Actual interview starts at 0:55
Senator Rand Paul on Thursday blocked a resolution from Senator Bernie Sanders’ to implement even more sanctions against Russia, demand Trump speak with special counsel Robert Mueller and back the “intelligence community’s assessment” on Russkie meddling….
Sanders was one of the targets mentioned by this survivor of the global pedophile-blackmail network. But even absent this testimony, his steadfast belief in the obvious big lie of russian “election meddling” should raise questions for anyone paying attention.
World Mercury Project Note: WMP has internal documents in which the FDA acknowledges that technology that allows for the creation of these new vaccines has outpaced their ability to predict adverse events. Shouldn’t our federal agencies be calling for a moratorium until we have that knowledge—especially since it is heavily reported that the CDC/FDA post-marketing surveillance systems are inadequate to pick up problems after licensure?
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) has launched efforts to create a vaccine that would protect people from most flu strains, all at once, with a single shot.
Over the years, I’ve written many articles refuting claims that vaccines are safe and effective, but we’ll put all that aside for the moment and follow the bouncing ball.
Massachusetts Senator and big spender, Ed Markey, has introduced a bill that would shovel no less than a billion dollars toward the universal flu-vaccine project.
Here is a sentence from an NIAID press release that mentions one of several research approaches:
“NIAID Vaccine Research Center scientists have initiated Phase 1/2 studies of a universal flu vaccine strategy that includes an investigational DNA-based vaccine (called a DNA ‘prime’)…”
This is quite troubling, if you know what the phrase “DNA vaccine” means. It refers to what the experts are touting as the next generation of immunizations.
Instead of injecting a piece of a virus into a person, in order to stimulate the immune system, synthesized genes would be shot into the body. This isn’t traditional vaccination anymore. It’s gene therapy.
In any such method, where genes are edited, deleted, added, no matter what the pros say, there are always “unintended consequences,” to use their polite phrase. The ripple effects scramble the genetic structure in numerous unknown ways.
Here is the inconvenient truth about DNA vaccines—
They will permanently alter your DNA.
The reference is the New York Times, 3/15/15, “Protection Without a Vaccine.” It describes the frontier of research—the use of synthetic genes to “protect against disease,” while changing the genetic makeup of humans. This is not science fiction:
“By delivering synthetic genes into the muscles of the [experimental] monkeys, the scientists are essentially re-engineering the animals to resist disease.”
“’The sky’s the limit,’ said Michael Farzan, an immunologist at Scripps and lead author of the new study.”
“The first human trial based on this strategy — called immunoprophylaxis by gene transfer, or I.G.T. — is underway, and several new ones are planned.” [That was three years ago.]
“I.G.T. is altogether different from traditional vaccination. It is instead a form of gene therapy. Scientists isolate the genes that produce powerful antibodies against certain diseases and then synthesize artificial versions. The genes are placed into viruses and injected into human tissue, usually muscle.”
Here is the punchline:
“The viruses invade human cells with their DNA payloads, and the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA. If all goes well, the new genes instruct the cells to begin manufacturing powerful antibodies.”…
But they MEAN well don’t they? Doktor please reassure me! I’m suffering from human intelligence syndrome! I need more mercury!
Letter to HHS director:
… All drugs licensed by the FDA undergo long-term double-blind pre-licensure clinical trials during which the rate of adverse reactions in the group receiving the drug under review is compared to the rate of adverse reactions in a group receiving an inert placebo, such as a sugar pill or saline injection. For example: Enbrel’s pre-licensure trials followed subjects up to 80 months and controls received a saline injection.3 Lipitor’s pre-licensure trials lasted a median of 4.8 years and controls received a sugar pill.4 Botox’s pre-licensure trials lasted a median of 51 weeks and controls received a saline injection.5 And even with these long-term studies, drugs are still often recalled.
In contrast, vaccines are not required to undergo long-term double-blind inert-placebo controlled trials to assess safety. In fact, not a single one of the clinical trials for vaccines given to babies and toddlers had a control group receiving an inert placebo. Further, most pediatric vaccines currently on the market have been approved based on studies with inadequate followup periods of only a few days or weeks.
