Duma to the START II and III treaties; In Europe, NATO expansion will draw a new line of division
between the "ins" and the "outs," foster instability, and ultimately diminish the sense of security of those countries which are not included;

    In NATO, expansion, which the Alliance has indicated is open-ended, will inevitably degrade NATO's ability to carry out its primary mission and will involve U.S. security guarantees to countries with serious border and national minority problems, and unevenly developed systems of democratic government;

    In the U.S., NATO expansion will trigger an extended debate over its indeterminate, but certainly high, cost and will call into question the U.S. commitment to the Alliance, traditionally and rightly regarded as a centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy.

    Because of these serious objections, and in the absence of any reason for rapid decision, we strongly urge that the NATO expansion process be suspended while alternative actions are pursued. These include:

    —opening the economic and political doors of the European Union to Central and Eastern Europe;

    —developing an enhanced Partnership for Peace program;

    —supporting a cooperative NATO-Russian relationship; and

    —continuing the arms reduction and transparency process, particularly with respect to nuclear weapons and materials, the major threat to U.S. security, and with respect to conventional military forces in Europe.

    Russia does not now pose a threat to its western neighbors and the nations of Central and Eastern Europe are not in danger. For this reason, and the others cited above, we believe that NATO expansion is neither necessary nor desirable and that this ill-conceived policy can and should be put on hold.

Climate Change is NOT primarily man-made!

Where Did The Claim That "97% of Scientists" Believe Climate Change is a man-made, Urgent Problem Come From? Is It True?
Arjun Walia
25 Feb 2023

Is climate change happening? Of course, climate change has always been happening, long before the industrial revolution. Earth has gone through multiple cycles of extreme climate change and so have other planets, like Mars, for example.

But the question today is, how much does human activity influence modern day climate change? The general public has been primed to believe that climate change is predominantly the result of human activity, and that we are headed towards a complete climate catastrophe within the next couple of decades.

The public has also been told that approximately 97 percent of scientists agree with the catastrophe narrative, but is this really true? Where did this number come from?

The truth is, there is quite a large group of climate scientists and academics in the field that disagree with the oversimplified view of climate change that is constantly being spouted, but the public is not told this.

    The whole system revolves around the idea that the majority can be made to believe 𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠, so long as it is repeated loudly and often. And it works. — NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden

It’s similar to what we saw with COVID-19, where a large minority, or perhaps majority of doctors, scientists, vaccine developers and renowned infectious disease experts opposed lockdowns, mask, and vaccine mandates. Many of them were censored and referred to as “conspiracy theorists.”

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the mainstream can make the minority feel like the majority, and the majority feel like the minority. Perhaps this is something we’ve seen with this “97%” figure?

The History of Climate Science & The Origins of Doomsday Scenarios

In the 1980s, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund became the sole authority of the global warming agenda. The fund boasts of being one of the first major global activists by citing its strong advocacy for both the 1988 formation of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the 1992 creation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

This is when most of the messaging regarding climate ‘alarmism’ began, with consistent articles in the mainstream predicting doom-like armageddon scenarios.

For example, on June 29, 1989, the Associated Press (AP) ran a story containing an interview with Noel Brown, the director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program at the time. In it he stated:

“Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.”

This of course did not happen, yet it resembles the same type of predictions we see happening today. It begs the question, what is driving these 10 year predictions, and are they accurate? Do most scientists agree with them?

When Did The “97 Percent Consensus” Number Enter Mainstream Consciousness?

It appears that an article by Naomi Oreskes, a Professor of Science History and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, got the ball rolling.

Oreskes’ 2004 article included an analysis of 928 papers containing the keywords “global climate change.” It stated, “none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position” of man made global warming. She claimed that any remaining professional dissent is exceedingly minor.

Furthermore, in 2010 academic William R. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 “most prolific” writers on climate change believed that man made greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the warming we are experiencing. This received a lot of attention, despite the fact that 200 researchers and “writers” out of the thousands who had contributed to the climate science debate is nowhere close to a consensus.

A 2013 paper by Cook, et al., seemed to be the most significant publication to popularize the 97% figure. The authors used methodology similar to Oreskes but based their analysis on abstracts rather than full content or a real examination of the science.

