Wikipedia editors are currently battling to hide disgraced sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein’s connection to Bill Clinton while emphasizing his connection to Donald Trump.
Clinton flew on Epstein’s ‘Lolita Express’ private jet at least 26 times and this was reported by multiple media outlets in 2016.
However, any reference to this on Epstein’s Wikipedia page disappeared for a time yesterday before being added back in.
The current Wikipedia page for Epstein does mention his link to Clinton but devotes more words to the billionaire’s ties to Donald Trump, which were less direct….
A new study, published in Psychiatry Research, has concluded that psychiatric diagnoses are scientifically worthless as tools to identify discrete mental health disorders.
The study, led by researchers from the University of Liverpool, involved a detailed analysis of five key chapters of the latest edition of the widely used Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), on ‘schizophrenia’, ‘bipolar disorder’, ‘depressive disorders’, ‘anxiety disorders’ and ‘trauma-related disorders’.
Diagnostic manuals such as the DSM were created to provide a common diagnostic language for mental health professionals and attempt to provide a definitive list of mental health problems, including their symptoms.
The main findings of the research were:
- Psychiatric diagnoses all use different decision-making rules
- There is a huge amount of overlap in symptoms between diagnoses
- Almost all diagnoses mask the role of trauma and adverse events
- Diagnoses tell us little about the individual patient and what treatment they need
The authors conclude that diagnostic labelling represents ‘a disingenuous categorical system’.
Lead researcher Dr Kate Allsopp, University of Liverpool, said: “Although diagnostic labels create the illusion of an explanation they are scientifically meaningless and can create stigma and prejudice. I hope these findings will encourage mental health professionals to think beyond diagnoses and consider other explanations of mental distress, such as trauma and other adverse life experiences.”…
OMG. Is it really necessary to point that out?? This scam would be laughable if it wasn’t so destructive to people’s lives, not to mention the wider society.
Our investigation has found that thousands of adolescents, children, and adults have been hospitalized for psychiatric treatment they didn’t need; that hospitals hire bounty hunters to kidnap patients with mental health insurance; that patients are kept against their will until their insurance benefits run out; that psychiatrists are being pressured by the hospitals to increase profit; that hospitals `infiltrate’ schools by paying kickbacks to school counselors who deliver students; that bonuses are paid to hospital employees, including psychiatrists, for keeping the hospital beds filled; and that military dependents are being targeted for their generous mental health benefits. I could go on, but you get the picture. — U.S. Representative Patricia Schroeder of Colorado
In the 1970’s, psychiatry was on the rocks economically, it was losing out in competition with social workers and psychologists and non- medical therapists. Women were becoming increasingly aware that they’d be better off going to say a woman social worker than a male psychiatrist if they want to be understood or helped.
And at that point, and I trace this in “Toxic Psychiatry” – at that point psychiatry, at an organized level, including in the actual annual board meetings of the American Psychiatric Association, made a decision first to “re-medicalize”. To convince the public and the congress, which provides a lot of money to psychiatry and to convince the country that personal suffering is medical and biological, and, they made at the same time, after some debate, a decision to take more money from the drug companies, so the psychiatric association went from being broke to being wealthy within in a few years as a result of the support of drug companies which just pours in now. They won’t even open up their books to their own members. — Peter Breggin, psychiatrist
But psychiatry does have its uses in social control, which is why such medieval quackery continues to this day:
As we reach the last hands in the Russia-U.S.-Turkey S-400 game, China quietly gains major geopolitical ground without even playing directly at the table. While the world watches and predicts on the cornering of Turkey from both mega players’ sides-Russia and the United States, China deals the nuclear card (aka economics) to weaken, even neutralize, the US-NATO Operation Gladio B’s China front: Xinjiang and Uyghurs.
