• Deagel Makes Mysterious Changes To 2025 Population Forecast For America As Bill Gates Launches ‘Grand Challenge’: The ‘Holy Grail Of Influenza Research’ And ‘Bridging The Valley Of Death’
    April 10, 2020 Algora Blog
    All News Pipeline – by Stefan Stanford

    First published on May 2, 2018

    While Microsoft founder and vaccine propagandist Bill Gates recently warned that the next deadly flu epidemic is just waiting around the corner and it could quickly lead to the deaths of more than 30 million people, we’re not the least bit surprised that he also claims a ‘universal flu shot’ is the answer to prevent such a deadly pandemic, this despite the fact that even medical experts claimed that this year’s flu shot was hardly a preventive and actually led to the spread of the flu.

    With the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation teaming up with Google co-founder Larry Page to launch the ‘Grand Challenge’ of what they call the ‘holy grail of influenza research‘, an attempt to develop a ‘universal vaccine‘, Gates and Page are giving out individual grants of between $250,000 and $2 million over 2 years to those attempting to develop such a universal flu shot with human testing set to begin by 2021.

    Calling upon computational biology, bioinformatics, artificial intelligence, machine learning and other new technologies to be used as aids in the ongoing research, Gates and Page hope to ‘bridge the funding‘ of such projects due to what they call the “valley of death” between novel concepts and clinical trial-ready products.

    bgda.jpg

    And while like many globalists, Gates and Page sound ‘sincere’ in their goals to prevent the spread of an epidemic that could cull tens of millions of lives, we must always remember that Gates and the Gates Foundation are also proponents of eugenics with Gates himself coming out directly and stated the world is far too overpopulated as heard directly from him in the 2nd video below while his father, William H Gates Sr., was a former board member of ‘Planned Parenthood’.

    Bill Gates has doubled down on his goal to depopulate the planet, using deceitful Orwellian doublespeak in a new video to bamboozle his naive followers into believing that “by making people healthier, we can reduce the world’s population”.

    Make no mistake, when Gates talks about “making people healthier” what he is really talking about is enforcing the mandatory roll out of his range of experimental vaccinations. The same vaccines that have already caused mass sterilization and death on multiple continents.

    The second-richest man on the planet is a committed globalist and eugenicist working towards the New World Order goal of depopulation. Lest anyone forget these facts, Bill Gates regularly goes out of his way to remind us of them.

    Bill Gates and his foundation have consistently come under fire for their goal of depopulation, and now the same man who admitted in a TED talk that his goal is to eliminate a billion humans from the face of the Earth has now taken to Facebook to lecture us about why being eradicated is in our own interests.

    And while the website Deagel.com has recently made some very mysterious changes to their 2025 forecast for America as we report in much more detail below, as we hear in the final video below from the Leak Project and read in this March story from The Sun, one medical health expert is warning of a mutant virus that sounds straight from a science fiction movie, potentiall becoming the fastest-spreading viral killer known to the human race and as he tels us, such a killer virus outbreak could happen tomorrow.

    Dr Jonathan Quick, chair of the Global Health Council, said the flu virus is “the most diabolical, hardest-to-control, and fastest-spreading potential viral killer known to humankind”.

    Describing what sounds like scenes from a horror film, Dr Quick warned in The Daily Mail of starvation, medicine supplies running low, energy systems crippling under the pressure and the collapse of the global economy.

    And what’s could cause such devastation, on a global scale?

    “The most likely culprit will be a new and unprecedentedly deadly mutation of the influenza virus. The conditions are right, it could happen tomorrow.”

    deagel_us_forecast_change.gif

    And while the website Deagel.com is STILL forecasting a massive depopulation for America by 2025, on our visit to their website this morning we found a huge difference in their 2025 forecast from just weeks ago.

    As we had reported on ANP back on December 31st of 2017, Deagel was previously forecasting the US population to drop to 54 million people by 2025, down from what was then 324 million people in 2016. Well as we see now in the screenshot above taken from their website page for the United States this morning, Deagel is now forecasting that the 2025 population of the USA will be a nice, round 100 million people – nearly doubling their previous 2025 forecast for America of 54 million.

    Yet as it’s easy to see, even a 2025 forecast of 100 million people living here in less than 8 years is STILL DOWN 227 million from the 2017 population of America. How will America LOSE 227 million people by 2025?

    We’d love to know why Deagel is forecasting the population of the US to drop from 327 million in 2017 to only 100 million in 2025, with them also forecasting a 2025 US military budget of 32 billion dollars, down from our 2017 military budget of $637 billion, while forecasting our population density to drop from 34 inhabitants per square mile to only 10 inhabitants per square mile in 2025. While our emails to Deagel have gone unreturned, what does Deagel know that we don’t know?

    Also forecasting that our gross domestic product will drop from $19 trillion in 2017 to only $2.4 trillion in 2025, Deagel’s numbers for America in 2025 still show an America in total collapse, a 3rd world nation with our GDP per capita more than cut in half while our purchase power parity is forecast to be lower than Thailand, Columbia, Bulgaria, Croatia and Montenegro.

    dsatds.png

    And before you go and discount Deagel’s numbers, its very important to know that their sources ARE the ‘deep state’ with the CIA, US Department of Defense, US Department of State and World Bank contributing data for their forecasts. So…. what does Deagel know what we don’t know? Their souces make clear that whatever Deagel knows, the ‘deep state’ knows, too!

    While Deagel leaves no explanation on their website about why they’ve made these changes to the 2025 forecast population of America, as we’ve previously reported on ANP, they did put out an explanation back in October of 2014 about why they were forecasting such a huge drop for America, ‘a confluence of crisis’ with a devastating result‘. A brief excerpt from that 2014 explanation:

    The key element to understand the process that the USA will enter in the upcoming decade is migration. In the past, specially in the 20th century, the key factor that allowed the USA to rise to its colossus status was immigration with the benefits of a demographic expansion supporting the credit expansion and the brain drain from the rest of the world benefiting the States.

    The collapse of the Western financial system will wipe out the standard of living of its population while ending ponzi schemes such as the stock exchange and the pension funds. The population will be hit so badly by a full array of bubbles and ponzi schemes that the migration engine will start to work in reverse accelerating itself due to ripple effects thus leading to the demise of the States. This unseen situation for the States will develop itself in a cascade pattern with unprecedented and devastating effects for the economy. Jobs offshoring will surely end with many American Corporations relocating overseas thus becoming foreign Corporations!!!!

    We see a significant part of the American population migrating to Latin America and Asia while migration to Europe – suffering a similar illness – won’t be relevant. Nevertheless the death toll will be horrible. Take into account that the Soviet Union’s population was poorer than the Americans nowadays or even then. The ex-Soviets suffered during the following struggle in the 1990s with a significant death toll and the loss of national pride. Might we say “Twice the pride, double the fall”? Nope.

    The American standard of living is one of the highest, far more than double of the Soviets while having a services economy that will be gone with the financial system. When pensioners see their retirement disappear in front of their eyes and there are no servicing jobs you can imagine what is going to happen next. At least younger people can migrate. Never in human history were so many elders among the population. In past centuries people were lucky to get to their 30s or 40s. The American downfall is set to be far worse than the Soviet Union’s one. A confluence of crisis with a devastating result.

    GeorgiaGuidestonedepopquote.jpg

    And while their expected culling of 227 million Americans isn’t quite as many as they were forecasting just weeks ago, they are still forecasting a huge drop for America’s population within less than 8 years, a population drop-off which is still unadequately explained, even using their 2014 explanation seen in the previous section of this story above.

    While the mainstream media and gatekeepers such as snopes will continue to call the globalists depopulation agenda a ‘conspiracy theory’ despite the fact that its written in granite upon the mysterious Georgia Guidestones, we hear from videographer Truth Happens in the first video below all about Gates plans for a universal vaccine with our videographer also talking with us about the globalists depopulation agenda.

    And in the final video from videographer ‘Leak Project’ about the suspect ‘mutant virus’ on the loose that some warn could eventually lead to the deaths of 300 million or more, with medical experts warning the conditions for such a deadly outbreak are perfect despite the fact that they still don’t even know exactly what will cause this ‘outbreak’.