The paper looked at 12,000 papers published between 1991 and 2011 that contained the words “global warming” or “global climate change.” It claimed that 97% of climate scientists agreed with the idea that ‘humans are changing the climate.’ It went on to become one of the most popular papers of all time, reaching well over 1 million downloads.

Is There Really A Consensus?

According to Roy Spencera, a meteorologist and principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, who served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, and Joseph Bast, a Senior Fellow at The Heartland Institute,  

    The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.”   — Roy Spencera and Joseph Bast, The Wall Street Journal

There is available evidence showing that many experts in the field do not agree that humans are solely responsible for an ‘armageddon level’ climate change type of scenario, and that there are a myriad of factors that are not being considered when it comes to other factors that influence our climate. It appears many scientists who are not actually climate scientists have simply jumped on the bandwagon.

A 2012 survey, for example, found strong skepticism among members of the American Meteorological Society. A petition signed by 31,000 scientists states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of [...] carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." They key word there is “catastrophic.”

    “Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch – most recently published in Environmental Science and Policy in 2010 – have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

    Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.” — Roy Spencera & Joseph Bast

One of the methods used to assert the claim that there is an overwhelming consensus seems to be by asking or polling scientists as to whether they agree that C02 levels in the atmosphere have increased, that the Earth has been warming (albeit only a little) and that man has played some part.

The problem with that is this is something almost all climate scientists can agree on. What’s not agreed upon is the fact that this has no obvious implication of danger, yet that narrative is and has been constantly portrayed as support for catastrophism and alarmism.

    “Our crop plants evolved about 400 million years ago, when CO2 in the atmosphere was about 5000 parts per million! Our evergreen trees and shrubs evolved about 360 million years ago, with CO2 levels at about 4,000 ppm. When our deciduous trees evolved about 160 million years ago, the CO2 level was about 2,200 ppm – still five times the current level.  — Dennis T. Avery, agricultural and environmental economist, senior fellow for the Center for Global Food Issues in Virginia, and formerly a senior analyst for the U.S. Department of State

The Politicization of Climate Science

As a result of alarmism, political policy and major decisions regarding how we live are put into motion, all which seem to further take away our privacy, freedom, and increase the already strong surveillance state which eventually puts more wealth and control into the hands of the already wealthy “one percent.” Some are even concerned that climate lockdowns may be implemented one day in the future.

President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were two of many who repeatedly used the 97 percent tagline. Kerry went so far as to say that “97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is largely responsible.” This is still the messaging we get today from big politics.

Furthermore, an important consideration in this discussion is that we are attempting to define a single number to represent a range of opinions which have many nuances.

As Oreskes says in her article, “Often it is challenging to determine exactly what the authors of the paper[s] do think about global climate change.”

Doomsday scenarios may generate clicks and sell advertisements, but they truly fail to convey that science is nuanced. Apocalyptic predictions are not at all evidence based, they simply contribute to unnecessary panic and fear offering false narratives that can overwhelm readers, leading to inaction and hopelessness, especially among today’s youth.

Where have we seen this politicization before? Several researchers from various academic institutions in the United Kingdom, United States and Canada published a paper in February 2022 titled, “The Unintended Consequences of COVID-19 Vaccine Policy: Why Mandates, Passports, and Segregated Lockdowns may cause more Harm than Good.” In it, they explain,

    “Public and political discourse quickly normalized stigma against people who remain unvaccinated, often woven into the tone and framing of media articles; for example, a popular news outlet compiled a list of “notable anti-vaxxers who have died from COVID-19” (Savulescu and Giubilini, 2021). Political leaders have singled out the unvaccinated, blaming them for: the continuation of the pandemic; stress on hospital capacity; the emergence of new variants; driving transmission to vaccinated individuals; and the necessity of ongoing lockdowns, masks, school closures and other restrictive measures.

    Political rhetoric has descended into moralizing, scapegoating, blaming and condescending language using pejorative terms and actively promoting stigma and discrimination as tools to increase vaccination.”

