Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming | Nick Hanauer

Nick Hanauer is a rich guy, an unrepentant capitalist — and he has something to say to his fellow plutocrats: Wake up! Growing inequality is about to push our societies into conditions resembling pre-revolutionary France. Hear his argument about why a dramatic increase in minimum wage could grow the middle class, deliver economic prosperity … and prevent a revolution.

“Divine right” and “trickle down economics” are the historic and modern way to say “aristocrats” and “peasants”. But is that economic disparity sustainable? No. It inevitably ends in revolution. When the people are too poor to feed their children, the aristocrats are fair game.

Most aristocrats and most peasants do not want a revolution. Some aristocrats do, because they want us thinned out so they can control us better.

Sane, logical, rational “aristocrats” want what Nick Hanauer wants. Others – the psychopathic others – want to control the world and feel the thrill of overpowering, even destroying, everything that is good, beautiful and true, including nations. Of the two factions in the .01%. Hanauer’s is the viewpoint of the more sane. The other faction wants to suck up all resources so it can control the peasants. It also traffics children, drinks blood and eats human meat…

Shocked by that last sentence? See our very own Kerth Barker’s books. He was trafficked by them. His books help connect the dots and will prepare you for the inevitable, upcoming public revelation of those things that only the psychopathic element in the .01% indulge in. It is not pretty, but better to ease into the subject gently in the comfort of your own home, than to have it sprung on you unawares.

CDC: More Than 100 Vaping Youth Have Contracted Severe Lung Diseases

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is reportedly investigation 153 possible cases of lung disease that may be associated with e-cigarettes and vaping. The sudden lung problems are primarily occuring amongst adolescents and young adults.

The Verge reports that the CDC is now investigating 153 cases of mysterious lung disease in young people that could be linked to e-cigarette use. The agency is investigating the diseases alongside 16 states where the incidents were reported between June 28 and August 20.

Those suffering from the illness stated that it started gradually, displaying symptoms including difficulty breathing, shortness of breath, and chest pain. Some also suffered from gastrointestinal illness such as vomiting, diarrhea, and severe fatigue. No one has died as a result of the unnamed illness but is being taken very seriously…


New York Times retools from Trump-Russia to Trump-racism

Dean Baquet, the executive editor of the New York Times, said recently that, after the Mueller report, the paper has to shift the focus of its coverage from the Trump-Russia affair to the president’s alleged racism.

“We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well,” Baquet said. “Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story.”

Baquet made the remarks at an employee town hall Monday. A recording was leaked to Slate, which published a transcript Thursday.

In the beginning of the Trump administration, the Times geared up to cover the Russia affair, Baquet explained. “Chapter 1 of the story of Donald Trump, not only for our newsroom but, frankly, for our readers, was: Did Donald Trump have untoward relationships with the Russians, and was there obstruction of justice? That was a really hard story, by the way, let’s not forget that. We set ourselves up to cover that story. I’m going to say it. We won two Pulitzer Prizes covering that story. And I think we covered that story better than anybody else.”

But then came the Mueller report, with special counsel Robert Mueller failing to establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia to fix the 2016 election. “The day Bob Mueller walked off that witness stand, two things happened,” Baquet continued. “Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, ‘Holy shit, Bob Mueller is not going to do it.’ And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think. Because, you know, for obvious reasons. And I think that the story changed. A lot of the stuff we’re talking about started to emerge like six or seven weeks ago. We’re a little tiny bit flat-footed. I mean, that’s what happens when a story looks a certain way for two years. Right?”

Baquet used the gentlest terms possible — “the story changed” — but the fact is, the conspiracy-coordination allegation the Times had devoted itself to pursuing turned out to be false. Beyond that, Democrats on Capitol Hill struggled to press an obstruction case against the president. The Trump-Russia hole came up dry.

Now, Baquet continued, “I think that we’ve got to change.” The Times must “write more deeply about the country, race, and other divisions.”

“I mean, the vision for coverage for the next two years is what I talked about earlier: How do we cover a guy who makes these kinds of remarks?” Baquet said. “How do we cover the world’s reaction to him? How do we do that while continuing to cover his policies? How do we cover America, that’s become so divided by Donald Trump?”

The town hall was spurred by angry reaction, both inside and outside the Times, to a headline that many on the Left faulted for being insufficiently anti-Trump. After the El Paso shootings, when the president denounced white supremacy, the Times published a page-one story with the heading, “Trump Urges Unity Vs. Racism.”