    Share this page to Telegram
    Generate PDF


    https://www.algora.com/Algora_blog/2020/04/10/deagel-makes-mysterious-changes-to-2025-population-forecast-for-america-as-bill-gates-launches-gran-d-challenge-the-holy-grail-of-influenza-research-and-b
    Deagel Makes Mysterious Changes To 2025 Population Forecast For America As Bill Gates Launches ‘Grand Challenge’: The ‘Holy Grail Of Influenza Research’ And ‘Bridging The Valley Of Death’ April 10, 2020 Algora Blog All News Pipeline – by Stefan Stanford First published on May 2, 2018 While Microsoft founder and vaccine propagandist Bill Gates recently warned that the next deadly flu epidemic is just waiting around the corner and it could quickly lead to the deaths of more than 30 million people, we’re not the least bit surprised that he also claims a ‘universal flu shot’ is the answer to prevent such a deadly pandemic, this despite the fact that even medical experts claimed that this year’s flu shot was hardly a preventive and actually led to the spread of the flu. With the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation teaming up with Google co-founder Larry Page to launch the ‘Grand Challenge’ of what they call the ‘holy grail of influenza research‘, an attempt to develop a ‘universal vaccine‘, Gates and Page are giving out individual grants of between $250,000 and $2 million over 2 years to those attempting to develop such a universal flu shot with human testing set to begin by 2021. Calling upon computational biology, bioinformatics, artificial intelligence, machine learning and other new technologies to be used as aids in the ongoing research, Gates and Page hope to ‘bridge the funding‘ of such projects due to what they call the “valley of death” between novel concepts and clinical trial-ready products. bgda.jpg And while like many globalists, Gates and Page sound ‘sincere’ in their goals to prevent the spread of an epidemic that could cull tens of millions of lives, we must always remember that Gates and the Gates Foundation are also proponents of eugenics with Gates himself coming out directly and stated the world is far too overpopulated as heard directly from him in the 2nd video below while his father, William H Gates Sr., was a former board member of ‘Planned Parenthood’. Bill Gates has doubled down on his goal to depopulate the planet, using deceitful Orwellian doublespeak in a new video to bamboozle his naive followers into believing that “by making people healthier, we can reduce the world’s population”. Make no mistake, when Gates talks about “making people healthier” what he is really talking about is enforcing the mandatory roll out of his range of experimental vaccinations. The same vaccines that have already caused mass sterilization and death on multiple continents. The second-richest man on the planet is a committed globalist and eugenicist working towards the New World Order goal of depopulation. Lest anyone forget these facts, Bill Gates regularly goes out of his way to remind us of them. Bill Gates and his foundation have consistently come under fire for their goal of depopulation, and now the same man who admitted in a TED talk that his goal is to eliminate a billion humans from the face of the Earth has now taken to Facebook to lecture us about why being eradicated is in our own interests. And while the website Deagel.com has recently made some very mysterious changes to their 2025 forecast for America as we report in much more detail below, as we hear in the final video below from the Leak Project and read in this March story from The Sun, one medical health expert is warning of a mutant virus that sounds straight from a science fiction movie, potentiall becoming the fastest-spreading viral killer known to the human race and as he tels us, such a killer virus outbreak could happen tomorrow. Dr Jonathan Quick, chair of the Global Health Council, said the flu virus is “the most diabolical, hardest-to-control, and fastest-spreading potential viral killer known to humankind”. Describing what sounds like scenes from a horror film, Dr Quick warned in The Daily Mail of starvation, medicine supplies running low, energy systems crippling under the pressure and the collapse of the global economy. And what’s could cause such devastation, on a global scale? “The most likely culprit will be a new and unprecedentedly deadly mutation of the influenza virus. The conditions are right, it could happen tomorrow.” deagel_us_forecast_change.gif And while the website Deagel.com is STILL forecasting a massive depopulation for America by 2025, on our visit to their website this morning we found a huge difference in their 2025 forecast from just weeks ago. As we had reported on ANP back on December 31st of 2017, Deagel was previously forecasting the US population to drop to 54 million people by 2025, down from what was then 324 million people in 2016. Well as we see now in the screenshot above taken from their website page for the United States this morning, Deagel is now forecasting that the 2025 population of the USA will be a nice, round 100 million people – nearly doubling their previous 2025 forecast for America of 54 million. Yet as it’s easy to see, even a 2025 forecast of 100 million people living here in less than 8 years is STILL DOWN 227 million from the 2017 population of America. How will America LOSE 227 million people by 2025? We’d love to know why Deagel is forecasting the population of the US to drop from 327 million in 2017 to only 100 million in 2025, with them also forecasting a 2025 US military budget of 32 billion dollars, down from our 2017 military budget of $637 billion, while forecasting our population density to drop from 34 inhabitants per square mile to only 10 inhabitants per square mile in 2025. While our emails to Deagel have gone unreturned, what does Deagel know that we don’t know? Also forecasting that our gross domestic product will drop from $19 trillion in 2017 to only $2.4 trillion in 2025, Deagel’s numbers for America in 2025 still show an America in total collapse, a 3rd world nation with our GDP per capita more than cut in half while our purchase power parity is forecast to be lower than Thailand, Columbia, Bulgaria, Croatia and Montenegro. dsatds.png And before you go and discount Deagel’s numbers, its very important to know that their sources ARE the ‘deep state’ with the CIA, US Department of Defense, US Department of State and World Bank contributing data for their forecasts. So…. what does Deagel know what we don’t know? Their souces make clear that whatever Deagel knows, the ‘deep state’ knows, too! While Deagel leaves no explanation on their website about why they’ve made these changes to the 2025 forecast population of America, as we’ve previously reported on ANP, they did put out an explanation back in October of 2014 about why they were forecasting such a huge drop for America, ‘a confluence of crisis’ with a devastating result‘. A brief excerpt from that 2014 explanation: The key element to understand the process that the USA will enter in the upcoming decade is migration. In the past, specially in the 20th century, the key factor that allowed the USA to rise to its colossus status was immigration with the benefits of a demographic expansion supporting the credit expansion and the brain drain from the rest of the world benefiting the States. The collapse of the Western financial system will wipe out the standard of living of its population while ending ponzi schemes such as the stock exchange and the pension funds. The population will be hit so badly by a full array of bubbles and ponzi schemes that the migration engine will start to work in reverse accelerating itself due to ripple effects thus leading to the demise of the States. This unseen situation for the States will develop itself in a cascade pattern with unprecedented and devastating effects for the economy. Jobs offshoring will surely end with many American Corporations relocating overseas thus becoming foreign Corporations!!!! We see a significant part of the American population migrating to Latin America and Asia while migration to Europe – suffering a similar illness – won’t be relevant. Nevertheless the death toll will be horrible. Take into account that the Soviet Union’s population was poorer than the Americans nowadays or even then. The ex-Soviets suffered during the following struggle in the 1990s with a significant death toll and the loss of national pride. Might we say “Twice the pride, double the fall”? Nope. The American standard of living is one of the highest, far more than double of the Soviets while having a services economy that will be gone with the financial system. When pensioners see their retirement disappear in front of their eyes and there are no servicing jobs you can imagine what is going to happen next. At least younger people can migrate. Never in human history were so many elders among the population. In past centuries people were lucky to get to their 30s or 40s. The American downfall is set to be far worse than the Soviet Union’s one. A confluence of crisis with a devastating result. GeorgiaGuidestonedepopquote.jpg And while their expected culling of 227 million Americans isn’t quite as many as they were forecasting just weeks ago, they are still forecasting a huge drop for America’s population within less than 8 years, a population drop-off which is still unadequately explained, even using their 2014 explanation seen in the previous section of this story above. While the mainstream media and gatekeepers such as snopes will continue to call the globalists depopulation agenda a ‘conspiracy theory’ despite the fact that its written in granite upon the mysterious Georgia Guidestones, we hear from videographer Truth Happens in the first video below all about Gates plans for a universal vaccine with our videographer also talking with us about the globalists depopulation agenda. And in the final video from videographer ‘Leak Project’ about the suspect ‘mutant virus’ on the loose that some warn could eventually lead to the deaths of 300 million or more, with medical experts warning the conditions for such a deadly outbreak are perfect despite the fact that they still don’t even know exactly what will cause this ‘outbreak’. Share this page to Telegram Generate PDF https://www.algora.com/Algora_blog/2020/04/10/deagel-makes-mysterious-changes-to-2025-population-forecast-for-america-as-bill-gates-launches-gran-d-challenge-the-holy-grail-of-influenza-research-and-b
    WWW.ALGORA.COM
    Deagel Makes Mysterious Changes To 2025 Population Forecast For America As Bill Gates Launches ‘Grand Challenge’: The ‘Holy Grail Of Influenza Research’ And ‘Bridging The Valley Of Death’
    All News Pipeline – by Stefan Stanford First published on May 2, 2018 While Microsoft founder and vaccine propagandist Bill Gates recently warned that the next deadly flu epidemic is just waiting around the corner and it could quickly lead to the deaths of more than 30 million people, we’re not the least bit surprised
    0 Comments 0 Shares 566 Views
  • Ukraine’s murder of 30 Russian journalists met with Western indifference…or grotesque gloating
    Eva BartlettJuly 3, 2024

    -by Eva Karene Bartlett

    Just over two weeks after another Russian journalist was deliberately targeted and killed by Ukrainian forces, global media and most international journalist support groups remain unsurprisingly silent.

    Nikita Tsitsagi, 29, a Russian photojournalist, was targeted by a Ukrainian drone on June 16 as he prepared to do another report from the St. Nicholas Monastery near Ugledar—a monastery, heavily-targeted by Ukrainian shelling over the years. Yet, civilians remain the region, and many have taken shelter in the monastery. These are often the focus of journalists who go there.

    Just three days prior, Ukrainian forces targeted Russian NTV journalists filming in the extremely hard hit village of Golmovsky, east of the northern DPR city of Gorlovka. The Ukrainian drone strike killed cameraman Valery Kozhin and seriously injured Alexey Ivliyev, a war correspondent.

    The targeting of journalists is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

    In June, President Vladimir Putin spoke of Ukraine’s targeting of Russian journalists, noting, “At least 30 people died, our journalists died, and no one gives us the opportunity to investigate what happened to them.”

    Russia’s Envoy to UNESCO in Paris called for UNESCO to condemn the killing of Russian journalists, saying:

    “All these killings, they were not condemned. This is despite the fact that the Secretariat has all the information on their killings.” He noted the lack of condemnation shows double standards and a political bias.


    It is sadly another case of only some journalists lives matter.


    Remembering Nikita

    Nikita’s murder is personal for me, as I’d met him several times and gotten to know his gentle character: kind, humble, generous with his time, and professional.

    We went together on two different occasions in November 2022 to interview people, one of which was to the Ukrainian-battered villages of Zaitsevo and Golmovsky in the Gorlovka region. Nikita kindly translated my questions to residents there, giving of his time and ensuring no nuance was lost.

    He also was quick to reply the few times I messaged him regarding an event in the Donbass or a contact I asked to speak with.

    His journalism covered military aspects, as well as humanitarian issues. One of his reports from July 2023 was from the same St. Nicholas Monastery where he was ultimately killed. I know the monastery, in June 2022, I went there with other Russian journalists. Ukrainian forces started shelling, apparently having spotted the van we arrived in. We sheltered, along with civilians living nearby, in the basement stairwell until the shelling subsided.

    Nikita’s July 2023 report, showed people taking cover in the same stairwell from the Ukrainian shelling. Then, he and those he accompanied courageously went to the home of elderly nearby, to evacuate them. Even if you don’t understand Russian, watching his report you can see his focus is on the suffering of civilians.

    Portuguese journalist Bruno Carvalho, who has reported extensively from the Donbass, knew Nikita. He told me:

    “Ukrainian propaganda said he was a Russian propagandist. This is not true. He told me he came to Donbass to see with his own eyes what was happening. He came to find the truth, and to show the truth as journalist. Ukraine committed a war crime killing him and other journalists as well. They bombed hotels full of journalists.”

    Hunting journalists

    Bombing hotel housing journalists is definitely one of Ukraine’s tactics. In June, 2022, using 155 mm caliber NATO standard shells, Ukrainian forces targeted directly next to the central Donetsk hotel numerous journalists were in, including myself. As I wrote at the time, it was plausible that Ukraine deliberately targeted a hotel known to house journalists.

    However, there were certainly many other very clear instances of Ukraine deliberately targeted journalists in hotels they were known to be staying in, most notably that of the Kherson hotel RT war correspondent Murad Gazdiev and his crew were in when in September 2022 Ukrainian armed forces hit it with an American HIMARS missile.

    Miraculously, the crew emerged from the rubble relatively unscathed. But one civilian (the hotel was full of civilians), ex-Ukrainian Rada deputy Zhuravko, was killed, along with his guard.

    Throughout the second half of 2022, there were many reports of Ukrainian targeting the three main hotels in Donetsk known to house journalists.

    Likewise, there are many clear examples of journalists coming under fire while reporting who thankfully were not killed. Too many to list here, I’ll note just a fraction of these instances.

    In December 2022, RT correspondent Maxim Toury and his colleagues were targeted by Ukrainian shelling. He wrote of the incident:

    “They filmed the work of our units. We were traveling in a civilian car, but, apparently, this did not prevent the Armed Forces of Ukraine from opening fire on the exact place where we were. There were at least 15 arrivals. Thank God, our team was not injured, but, unfortunately, there are injured among the escorts who were with us.”

    In August 2022, Izvestiya journalists filming a report near Ugledar, were deliberately targeted.

    “Ukrainian armed forces observed the journalists from a drone and then began bombing. Two hours later, a video from the same drone appeared on the Ukrainian segment of TikTok. ‘Here are the correspondents. There are guys in civilian clothes,’ says the Ukrainian drone operator.”

    Long time French-Russian war correspondent Christelle Néant and colleague Laurent Brayard came under intensive Ukrainian shelling while covering earlier shelling in a district of Petrovsky, western Donetsk in June 2022. Her car was destroyed.

    Ukraine’s assassinations of Russian journalists

    Of the at least 30 Russian journalists killed, the following are some of those recently murdered:

    In November 2023, in the Zaporozhye region, Ukrainian forces targeted a group of Russian journalists with a drone. One of the journalists, Boris Maksudov, died as a result of his injuries.

    In July 2023, Ukrainian shelling of a civilian vehicle killed RIA Novosti war correspondent Rostislav Zhuravlev, and injured four of his colleagues. The shelling was with US cluster munitions.


    In October 2022, Ukrainian forces shelled a group of Tavria TV and radio company’s reporters, killing journalist Oleg Klokov.

    In April 2023, in St. Petersburg, war correspondent Maxim Fomin (Vladlen Tatarsky) was murdered when a statuette he’d been handed, containing a bomb, exploded.

    In August 2022, journalist Darya Dugina was killed in a car bombing in Moscow. Both the murders of Dugina and Fomin are believed to be the work of Kiev’s intelligence agents. Ukrainian intelligence also plotted assassination attempts against RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan and journalist Ksenia Sobchak.

    But it’s worth pointing out these targeted killings didn’t start in 2022. Back in 2014, Russian photojournalist Andrei Stenin was killed in a Ukrainian attack on, “a vehicle traveling in a convoy of escaping civilians when it came under heavy fire.”

    Ghoulish celebration of murder of Russian journalists

    By now, Ukraine’s “kill list”, Myrotvorets, is well known. It’s an extensive list of Ukrainian, Russian and foreign journalists, commentators, analysts, several hundred children (!!!), and other figures who have in some way offended Kiev’s terrorist regime. Whatever is known about the person in question is put on the list, including address when possible. If the person is killed, they are marked “liquidated” on Myrotvorets, as was the case with Darya Dugina.