There are many examples that can be found to illustrate how politics dominates climate reports. For example, if we go back to the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC, we can see how much the agenda overshadowed and muted the actual science. The scientists included these three statements in the draft:

    “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

    “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”

    “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

Yet, the “summary” and conclusion statement of the IPCC report was written by politicians, not scientists. On many occasions, multiple climate scientists have explained that the rules force the scientists to change their reports to match the politicians’ final ‘summary. Those three statements by scientists above were replaced with this:

    “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”

The New York Times briefly covered the fact that many “skeptics” were making these accusations, that the report was overplaying and inaccurately connecting human activity to the potential for catastrophic climate change, with no science to back that assertion.

Dr. Richard Lindzen, lead author of Chapter 7, "Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks," of the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report on climate change, and retired Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology expresses his concern,

    “How did we get to this point where the science ceased to be interested in the fascinating question of accounting for the remarkable history of the Earth’s climate for an understanding of how climate actually works and instead devoted itself to a component of political correctness. Perhaps one should take a broader view of what’s going on.”

There are basically three groups of people dealing with the issue of climate change. Groups 1 and 2 are scientists, and group three consists of politicians, environmental groups and media.

In the video below, Lindzen does a great job of breaking down of where scientists are really at.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c

Final Thoughts

It’s always seemed odd to me that major environmental disasters, like the recent chemical spill/train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, and catastrophic human activity that has led to massive deforestation and the extreme pollution of our fresh water lakes, air, soils, and oceans, continue to be ignored and not presented as urgent. There’s no doubt about it, we are destroying our mother. We have to ask ourselves, do governments really care about the well being of Earth, or are they simply using climate change for selfish purposes and ulterior motives, like big business?

It’s frustrating to watch, because humans have the potential to create a world and an environment where all life can thrive.

Furthermore, ground breaking technologies that are 100 percent environmentally friendly continue to be ignored. You can see a few examples we’ve covered here, and here.

The complex science behind the CO2 narrative specifically is a topic for another article. The correlation between C02 and temperature has many holes in it.

Another quote from Lindzen stressing this point:

    “Now here is the currently popular narrative concerning this system. The climate, a complex multifactor system, can be summarized in just one variable, the globally averaged temperature change, and is primarily controlled by the 1-2% perturbation in the energy budget due to a single variable – carbon dioxide – among many variables of comparable importance. This is an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that borders on magical thinking. It is, however, the narrative that has been widely accepted, even among many sceptics. This acceptance is a strong indicator of the problem Snow identified. Many politicians and learned societies go even further: They endorse carbon dioxide as the controlling variable, and although mankind’s CO2 contributions are small compared to the much larger but uncertain natural exchanges with both the oceans and the biosphere, they are confident that they know precisely what policies to implement in order to control.”

Lindzen mentions that believing in the CO2 narrative is pretty close to believe in “magic.” How could such an expert in the field, and thousands of others, come to this conclusion? And why is there such a polarizing viewpoint from big media and politicians?

Perhaps he and many others are wrong, but the point is that there is never a discussion or presentation of opposing viewpoints within the mainstream. Instead, scientists who speak out against the status quo viewpoint are constantly demonized, ridiculed, character assassinated and censored.

During a World Economic Forum (WEF) anti-disinformation panel in September last year, the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications, Melissa Fleming, announced that they "own the science.” She was specifically referencing their new climate change agenda, and their efforts to censor “misinformation.”

From my perspective, all I see is dogma due to political actors and others seeking to exploit the opportunities that abound in the multi-trillion dollar energy sector, and leaders that hide behind the guise of actually caring about our planet. But perhaps I am wrong.

I’ve been a big advocate for clean energy technologies and the preservation of our planet for many years. It’s the main drive behind my work. I am all for clean green initiatives, but the consciousness and intention behind these initiatives is what concerns me.

What type of world will we create if we can’t discuss basic ideas? What type of world will we create when we choose to run, hide and censor as opposed to having important conversations? How can we stop identifying so deeply with positions, so that we can be more free to shift ideas when new information helps us understand things better?

Regenerate, Beyond The C02 Narrative

I’d like to point you to our documentary, Regenerate, Beyond The C02 Narrative. One of the most important aspects of Regenerate is that we are looking at our environment from such a limited point of view that we can’t identify the real issues we face, and that our level of thinking, or consciousness, is completely disconnected from the solutions required to truly shift our relationship with our planet. Thus, we are creating solutions that don’t truly address making the environment cleaner or better long term.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dM7wE4CETr8

Putin is in Cahoots with the Globalists!