While the mainstream media continued buzzing with headline after headline, hollow analyses and predictions, during and after the conclusion of the G-20 Summit in Japan, no one heeded the real geopolitical game-changer taking place immediately post G-20 with Turkey President Erdogan’s China visit. The Xi-Erdogan meeting is about to become a major turning point for China in its under-the-radar battle front against NATO-U.S. Operation Gladio B. Vice versa: Losing its most important operation channel and partner in using Xinjiang’s Uyghurs against China marks the biggest blow for Operation Gladio B. Here’s how and why:
Beginning even before the historical meeting in China between the President Xi and President Erdogan on July 2, the main purpose of the visit was common knowledge: Economic. As indicated in my recent analyses (here and here), facing sanction threats from the West, assault on its currency, fallout with Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and widening deficit, Turkey, understandably, had begun looking Eastward for an urgently needed economic lifeline. With Russia not known for its power of the purse-strings in its geopolitical alliance maintenance, and with former economic partners, Saudis-UAE, out of the picture, that left only one viable option– Enter China. But as we all know it cuts both ways- the rule of give-and-take in the geopolitical operations bible. With that in mind, what would be the most valuable geopolitical gain for China in a Turkey-China partnership? And with that, enter the Gladio B battle front Xinjiang and the hot-button subject of the Turkic Uyghurs.
Now, with that snap background in place, allow me to explain the what, how and why of Turkey’s recent fallout with the U.S. over S-400 as China’s major victory against Operation Gladio B’s China front:….
What is gladio B you ask? It’s the post-cold-war successor to operation gladio, which was a program of false flag terror which nato waged in europe for years after WWII. Which of course is a conspiracy theory.
Here’s Newsbud’s backgrounder on gladio B:
Back in January, when Chair Powell unexpectedly U-turned on months of hawkish policy and shocked traders when he said that contrary to what he had said just two weeks prior during the December FOMC press conference, the Fed could be “patient”, rate hikes could “pause”, and the Fed’s balance sheet reduction is not in fact on “autopilot”, the Powell Put finally emerged for the first time, and the result has been a torrid rally ever since, and the best first half market performance in decades.
It also prompted an avalanche of accusations that Powell – who has also facing intense pressure from president Trump to cut rates or else lose his job – folded like a cheap suit, held hostage by traders who pushed stocks low enough to i) test where the Powell Put strike price is and ii) force the Fed to not only halt rate hikes, but launch an easing cycle, something it has now effectively done.
Yet as we noted in January, being held hostage, or captive, by the market is nothing new to Powell; in fact, it was way back when in March 2013, ahead of the Fed’s taper announcement, that the Fed chair first realized that it was not the Fed that controls the market, but rather – after years of ZIRP and QE – the Fed had become a hostage of the market’s every whim.
And now, none other than the world’s biggest incubator of central bankers, Goldman admits as much….
Oh puhleeze can we dispense with the ridiculous notion that the fed is in over its head? It has steered us to the very edge of the cliff with two tires in mid-air and now it throws up its arms and pleads innocence. It’s true that it can’t back up even if it wanted to but the point is that they need to create an appearance that they’re not culpable for driving us to the edge, so they can continue in power after the collapse, which after all is when the fed’s shareholders can snap up real assets with their fake money, as they did in the great ripoff.
This is an IQ test for the american people.
Are humans ignoring their food-related senses or have those senses somehow been disabled from years of junk food?
The genetically engineered food experiment began in the mid-1990s and continues unabated to this day, with Bayer recently taking over Monsanto and pumping billions of dollars into its new American GMO division.
But while the GMO food experiment has been highly profitable for the lab technicians who created it, as well as the toxic, synthetic pesticide industry, the question of what it’s doing to our bodies, specifically our internal organs, remains etched in the minds of independent researchers who have studied the crops extensively (GMOs do not undergo safety testing past 90 days and many studies are funded by the industry).
While critics continue to point out the dozens and dozens of studies showing GMOs and Roundup are capable of causing extensive harm, others are busy conducting experiments of their own to show how obvious the problem really is, according to the some members of the animal kingdom at least.
Farmer Finds Animals Won’t Touch GMO Corn
Recently the Institute for Responsible Technology, a research organization dedicated to educating on the oft-overlooked dangers of genetically engineered crops, posted the results of a farmer’s experiment on their Facebook page.
The farmer, a friend of IRT founder and best-selling author Jeffrey M. Smith, left two bags of corn, one GMO and one non-GMO, in a work room.
The mice broke into both bags, but quickly stopped eating after taking a few bites of the GMO corn.
“They just took a nibble from one of the kernels of this and never came back to eat it,” Smith said. “They devoured the non-GMO corn.”
According to Smith, many different animals including squirrels, geese, elk, deer, raccoons, mice, rats, buffalo and chickens have all been observed avoiding GMO corn in the past.
It’s a trend that Bayer, Monsanto and the GMO industry have done their best to avoid discussing, but many farmers, including Iowa pig farmer Jerry Rosman, have noticed that animals forced to eat GMO corn and soy have suffered abnormalities, including serious reproductive issues.
