(Natural News) The absolute worst medical decision a parent of a newborn child can make is to allow doctors and nurses to severely compromise the immune system of their infant by injecting him or her with known neurotoxins, foreign proteins, and carcinogens like mercury, formaldehyde, monkey kidney cells, pig viruses, and genetically modified cells from human abortions. That’s why billionaire Bill Gates, the infamous and insidious population control freak and Microsoft mogul, refused to vaccinate his own children when they were growing up, even while he promotes toxic jabs all over the world, especially in third world countries.
It’s true. Gates’ former private doctor from Seattle back in the 1990s said, “I don’t know if he had them vaccinated as adults, but I can tell you he point blank refused to vaccinate them as children.” We know this because the quote was taken from Gates’ doctor during a side note conversation at a medical symposium, which caused a small uproar among the attending physicians, who blasphemed Gates’ doctor for breaking rank with doctor-patient confidentiality (even though it’s a “gray area” because he was speaking to other doctors privately). Still, it was too late – the cat got out of the bag, and now the world knows the ultimate hypocrisy of the elite who radically and religiously push vaccines as the “holy grail” of medicine, all while they keep the same poisons out of their own children’s blood and muscle tissue, knowing good and well the high risk of side effects and adverse events far outweighs any possible benefits….
“Vaccine hesitancy”, not vaccine refusal or vaccine informed dissent. “JUST GIVE ME A SECOND OK, LET ME ROLL UP MY SLEEVE FIRST! Please?”
When they have to bring Orwell to bear you know they’re selling snake oil.
The lead New York Times (NYT) editorial today is titled, “Know The Enemy.” According to the NYT, the “enemy” is anyone who questions the safety and efficacy of any vaccine.
I guess that makes me the enemy. I thought I was a board-certified physician trying to read and decipher the research on vaccines to help guide my patients on how to make their best health care decisions.
The NYT states, “Leading global health threats typically are caused by the plagues and perils of low-income countries – but vaccine hesitancy is as American as can be.” Both parts of that sentence are correct.
In the early 20th Century, infection was the number one killer of Americans and it killed a high percentage of our youth. However, by the 1950’s infection rates for nearly every childhood vaccine – preventable illness (as well as other infectious illnesses like scarlet fever) had drastically declined-BEFORE vaccines were developed and mandated. In fact, for the major vaccine-preventable illnesses such as measles, mumps, diphtheria, and pertussis, the death rate declined well over 90% BEFORE vaccines were mandated. How did that occur? The death rate from infectious diseases declined not by vaccination, but by public health measures. This includes providing clean water to our houses and safely removing waste products.
Did vaccines lower the death rate for their respective illnesses? We don’t know since the rates were already declining dramatically before the mass vaccination program began. To imply that vaccines were responsible for this dramatic decline in pediatric infectious deaths in the 20th Century is nothing more than FAKE NEWS!
One of the best indicators of the health of a country is the infant mortality rate. Researchers correlated the number of vaccines given to infants and the mortality rate for ages five and under. Guess who gave the most vaccines and guess who had the highest infant mortality rate? If you guessed the US, you win.
The NYT states, “On the internet, anti-vaccine propaganda has outpaced pro-vaccine public health information. The anti-vaxxers, as they are colloquially known, have hundreds of websites promoting their message, a roster of tech- and media-savvy influencers and an aggressive political arm that includes at least a dozen political action committees.”
Well, in this case there is just me. And, I am not that tech-savvy.
I don’t write anti-vaccine propaganda. I write about the science behind vaccines. And, if you study the science behind vaccines, it is hard not to question the wisdom of injecting our young with too many toxic-laden vaccines.
“The C.D.C., the nation’s leading public health agency, has a website with accurate information, but no loud public voice,” writes the NYT. The CDC is a cesspool of corruption, according to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. In fact, the CDC has a senior scientist who has assumed whistle-blower status claiming that published studies (by the CDC) looking at whether the MMR vaccine causes autism were fraudulent. The whistle-blower has stated, under oath, that senior CDC managers directed the whistle-blower and others to destroy and alter the data in order to hide the truth. The data, released by the whistle-blower, did show a strong correlation with the MMR vaccine and autism.