“I think one of the reasons people have such a problem with a headline like this … is because they care so much,” one staffer said to Baquet. “And they depend on the New York Times. They are depending on us to keep kicking down the doors and getting through, because they need that right now. It’s a very scary time.”

Baquet vowed a transition to a new “vision” for the paper for the next two years. “How do we grapple with all the stuff you all are talking about?” he said to the staffer. “How do we write about race in a thoughtful way, something we haven’t done in a large way in a long time? That, to me, is the vision for coverage. You all are going to have to help us shape that vision. But I think that’s what we’re going to have to do for the rest of the next two years.”

The headline controversy, it appears, was a preview of a new 2019-2020 New York Times. If Baquet follows through, the paper will spend the next two years, which just happens to be the run-up to the 2020 presidential election, building the Trump-is-a-racist narrative. (Baquet added, almost as an afterthought, that the Times will “continu[e] to cover his policies.”)…..

What are “policies”?   Is that another name for a propaganda campaign?  Who is this mysterious “public” that clamors to be endlessly lectured in the NYT’s boundlessly hypocritical  morality course?  Whatever happened to epstein’s blackmail intelligence operation or ukraine’s “democratic” coup or libya’s freedom bombing or CIA asset Saddam’s WMD’s or the 9/11 false flag or the CIA’s cocaine running or the decades of US orchestrated death squads and torture regimes in latin america or the CIA’s installation of khomeini in iran after their OTHER bloodthirsty puppet was overthrown or the CIA’s opium running or the decades of  research and practical application of trauma-based mind control against kidnapped or rented children or ….

The idea that racism has anything to do with the MSM’s treatment of trump is ludicrous.   What any thoughtful intelligent person (generally those who don’t read the NYT or its allies) ought to be asking is: what is the real reason for their hatred of Trump and why are they so reluctant to come out and say it?

People don’t get into positions of power, networks of power brokers do. Trump represents one of those networks.   I don’t have a crystal ball but my best guess is that the main disagreement between Trump’s power base and the NYT’s power base (aside from the pedophilia/blackmail plague) is the issue of nationalism vs globalism.   When you look past the platitudes and hype of globalism what you find is that its objectives and the strategies needed to attain them are genocidal, practically omnicidal.

The networks of elites which exercise power through national governments will never willingly give up their power to a supranational “authority” such as the UN.  It’s not in their network programming, of which the prime directive is self-perpetuation, like any other self-assembled, organically emergent, collectively autocatalytic hierarchy.  Even if all the government bureaucrats were clones of mother theresa and sufficiently starry-eyed to believe the utopian BS about a benevolent global government, there is simply no orderly way for a politically embedded hierarchy to implement self-destruction, it must be killed.   And the only way to kill it is to remove its material underpinnings, i.e. the economic flows which sustain it.   This is what the shock doctrine is all about: economic demolition in order to bring about regime change.

This strategy will result in mass starvation and poverty in the USA, making the Great Ripoff of the 1930’s pale in comparison.   We’re practically there already, given the decades of bipartisan gutting of our industrial infrastructure to china’s benefit.  At this point the reserve status of the dollar is the last critical prop holding up what remains of the US standard of living, and it’s only at the mercy of the central banking cabal.   The notion that this astonishing multi-decade process of national subjugation was a result of random forces or a “free market” is simply not credible.   Any “self” interested government would have put a stop to it years ago.   In that respect, the USA is already a vassal of the global financial aristocracy.   The only reason this is not a matter of public record is that the mirage of self governance embedded in the culture is still a potent political force.   The velvet glove will remain on the mailed fist until it is no longer needed.

Obviously it takes a lot of bribery and blackmail to get large numbers of people on board such an agenda.   This is why I believe the NYT’s faction is far more saturated with compromised elitists and luciferians than the Trump faction.   Trump has his own financial machine and isn’t as dependent on the kindness of the central bankers.   But by the same token, the establishment’s machine is much more powerful, which is reflected in the size and scope of the orwellian propaganda apparatus arrayed against Trump.