    There have been various renditions of this, black lists and graphics comprising people not in Kiev’s graces. The intent of which is intimidation, but also to discredit those listed as “Russian propagandists”.


    Professor and author, Glenn Diesen pointed out on X, “NEXTA, referring to itself as “the largest Eastern European media”, celebrates the killing of a journalist. This reflects a much wider problem: Anyone challenging NATO’s war narrative can be labelled a “propagandist”, which legitimises censorship, cancellation and even violence.”


    Indeed, recently George and Amal Clooney’s foundation announced their intention to seek arrest warrants for journalists from Russian state media, to be extradited to a country where a criminal case can be opened against them.

    This is absurdity—seeking to arrest journalists for doing their job! And, I’d note, this nonsense comes from the same actors who whitewashed terrorism in Syria.

    International Committees ignore Russian journalists

    Unsurprisingly, Nikita’s murder, nor those of the tens of Russian journalists before him, will not be highlighted by agencies whose mandate is supposedly to protect journalists.

    We’ve seen the same in Syria. In 2014, I wrote about the deliberate murders by Western-backed terrorists of Syrian and allied journalists in Syria, noting, “The murders of non-Westerners—whether in Syria, Palestine or elsewhere—doesn’t matter to the media and public, unless it serves an Imperialist or Zionist agenda.”

    In Gaza, it is exponentially worse. RT journalists Mustafa al-Bayed reported on June 17 that, according to the Government Media Office, 151 Palestinian journalists in Gaza have been killed since October 2023.

    Just over two weeks after Nikita Tsitsagi’s killing, there is still no entry on RSF, nor on CPJ. Somewhat surprisingly, The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) has condemned the murders of Tsitsagi and also that of NTV’s Valery Kozhin (although not fully impartially, as in spite of the 2022 referendum for the DPR to join Russia, IFJ still inserts “Russia’s occupied Donetsk region in eastern Ukraine” in its entry).

    Nor has UNESCO, although it has for decades condemned violence against journalists.

    However, searching all of the above sites for any mention of the Ukrainian targeted assassinations of those I’ve mentioned earlier, only Rostislav Zhuravlev is mentioned, again only by the IFJ. RSF even apparently refused to comment on its exclusion of the murders of Rostislav Zhuravlev and Boris Maksudov.

    They, being very partial organizations, serve NATO’s agenda; reporting on Ukraine’s slaughter of Russian journalists doesn’t.

    The very tragic irony is that none of these journalists would have been killed if Kiev had not unleashed hell on its former citizens in the Donbass a decade ago. Journalists reporting from there courageously put their lives on the line to show the world how Ukraine has been slaughtering civilians, with Western backing and using Western weapons.


    MY RELATED:

    –Ukraine bombed a Donetsk hotel full of journalists – here’s what it felt like to be inside at the time

    –I’m on a ‘hit list’ Kiev allows to silence dissent & journalism. That’s all you need to know about Ukrainian ‘democracy’

    –Media Black-Out on Arab Journalists and Civilians Beheaded in Syria by Western-Backed Terrorists

    –Reporters without shame: Top ‘media rights’ organization ignores rampant killings of Gaza journalists

    OTHER RELATED:

    –Kiev deliberately targeting journalists – Kremlin

    –Russian journalist killed in Ukrainian drone attack

    https://ingaza.wordpress.com/2024/07/03/ukraines-murder-of-30-russian-journalists-met-with-western-indifferenceor-grotesque-gloating/
    Ukraine’s murder of 30 Russian journalists met with Western indifference…or grotesque gloating Eva BartlettJuly 3, 2024 -by Eva Karene Bartlett Just over two weeks after another Russian journalist was deliberately targeted and killed by Ukrainian forces, global media and most international journalist support groups remain unsurprisingly silent. Nikita Tsitsagi, 29, a Russian photojournalist, was targeted by a Ukrainian drone on June 16 as he prepared to do another report from the St. Nicholas Monastery near Ugledar—a monastery, heavily-targeted by Ukrainian shelling over the years. Yet, civilians remain the region, and many have taken shelter in the monastery. These are often the focus of journalists who go there. Just three days prior, Ukrainian forces targeted Russian NTV journalists filming in the extremely hard hit village of Golmovsky, east of the northern DPR city of Gorlovka. The Ukrainian drone strike killed cameraman Valery Kozhin and seriously injured Alexey Ivliyev, a war correspondent. The targeting of journalists is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. In June, President Vladimir Putin spoke of Ukraine’s targeting of Russian journalists, noting, “At least 30 people died, our journalists died, and no one gives us the opportunity to investigate what happened to them.” Russia’s Envoy to UNESCO in Paris called for UNESCO to condemn the killing of Russian journalists, saying: “All these killings, they were not condemned. This is despite the fact that the Secretariat has all the information on their killings.” He noted the lack of condemnation shows double standards and a political bias. It is sadly another case of only some journalists lives matter. Remembering Nikita Nikita’s murder is personal for me, as I’d met him several times and gotten to know his gentle character: kind, humble, generous with his time, and professional. We went together on two different occasions in November 2022 to interview people, one of which was to the Ukrainian-battered villages of Zaitsevo and Golmovsky in the Gorlovka region. Nikita kindly translated my questions to residents there, giving of his time and ensuring no nuance was lost. He also was quick to reply the few times I messaged him regarding an event in the Donbass or a contact I asked to speak with. His journalism covered military aspects, as well as humanitarian issues. One of his reports from July 2023 was from the same St. Nicholas Monastery where he was ultimately killed. I know the monastery, in June 2022, I went there with other Russian journalists. Ukrainian forces started shelling, apparently having spotted the van we arrived in. We sheltered, along with civilians living nearby, in the basement stairwell until the shelling subsided. Nikita’s July 2023 report, showed people taking cover in the same stairwell from the Ukrainian shelling. Then, he and those he accompanied courageously went to the home of elderly nearby, to evacuate them. Even if you don’t understand Russian, watching his report you can see his focus is on the suffering of civilians. Portuguese journalist Bruno Carvalho, who has reported extensively from the Donbass, knew Nikita. He told me: “Ukrainian propaganda said he was a Russian propagandist. This is not true. He told me he came to Donbass to see with his own eyes what was happening. He came to find the truth, and to show the truth as journalist. Ukraine committed a war crime killing him and other journalists as well. They bombed hotels full of journalists.” Hunting journalists Bombing hotel housing journalists is definitely one of Ukraine’s tactics. In June, 2022, using 155 mm caliber NATO standard shells, Ukrainian forces targeted directly next to the central Donetsk hotel numerous journalists were in, including myself. As I wrote at the time, it was plausible that Ukraine deliberately targeted a hotel known to house journalists. However, there were certainly many other very clear instances of Ukraine deliberately targeted journalists in hotels they were known to be staying in, most notably that of the Kherson hotel RT war correspondent Murad Gazdiev and his crew were in when in September 2022 Ukrainian armed forces hit it with an American HIMARS missile. Miraculously, the crew emerged from the rubble relatively unscathed. But one civilian (the hotel was full of civilians), ex-Ukrainian Rada deputy Zhuravko, was killed, along with his guard. Throughout the second half of 2022, there were many reports of Ukrainian targeting the three main hotels in Donetsk known to house journalists. Likewise, there are many clear examples of journalists coming under fire while reporting who thankfully were not killed. Too many to list here, I’ll note just a fraction of these instances. In December 2022, RT correspondent Maxim Toury and his colleagues were targeted by Ukrainian shelling. He wrote of the incident: “They filmed the work of our units. We were traveling in a civilian car, but, apparently, this did not prevent the Armed Forces of Ukraine from opening fire on the exact place where we were. There were at least 15 arrivals. Thank God, our team was not injured, but, unfortunately, there are injured among the escorts who were with us.” In August 2022, Izvestiya journalists filming a report near Ugledar, were deliberately targeted. “Ukrainian armed forces observed the journalists from a drone and then began bombing. Two hours later, a video from the same drone appeared on the Ukrainian segment of TikTok. ‘Here are the correspondents. There are guys in civilian clothes,’ says the Ukrainian drone operator.” Long time French-Russian war correspondent Christelle Néant and colleague Laurent Brayard came under intensive Ukrainian shelling while covering earlier shelling in a district of Petrovsky, western Donetsk in June 2022. Her car was destroyed. Ukraine’s assassinations of Russian journalists Of the at least 30 Russian journalists killed, the following are some of those recently murdered: In November 2023, in the Zaporozhye region, Ukrainian forces targeted a group of Russian journalists with a drone. One of the journalists, Boris Maksudov, died as a result of his injuries. In July 2023, Ukrainian shelling of a civilian vehicle killed RIA Novosti war correspondent Rostislav Zhuravlev, and injured four of his colleagues. The shelling was with US cluster munitions. In October 2022, Ukrainian forces shelled a group of Tavria TV and radio company’s reporters, killing journalist Oleg Klokov. In April 2023, in St. Petersburg, war correspondent Maxim Fomin (Vladlen Tatarsky) was murdered when a statuette he’d been handed, containing a bomb, exploded. In August 2022, journalist Darya Dugina was killed in a car bombing in Moscow. Both the murders of Dugina and Fomin are believed to be the work of Kiev’s intelligence agents. Ukrainian intelligence also plotted assassination attempts against RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan and journalist Ksenia Sobchak. But it’s worth pointing out these targeted killings didn’t start in 2022. Back in 2014, Russian photojournalist Andrei Stenin was killed in a Ukrainian attack on, “a vehicle traveling in a convoy of escaping civilians when it came under heavy fire.” Ghoulish celebration of murder of Russian journalists By now, Ukraine’s “kill list”, Myrotvorets, is well known. It’s an extensive list of Ukrainian, Russian and foreign journalists, commentators, analysts, several hundred children (!!!), and other figures who have in some way offended Kiev’s terrorist regime. Whatever is known about the person in question is put on the list, including address when possible. If the person is killed, they are marked “liquidated” on Myrotvorets, as was the case with Darya Dugina. There have been various renditions of this, black lists and graphics comprising people not in Kiev’s graces. The intent of which is intimidation, but also to discredit those listed as “Russian propagandists”. Professor and author, Glenn Diesen pointed out on X, “NEXTA, referring to itself as “the largest Eastern European media”, celebrates the killing of a journalist. This reflects a much wider problem: Anyone challenging NATO’s war narrative can be labelled a “propagandist”, which legitimises censorship, cancellation and even violence.” Indeed, recently George and Amal Clooney’s foundation announced their intention to seek arrest warrants for journalists from Russian state media, to be extradited to a country where a criminal case can be opened against them. This is absurdity—seeking to arrest journalists for doing their job! And, I’d note, this nonsense comes from the same actors who whitewashed terrorism in Syria. International Committees ignore Russian journalists Unsurprisingly, Nikita’s murder, nor those of the tens of Russian journalists before him, will not be highlighted by agencies whose mandate is supposedly to protect journalists. We’ve seen the same in Syria. In 2014, I wrote about the deliberate murders by Western-backed terrorists of Syrian and allied journalists in Syria, noting, “The murders of non-Westerners—whether in Syria, Palestine or elsewhere—doesn’t matter to the media and public, unless it serves an Imperialist or Zionist agenda.” In Gaza, it is exponentially worse. RT journalists Mustafa al-Bayed reported on June 17 that, according to the Government Media Office, 151 Palestinian journalists in Gaza have been killed since October 2023. Just over two weeks after Nikita Tsitsagi’s killing, there is still no entry on RSF, nor on CPJ. Somewhat surprisingly, The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) has condemned the murders of Tsitsagi and also that of NTV’s Valery Kozhin (although not fully impartially, as in spite of the 2022 referendum for the DPR to join Russia, IFJ still inserts “Russia’s occupied Donetsk region in eastern Ukraine” in its entry). Nor has UNESCO, although it has for decades condemned violence against journalists. However, searching all of the above sites for any mention of the Ukrainian targeted assassinations of those I’ve mentioned earlier, only Rostislav Zhuravlev is mentioned, again only by the IFJ. RSF even apparently refused to comment on its exclusion of the murders of Rostislav Zhuravlev and Boris Maksudov. They, being very partial organizations, serve NATO’s agenda; reporting on Ukraine’s slaughter of Russian journalists doesn’t. The very tragic irony is that none of these journalists would have been killed if Kiev had not unleashed hell on its former citizens in the Donbass a decade ago. Journalists reporting from there courageously put their lives on the line to show the world how Ukraine has been slaughtering civilians, with Western backing and using Western weapons. MY RELATED: –Ukraine bombed a Donetsk hotel full of journalists – here’s what it felt like to be inside at the time –I’m on a ‘hit list’ Kiev allows to silence dissent & journalism. That’s all you need to know about Ukrainian ‘democracy’ –Media Black-Out on Arab Journalists and Civilians Beheaded in Syria by Western-Backed Terrorists –Reporters without shame: Top ‘media rights’ organization ignores rampant killings of Gaza journalists OTHER RELATED: –Kiev deliberately targeting journalists – Kremlin –Russian journalist killed in Ukrainian drone attack https://ingaza.wordpress.com/2024/07/03/ukraines-murder-of-30-russian-journalists-met-with-western-indifferenceor-grotesque-gloating/
    INGAZA.WORDPRESS.COM
    Ukraine’s murder of 30 Russian journalists met with Western indifference…or grotesque gloating
    -by Eva Karene Bartlett Just over two weeks after another Russian journalist was deliberately targeted and killed by Ukrainian forces, global media and most international journalist support groups …
    0 Comments 0 Shares 3404 Views
  • Gene Therapy to Correct the Damage Done by Gene Therapy. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
    Dr. Peter McCullough has been a courageous voice shouting out the horrifying dangers of mRNA jabs. Now he wants to play with your RNA to fix messing with your RNA. No, No, No, No!!!!!