Why doesn’t the NYT write a lead op-ed demanding that the CDC whistle-blower testify in front of Congress about his allegations? To date, it has been over four years since the whistle-blower came forward. To date, he has not testified in front of Congress and the CDC has blocked his testimony in other settings. To date, the NYT has failed to write ONE article about this situation. Perhaps the CDC has no loud voice because it is too busy covering up the truth about vaccines. If there is nothing to hide, then why doesn’t the whistle-blower testify? Why has the CDC gagged him from speaking? …
A Cultural Revolution is a movement designed to preserve the political and financial power of a ruling elite by social rather than political or financial means. Thus the primary tools of a Cultural Revolution are not redistributing power via elections (politics) or financial reforms; the primary tools are public shaming and denouncements, purges of those in positions of authority, show trials, guilt-by-association, wholesale denouncements of entire classes and widespread accusations of anti-progressive (“counter-revolutionary”) tendencies in which guilt is defined by all-or-nothing litmus tests of one’s loyalties to the Cultural Revolution’s strict ideology….
The key dynamic of a Cultural Revolution is the oppressors appropriate the language of liberation as their favored tool of suppressing dissent, denouncing opponents and fueling widespread purges of anyone who might harbor the slightest potential to question the social suppression of dissent.
Now, more than a half-century after the Cultural Revolution began, there is little public discussion of that period in China. What some have called the nation’s collective amnesia has only gotten worse in recent years as leaders have walked back efforts to reckon with the country’s modern history.
To those launching a Cultural Revolution, the solution to a diversity of opinion is to crush dissent and narratives that threaten the ruling elites’ power. This is of course the exact opposite of democracy and Enlightenment-era liberalism. But the point of a Cultural Revolution isn’t to broaden political enfranchisement or representation–the point of the anti-Deplorables / anti-Brexit / anti-yellow vest campaigns is to strip dissenters (those who disagree with the ruling neoliberal elites) of political and social representation.
The goal of the Cultural Revolution is to render all those who resist the ruling elites politically and socially invisible. The goal isn’t to play nice and share power and wealth with the losers of financialization-globalization; the goal is to liquidate their influence in politics and society via relentless negative stereotyping by the elite-controlled mass media and an Orwellian reversal of identity that makes the dissenters into threats to democracy while elevating the elitist oppressors into selfless guardians of democracy–the exact opposite of reality.
In China’s Cultural Revolution, the Red Guards mindlessly destroyed much of China’s priceless cultural heritage as part of the deranged agenda of destroying whatever was traditional and valued by “counter-revolutionaries.” Out with the old, in with the new–the time-honored pattern of power grabs masked by utopian goals….
In April last year, Disobedient Media broke coverage of the British involvement in the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, asking why All Russiagate Roads Lead To London, via the quasi-scholar Joseph Mifsud and others.
The issue was also raised by WikiLeaks’s Julian Assange, just days before the Ecuadorian government silenced him last March. Assange’s Twitter thread cited research by Chris Blackburn, who spoke with Disobedient Media on multiple occasions covering Joseph Mifsud’s ties to British intelligence figures and organizations, as well as his links to Hillary Clinton’s Presidential campaign, the FBI, CIA and the private cyber-security firm Crowdstrike.
We return, now, to this issue and specifically the research of Chris Blackburn, to place the final nail in the coffin of the Trump-Russia collusion charade. Blackburn’s insights are incredible not only because they return us to the earliest reporting on the role of British intelligence figures in manufacturing the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, but because they also implicate members of Mueller’s investigation. What we are left with is an indication of collusion between factions of the US and UK intelligence community in fabricating evidence of Trump-Russia collusion: a scandal that would have rocked the legacy press to its core, if Western establishment-backed media had a spine….
Michigan State Economics Professor Mark Skidmore has revealed there was $21 trillion in what he calls “missing money” from the Department of Defense (DOD) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD). He and a team of academics used publicly available government accounting reports and revealed their results in late 2017. Now, the mainstream media (MSM) has picked up the story. Instead of sounding the alarm to the public, it says it’s basically all a big mistake and is discounting the biggest accounting fraud in the U.S. government history. Is the MSM trying to cover up and kill this story? Dr. Skidmore says, “They are trying to kill this story, but I don’t think they have killed this story. . . . Basically, what they said was this was just all ‘plugs’ and there is a mix-up in the transactions. It’s really not that big of a deal. They did say it was $21 trillion in transactions that cannot be verified, but discounted it fully.”