Putin is not as smart as the western media try to make out of him. Either he is ignorant about the motives of the West or he is misinformed by his aides...

Is Putin in Cahoots with the Globalists?
Interview with Riley Waggaman
By Riley Waggaman and Mike Whitney
Global Research, October 13, 2023

Mike Whitney (MW): In many parts of the world, Vladimir Putin is admired for his outspoken defense of national sovereignty. But on the domestic front, many of Putin’s policies seem to align with those of the Western globalists. As you note in a recent post at Substack Putin just “signed a decree on the creation of a ‘digital’ domestic passport,” which many people think will pave the way to technocratic tyranny. Am I exaggerating the risks of digital ID here, or does this development pose a serious threat to personal freedom?

Riley Waggaman (RW): Imagine if the United States started issuing digital driver’s licenses that could be used as an official form of ID. What would the reaction be? I suspect a lot of Americans would feel “worried”, for lack of a better term. And not without good reason.

The digital passport system being implemented in Russia is deserving of the same skepticism.

First some context: Russia has a “domestic passport” that basically functions as a national ID. You use your domestic passport to open up a bank account, and for when you have to interact with the local bureaucracy. It’s an important document that you need to do ordinary, everyday things.

The digital passport has been billed as an electronic copy of the domestic passport, accessible via smartphone (via the State Services portal, Gosuslugi). The government is still deciding in what situations/scenarios the digital passport will be accepted as a valid form of ID.

Proponents of this digital document say it’s more convenient than a paper ID, and perhaps they’re right. The problem of course is that modern conveniences can lead to all sorts of unpleasantness, and with time these unpleasant things can even become “normal”.

The fact that this ID will be linked to the State Services portal (Gosuslugi) is certainly cause for concern and it’s easy to imagine how digital passports could be used (and abused) by the Russian government — or any government, for that matter. All in the name of convenience.

Of course, the authorities promise that digital IDs will never be made mandatory. Well, I’m old enough to remember when the Russian government promised that Covid vaccination would be 100% voluntary.

MW: Russia appears to be spearheading the transition to Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC) with its creation of the “digital ruble”. In your opinion, what are the potential pitfalls of such a plan?

RW: Excluding the possibility of imposing a full-spectrum digital gulag, the digital ruble has no obvious benefits. I would say the same of all CBDCs, of course.

Some claim that the digital ruble is a very necessary, prudent, and brilliant way to bypass Western sanctions. This is untrue. The Bank of Russia has a fully functional Financial Messaging System (SPFS) that operates independently from SWIFT. Here are a few RT.com headlines for your consideration:

    March 2017: “Russia’s banking system has SWIFT alternative ready”
    February 2018: “Russian banks ready to switch off SWIFT – official”
    October 2019: Russia, China & India to set up alternative to SWIFT payment system to connect 3 billion people”

All of these articles are about SPFS and were published long before the Bank of Russia announced its intention to develop the digital ruble in October 2020.

I’m puzzled as to why so many westerners who claim to understand the dangers of CBDCs think the digital ruble is somehow “different”. The Bank of Russia’s CBDC has been almost unanimously condemned by the country’s most prominent commentators in the alternative/conservative media space. Even mainstream outlets like Tsargrad have published scathing take-downs of the digital ruble.

Meanwhile, in English-language “alternative media”, we are blessed with the profound postulations of deep thinkers like Simplicius who write nipple-hardening purple prose about how amazing and anti-globalist the Bank of Russia is, and why the digital ruble is super hip and cool.

I just don’t understand why English-language commentary (all non-Russian commentary, actually) is so far removed from what patriotic Russians living in Russia are saying about their own country, in Russian.

By the way: The Bank of Russia has already reneged on its promise that it will never, ever “color” digital rubles so that they can only be used to purchase certain items. The central bank’s deputy chairman recently said that placing restrictions on how digital rubles can be spent is a real possibility — and one that will be explored in the future. (link)

The digital ruble hasn’t even entered circulation yet, and the Bank of Russia is already open to “exploring” how this fun new tool of total control — endorsed by Davos, the IMF, the G20, – can be used to curb and stomp on basic human dignity.