For example, of the two Hepatitis B vaccines licensed by the FDA for injection into oneday-old babies, Merck’s was licensed after trials that solicited adverse reactions for only five days after vaccination and GlaxoSmithKline’s was licensed after trials that solicited adverse reactions for only four days after vaccination.6 Similarly, the HiB vaccines sold by these same companies were licensed based on trials which solicited adverse reactions for three and four days, respectively, after vaccination.7 The only stand-alone polio vaccine was licensed after a mere 48- hour follow-up period. 8
Moreover, these trials either had no control group or a control group which received other vaccines as a “placebo.”9 This means each new vaccine need only be roughly as safe as one (or in some cases numerous) previously licensed vaccines. Such flawed and unscientific study designs cannot establish the actual safety profile of any vaccine. The real adverse event rate for a vaccine can only be determined by comparing subjects receiving the vaccine with those receiving an inert placebo. Yet, this basic study design, required for every drug, is not required before or after licensing a vaccine. The 1986 Act expressly requires that you, as the Secretary, “shall make or assure improvements in … the licensing … and research on vaccines, in order to reduce the risks of adverse reactions to vaccines.” (42 U.S.C. § 300aa-27(a)(2).)
Given this statutory obligation:
(1) Please explain how HHS justifies licensing any pediatric vaccine without first conducting a long-term clinical trial in which the rate of adverse reactions is compared between the subject group and a control group receiving an inert placebo?
(2) Please list and provide the safety data relied upon when recommending babies receive the Hepatitis B vaccine on the first day of life? III.
Post-Licensure Surveillance of Vaccine Adverse Events
The lack of pre-licensure safety data leaves the assessment of vaccine safety to the postlicensing period when they are being administered to children in the “real world.” To capture vaccine adverse events in the real world, the 1986 Act established the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) operated by HHS. (42 U.S.C. § 300aa-25.) In 2016, VAERS received 59,117 reports of adverse vaccine events, including 432 deaths, 1,091 permanent disabilities, 4,132 hospitalizations, and 10,284 emergency room visits.10
However, only a tiny fraction of adverse vaccine events are reported to VAERS. An HHS funded study by Harvard Medical School tracked reporting to VAERS over a three-year period at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care involving 715,000 patients and found that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.” 11 A U.S. House Report similarly stated: “Former FDA Commissioner David A. Kessler has estimated that VAERS reports currently represent only a fraction of the serious adverse events.”12
Assuming VAERS captures a full 1 percent of adverse events – which is more than is estimated – the VAERS data above from 2016 may reflect that in that year alone there were 5,911,700 adverse vaccine events, including 43,200 deaths, 109,100 permanent disabilities, 413,200 hospitalizations, and 1,028,400 emergency room visits.
Of course, these figures are merely estimates. It would be far better if adverse events reports were automatically created and submitted to VAERS to avoid the issue of underreporting. Automated reporting would provide invaluable information that could clarify which vaccines might cause which harms and to whom, potentially avoiding these injuries and deaths.
The idea of automating adverse reaction reporting to VAERS is not new or even difficult to achieve. 13 An agency within HHS, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, sought to do exactly that in 2007 when it provided an approximately $1 million grant to automate VAERS reporting at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care.14 The result was the successful automation of adverse event reports at Harvard Pilgrim: Preliminary data were collected from June 2006 through October 2009 on 715,000 patients, and 1.4 million doses (of 45 different vaccines) were given to 376,452 individuals. Of these doses, 35,570 possible reactions … were identified.15 These results should have been concerning to HHS since they show that over only a three-year period, there were 35,570 reportable reactions in just 376,452 vaccine recipients.
After automating adverse events reports at Harvard Pilgrim, the developers of this system asked the CDC to take the final step of linking VAERS with the Harvard Pilgrim system so that these reports could be automatically transmitted into VAERS. Instead, the CDC refused to cooperate. As the Harvard grant recipients explained:
Unfortunately, there was never an opportunity to perform system performance assessments because the necessary CDC contacts were no longer available and the CDC consultants responsible for receiving data were no longer responsive to our multiple requests to proceed with testing and evaluation.16
After three years and spending $1 million of taxpayers’ money, the CDC refused to even communicate with the HHS’ Harvard Medical School grant recipients. Given HHS’s statutory mandate to assure safer vaccines, it should have rushed forward with automating VAERS reporting — not ignored the requests by the HHS’s Harvard grant recipients….
Vaccine whistleblower Dr. Suzanne Humphries blew even my mind recently: she believes vaccines have become a means of inducing chronic disease in order to profit from life long treatments. How obvious can this be? This is why I just wasn’t cut out to be a corporate CEO.