    Rima E Laibow MD
    Something very, very wicked this way comes, supposedly to fix the last wicked thing that this way came.

    Share

    Dr. Peter McCullough, an early and widely sung hero in calling out the dangers of the Covid mRNA jabs (and a man who paid heavily in his academic and professional life for his bravery) recently (May 29, 2024) submitted a paper called “Strategic Deactivation of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines: New Applications for RIBOTACs and siRNA Therapy”,

    The paper proposes that a special type of modified, engineered and altered micro RNA, also known as “siRNA”, to undo the damage caused by the unexpected persistence and surprisingly wide distribution of the damaging and potentially deadly mRNA of the gene therapy jabs licensed by the FDA and deployed by Pfizer and Moderna. That damage, the paper makes clear, was not fully tested for before approval of the shots, has been clinically observed but only partially studied and is neither, fully understood nor fully characterized.

    So, in simple terms, the use of lipid nanoparticles and structural modifications caused the foreign novel mRNA to spread, linger and negatively impact the recipient across a wide and very dangerous spectrum of impacts.

    Now, according to Dr. McCullough and his team, there is a wonderful new potential option: make two brand new kinds of modified, engineered and altered mRNA structures and destroyer molecules and stick them into the body and let them fix what the other poorly tested, irrationally dangerous bioweapons do to bodies.

    They, too, use lipid nanoparticles and enter the cells but, presumably, not the genetic material (really? Didn’t we hear that before? and didn’t it turn out to be, at the very least, an error? And, in many cases, a disastrous and/or fatal error?)

    Leave a comment

    On April 19, 2023, Dr. McCullough referenced in his substack, Courageous Discourse, a widely quoted scoping review of the mRNA vaccines called, “The Novelty of mRNA Viral Vaccines and Potential Harms: A Scoping Review”, In it, Drs. Halma, Rose and Lawrie looked at the possible positive uses of mRNA technology even though its first clinical deployment has been a biological disaster.

    Dr. McCullough introduced the article by noting, “The Halma paper points out that safe mRNA products are possible. For example, properly designed mRNA coding for normal proteins that are deficient or ones that are sufficiently humanized and not recognized by the body as foreign could indeed become part of the future pharmacopeia. But there is no doubt that the first use of mRNA on a mass, indiscriminate scale has been a disaster with the COVID-19 vaccine campaign.”

    On January 7, 2023, Sasha Latypova posted a YouTube video documenting the development of the COVID mRNA vaccines as bioweapons by the Department of Defense. Dr. McCullough has raised the same issues, suggesting that COVID-19 vaccines could be considered as part of a bioweapons program.

    Quick disclaimer: I am not a specialist in genetics, virology or immunology. I am a well-educated, iconoclastic critical thinker who has practiced outside the box, drug free psychiatry and medicine for 54 years. My clinical expertise is in understanding connections, root causes and their impacts and then finding ways to fix the basic problem(s) which caused the mis/mal/disfunction in the first place.

    That means that my mind works best looking at both the very big, interconnected web sort of picture and, at the same time, the minute, nuts and bolts mechanistic picture, too. So I am both a specialist and a generalist in various areas at the same time.

    But there is always a level of deep specialization that I simply have to take on faith.

    Highly technical statements about the manufacture and function of these molecules are not ones that I can evaluate with any level of precision so when the article states, for example, “Endogenous mRNA exits the nucleus to localize in the cytosol where the level of gene expression is mediated by rates of mRNA synthesis and degradation. The mRNA decay pathway is initiated via Pan2 Pan3 and Ccr4 Not complex mediated deadenylation. Subsequently, the mRNA can be processed through Xrn1 or exosome mediated degradation. That is, 5’ 3’ degradation occurs when the Lsm1 7/Pat 1 complex binds to the 3’ end and recruits the Dcp1 Dcp2 decapping complex thus exposing the 5’ end to Xrn1 enzymatic activity. Alternatively, 3’ 5’ degradation by the cytoplasmic exosome occurs without decapping. Based upon thousands of transcript decay rates, Yang et al. estimate that the median mRNA half-life in human cells is 10h. Interestingly, both gene function and sequence motifs are correlated with human mRNA decay rates”

    I cannot argue with, or agree with, the data and assertions presented here. But I can, as an intelligent and reasonably well-informed scientist and physician, question the premises being set forth here because it is remarkably simple:

    The use of the bioweapon jabs, developed to be bioweapons and therefore to damage and kill, which is, after all, what a bioweapon is supposed to do, when these bioweapons were misrepresented as vaccines, commonly understood to prevent damage and death, and authorized as the ONLY treatment or cure for the deadly pandemic threat has resulted in the most successful genocide in human history.

    Dr. Dennis Rancourt says that the deployment of these bioweapons has so far killed between 17-20 million people worldwide, at its most conservative number. Dr. James Thorp says that their deployment has, all things considered, resulted in the deaths of about a half a billion people and we are certainly not home yet when it comes to the final count of iatrogenocidal deaths (that is, doctor delivered deaths).

    The mRNA bioweapon, specifically, injected into the bodies of billions of people with inadequate testing for a health product, but perfectly adequate testing for a bioweapon, is killing us in ways both known, emerging and unknown.

    So, clearly, the antidote, the cure, the fix, for shooting a wildly toxic wild card gene therapy into the disposable population of the planet is to shoot another untested, unknown, cooked-up in a laboratory witches brew of gene therapy nightmares.

    What could possibly go wrong? If killing people is the goal, not much.

    I do not want to speculate on why Dr. McCullough would be pushing these ideas. The possibilities are very, very upsetting. I cannot believe that as knowledgeable and scientifically sophisticated doctor and researcher as Dr. McCullough would simply assume that another go-round of the world tragedy of a massive disaster in a syringe would somehow turn out just fine.

    I cannot believe that he would sincerely advocate for more of the toxin killing vast numbers of people to be injected because it MIGHT do more good than harm.

    I cannot believe that he would want to use a potentially helpful, or potentially disastrous genetic manipulation, complete with lipid nano particles and what sounds to me for all the world like a fully or semi-self assembling nano technology innovation on a population already dying from the use of pretty similar technology presented as a boon but which was - and is - really a bioweapon.

    Either I have missed something very basic and very important here or Dr. McCullough is working off another agenda than the one that he has positioned himself to be focused on.

    I am deeply distressed by this turn of events.

    Whichever the case is for Dr. McCullough, the fact is that the bioweapon is part of the strategy of the Death Machine currently arrayed to, quite literally, destroy humanity. That killing machine is a private club of Unelected Nobodies, the United Nations.

    And its “health” apparatus, the WHO, is a servomotor, not the driving force of the monster.

    Thus, in my opinion, as awful as the WHO is, and it really is quite terrible, it is merely a pimple on the ass of the monster. Instead of trying to empty the pus out of it, how about we kill the damn monster!

    Right now, there is a bill before the US Congress called the Disengaging Entirely From the UN Debacle Act of 2023 (HR 6645/ S 3428). And we need to pressure Congress so that they do not dare NOT pass it.

    I estimate it will take 10 million people riding their freedom mice using the Https://PreventGenocide2030.org website. It is quick, it is easy and it is essential.

    Please go there now, take the action and then make sure you have told everyone not only that you have taken the action, but how they can join the movement to make sure that the US and its allies leave the UIN completely.

    When you read the Legal Memo on that page, you will see that no country in the world actually has a valid treaty obligation with the UN Death Machine so what we are supporting with the US’ determination to exit the UN, is critically important in every country around the world.

    I have a simple mind. I do not understand how injecting pus and poison into a living thing is supposed to protect the living thing against some disease or other and actually help make you healthier.

    But as bad as vaccine practice is, this introduction of a novel mess-around-with-the-basic-operations-of-the-cells-and-genes to make things better that were caused by pretty much the same sort of malfeasance makes no sense to me in any way and scares the living daylights out of me.

    So, Dr. McCullough, what am I missing here? Please tell me I am wrong about your focus, your agenda and your intentions. You have been inspirational to me. I would hate to lose you.