MW: Is Russia moving closer to mandatory vaccinations?

Note: Here’s a quote from one of your recent posts:

Russia’s Ministry of Health wants to amend the National Preventive Immunization Calendar so that COVID vaccination could be mandatory for “vulnerable categories of citizens” whenever the country’s benevolent health authorities believe the “epidemiological” situation warrants another round of coercive injections…..

Of course, any new mandatory vaccination decrees would also apply to state employees, including teachers, doctors, military personnel, etc. Edward Slavsquat, Substack

RW: If Russia’s enterprising health ministry — which works tirelessly to safeguard public health — decides that “Covid” is “spreading” at an unacceptable rate, various categories of citizens will have to choose between getting vaxxed or losing their jobs. This is of course still voluntary vaccination because Russians get to choose whether they want to be employed or inject themselves with an unproven genetic goo developed in cooperation with AstraZeneca.

There are many highly intelligent intellectuals — like Aussie Cossack — who continue to pretend that Russia never had mandatory Covid vaccination, which is very brave considering that as of January 2023, there were still hundreds of Russians who were barred from working because they refused to be injected.

The Gamaleya Center continues to “update” its Covid vaccine, and the Russian government continues to shill this dangerous and barely tested trash to children. Whether Covid vaccination will become as ubiquitous and “normal” as the annual flu shot (which is even shoved into the little arms of Russian children every year; I know because I had to sign a document forbidding the kindergarten nurse from injecting my 6-year-old son) is an open question.

But you have to be impressively credulous to believe that the Russian government wants to keep Covid vaccination a purely voluntary affair. Russia’s health bureaucracy has a very poor track record when it comes to calling out Big Pharma/WHO scams. Did you know that you have to get an HIV test (an old school 1980s Fauci scam) to get a work visa in Russia? Well, now you know.

MW: Here’s an excerpt from one of your recent posts that will surprise many readers who think that President Putin actually opposes the Davos crowd and their globalist agenda:

“To defeat globalism, Moscow is reluctantly but responsibly adopting the globalist agenda….

There is no way to stop the technological “progress” promoted by Davos, the G20, the IMF, the World Bank, the UN, and the WHO, which is why Moscow must closely collaborate with all of these globalist organizations in order to maintain globalist parity with the Collective West — otherwise Russia won’t be able to protect herself from the globalists.”

And, here’s more from another post:

“…almost every joint declaration Moscow signs (whether it be a G20 Declaration, a BRICS Declaration, or just some word salad authored with the help of Beijing) includes a passage praising the vital roles of the World Health Organization, the World Trade Organization, and the International Monetary Fund? This seems like relevant information.

The Russian government has repeatedly said it has no intention of withdrawing from the WHO, the WTO, or even the IMF. It would be nice if Cerise could update his article to reflect this undeniable reality. Edward Slavsquat, Substack

You appear to be saying that — even though Russia is fighting the western oligarchy in Ukraine — it is still marching in lockstep with the globalists on matters of social policy. Can you expand on this a bit? And how does Putin fit in with all of this? Is he an unwitting accomplice or an eager participant?

RW: Is Moscow fighting the western oligarchy in Ukraine? Gazprom has been pumping gas across Ukraine since Day 1 of the Special Military Operation (SMO). And that’s not the only natural resource that Russian “entrepreneurs” are desperately transiting through Ukrainian territory.

I have yet to read about a western-backed Ukrainian oligarch having his home vaporized by a Russian missile. Actually, it’s doubtful that a single western oligarch, anywhere, has been inconvenienced by the SMO. On the contrary, it has been a wonderful money-making opportunity — for Russian oligarchs as well.

But to address the second part of your question: Anyone who follows Russian-language media knows that Moscow is in near-total lockstep with the West when it comes to soul-crushing technocracy and other forms “safe and convenient” societal progress. Actually, an objective observer would recognize that Russia is far ahead of the West in implementing “digitalization” shilled by Davos and other celebrated globalist organizations.