Under globalism, soldiers and national arsenals will be replaced with police and medicalized social control.  The battlefields where different national elites act out their collective delusions and corruption against each other will be moved into the final frontier of imperial domination: the human mind itself.  Regional sovereign governments, empowered and controlled to some degree by regional public consent and regional economies, will become colonial outposts of Earth, Inc.  Human aspirations, reproduction and child-nurturing communities will be submerged in the administrative expediencies of the planetary hive.   The puppeted carrots of national fiat currencies will finally evaporate into an electronic grid of individualized AI-driven economic control.   National borders will be meaningless because there will be no place to hide, as dissident and economically redundant floods of refugees will ebb and flow from one colonial outpost to another before being rounded up for disposal by their poverty-driven fellow peasants in uniform, before they themselves meet their own ultimate fate.  And all for the ultimate benefit of the same invisible luciferian hierarchy which placed the blame for its own orchestrated world wars on the existence of the nation-state.   The ultimate false flag.

Trump has warts.   He’s an oligarch (with a lower-case “o”).  He’s abrasive and impulsive.   He’s naive about real history.   He combs his hair (or whatever it is) the wrong way.    But he’s a nationalist and given the alternative, that’s good enough for me.

Kelly Brogan MD: Is the Flu Vaccine the Solution or the Problem?

The idea behind vitalism and holistic healthcare is that an environment for wellness can be cultivated once we recognize the body’s inherent complexity, wisdom, and its inextricable connection to the world it inhabits. While it is powerful to see studies like the one I am about to describe, supporting immunity is so much more than throwing a supplement at a problem. It goes without saying that we will never “win the war on microbes”. Not with antibiotics. Not with vaccines. Not with bleach and hand sanitizers. The dawn of the our awareness of the microbiome has changed medicine for good. Somehow, despite the face of every other field being rechiseled by science supporting the role of inflammation and the gut microbiome, infectious disease and vaccinology is still living in the early 1900s when the idea of rubbing the pus of a milkmaid onto a little boy seemed compelling.

In a study entitled Effects of probiotic Lactobacillus brevis KB290 on incidence of influenza infection among schoolchildren: an open-label pilot study researchers divided 1783 subjects into two groups in an open-label trial conducted in two 8-week periods at a 1-month interval in winter 2013/2014. They state:

Group A was provided with a bottle of the test drink containing KB290 (about 6 billion colony-forming units) every school day in the first period and had no treatment in the second period, and vice versa for Group B. Epidemic influenza was not observed during the first period and only two of 1783 subjects were diagnosed. In the second period, the incidence of influenza in Groups A (no treatment) and B (provided the test drink) was 23·9 and 15·7%, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0·001). The reduction in the incidence of influenza by KB290 consumption was especially remarkable in unvaccinated individuals.

What is remarkable about this study is not that probiotics may be immune supportive, but that vaccines may actually interfere with the potential benefits of a synergy with the microbial world.

Do we have it backwards? Are vaccines part of the problem instead of being part of the solution?

Recently, I was privy to a discussion on a Reproductive Psychiatry email list that suggested a pregnant patient should leave her unvaccinated children at home because of the risk that they pose to the vaccinated. Here is what I wrote in reply:

Dear colleagues,

I understand that there is a natural concern for the spread of infectious disease when there may seem to be an obvious means for mutual protection beyond supporting natural immunity with clean food, water, air, and sunlight.  I’ve been researching this topic in detail for 7 years and wanted to offer a few points that strongly challenge the prevailing view that unvaccinated children spread disease and vaccines are indispensable for protecting individual and public health. I’m happy to share more data/resources with anyone who might be interested in this topic. I recognize this format isn’t an ideal forum for discussion of such a complex issue!

Here are some of the issues raised by the available data (primary sources hyperlinked): •      Do the unvaccinated spread disease? Most salient to the concern at hand is the idea that unvaccinated patients “threaten” the vaccinated. Apart from this being illogical if vaccines are actually as effective as they are presumed to be, it is at odds with what is demonstrated by available data which suggests that the vaccinated may, in fact, represent asymptomatic and occasionally symptomatic “shedders” of viral illness (this has also been demonstrated for measlesmumpsnasally administered live flu, rotavirus, and varicella with a comprehensive discussion here).

Information from the Centers for Disease Control website indicates “that both children and adults vaccinated with live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) can shed vaccine viruses after vaccination, although in lower amounts than occur typically with shedding of wild-type influenza viruses.”