Now, the government will not give any information on this “missing” $21 trillion. Skidmore goes on to say, “When you start looking at the mess that could possibly generate $21 trillion that are unverified, ‘missing money,’ it’s so big, so huge, it is inconceivable that it could just be a comedy of errors. . . . I think there is a high percentage of fraud. I believe there is a tremendous amount of fraud embedded in there. . . . When we get to these numbers, the odds there is not fraud in $21 trillion is mind boggling. . . . There is zero chance there is no fraud.
So, this is a huge accounting fraud? Dr. Skidmore says, “Yeah, in my mind, I cannot come to any other conclusion. I just don’t see how you can come up with those huge numbers based on public budgeting without something terribly gone wrong. It’s not just ‘plugs.’ You want to go back in and look at those transactions, and we are not given access to do that.”
Not only is Skidmore being refused access, but the entire federal budget has been turned into a national security issue. There is literally no more public access to what the government spends your tax money on. Skidmore says, “Now, as of October 4th, we have effectively two sets of books. We have a set of books that can be manipulated and changed by a group of people that determine it’s a national security issue. They can alter the numbers and move things around within . . . or shift funding all the way to hide it. What we are going to do is produce a financial statement that is fake, and we will have no idea how much money was moved around, and we are all going to pretend we are going to have a real report. We will also have an actual report that will remain hidden. . . . It seems self-explanatory that if the government can’t track $21 trillion, there is something deeply wrong.”
Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with Michigan State Economics Professor Mark Skidmore, who discovered $21 trillion in “missing” money at the DOD and HUD….
… The idea of “fiat money”, money which has no tangibility and that can be created on a whim by a central source or authority, is rather new in the grand scheme of things. It is a bastardization of the original and much more stable money system that existed before that was anchored in hard commodities. While it claims to offer a more “liquid” store of value, the truth is that it is no store of value at all.
Purveyors of fiat, central banks and globalists, use ever increasing debt as a means to feed fiat, not to mention the hidden tax of price inflation. When central bankers get a hold of money, it is no longer a representation of work or value, but a system of enslavement that crushes our ability to produce effectively and to receive fair returns for our labor.
There are many people today in the liberty movement that understand this dynamic, but even in alternative economic circles there are some that do not understand the full picture when it comes to central banks and fiat mechanisms. There is a false notion that paper currencies are the life blood of the establishment and that they will seek to protect these currencies at all costs. This might have been true 20 years ago or more, but it is not true today. Things change.
The king of this delusion is the US dollar. As the world reserve currency it is thought by some to be “untouchable”, a pillar of the globalist structure that will be defended for many decades to come. The reality, however, is that the dollar is nothing more than another con game on paper to the globalists; a farce that they are happy to sacrifice in order to further their goals of complete centralization of world trade and therefore the complete centralization of control over human survival.
That is to say, the dollar is a stepping stone for them, nothing more.
The real goal of the globalists is an economic system in which they can monitor every transaction no matter how small; a system in which there is eventually only one currency, a currency that can be tracked, granted or taken away at a moment’s notice. Imagine a world in which your “store of value” is subject to constant scrutiny by a bureaucratic monstrosity, and there is no way to hide from them by using private trade as a backstop. Imagine a world in which you cannot hold your money in your hand, and access to your money can be denied with the push of a button if you step out of line. This is what the globalists really desire…
Here is how I believe the process will unfold:
The 2008 crash in credit and housing markets led to unprecedented stimulus by central banks, with the Federal Reserve leading the pack as the greatest source of inflation. This program of bailouts and QE stimulus conjured an even bigger bubble, which many alternative analysts have dubbed “the everything bubble”.
The growing “everything bubble” encompasses not just stock markets or housing, but auto markets, credit markets, bond markets, and the dollar itself. All of these elements are now tied directly to Fed policy. The US economy is not only addicted to stimulus measures and near-zero interest rates; it will die without them.
The Fed knows this well. Chairman Jerome Powell hinted at the crisis that would evolve if the Fed ever cut off stimulus, unwound its balance sheet and hiked rates in the October 2012 Fed minutes.
Without constant and ever expanding stimulus measures, the false economy will implode. We are already seeing the effects as the Fed cuts tens-of-billions per month in assets from its balance sheet and hikes interest rates to their “neutral rate of inflation”. Auto markets, housing markets, and credit markets are in reversal, and stocks are witnessing the most instability since the 2008 crash. All of this was triggered by the Fed simply exerting incremental rate hikes and balance sheet cuts.