    1
    2
    The Novelty of mRNA Viral Vaccines and Potential Harms: A Scoping Review (substack.com)

    3
    The Novelty of mRNA Viral Vaccines and Potential Harms: A Scoping Review (substack.com)

    4
    Halma, M.T.J.; Rose, J.; Lawrie, T. The Novelty of mRNA Viral Vaccines and Potential Harms: A Scoping Review. J 2023, 6, 220-235. https://doi.org/10.3390/j6020017

    https://substack.com/home/post/p-145884915
    Gene Therapy to Correct the Damage Done by Gene Therapy. What Could Possibly Go Wrong? Dr. Peter McCullough has been a courageous voice shouting out the horrifying dangers of mRNA jabs. Now he wants to play with your RNA to fix messing with your RNA. No, No, No, No!!!!! Rima E Laibow MD Something very, very wicked this way comes, supposedly to fix the last wicked thing that this way came. Share Dr. Peter McCullough, an early and widely sung hero in calling out the dangers of the Covid mRNA jabs (and a man who paid heavily in his academic and professional life for his bravery) recently (May 29, 2024) submitted a paper called “Strategic Deactivation of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines: New Applications for RIBOTACs and siRNA Therapy”, The paper proposes that a special type of modified, engineered and altered micro RNA, also known as “siRNA”, to undo the damage caused by the unexpected persistence and surprisingly wide distribution of the damaging and potentially deadly mRNA of the gene therapy jabs licensed by the FDA and deployed by Pfizer and Moderna. That damage, the paper makes clear, was not fully tested for before approval of the shots, has been clinically observed but only partially studied and is neither, fully understood nor fully characterized. So, in simple terms, the use of lipid nanoparticles and structural modifications caused the foreign novel mRNA to spread, linger and negatively impact the recipient across a wide and very dangerous spectrum of impacts. Now, according to Dr. McCullough and his team, there is a wonderful new potential option: make two brand new kinds of modified, engineered and altered mRNA structures and destroyer molecules and stick them into the body and let them fix what the other poorly tested, irrationally dangerous bioweapons do to bodies. They, too, use lipid nanoparticles and enter the cells but, presumably, not the genetic material (really? Didn’t we hear that before? and didn’t it turn out to be, at the very least, an error? And, in many cases, a disastrous and/or fatal error?) Leave a comment On April 19, 2023, Dr. McCullough referenced in his substack, Courageous Discourse, a widely quoted scoping review of the mRNA vaccines called, “The Novelty of mRNA Viral Vaccines and Potential Harms: A Scoping Review”, In it, Drs. Halma, Rose and Lawrie looked at the possible positive uses of mRNA technology even though its first clinical deployment has been a biological disaster. Dr. McCullough introduced the article by noting, “The Halma paper points out that safe mRNA products are possible. For example, properly designed mRNA coding for normal proteins that are deficient or ones that are sufficiently humanized and not recognized by the body as foreign could indeed become part of the future pharmacopeia. But there is no doubt that the first use of mRNA on a mass, indiscriminate scale has been a disaster with the COVID-19 vaccine campaign.” On January 7, 2023, Sasha Latypova posted a YouTube video documenting the development of the COVID mRNA vaccines as bioweapons by the Department of Defense. Dr. McCullough has raised the same issues, suggesting that COVID-19 vaccines could be considered as part of a bioweapons program. Quick disclaimer: I am not a specialist in genetics, virology or immunology. I am a well-educated, iconoclastic critical thinker who has practiced outside the box, drug free psychiatry and medicine for 54 years. My clinical expertise is in understanding connections, root causes and their impacts and then finding ways to fix the basic problem(s) which caused the mis/mal/disfunction in the first place. That means that my mind works best looking at both the very big, interconnected web sort of picture and, at the same time, the minute, nuts and bolts mechanistic picture, too. So I am both a specialist and a generalist in various areas at the same time. But there is always a level of deep specialization that I simply have to take on faith. Highly technical statements about the manufacture and function of these molecules are not ones that I can evaluate with any level of precision so when the article states, for example, “Endogenous mRNA exits the nucleus to localize in the cytosol where the level of gene expression is mediated by rates of mRNA synthesis and degradation. The mRNA decay pathway is initiated via Pan2 Pan3 and Ccr4 Not complex mediated deadenylation. Subsequently, the mRNA can be processed through Xrn1 or exosome mediated degradation. That is, 5’ 3’ degradation occurs when the Lsm1 7/Pat 1 complex binds to the 3’ end and recruits the Dcp1 Dcp2 decapping complex thus exposing the 5’ end to Xrn1 enzymatic activity. Alternatively, 3’ 5’ degradation by the cytoplasmic exosome occurs without decapping. Based upon thousands of transcript decay rates, Yang et al. estimate that the median mRNA half-life in human cells is 10h. Interestingly, both gene function and sequence motifs are correlated with human mRNA decay rates” I cannot argue with, or agree with, the data and assertions presented here. But I can, as an intelligent and reasonably well-informed scientist and physician, question the premises being set forth here because it is remarkably simple: The use of the bioweapon jabs, developed to be bioweapons and therefore to damage and kill, which is, after all, what a bioweapon is supposed to do, when these bioweapons were misrepresented as vaccines, commonly understood to prevent damage and death, and authorized as the ONLY treatment or cure for the deadly pandemic threat has resulted in the most successful genocide in human history. Dr. Dennis Rancourt says that the deployment of these bioweapons has so far killed between 17-20 million people worldwide, at its most conservative number. Dr. James Thorp says that their deployment has, all things considered, resulted in the deaths of about a half a billion people and we are certainly not home yet when it comes to the final count of iatrogenocidal deaths (that is, doctor delivered deaths). The mRNA bioweapon, specifically, injected into the bodies of billions of people with inadequate testing for a health product, but perfectly adequate testing for a bioweapon, is killing us in ways both known, emerging and unknown. So, clearly, the antidote, the cure, the fix, for shooting a wildly toxic wild card gene therapy into the disposable population of the planet is to shoot another untested, unknown, cooked-up in a laboratory witches brew of gene therapy nightmares. What could possibly go wrong? If killing people is the goal, not much. I do not want to speculate on why Dr. McCullough would be pushing these ideas. The possibilities are very, very upsetting. I cannot believe that as knowledgeable and scientifically sophisticated doctor and researcher as Dr. McCullough would simply assume that another go-round of the world tragedy of a massive disaster in a syringe would somehow turn out just fine. I cannot believe that he would sincerely advocate for more of the toxin killing vast numbers of people to be injected because it MIGHT do more good than harm. I cannot believe that he would want to use a potentially helpful, or potentially disastrous genetic manipulation, complete with lipid nano particles and what sounds to me for all the world like a fully or semi-self assembling nano technology innovation on a population already dying from the use of pretty similar technology presented as a boon but which was - and is - really a bioweapon. Either I have missed something very basic and very important here or Dr. McCullough is working off another agenda than the one that he has positioned himself to be focused on. I am deeply distressed by this turn of events. Whichever the case is for Dr. McCullough, the fact is that the bioweapon is part of the strategy of the Death Machine currently arrayed to, quite literally, destroy humanity. That killing machine is a private club of Unelected Nobodies, the United Nations. And its “health” apparatus, the WHO, is a servomotor, not the driving force of the monster. Thus, in my opinion, as awful as the WHO is, and it really is quite terrible, it is merely a pimple on the ass of the monster. Instead of trying to empty the pus out of it, how about we kill the damn monster! Right now, there is a bill before the US Congress called the Disengaging Entirely From the UN Debacle Act of 2023 (HR 6645/ S 3428). And we need to pressure Congress so that they do not dare NOT pass it. I estimate it will take 10 million people riding their freedom mice using the Https://PreventGenocide2030.org website. It is quick, it is easy and it is essential. Please go there now, take the action and then make sure you have told everyone not only that you have taken the action, but how they can join the movement to make sure that the US and its allies leave the UIN completely. When you read the Legal Memo on that page, you will see that no country in the world actually has a valid treaty obligation with the UN Death Machine so what we are supporting with the US’ determination to exit the UN, is critically important in every country around the world. I have a simple mind. I do not understand how injecting pus and poison into a living thing is supposed to protect the living thing against some disease or other and actually help make you healthier. But as bad as vaccine practice is, this introduction of a novel mess-around-with-the-basic-operations-of-the-cells-and-genes to make things better that were caused by pretty much the same sort of malfeasance makes no sense to me in any way and scares the living daylights out of me. So, Dr. McCullough, what am I missing here? Please tell me I am wrong about your focus, your agenda and your intentions. You have been inspirational to me. I would hate to lose you. 1 2 The Novelty of mRNA Viral Vaccines and Potential Harms: A Scoping Review (substack.com) 3 The Novelty of mRNA Viral Vaccines and Potential Harms: A Scoping Review (substack.com) 4 Halma, M.T.J.; Rose, J.; Lawrie, T. The Novelty of mRNA Viral Vaccines and Potential Harms: A Scoping Review. J 2023, 6, 220-235. https://doi.org/10.3390/j6020017 https://substack.com/home/post/p-145884915
    SUBSTACK.COM
    Gene Therapy to Correct the Damage Done by Gene Therapy. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
    Dr. Peter McCullough has been a courageous voice shouting out the horrifying dangers of mRNA jabs. Now he wants to play with your RNA to fix messing with your RNA. No, No, No, No!!!!!
    0 Comments 0 Shares 3377 Views
  • A Critical Look at a COVID-19 Vaccination Study: Clarity is Key
    July 7, 2024
    Uncategorized
    By Sarena L. McLean MSc. (Epidemiology & Biostatistics), Health Sciences Researcher & Member of Doctors for Covid Ethics (2021)

    The study “A Critical Analysis of All-Cause Deaths during COVID-19 Vaccination in an Italian Province” by Alessandria et al. aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on all-cause mortality while correcting for immortal time bias (ITB). Conducted in the Piedmont region of Italy, the study utilized a retrospective cohort design using a dataset from the Italian National Healthcare System, residents aged 10 and older, from January 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022 (Alessandria et al., p. 2). The authors aligned follow-up periods to ensure comparability between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, dividing the cohort into groups based on vaccination status: unvaccinated, one dose, two doses, and three or four doses.

    The study found an increased risk of death associated with receiving one or two doses of the vaccine, with less clear results for three or four doses. Covariates analyzed included gender, age, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cardiovascular disease, kidney diseases, cancer, and SARS-CoV-2 infection status. The authors used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate hazard ratios for all-cause mortality and employed Restricted Mean Survival Time (RMST) and Restricted Mean Time Lost (RMTL) for additional measures of survival and life expectancy (Alessandria et al., p. 4).

    1. Strengths of the Study

    The study used an innovative ITB correction, designed for accurate vaccination impact assessment. Additionally, the use of a large dataset from the Italian National Healthcare System provided a comprehensive dataset for analysis. Importantly, the authors chose to complete an all-cause mortality analysis versus examining COVID-19 death statistics, which are rife with misclassification errors. The all-cause mortality is not only more robust but also captures the impact from other indirect effects of COVID-19 such as delayed medical treatments.

    2. Areas for Improvement

    2.1. Overall Presentation

    The article requires clarity, and a few items are missing. For example, when beginning to read the abstract, the authors lay out the analysis problem in general, which is an excellent consideration. However, the authors would best help the reader orient themselves first by providing an overview or context. We know nothing about the work, so help us follow along with you. There is no clear research question, and all reviewers want to see clear hypotheses, objectives, and purpose. I struggled at first to understand the unstratified sample size. Do not make work for the reader is always good advice.

    There are many indications the authors were innovative and thorough in their approach and diligent in their process. Unfortunately, there were details and explanations missing that created a lot of questions during the review. It is challenging to discern if there are methodological or statistical analysis issues or are simply missing pieces of information creating a conversation about items that are already addressed and valid. The comments below are intended to demonstrate what arose in this review.

    2.2. Descriptive Statistics

    More detailed descriptive statistics are needed to provide context for the study population and their baseline characteristics. These statistics are vital for both lay readers and academics to understand the foundation of the investigation and provide essential information to assess both the statistical approach and interpret the findings. As a health science researcher, I am always looking for the measures of central tendency because I am interested in the distribution of these variables. Additionally, this item relates to the above point about unclear or missing details. The scientific method is predicated on the ability to replicate a study. We are unable to do that in this instance because the information is unclear. For example, I am assuming the authors chose not to provide details about vaccine manufacturers or types of vaccines for a substantial reason. However, there is no discussion about this. We are all challenged by word counts in publishing our work; yet some background and explanatory information is crucial.

    2.3. Covariates/Confounders

    Multicollinearity

    The study includes several covariates that may have the potential to cause multicollinearity issues. Age and sex are unlikely to present problems. Cancer and infection are only moderately correlated with other conditions, while hypertension and COPD, though more correlated with other comorbidities, are still manageable within the model. However, cardiovascular disease is highly correlated with multiple conditions, notably hypertension and diabetes, which can complicate the analysis. The most significant concerns are diabetes and kidney disease, which are strongly correlated with each other and with other chronic conditions. This high correlation, known as multicollinearity, which can severely impact the stability of the regression coefficients, making it difficult to determine the individual effect of each variable. For example, the study’s regression model might show a misleadingly high effect of vaccination on mortality if the true effect is confounded by the combined impact of diabetes and kidney disease, leading to unreliable results. I would have preferred to read the authors’ comments on the associations among their covariates briefly in prose or shown in a table.