“What is it about this corn that would make them not want to eat it?” Smith asks in a video posted to the IRT’s Facebook page.
“Well if it’s genetically engineered as most corn is, it produces an insecticide called Bt toxin which can poke holes in an insects guts to kill them,” he continued. “And it was found to cause damage in mice and rats and also human cells.”
Aside from the Bt toxin, which is incorporated into the the cells of GMO plants, genetically engineered corn, which makes up over 90% of the U.S. supply despite it being banned around the world, is sprayed with cancer-causing Roundup.
According to Smith, the corn may have even more potentially harmful substances as well, including formaldehyde, Gamma-Zein, a novel allergen found in GMO corn and not others, and even potentially cadaverine, a substance linked to the rotting smell of dead bodies, Smith said.
While the experiment by Smith’s farmer friend was far from controlled clinical research, it does serve as a potential red flag as to the importance of being connected to the sources of our food, and using our instincts to buy what’s truly healthy for ourselves and our families.
“So we can get humans up to the level of animals, so that if we don’t have the sixth sense, let’s find out what’s wrong with this corn, why we shouldn’t eat it,” Smith said.
“What we can tell others about it and how is it that this dangerous stuff got on the market.”
Watch Smith’s full presentation on the experiment below:
A farmer friend gave IRT Founder Jeffrey Smith the results of an unintended but very interesting experiment: two ears of dried corn from the farm workshop. One was GMO, one was not. The mice had a sixth sense to avoid the GMO corn. Hmmm. Wonder why? Watch as Jeffrey dramatically demonstrates why we need to get to the level of the animals and avoid GMO corn and associated pesticides.
Posted by Institute for Responsible Technology on Monday, June 24, 2019
A Canadian medical committee has ordered a chiropractor to pay $100,000 for sharing “anti-vaccine” views on social media.
The ruling, publicized Thursday, orders Dr. Dena Churchill of Halifax to pay the Nova Scotia College of Chiropractors for “professional misconduct” after she shared “her personal views that vaccinations could be harmful.”
“Dr. Churchill’s conduct brought the profession of chiropractic into disrepute,” the committee wrote.
The college maintained social media posts Dr. Churchill made in 2018 were an “egregious breach” of the national chiropractic association’s guidelines, which reportedly order chiropractors “not to discuss vaccines in any capacity,” according to the CBC.
“Dr. Churchill was responsible for social media posts outside her scope of practice which were harmful to the public,” the committee wrote, noting she was defiant of regulators and refused to delete certain posts.
“Dr. Churchill maintained significant social media activity which is outside the scope of practice of chiropractic in Nova Scotia despite direct instruction to stop. That is egregious conduct.”
The committee also noted that Dr. Churchill refused to bend to pressure, maintaining, “Her personal views are her personal views,” and that she “does not retreat from those views” that vaccines can cause harm.
“The entire matter could have been avoided if Dr. Churchill deleted offending posts from her social media account, the committee admits, adding, “She refused.”…
In an excellent new essay titled “We’re Not the Good Guys — Why Is American Aggression Missing in Action?”, Tom Engelhardt criticizes the way western media outlets consistently describe the behavior of disobedient nations like Iran as “aggressions”, but never use that label for the (generally antecedent and far more egregious) aggressions of the United States.
“When it comes to Washington’s never-ending war on terror, I think I can say with reasonable confidence that, in the past, the present, and the future, the one phrase you’re not likely to find in such media coverage will be ‘American aggression,’” Engelhardt writes. He then asks a very fair question:
“So here’s the strange thing, on a planet on which, in 2017, U.S. Special Operations forces deployed to 149 countries, or approximately 75% of all nations; on which the U.S. has perhaps 800 military garrisons outside its own territory; on which the U.S. Navy patrols most of its oceans and seas; on which U.S. unmanned aerial drones conduct assassination strikes across a surprising range of countries; and on which the U.S. has been fighting wars, as well as more minor conflicts, for years on end from Afghanistan to Libya, Syria to Yemen, Iraq to Niger in a century in which it chose to launch full-scale invasions of two countries (Afghanistan and Iraq), is it truly reasonable never to identify the U.S. as an ‘aggressor’ anywhere?”
In other words, does it really make sense for any nation to be able to take over the world and then look up with Bambi-eyed innocence saying “I was attacked! Completely out of the blue!” whenever any government pushes back on this? If you ask the empire’s narrative makers, the answer is a resounding yes.