It is also important to note that almost every US stock market rally the past several months has taken place while the Fed’s balance sheet cuts were frozen. For example, for the past two-and-a-half weeks the Fed’s assets have only dropped by around $8 billion; this is basically a flatline in the balance sheet. It should not be surprising given this pause in cuts (in tandem with convenient stimulus measures by China) that stocks spiked through early to mid-January.
That said, Fed tightening will start again, either by rate hikes, asset cuts, or both at the same time. The Fed’s purpose is to create a crisis. The Fed’s goal is to cause a crash. The Fed is a suicide bomber that does not care what happens to the US system.
But what about the dollar, specifically?
The Fed’s tightening policies do not only translate to crisis for US stocks or other markets. I see three primary ways in which the dollar can be dethroned as the world reserve.
1) Emerging economies have become addicted to Fed liquidity over the past ten years. Without continued access to the Fed’s easy money, nations like China and India are beginning to seek out alternatives to the dollar as a world reserve. Contrary to the popular belief that these countries would “never” be able to decouple from the US, the process has already begun. And, it is the Fed that has actually created the necessity for emerging markets to seek out other sources of liquidity besides the dollar.
2) Donald Trump’s trade war is yet another cover event for the loss of reserve status. I would note that the primary rationale for tariffs was to balance the trade deficit. The trade deficit with China has done the opposite and is continually expanding each month. This suggests much higher tariffs on China would be required to reduce the imbalance.
It must also be understood that the trade deficit with China has long been part of a larger agreement. China is one of the largest buyers of US debt in the world and has continued to utilize the dollar as the world reserve currency. If the trade war continues through this year, it is only a matter of time before China, already seeking dollar alternatives as the Fed tightens liquidity, will start using its US treasury and dollar holdings as leverage against us.
Bilateral agreements between multiple nations that cut out the dollar are being established regularly today. If China, the largest exporter/importer in the world, stops accepting the dollar as the world reserve, or if they start accepting other currencies in competition, then numerous other nations will follow their lead.
3) Finally, if the war of words between Trump and the Fed becomes something more, then this could be used by the establishment to undermine faith in US credit. If Trump seeks to shut down the Fed entirely, the globalists are handed yet another perfect distraction for the death of the dollar. I can see the headlines now – The “reset” could then be painted as a “rescue” of the global economy after the “destructive actions of populists” who “bumbled into fiscal destruction” because they were blinded by an “obsession with sovereignty” in a world that “requires centralization to survive”.
The specifics of the shift to a global currency are less clear, but again, we have hints from the globalists. The Economist suggests that the US economy will have to be taken down a few pegs, and that the IMF would step in as the arbiter of forex markets through its SDR basket system. This plan was echoed recently by globalist Mohamed El-Erian in an article he wrote titled “New Life For The SDR?”. El-Erian also suggests that a global currency would help to combat the “rise of populism”.
The Economist notes that the SDR would only act as a “bridge” to the new global currency. Paper currencies would still exist for a time, but they would be pegged to the SDR exchange rates. Currently, the dollar is only worth around .71 SDR’s. In the event of the loss of world reserve status, expect this exchange rate to drop significantly.
As the global crisis deepens the IMF will suggest a “reset” to a more manageable monetary framework, and this framework will be based on blockchain technology and a cryptocurrency which the IMF has likely already developed. The IMF hints at this outcome in at least two separate white papers recently published which herald a new age in which crypto is the next phase of evolution for global trade.
I predict according to the current pace of the trade war and Fed liquidity tightening that de-dollerization will hit the mainstream by 2020. The process of “resetting” the global monetary system would likely take at least another decade to complete. The globalist preoccupation with their “Agenda 2030” sustainable development initiatives suggests a decade long timeline.
Without ample resistance, the introduction of the cashless society will be presented as a natural and even “heroic” response by the globalists to save humanity from the “selfishness” of destructive nationalists. They will strut across the world stage as if they are saviors, rather than the villains they really are.
They don’t miss a trick do they? The medical/economic implications of bottle feeding and birth trauma imprinting are vast and lifelong. Denying moms and mom’s milk to babies enables life-long milking of the adults they become.
While it has been standard practice for decades to whisk newborns off to a bath within the first few hours of their birth, a new study has found that waiting to bathe a healthy newborn 12 or more hours after birth increased the rate of breastfeeding exclusivity during the newborn hospital stay….
DiCioccio points to several factors as to what may link the practice of waiting to bathe to the increased rates of breastfeeding, including skin-to-skin time between mother and baby, smell (the similarity in smell between the amniotic fluid and the breast may encourage babies to latch) and temperature. Babies in the delayed bath group were more likely to have stable/normalized temperatures post first bath. “They weren’t as cold as the babies who were bathed sooner after birth, so they may not have been as tired trying to nurse” DiCioccio said….