    Limited Covariates

    The covariates were limited in this study. This is generally problematic, because it limits the ability to control for factors that can significantly influence health outcomes. Specifically from a social epidemiological perspective, missing covariates highly correlated with poor health outcomes, such as socio-economic status (SES), access to healthcare, and mental health status, can lead to residual confounding where we may miss the opportunity to see what is truly driving the relationship(s) resulting in poor outcomes (Alessandria et al., p. 4). Importantly, these same factors were directly impacted by COVID-19 response measures. For instance, individuals with lower SES often face greater barriers to healthcare access and may have challenging living conditions, which can increase their vulnerability and result in an increase in both the burden of disease, and mortality. The study did include clinical covariates such as chronic diseases like hypertension, diabetes, COPD, cardiovascular disease, kidney diseases, cancer, and SARS-CoV-2 infection status, but broader social determinants of health were overlooked (Alessandria et al., p. 4).

    Statistical Methods

    An early question about the model was the exclusion of deaths in the first 2-week time period after vaccination. For example, we know that cardiac death occurs in that time frame; thus, the omission of this time period could impact the results.

    It was unclear from the paper whether the authors examined and could assure readers that the data met the assumption criteria for the Cox model statistical analysis. The assumption required for a Cox model to be robust and valid is that the hazard ratios for the covariates must be constant over time (Alessandria et al., p. 5-6). Confirming this would be helpful for readers, as it would address concerns about the robustness of the statistical analysis. There is some information in the notes for Table 3, which do demonstrate the authors were addressing this issue along with a reference to the Schoenfeld’s test (Alessandria et al., p. 4). However, in my view, it remains unclear if the assumption is sufficiently addressed, particularly with respect to the confounders. By providing more comprehensive evidence of how the proportional hazards assumption was tested and addressed for each covariate (and confounders) including detailed plots or test statistics and explaining the stratification rationale would strengthen the study’s validity and address concerns effectively.

    If the proportional hazards assumption is violated in a Cox regression model, it can cause several problems. The estimates of the hazard ratios may be biased, meaning they do not accurately show the true relationship between the covariates and the risk of the event occurring. This can lead to incorrect statistical tests and confidence intervals, causing wrong conclusions about the effects of the covariates. In the context of the study by Alessandria et al., if this assumption is violated, it could compromise the validity of their findings about the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on all-cause mortality. The observed effects might be due to changes over time rather than a true relationship, leading to erroneous results.

    While Kaplan-Meier survival curves and a simplified Cox model do not directly address immortal time bias as comprehensively as the authors’ approach, these methods can be adjusted to partially mitigate ITB. Incorporating time-dependent covariates can help align risk periods correctly. As Tabachnick and Fidell (2013) explain, using time-dependent covariates within Cox regression can effectively handle violations of the proportional hazards assumption, providing more reliable results.

    The advanced and complex nature of the original analysis, combined with missing or unclear foundational information, such as the research question and descriptive statistics, makes it difficult to determine if the authors’ findings are robust. For example, when reviewing Table 3.0, the covariate ‘Infection’ with SARS-CoV-2 shows hazard ratios of less than 1 compared to the population without infection, which is curious. Amon subjects who had received a single dose, the HR was 0.58, which suggests that the SARS-CoV-2-infected group had 42% lower hazard or risk compared to the non-infected group. I did not find any outcomes listed in the paper that suggested a lower risk made sense given the outcomes referred to are death and COVID-19-related deaths (Alessandria et al., p. 3).

    Finally, an important suggestion is to clearly state what you are not going to do. It clears up any confusion and lays a boundary for why we do not venture into areas that are beyond the scope and resources we have in our work. Overall, it takes away a critique of the reviewers.

    3. Conclusion

    There could be valuable findings in this study, but the presentation is hindered by insufficient foundational information and very complex data analysis. Simplifying the methods and ensuring clarity in objectives and descriptive statistics would enhance the study’s reliability and accessibility. It would allow the reader to move beyond the initial information without so many questions. In this study, the investigators have been bold to embrace an untraditional statistical approach thus, to truly add to the body of literature, the detail is important. By embracing a more rigorous review process, we uphold the integrity of science and contribute to more reliable and impactful research.

    For the authors, consider revising the study to address these concerns and recirculate their work. It is innovative yet complex, so clarity is key. I give credit to the authors for stepping out boldly to address gaps in the research.

    4. References

    Alessandria, M. et al. (2024) A Critical Analysis of All-Cause Deaths during {COVID}-19 Vaccination in an Italian Province. Microorganisms 12:1343 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12071343

    Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using Multivariate Statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.



    A Critical Look at a COVID-19 Vaccination Study: Clarity is Key

    by Sarena L. McLean, MSc.

    The study “A Critical Analysis of All-Cause Deaths during COVID-19 Vaccination in an Italian Province” by Alessandria et al. aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on all-cause mortality while correcting for immortal time bias (ITB). Conducted in the Piedmont region of Italy, the study utilized a retrospective cohort design using a dataset from the Italian National Healthcare System, residents aged 10 and older, from January 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022 (Alessandria et al., p. 2). The authors aligned follow-up periods to ensure comparability between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, dividing the cohort into groups based on vaccination status: unvaccinated, one dose, two doses, and three or four doses.

    Read the full report: https://doctors4covidethics.org/a-critical-look-at-a-covid-19-vaccination-study-clarity-is-key/
    A Critical Look at a COVID-19 Vaccination Study: Clarity is Key July 7, 2024 Uncategorized By Sarena L. McLean MSc. (Epidemiology & Biostatistics), Health Sciences Researcher & Member of Doctors for Covid Ethics (2021) The study “A Critical Analysis of All-Cause Deaths during COVID-19 Vaccination in an Italian Province” by Alessandria et al. aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on all-cause mortality while correcting for immortal time bias (ITB). Conducted in the Piedmont region of Italy, the study utilized a retrospective cohort design using a dataset from the Italian National Healthcare System, residents aged 10 and older, from January 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022 (Alessandria et al., p. 2). The authors aligned follow-up periods to ensure comparability between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, dividing the cohort into groups based on vaccination status: unvaccinated, one dose, two doses, and three or four doses. The study found an increased risk of death associated with receiving one or two doses of the vaccine, with less clear results for three or four doses. Covariates analyzed included gender, age, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cardiovascular disease, kidney diseases, cancer, and SARS-CoV-2 infection status. The authors used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate hazard ratios for all-cause mortality and employed Restricted Mean Survival Time (RMST) and Restricted Mean Time Lost (RMTL) for additional measures of survival and life expectancy (Alessandria et al., p. 4). 1. Strengths of the Study The study used an innovative ITB correction, designed for accurate vaccination impact assessment. Additionally, the use of a large dataset from the Italian National Healthcare System provided a comprehensive dataset for analysis. Importantly, the authors chose to complete an all-cause mortality analysis versus examining COVID-19 death statistics, which are rife with misclassification errors. The all-cause mortality is not only more robust but also captures the impact from other indirect effects of COVID-19 such as delayed medical treatments. 2. Areas for Improvement 2.1. Overall Presentation The article requires clarity, and a few items are missing. For example, when beginning to read the abstract, the authors lay out the analysis problem in general, which is an excellent consideration. However, the authors would best help the reader orient themselves first by providing an overview or context. We know nothing about the work, so help us follow along with you. There is no clear research question, and all reviewers want to see clear hypotheses, objectives, and purpose. I struggled at first to understand the unstratified sample size. Do not make work for the reader is always good advice. There are many indications the authors were innovative and thorough in their approach and diligent in their process. Unfortunately, there were details and explanations missing that created a lot of questions during the review. It is challenging to discern if there are methodological or statistical analysis issues or are simply missing pieces of information creating a conversation about items that are already addressed and valid. The comments below are intended to demonstrate what arose in this review. 2.2. Descriptive Statistics More detailed descriptive statistics are needed to provide context for the study population and their baseline characteristics. These statistics are vital for both lay readers and academics to understand the foundation of the investigation and provide essential information to assess both the statistical approach and interpret the findings. As a health science researcher, I am always looking for the measures of central tendency because I am interested in the distribution of these variables. Additionally, this item relates to the above point about unclear or missing details. The scientific method is predicated on the ability to replicate a study. We are unable to do that in this instance because the information is unclear. For example, I am assuming the authors chose not to provide details about vaccine manufacturers or types of vaccines for a substantial reason. However, there is no discussion about this. We are all challenged by word counts in publishing our work; yet some background and explanatory information is crucial. 2.3. Covariates/Confounders Multicollinearity The study includes several covariates that may have the potential to cause multicollinearity issues. Age and sex are unlikely to present problems. Cancer and infection are only moderately correlated with other conditions, while hypertension and COPD, though more correlated with other comorbidities, are still manageable within the model. However, cardiovascular disease is highly correlated with multiple conditions, notably hypertension and diabetes, which can complicate the analysis. The most significant concerns are diabetes and kidney disease, which are strongly correlated with each other and with other chronic conditions. This high correlation, known as multicollinearity, which can severely impact the stability of the regression coefficients, making it difficult to determine the individual effect of each variable. For example, the study’s regression model might show a misleadingly high effect of vaccination on mortality if the true effect is confounded by the combined impact of diabetes and kidney disease, leading to unreliable results. I would have preferred to read the authors’ comments on the associations among their covariates briefly in prose or shown in a table. Limited Covariates The covariates were limited in this study. This is generally problematic, because it limits the ability to control for factors that can significantly influence health outcomes. Specifically from a social epidemiological perspective, missing covariates highly correlated with poor health outcomes, such as socio-economic status (SES), access to healthcare, and mental health status, can lead to residual confounding where we may miss the opportunity to see what is truly driving the relationship(s) resulting in poor outcomes (Alessandria et al., p. 4). Importantly, these same factors were directly impacted by COVID-19 response measures. For instance, individuals with lower SES often face greater barriers to healthcare access and may have challenging living conditions, which can increase their vulnerability and result in an increase in both the burden of disease, and mortality. The study did include clinical covariates such as chronic diseases like hypertension, diabetes, COPD, cardiovascular disease, kidney diseases, cancer, and SARS-CoV-2 infection status, but broader social determinants of health were overlooked (Alessandria et al., p. 4). Statistical Methods An early question about the model was the exclusion of deaths in the first 2-week time period after vaccination. For example, we know that cardiac death occurs in that time frame; thus, the omission of this time period could impact the results. It was unclear from the paper whether the authors examined and could assure readers that the data met the assumption criteria for the Cox model statistical analysis. The assumption required for a Cox model to be robust and valid is that the hazard ratios for the covariates must be constant over time (Alessandria et al., p. 5-6). Confirming this would be helpful for readers, as it would address concerns about the robustness of the statistical analysis. There is some information in the notes for Table 3, which do demonstrate the authors were addressing this issue along with a reference to the Schoenfeld’s test (Alessandria et al., p. 4). However, in my view, it remains unclear if the assumption is sufficiently addressed, particularly with respect to the confounders. By providing more comprehensive evidence of how the proportional hazards assumption was tested and addressed for each covariate (and confounders) including detailed plots or test statistics and explaining the stratification rationale would strengthen the study’s validity and address concerns effectively. If the proportional hazards assumption is violated in a Cox regression model, it can cause several problems. The estimates of the hazard ratios may be biased, meaning they do not accurately show the true relationship between the covariates and the risk of the event occurring. This can lead to incorrect statistical tests and confidence intervals, causing wrong conclusions about the effects of the covariates. In the context of the study by Alessandria et al., if this assumption is violated, it could compromise the validity of their findings about the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on all-cause mortality. The observed effects might be due to changes over time rather than a true relationship, leading to erroneous results. While Kaplan-Meier survival curves and a simplified Cox model do not directly address immortal time bias as comprehensively as the authors’ approach, these methods can be adjusted to partially mitigate ITB. Incorporating time-dependent covariates can help align risk periods correctly. As Tabachnick and Fidell (2013) explain, using time-dependent covariates within Cox regression can effectively handle violations of the proportional hazards assumption, providing more reliable results. The advanced and complex nature of the original analysis, combined with missing or unclear foundational information, such as the research question and descriptive statistics, makes it difficult to determine if the authors’ findings are robust. For example, when reviewing Table 3.0, the covariate ‘Infection’ with SARS-CoV-2 shows hazard ratios of less than 1 compared to the population without infection, which is curious. Amon subjects who had received a single dose, the HR was 0.58, which suggests that the SARS-CoV-2-infected group had 42% lower hazard or risk compared to the non-infected group. I did not find any outcomes listed in the paper that suggested a lower risk made sense given the outcomes referred to are death and COVID-19-related deaths (Alessandria et al., p. 3). Finally, an important suggestion is to clearly state what you are not going to do. It clears up any confusion and lays a boundary for why we do not venture into areas that are beyond the scope and resources we have in our work. Overall, it takes away a critique of the reviewers. 3. Conclusion There could be valuable findings in this study, but the presentation is hindered by insufficient foundational information and very complex data analysis. Simplifying the methods and ensuring clarity in objectives and descriptive statistics would enhance the study’s reliability and accessibility. It would allow the reader to move beyond the initial information without so many questions. In this study, the investigators have been bold to embrace an untraditional statistical approach thus, to truly add to the body of literature, the detail is important. By embracing a more rigorous review process, we uphold the integrity of science and contribute to more reliable and impactful research. For the authors, consider revising the study to address these concerns and recirculate their work. It is innovative yet complex, so clarity is key. I give credit to the authors for stepping out boldly to address gaps in the research. 4. References Alessandria, M. et al. (2024) A Critical Analysis of All-Cause Deaths during {COVID}-19 Vaccination in an Italian Province. Microorganisms 12:1343 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12071343 Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using Multivariate Statistics (7th ed.). Pearson. A Critical Look at a COVID-19 Vaccination Study: Clarity is Key by Sarena L. McLean, MSc. The study “A Critical Analysis of All-Cause Deaths during COVID-19 Vaccination in an Italian Province” by Alessandria et al. aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on all-cause mortality while correcting for immortal time bias (ITB). Conducted in the Piedmont region of Italy, the study utilized a retrospective cohort design using a dataset from the Italian National Healthcare System, residents aged 10 and older, from January 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022 (Alessandria et al., p. 2). The authors aligned follow-up periods to ensure comparability between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, dividing the cohort into groups based on vaccination status: unvaccinated, one dose, two doses, and three or four doses. Read the full report: https://doctors4covidethics.org/a-critical-look-at-a-covid-19-vaccination-study-clarity-is-key/
    DOCTORS4COVIDETHICS.ORG
    A Critical Look at a COVID-19 Vaccination Study: Clarity is Key
    By Sarena L. McLean MSc. (Epidemiology & Biostatistics), Health Sciences Researcher & Member of Doctors for Covid Ethics (2021) The study 'A Critical Analysis of All-Cause Deaths during COVID-19 Vaccination in an Italian Province' by Alessandria et al. aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on all-cause mortality while correcting for immortal time bias (ITB). Conducted in the Piedmont region of Italy, the study
    0 Comments 0 Shares 2779 Views
  • Dermatology's Horrendous War Against The Sun, and the True Origins of the American Medical Association
    Untangling Dermatology's Huge Skin Cancer Scam - and deep corruption that enables them to get away with it.