Additionally, “A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed in a daycare setting in children younger than 3 years of age to assess the transmission of vaccine viruses from a vaccinated individual to a non-vaccinated individual. At least one vaccine strain was isolated from 80% of FluMist recipients; strains were recovered from 1-21 days post vaccination. One placebo subject had mild symptomatic Type B virus infection confirmed as a transmitted vaccine virus by a FluMist recipient in the same playgroup.” source •      Does the vaccine make children more vulnerable? Beyond the risk of spreading the virus to unvaccinated children and adults, the flu vaccine has been documented to increase viral susceptibility in the recipient. The data suggests the the vaccine hampers the development of virus-specific CD8 T-cell immunity, induces a three-fold increase in hospitalization for pediatric flu vaccine recipients, a 4.4 RR for non-influenza viral infection after the trivalent flu vaccine and up to 2.5 fold increased risk of medically attended H1N1 after receipt of the 2008 trivalent flu vaccine.

•      Does the flu vaccine work?   The frank efficacy of the flu vaccine has been called into question by the only meta-analytic authority, the Cochrane database, who have assessed this parameter in children under 2healthy adultsthe elderly, and those who work with the elderly.

Most salient to this discussion within the Cochrane review on flu vaccines in healthy adults is this passage: “Over 200 viruses cause influenza and ILI, producing the same symptoms (fever, headache, aches, pains, cough and runny noses). Without laboratory tests, doctors cannot distinguish between them as both last for days and rarely lead to death or serious illness. At best, vaccines may only be effective against influenza A and B, which represent about 10% of all circulating viruses.”  Clearly, validated conclusions from the most credible evidence-based organizations reveal it is nearly impossible to prove that flu vaccines protect against influenza in any particular vaccinated child given its clear limitations vis-à-vis the immense immunological and virological complexities involved.

•      Why might it not work? The reasons for this noted inefficacy may include forced strain evolution from serial passage of a virus through multiple animal tissues and the important notion of original antigenic sin or epitope suppression. This phenomenon relates to the programmed response by the immune system to a virus that then represents skewed immunity upon reexposure. This paper describes the phenomenon with regard to influenza, although it is relevant to all vaccine-induced “immunity.”

“Using two related strains of influenza A virus, we show that original antigenic sin leads to a significant decrease in development of protective immunity and recall responses to the second virus. In addition, we show that sequential infection of mice with two live influenza virus strains leads to almost exclusive Ab responses to the first viral strain, suggesting that original antigenic sin could be a potential strategy by which variant influenza viruses subvert the immune system.”

Inefficacy may also relate to the now antiquated notion of using antibody response (quantified by titer numbers and in vitro plaque reduction neutralization tests) as a surrogate for immunogenicity, which has been challenged by the peer-reviewed literature suggesting that antibodies may play an inconsistent and unpredictable role in immunity, and do not correspond to protection against real world exposures to infection which are the only true measure of effectiveness and which can only be proven through clinical end points.

•      Are there special concerns for the pregnant population? Lastly, I would bring your attention to a literature that supports a signal of harm in the form of fetal demise in women who received the two season flu shot, and potentially those who are exposed to amounts of thimerosal/mercury far exceeding that allowed by the EPA through an oral (not injected) route, although the effects of the other ingredients including undetectable zoonotic (exogenous) retroviruses is impossible to ascertain. The mercury in the thimerosal-free flu vaccine is 300ppb relative to the 2ppb that EPA suggests is “safe” for oral ingestion. Of course, the toxicological assessment of injected quantities has never been examined, but without liver-based detoxification mechanisms direct versus oral injection of heavy metals can be presumed to be far more harmful. On September 27, 2012, the Human and Environmental Toxicology Journal published a study by Dr. Gary Goldman reporting a 4,250 percent increase in the number of miscarriages and stillbirths reported to VAERS in the 2009/2010 flu season.

As clinicians deeply invested in informed consent and whose prescribing practices may be called into question in the event of adverse maternal-fetal outcomes, I believe it to be in your best interest to acquaint yourself with the data that contradicts what the CDC and FDA might suggest with regard to efficacy and safety of this one-size-fits-all pharmaceutical product. We all know that these agencies are inefficient with regard to assimilation of available data.      ; )

Warmly, Kelly

A true appreciation of of microbial origins, coevolution, and the imperative to work with the natural world to overcome the assaults of post-industrial living will lead us to a new health care. I hope to continue to chip away at the encrusted illusions obscuring our true path toward health freedom. It’s time for us to get out of our own way.