Whoda thunk? Well I guess pretty much anyone who had the humility to refrain from second guessing every possible facet of human birth and babies might have thunk. Medicine didn’t invent human beings. Why is it necessary to defend our basic physical design from overachieving medical meddlers? It would be so easy to leave it alone, but not nearly as profitable.
95%+ of healthy women can birth at home with a midwife (according to Gloria Lemay http://www.glorialemay.com/ ), many with no assistance at all except their innate instinctual birthing behavior. No strangers, no pressures, no vaccines, no rush to clamp the cord, no ludicrous questions about the “circumcision option”, no hormonal disruption, no episiotomy, no baby isolation at the time of life when s/he needs mom the most. Just normal birth with all the joy and love that babies deserve. What an idea.
Birth at home.
Deep within mothers is a fantastic pulse of ferocious love: it binds us to our babies, and makes us vigilant in their lifelong care. This pulse has been eroded by the institutionalization of many basic life events; most significantly, childbirth and learning. Instead of ancient mothers selfishly guarding the individual loves and virtues of our children, we become modern custodians for the state- breeders and caregivers of an easily manipulated populace.
Women must once again claim birth as a powerful, liberating life event- instead of a painfully medicalized one; and families must allow themselves to learn and stay together in the short time they have- and shun the bizarre lessons in life given by often hostile institutions whose main focus seem to be that of severing families and crushing true intelligence.
It is revolutionary to reject what society so stringently dictates, and revel in being Mother: not as the producer of marketable goods, but as the conduit of life itself.
— Leilah McCracken
We’re living through the most profound transformation in our information environment since Johannes Gutenberg’s invention of printing in circa 1439. And the problem with living through a revolution is that it’s impossible to take the long view of what’s happening. Hindsight is the only exact science in this business, and in that long run we’re all dead. Printing shaped and transformed societies over the next four centuries, but nobody in Mainz (Gutenberg’s home town) in, say, 1495 could have known that his technology would (among other things): fuel the Reformation and undermine the authority of the mighty Catholic church; enable the rise of what we now recognise as modern science; create unheard-of professions and industries; change the shape of our brains; and even recalibrate our conceptions of childhood. And yet printing did all this and more….
The headline story is that it’s not so much about the nature of digital technology as about a new mutant form of capitalism that has found a way to use tech for its purposes. The name Shoshana Zuboff has given to the new variant is “surveillance capitalism”. It works by providing free services that billions of people cheerfully use, enabling the providers of those services to monitor the behaviour of those users in astonishing detail – often without their explicit consent.
“Surveillance capitalism,” she writes, “unilaterally claims human experience as free raw material for translation into behavioural data. Although some of these data are applied to service improvement, the rest are declared as a proprietary behavioural surplus, fed into advanced manufacturing processes known as ‘machine intelligence’, and fabricated into prediction products that anticipate what you will do now, soon, and later. Finally, these prediction products are traded in a new kind of marketplace that I call behavioural futures markets. Surveillance capitalists have grown immensely wealthy from these trading operations, for many companies are willing to lay bets on our future behaviour.”…
Surveillance capitalism is a human creation. It lives in history, not in technological inevitability. It was pioneered and elaborated through trial and error at Google in much the same way that the Ford Motor Company discovered the new economics of mass production or General Motors discovered the logic of managerial capitalism.
Surveillance capitalism was invented around 2001 as the solution to financial emergency in the teeth of the dotcom bust when the fledgling company faced the loss of investor confidence. As investor pressure mounted, Google’s leaders abandoned their declared antipathy toward advertising. Instead they decided to boost ad revenue by using their exclusive access to user data logs (once known as “data exhaust”) in combination with their already substantial analytical capabilities and computational power, to generate predictions of user click-through rates, taken as a signal of an ad’s relevance.
Operationally this meant that Google would both repurpose its growing cache of behavioural data, now put to work as a behavioural data surplus, and develop methods to aggressively seek new sources of this surplus.
The company developed new methods of secret surplus capture that could uncover data that users intentionally opted to keep private, as well as to infer extensive personal information that users did not or would not provide. And this surplus would then be analysed for hidden meanings that could predict click-through behaviour. The surplus data became the basis for new predictions markets called targeted advertising….