    Brucha Weisberger
    BS”D

    I’m republishing this extremely important article from A Midwestern Doctor, which not only explains how very important sun exposure is in preventing cancer, other illnesses, and death, but also exposes the criminality at the very foundation of the American Medical Association, starting more than 100 years ago and continuing since.

    I’d like to note that if we just take a few moments to think deeply about the “sun is dangerous” propaganda we’ve grown up with, we realize that it cannot possibly be true. The sun has been shining on the world since G-d created it, and people have traditionally spent their days outdoors tending to their fields and animals. Sunscreen was not invented, and cancer was not prevalent. Since we’ve started spending more time indoors and applying sunscreen, we’ve only seen an increase in cancer, heart disease, and other modern illnesses.

    Aside from the historical impossibility of the medical establishment’s claims, there’s also logic - observation of the universe shows that G-d always sets things up to work as a perfect, beneficial system, with everything that’s needed for survival provided. There’s no conceivable way that He made the sun to be harmful for us, requiring modern chemical sunscreens to combat it.

    By A MIDWESTERN DOCTOR

    Story At a Glance:

    •Sunlight is crucial for health, and avoiding it doubles mortality rates and cancer risk.

    •Skin cancers are the most common cancers in the U.S., leading to widespread “advice” to avoid the sun. However, the deadliest skin cancers are linked to a lack of sunlight.

    •The dermatology field, aided by a top marketing firm, rebranded themselves as skin cancer (and sunlight) fighters, becoming one of the highest-paid medical specialties.

    •Despite billions spent annually, skin cancer deaths haven't significantly changed. Likewise, the Dermatology profession has buried a variety of effective and affordable skin cancer treatments.

    Note: this is an abridged version of a longer article. (BW: Click for expanded version. I have included a few pieces of AMD’s longer article which I felt were extremely significant.)

    I always found it odd that everyone insisted I avoid sunlight and wear sunscreen during outdoor activities, as I noticed that sunlight felt great and caused my veins to dilate, indicating the body deeply craved sunlight. Later, I learned that blocking natural light with glass (e.g., with windows or eyeglasses) significantly affected health, and that many had benefitted from utilizing specialized glass that allowed the full light spectrum through. This ties into one of my favorite therapeutic modalities, ultraviolet blood irradiation, which produces a wide range of truly remarkable benefits by putting the sun’s ultraviolet light inside the body.

    Once in medical school, aware of sunlight's benefits, I was struck by dermatologists' extreme aversion to it. Patients were constantly warned to avoid sunlight, and in northern latitudes, where people suffer from seasonal affective disorder, dermatologists even required students to wear sunscreen and cover most of their bodies indoors. At this point my perspective changed to “This crusade against the sun is definitely coming from the dermatologists” and “What on earth is wrong with these people?” A few years ago I learned the final piece of the puzzle through Robert Yoho MD and his book Butchered by Healthcare.

    Note: This comment I received perfectly illustrates the dysfunctional status quo.

    The Monopolization of Medicine

    Throughout my life, I’ve noticed the medical industry will:

    •Promote healthy activities people are unlikely to do (e.g., exercising or quitting smoking).

    •Promote unhealthy activities industries make money from (e.g., eating processed foods or taking a myriad of harmful pharmaceuticals).

    •Attack beneficial activities that are easy to do (e.g., sunbathing or consuming egg yolks, butter and raw dairy).

    As best as I can gather, much of this is rooted in the scandalous history of the American Medical Association, when in 1899, George H. Simmons, MD took possession of the floundering organization (MDs were going out of business because their treatments were barbaric and didn’t work). He, in turn, started a program to give the AMA seal of approval in return for the manufacturers disclosing their ingredients and agreeing to advertise in a lot of AMA publications (they were not however required to prove their product was safe or effective). This maneuver was successful, and in just ten years, increased their advertising revenues 5-fold, and their physician membership 9-fold.

    At the same time this happened, the AMA moved to monopolize the medical industry by doing things such as establishing a general medical education council (which essentially said their method of practicing medicine was the only credible way to practice medicine), which allowed them to then become the national accrediting body for medical schools. This in turn allowed them to end the teaching of many of the competing models of medicine such as homeopathy, chiropractic, naturopathy, and to a lesser extent, osteopathy—as states would often not give licenses to graduates of schools with a poor AMA rating.

    BW: Here’s just one paragraph from the article AMD linked above, describing how the Rockefeller cartel took over the medical system. Remember, the Flexner report was funded by The Carnegie Foundation and John D. Rockefeller; Flexner’s brother was the first medical director of the Rockefeller Medical Foundation.

    In 1910, the same year that the Flexner report was published, the AMA published "Essentials of an Acceptable Medical College" (Report of the Council, 1910), which echoed similar criteria for medical education and a disdain for non-conventional medical study. In fact, the AMA's head of the Council on Medical Education traveled with Abraham Flexner as they evaluated medical schools. The medical sociologist Paul Starr wrote in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book: "The AMA Council became a national accrediting agency for medical schools, as an increasing number of states adopted its judgments of unacceptable institutions." Further, he noted: "Even though no legislative body ever set up ... the AMA Council on Medical Education, their decisions came to have the force of law" (Starr, 1982, 121).(3)

    BW: More fascinating detail on the Rockefeller takeover, from another site:

    … the Flexner Report … made the case that old, traditional medicine is bad, and new pharmacologic medicine is good. Rockefeller, as owner of 90% of the American petrol industry at the time, personally stood to gain as petrochemicals were emerging as a profitable sector. Today, they are used extensively in producing active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), solvents, excipients, and packaging materials. The petrochemical industry as it relates to pharmaceuticals alone is valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars today. The pharmaceutical industry, as we know it, stemmed from the initial investment by the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations into medical universities following the Flexner Report’s recommendations.

    See: https://covid19criticalcare.com/the-flexner-report-and-the-rise-of-big-pharma/

    Likewise, Simmons (along with his successor, Fishbein, who reigned from 1924 to 1950) established a "Propaganda Department" in 1913 to attack all unconventional medical treatments and anyone (MD or not) who practiced them. Fishbein was very good at what he did and could often organize massive media campaigns against anything he elected to deem “quackery” that were heard by millions of Americans (at a time when the country was much smaller).

    After Simmons and Fishbein created this monopoly, they were quick to leverage it. This included blackmailing pharmaceutical companies to advertise with them, demanding the rights for a variety of healing treatments to be sold to the AMA, and sending the FDA or FTC after anyone who refused to sell out (which in at least in one case was proved in court since one of Fishbein’s “compatriots” thought what he was doing was wrong and testified against him). Because of this, many remarkable medical innovations were successfully erased from history (part of my life’s work and much of what I use in practice are essentially the therapies Simmons and Fishbein largely succeeded in wiping off the Earth).

    Note: to illustrate that this is not just ancient history, consider how viciously and ludicrously the AMA attacked the use of ivermectin to treat COVID (as it was the biggest competitor to the COVID cartel). Likewise, one of the paradigm changing moments for Pierre Kory (which he discusses with Russel Brand here) was that after he testified to the Senate about ivermectin, he was put into a state of shock by the onslaught of media and medical journal campaigns from every direction trying to tank ivermectin and destroy his and his colleagues’ reputations (e.g., they got fired and had their papers which had already passed peer-review retracted). Two weeks into it, he got an email from Professor William B Grant (a vitamin D expert) that said “Dear Dr. Kory, what they're doing to ivermectin they've been doing to vitamin D for decades” and included a 2017 paper detailing the exact playbook industry uses again and again to bury inconvenient science.

    Before long, Big Tobacco became the AMA’s biggest client, which led to countless ads like this one being published by the AMA which persisted until Fishbein was forced out (at which point he became a highly paid lobbyist for the tobacco industry):


    Note: because of how nasty they were, they often got people to dig into their past, at which point it was discovered how unscrupulous and sociopathic both Simmons and Fishbein were. Unfortunately, while I know from first-hand experience this was the case (e.g., a friend of mine knew Fishbein’s secretary and she stated that Fishbein was a truly horrible person she regularly saw carry out despicable actions and I likewise knew people who knew the revolutionary healers Fishbein targeted), I was never able to confirm many of the abhorrent allegations against Simmons because the book they all cite as a reference did not provide its sources, while the other books which provide different but congruent allegations are poorly sourced.

    The Benefits of Sunlight

    One of the oldest “proven” therapies in medicine was having people bathe in sunlight (e.g., it was one of the few things that actually had success in treating the 1918 influenza, prior to antibiotics it was one of the most effective treatments for treating tuberculosis and it was also widely used for a variety of other diseases). In turn, since it is safe, effective, and freely available, it stands to reason that unscrupulous individuals who wanted to monopolize the practice of medicine would want to cut off the public’s access to it.