While beginning construction on Fort Bend Independent School District’s new James Reese Career and Technical Center, a disturbing site was discovered. The bodies of 95 people were found in a mass grave. The bodies are suspected to be the remains of black people who were “leased” into forced labor by the state of Texas and subsequently worked to death.
After the construction company began to break ground in February, the first remains were found leading archaeologists on a journey that would eventually uncover 95 people. According to the archaeologists, these people were probably part of Texas’ convict lease system.
The convict lease system first came about in Texas in 1867 when railroad companies needed cheap labor to construct their railways. Despite slavery being made illegal after the Civil War, black people were still rounded up and mass incarcerated only to be sold back into servitude through the government’s new program.
For decades, state prisons acted as forced labor camps and raised a significant portion of money for the Texas government. Although it was illegal for individuals to own slaves, when government officials came up with the convict lease system, it essentially created a loophole that legalized slavery — for the government only.
This system continued well into the 20th century and only ended when a reporter for the San Antonio Express began writing a series of articles exposing this horrific practice of state slavery. After the exposé on the convict lease system, the government ended all the leases and brought the black men back to the prisons where they were unfortunately still forced to work on state-owned farms, or on private property the state had acquired through long term agreements.
Remnants of this system are still alive today as prisons across the country pay prisoners — many of whom are incarcerated for victimless crimes — little to no money for their labor.
According to reports, the bodies found in the Sugarland location, just outside of Houston, were in wooden coffins. Investigators estimate that they could’ve been put into the ground as late as 1910.
Researchers noted that the bodies all showed signs that they were severely malnourished and must have undergone massive physical stress….
Hopefully it’s clear by now that there is no “political” process going on in the USA, if you equate politics with discourse over policy issues. Even the unexpected election of somewhat-outsider Trump has resulted in limited changes to the empire’s actual domestic or foreign policies, although some hope remains in his promise to “clean out the swamp.” I remain hopeful, mainly because I know that networks of corruption are very difficult to subdue, and the merger of corporate and political power epitomized by google make it even harder.
What if, early in the morning on Election Day in 2016, Mark Zuckerberg had used Facebook to broadcast “go-out-and-vote” reminders just to supporters of Hillary Clinton? Extrapolating from Facebook’s own published data, that might have given Mrs. Clinton a boost of 450,000 votes or more, with no one but Mr. Zuckerberg and a few cronies knowing about the manipulation.
Because, like most Democrats, Mr. Zuckerberg was overconfident that day, I don’t believe he sent that message, but there is no way to know for sure, and there is certainly nothing to stop him from broadcasting election-tilting messages like that in the future — and not just in the U.S. but in countries around the world.
Do we have to wait for whistleblowers or warrants to learn, belatedly, about shenanigans of this sort, or is there a way to detect them as they occur? What kind of monitoring system would it take? Is there a way to look over the shoulders of internet users to see what overzealous tech companies are showing them on their screens?
This is the story of how my colleagues and I, working in the shadows of the internet, developed such a system and used it to monitor what Google, Bing and Yahoo were showing users in the months leading up to the 2016 election — a working prototype for a large-scale monitoring system that we hope will soon be protecting all of us 24 hours a day from the unfettered power of Big Tech….
My research, which has now looked at four national elections and multiple topics and candidates, has repeatedly shown that Google can shift opinions and votes dramatically without people knowing. It is one thing, however, to demonstrate this power in laboratory and online experiments and quite another to show that Google’s search results actually favor one particular candidate or cause….
Late in 2015, my associates and I began to sketch out plans for setting up a nationwide system to monitor election-related search results in the months leading up to the November 2016 election. This is where that old dictum — “There is a fine line between paranoia and caution” — came into play. It seemed obvious to me that this new system had to be secret in all its aspects, although I wasn’t yet sure what those aspects were….
…In all, we had preserved 13,207 election-related searches (in other words, 132,070 search results), along with the 98,044 web pages to which the search results linked. The web-page ratings we obtained from online workers (a mean number for each page, indicating how strongly that page favored either Clinton or Trump) allowed us to answer the original questions we had posed. Here is what we found:
1) Bias. Overall, search rankings favored Mrs. Clinton over most of the 6-month period we had monitored — enough, perhaps, to have shifted more than two million votes to her without people knowing how this had occurred. The pro-Clinton tilt appeared even though the search terms our field agents chose to use were, on average, slightly biased toward Mr. Trump.