This important discrepancy is as close as we’ll ever get to an honest admission from the political/media class that they consider empire-building and endless war to be normal, and any opposition to it freakish. All nations are meant to submit to America’s use of military and economic force upon them, and if they don’t, that’s “aggression”. The official position of the political/media class is that the US is a normal nation with the same rights and status as any other, but the unofficial position is that this is an empire, and nations will either obey or be destroyed.
It’s a machine with the same values as Napoleon or Hitler or Genghis Khan or any other imperialist conqueror from ages past; the only difference is that it pretends not to be the thing that it is. The US markets itself as an upholder of rules-based liberal democratic values, even though it consistently flouts international law, wages imperialist wars of aggression, imprisons journalists, crushes dissent and uses propaganda just as much as any totalitarian regime. The only difference is that it does so in a way that enables its supporters to pretend that that’s not what’s actually happening.
Forget the “war on terror”. If US foreign policy were honest it would unite all its war propaganda sloganeering under a single banner: the War on Disobedience…..
The Institute of Medicine (IOM)—now called the Health and Medicine Division of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine—is a private, nonprofit entity that has had a mandate since 1970 to provide the U.S. government with “independent, objective analysis” on matters of health. The IOM produces reports specifically requested and paid for by federal agencies—including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The IOM develops its scope of work “in collaboration with the study’s sponsor” and then carries out its deliberations behind closed doors.
The IOM has authored dozens of influential reports on vaccines. However, the organization’s independence on this topic is open to question, because it draws its members from the ranks of the very same government agencies, schools of medicine, schools of public health, hospitals and private foundations that have uncritically supported existing vaccine policies for decades.
Early IOM Reports
In September 2000, the CDC and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) commissioned an IOM committee to research and write a series of eight specific “immunization safety reviews,” with a scope closely dictated by the CDC. The IOM published the first two reports in 2001, focusing on thimerosal-containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders and the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism, respectively.
In the first of the two reports, the IOM authors endorsed the biological plausibility of the hypothesis that “exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines could be associated with neurodevelopmental disorders.” Their conclusion was that they could neither accept nor reject a causal relationship. They called, therefore, for removal of thimerosal from all vaccines given to infants, children and pregnant women as a precautionary step and recommended more basic science, clinical and epidemiological research. Not only have these recommendations remained largely unheeded to this day, but the CDC began aggressively promoting thimerosal-containing influenza vaccines (and, later, tetanus-diphtheria [Td] vaccines) for pregnant women and children beginning in the mid-2000s, well after the report’s publication.
The second IOM report came out against a population-level causal relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism. Yet it, too, stated that it could not disprove “the proposed biological models” in individual children and reiterated the need for further research.
The Fix Is In, and Biological Plausibility Is Out
Although the IOM meetings took place behind closed doors, an insider leaked transcripts of the 2001 meetings. The transcripts suggest that, at its core, the committee writing the reports was little better than a “kangaroo court”—in the words of an advocacy organization representing parents, “the fix was in” from the start. For example, well before any evidence had even been reviewed, the Committee Chairman, Dr. Marie McCormick, stated, “CDC…wants us to declare…these things are pretty safe on a population basis” (p. 33). She later added, “we are not ever going to come down that [autism] is a true side effect [of a vaccine]” (p. 97). The Committee Study Director, Dr. Kathleen Stratton, likewise clarified the following:
“[T]he line we will not cross in public policy is pull the vaccine, change the schedule. …We wouldn’t say compensate, we wouldn’t say pull the vaccine, we wouldn’t say stop the program” (p. 74).
Thus, by the time the IOM committee wrote its 2004 report, the group “managed to produce the outcome CDC was looking for.” Written in what Congressman Dave Weldon characterized as an “atmosphere of intimidation” driven by “a desire to sweep these issues under the rug,” the 2004 report reexamined the hypothesis that vaccines—specifically the MMR vaccine and thimerosal-containing vaccines—might be associated with autism. This time, however—using tactics such as “changing their charter, avoiding case reports, and disregarding biological evidence”—the IOM categorically rejected both hypothesized relationships. Leaving behind its own 2001 position of “biological plausibility,” the IOM used its 2004 report to dismiss “potential biological mechanisms for vaccine-induced autism” as “only theoretical.”…