Putin has done nothing meaningful to slow this process down. Actually, by allowing glorious patriots like Herman Gref to spearhead AI, biometrics, QR-coded cattle-tagging, facial recognition systems, “sustainable development”, and other trendy tech-development in Russia, Putin is an unapologetic accomplice in all the unsavory madness pestering Russia and every other country.

Seriously, just look at how the Russian government treats school children (like diseased, suspicious cattle), and you will begin to understand where this country is headed. Children are the future, after all!

MW: Can you summarize your views on the Covid-19 vaccine?

RW: It’s bad.

MW: You say that “Russians are not too keen on Russia’s Central Bank chief Elvira Nabiullina”. According to you: “The socialists, the monarchists, the neo-soviets, the conservatives, the military hardliners — with few exceptions,… all despise Elvira and her digital rubles.”

Later in your article you say: “(Elvira) Nabiullina is a symbol of pursuing an economic policy contrary to Russia’s interests.”

That’s pretty harsh criticism. Can you explain what’s going on? Why would Putin re-appoint someone to such an important position who – many feel – is implementing a globalist agenda?

RW: The second quote is actually from Nakanune.ru, which is a left-leaning independent news outlet based in Yekaterinburg. Excluding state-funded media, every news outlet in Russia hates Elvira Nabiullina and thinks she’s a globalist stooge who is actively working to destroy Russia. The conservatives, the Orthodox hardliners, the Communists, the Neo-Bolshiviks, the nationalists — they all despise Nabiullina. This is a fact and why it is never conveyed to non-Russian “alternative news” consumers is a massive mystery.

I haven’t the slightest idea why Putin nominated this Yale World Fellow graduate for another term as the Bank of Russia’s governor, even though she is awful and nobody likes her. Probably this is part of Putin’s ingenious strategy to defeat the globalists with a programmable CBDC 100% controlled by an IMF-obedient central bank that operates independently from the Russian state.

MW: In our last interview, you delivered a stirring summary of our current epoch saying:

“I am often reminded of that unsettling line from Alexis de Tocqueville: “I go back from age to age up to the remotest antiquity; but I find no parallel to what is occurring before my eyes: as the past has ceased to throw its light upon the future, the mind of man wanders in obscurity.”

With each passing day it seems we are being forcibly severed from our own past. We are being “retrained” to accept a new civilizational model. It’s happening at the local, regional, national and global level. It is tearing apart families.

I do believe we are facing an evil that has no equal in human history.” Edward Slavsquat Substack

Judging from the response, I think there are a great number of people who feel the same as you do… My final question to you is this: Do you still feel as pessimistic as you did then?

RW: Mike, I would like to thank you (again) for that interview — it remains the most-read post on my blog. As you probably recall, the realities of Russia’s “public health” policies lacked “accuracy” (I’m trying to be charitable here) in 2021, and I think our internet exchange paved the way for a more fact-based, nuanced discussion about Russia’s “Covid response”.

Actually, I’m quite optimistic in the sense that I have accepted that there isn’t a 5-dimensional omnipotent white hat Twitter account that will save me from the Western Satanists, and I will have to save myself — which is actually relatively painless, easy, and even fun. I would even describe my current outlook as hopeful. But I fully understand the pessimism of someone who is sick of the US government, or any western government; someone who looks longingly at the Russian government as an alternative.

The problem with this curious way of thinking is that according to official data, around 30% of Russians live on less than $10 a day, Russia is facing a catastrophic demographic crisis (and it’s hard to think of a more basic metric for gauging the health and of a nation), and the Russian government is a fanatical proponent of policies that are chipping away at the last vestiges of basic human dignity.

But again, I am an optimist. I have been able to connect with like-minded individuals here in Russia, and all over the world, and my life has greatly improved as a result. I am able to live the life I want to live without having to make obscene excuses for the inexcusable.

We should all be guided by truth, friendship, and love, and why the so-called “alternative media” is so obsessed with carrying water for governments who offer the world nothing but more of the same (sadness) is truly amazing. Enough already. We have everything we need.

*

Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Riley Waggaman is a Moscow-based writer. He worked for Russia Insider, RT, and Press TV. He contributes to Russian-Faith.com and Anti-Empire.com. He writes regularly about Russia on his Substack account: Edwardslavsquat.substack.com

https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/is-putin-in-cahoots-with-the-globalists/