2) Lots of bias. Between October 15th and Election Day — the period when we received the largest volume of data — on all 22 of the days we received data, search rankings favored Mrs. Clinton in all 10 of the search positions on the first page of search results.
3) Google. The pro-Clinton favoritism was more than twice as large on Google than on Yahoo’s search engine, which is, in any case, little more than an offshoot of Google’s search engine these days. We had to discard our Bing data because all of it came from gmail users (more about this issue in a moment).
4) Demographic differences. Pro-Clinton search results were especially prevalent among decided voters, males, the young, and voters in Democratic states. But voters in Republican and swing states saw pro-Clinton search results too.
5) Tapering off. Over the course of the 10 days following the election, the pro-Clinton tilt gradually disappeared. All of these findings were highly statistically significant.
Perhaps the most disturbing thing we found had to do with that control I mentioned earlier. We never tried to collect any Chrome data; this was just our cover story, after all. But we did take a careful look at the Firefox data we received from the gmail users we had recruited, and we found that the gmail users who were using the Google search engine on Firefox received search results that were almost perfectly unbiased — eerily unbiased, in fact — about six times less biased than the search results the non-gmail users saw.
You can draw whatever conclusions you like from that last finding. For me, it says simply that you should take precautions when you are monitoring the output of an online company that might want to mess with your data.
Perhaps at this point you are saying, “Okay, they found evidence of a pro-Hillary slant in search results, but maybe that slant was generated by user activity. That’s not Google’s fault.” That, in fact, is exactly what Google always says when antitrust investigators find, time after time, that Google’s search results favor Google products and services. Favoritism in search results, Google says, occurs naturally because of “organic search activity” by users. To that I say: Gimme a break.
As I documented in an article on online censorship for U.S. News and World Report in 2016, Google has complete control over the search results it shows people — even down to the level of customized results it shows each individual. Under Europe’s right-to-be-forgotten law, Google regularly removes more than 100,000 items from its search results each year with surgical precision, and it also demotes specific companies in its search rankings when they violate Google’s vague Terms of Service agreement. The extensive investigation conducted by EU antitrust investigators before they fined Google $2.7 billion in June 2017 for having biased search results also shows that Google exercises deliberate and precise control over its search rankings, both to promote its own products and to demote the products of its competitors.
Our own demographic data and the data from our gmail users also demonstrate the high degree of control Google has over it search results. You can adjust an algorithm to respond to the search activity of users any way you like: You can make it shift search results so that they favor one candidate, his or her opponent, or neither one, just as we do in our SEME experiments. As any experienced coder can tell you — any honest experienced coder, that is — Google’s “organic search” defense is absurd.
Eventually, though, I realized that it doesn’t matter where the favoritism is coming from. Because favoritism in search results shifts opinions dramatically without people’s knowledge, search engines need to be strictly regulated, period — particularly when it comes to socially important activities like elections. If we don’t regulate search results, when favoritism creeps in for any reason — even “organically” (although that idea is nonsense) — it has the potential to influence people, further propelling that favoritism in a kind of digital bandwagon effect…
… If I may be frank, the US Intel community looks like a much bigger threat to American life and values than anything Mr. Putin is doing, for instance his alleged “meddling” in US elections. This word, meddling, absolutely pervades the captive Resistance news outlets these days. It has a thrilling vagueness about it, intimating all kinds of dark deeds without specifying anything, as consorting with Satan once did in our history. The reason: the only specific acts associated with this meddling include the disclosure of incriminating emails among the Democratic National Committee leadership, and a tiny gang of Facebook trolls making sport of profoundly idiotic and dysfunctional American electoral politics….
Even Kunstler doesn’t get it: the russians had nothing to do with the email leak to wikileaks. This is a magician’s trick, turning a disclosure of corruption in high places into a reason to go to war with russia. This is an example of the big lie principle.
Every day the MSM gives us more reasons to abolish media monopolies in all their forms. No self-governing country can survive information corruption for long.
Ecuador is preparing to hand over WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to the UK in “coming weeks or even days,” RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan reported, as political support and sympathy for Assange’s predicament have more or less evaporated since the arrival of an administration that largely views Assange as an inherited problem, and would like more than anything to finally be rid of him. “My sources tell [Julian] Assange will be handed over to Britain in the coming weeks or even days,” Simonyan wrote in a recent tweet which was reposted by WikiLeaks. “Like never before, I wish my sources were wrong,” she continued….
The domestic side of late stage empire, when the beast begins to feed on itself.