    Note: the success of sunbathing was the original inspiration for ultraviolet blood irradiation.

    Because of how successful the war against sunlight has been many people are unaware of its benefits. For example:

    1. Sunlight is critical for mental health. This is most well appreciated with depression (e.g., seasonal affective disorder) but in reality the effects are far more broad reaching (e.g., unnatural light exposure destroys your circadian rhythm).

    Note: I really got this point during my medical internship, where after a long period of night shifts under fluorescent lights, noticed I was becoming clinically depressed (which has never otherwise happened to me and led to a co-resident I was close to offering to prescribe antidepressants). I decided to do an experiment (I do this a lot—e.g., I try to never recommend treatments to patients I haven’t already tried on myself) and stuck with it for a few more days, then went home and bathed under a full spectrum bulb, at which point I almost instantly felt better. I feel my story is particularly important for healthcare workers since many people in the system are forced to spend long periods of their under artificial light and their mental health (e.g., empathy) suffers greatly from it. For example, consider this study of Chinese operating room nurses which found their mental health was significantly worse than the general population and that this decline was correlated to their lack of sunlight exposure.

    2. A large epidemiological study found women with higher solar UVB exposure had only half the incidence of breast cancer as those with lower solar exposure and that men with higher residential solar exposure had only half the incidence of fatal prostate cancer.
    Note: a 50% reduction in either of these cancers greatly exceeds what any of the approaches we use to treat or prevent them have accomplished.

    3. A 20 year prospective study evaluated 29,518 women in Southern Sweden where average women from each age bracket with no significant health issues were randomly selected, essentially making it one of the best possible epidemiologic studies that could be done. It found that women who were sun avoidant compared to those who had regular exposure to sunlight were:

    •Overall 60% more likely to die, being roughly 50% more likely to die than the moderate exposure group and roughly 130% more likely to die than the group with high sun exposure.
    Note: to be clear, there are very few interventions in medicine that do anything close to this.

    •The largest gain was seen in the risk of dying from heart disease, while the second gain was seen in the risk of all causes of death besides heart disease and cancer (“other”), and the third largest gain was seen in deaths from cancer.
    Note: the investigators concluded the smaller benefit in reduced cancer deaths was in part an artifact of the subjects living longer and hence succumbing to a type of cancer that would have only affected them later in life.

    • The largest benefit was seen in smokers, to the point non-smokers who avoided the sun had the same risk of dying as smokers who got sunlight.
    Note: I believe this and the cardiovascular benefits are in large part due to sunlight catalyzing the synthesis of nitric oxide (which is essential for healthy blood vessels) and sulfates (which coat cells like the endothelium and in conjunction with infrared (or sunlight) creates the liquid crystalline water which is essential for the protection and function of the cardiovascular system).

    So given all of this, I would say that you need a really good justification to avoid sun exposure.

    Skin Cancer

    According to the American Academy of Dermatology, skin cancer is the most common cancer in the United States, with current estimates suggesting that one in five Americans will develop skin cancer in their lifetime. Approximately 9,500 people in the U.S. are diagnosed with skin cancer every day.

    The Academy emphasizes that UV exposure is the most preventable risk factor for skin cancer, advising people to avoid indoor tanning beds and protect their skin outdoors by seeking shade, wearing protective clothing, and applying broad-spectrum sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or higher.

    The Skin Cancer Foundation states that more than two people die of skin cancer in the U.S. every hour, which sounds alarming. Let's break down what all this means.

    Basal Cell Carcinoma

    Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common skin cancer, making up 80% of cases, with about 2.64 million Americans diagnosed annually. Risk factors include excessive sun exposure, fair skin, and family history. BCC primarily occurs in sun-exposed areas like the face.


    BCC rarely metastasizes and has a near 0% fatality rate, but it frequently recurs (65%-95%) after removal. The standard excision approach often doesn't address underlying causes, leading to repeated surgeries and potential disfigurement.

    While BCCs can grow large if left untreated, they aren't immediately dangerous. Treatment is necessary but not urgent. Alternative therapies can effectively treat large BCCs without disfiguring surgery.
    Note: since the COVID-19 vaccines came out, I have heard of a few cases of BCC metastasizing in the vaccinated, but it is still extraordinarily rare.

    Squamous Cell Carcinoma

    Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is the second most common skin cancer, with an estimated 1.8 million cases in the U.S. Its incidence varies widely due to sunlight exposure, ranging from 260 to 4,970 cases per million person-years. Previously thought to be four times less common than BCC, SCC is now only half as common.


    Unlike BCC, SCC can metastasize, making it potentially dangerous. If removed before metastasis, the survival rate is 99%; after metastasis, it drops to 56%. Typically caught early, SCC has an average survival rate of 95%. Around 2,000 people die from SCC each year in the U.S.

    Note: unlike more lethal skin cancers, it is not required to report BCC or SCC. Consequently, there is no centralized database tracking their occurrence, so the official figures are largely estimates.

    Melanoma

    Melanoma occurs at a rate of 218 cases per million persons annually in the United States, with survival rates ranging from 99% to 35% depending on its stage when diagnosed, averaging out to 94%. However, despite only comprising 1% of all skin cancer diagnoses, Melanoma is responsible for most skin cancer deaths. In total, this works out to a bit over 8000 deaths each year in the United States. Since survival is greatly improved by early detection, many guides online exist to help recognize the common signs of a potential melanoma.


    What’s critically important to understand about melanoma is that while it’s widely considered to be linked to sunlight exposure—it’s not. For example:

    Patients with solar elastosis, a sign of sun exposure, were 60% less likely to die from melanoma.

    Melanoma predominantly occurs in areas of the body with minimal sunlight exposure, unlike SCC and BCC, which are linked to sun-exposed regions.

    Outdoor workers, despite significantly higher UV exposure, have lower rates of melanoma compared to indoor workers.

    Many sunscreens contain toxic carcinogens (to the point Hawaii banned them to protect coral reefs). Conversely, existing research indicates widespread sunscreen use has not reduced skin cancer rates.

    •A mouse study designed to study malignant melanoma found mice kept under simulated daylight develop tumors at a slower and diminished rate compared to those under cool white fluorescent light.

    There has been a significant increase in many areas from melanoma, something which argues against sunlight being the primary issue as it has not significantly changed in the last few decades. For instance, consider this data from Norway’s cancer registry on malignant melanoma:


    Note: in addition to these three cancers, other (much rarer) skin cancers also exist, most of which have not been linked to sunlight exposure.

    The Great Dermatology Scam

    If you consider the previous section, the following should be fairly clear:

    •By far the most common “skin cancer” is not dangerous.

    •The “skin cancers” you actually need to worry about are a fairly small portion of the existing skin cancers.

    • Sunlight exposure does not cause the most dangerous cancers.

    In essence, there’s no way to justify “banning sunlight” to “prevent skin cancer,” as the “benefit” from this prescription is vastly outweighed by its harm. However, a very clever linguistic trick bypasses this contradiction—a single label, “skin cancer,” is used for everything, which then selectively adopts the lethality of melanoma, the frequency of BCC, and the sensitivity to sunlight that BCC and SCC have.

    This has always really infuriated me, so I’ve given a lot of thought to why they do this.

    Note: a variety of other deceptive linguistic tricks are also utilized by the pharmaceutical company. I am presently working on an article about that was also done with high blood pressure (hypertension).

    The Transformation of Dermatology

    In the 1980s, dermatology was one of the least desirable specialties in medicine (e.g., dermatologists were often referred to as pimple poppers). Now however, dermatology is one of the most coveted specialties in medicine as dermatologists make 2-4 times as much as a regular doctor, but have a much less stressful lifestyle.

    A relatively unknown blog by Dermatologist David J. Elpern, M.D. at last explained what happened:

    Over the past 40 years, I have witnessed these changes in my specialty and am dismayed by the reluctance of my colleagues to address them. This trend began in the early 1980s when the Academy of Dermatology (AAD) assessed its members over 2 million dollars to hire a prominent New York advertising agency to raise the public’s appreciation of our specialty. The mad men recommended “educating” the public to the fact that dermatologists are skin cancer experts, not just pimple poppers; and so the free National Skin Cancer Screening Day was established [through a 1985 Presidential proclamation].

    These screenings serve to inflate the public’s health anxiety about skin cancer and led to the performance of vast amounts of expensive low-value procedures for skin cancer and actinic keratosis (AKs). At the same time, pathologists were expanding their definitions of what a melanoma is, leading to “diagnostic drift” that misleadingly increased the incidence of melanoma while the mortality has remained at 1980 levels. Concomitantly, non-melanoma skin cancers are being over-treated by armies of micrographic surgeons who often treat innocuous skin cancers with unnecessarily aggressive, lucrative surgeries.

    This heightened awareness led to a dramatic increase in skin cancer screenings and diagnoses, fueled by fears instilled in the public about sun exposure. Alongside this massive sales funnel, there was a significant expansion in the incredibly lucrative Mohs micrographic surgery, promoted as a gold standard for treating skin cancers due to its precision and efficacy in sparing healthy tissue. However, critics argue that Mohs surgery is often overused, driven by financial incentives rather than clinical necessity, contributing to immense healthcare costs.

    Note: we frequently see patients who developed complications from these surgeries.

    The commercialization of dermatology was further amplified by the entry of private equity firms into the field. These firms acquired dermatology practices, sometimes staffing them with non-physician providers to maximize profitability. This trend raised concerns about quality of care, with reports of misdiagnoses and over-treatment, particularly in vulnerable populations like nursing home residents—to the point the New York Times authored a 2017 investigation on this exploitative industry.

    Moreover, the shift towards profit-driven models in dermatology has sparked ethical debates within the medical community. Some dermatologists have voiced concerns over the commodification of skin cancer treatments and the erosion of traditional doctor-patient relationships in favor of more transactional interactions. Despite these challenges, dermatology remains a lucrative field, attracting both medical professionals and investors seeking financial gain from skin care services.

    Many in turn are victimized by these exploitative practices. The popular comedian Jimmy Dore for example recently covered the Great Dermatology Scam after realizing he’d been subjected to it.

    After Jimmy Dore’s segment, this story went viral, and as best as I can tell, was seen by between 5 to 10 million people. A few weeks after Dore’s segment, two surveys were released highlighting an “epidemic” of insufficient sun protection which the New York Times then covered (and numerous readers then sent to me since they thought it was a response to my article). Since it was such a classic medical propaganda piece, I will to quote a few lines from it:

    Two new surveys suggest a troubling trend: Young adults seem to be slacking on sun safety.

    14 percent of adults under 35 believed the myth that wearing sunscreen every day is more harmful than direct sun exposure

    Young adults are often unaware of what sun damage looks like and how best to prevent it

    Ultraviolet rays — whether from tanning beds or direct sunlight — can damage skin and cause skin cancer, which can be deadly

    Experts said that Gen Z is uniquely susceptible to misinformation about sunscreen and skin cancer that has proliferated on social media platforms like TikTok.

    Generously apply — and reapply — sunscreen. UV rays can damage skin even when it’s cloudy or chilly, so experts recommend wearing sunscreen every day.

    Note: I must emphasize that some skin cancers (e.g., many melanomas) require immediate removal. My point here is not to avoid dermatologists entirely but to consider seeking a second opinion from another dermatologist as there are many excellent and ethical dermatologists out there.

    Changes in Skin Cancer

    Given how much is being spent to end skin cancer, one would expect some results. Unfortunately, like many other aspects of the cancer industry that’s not what’s happened. Instead, more and more (previously benign) cancers are diagnosed, but for the most part, no significant change has occurred in the death rate.


    The best proof for this came from a study which found that almost all of the increase in “skin cancer” was from stage 1 melanomas (which rarely create problems):


    Another study illustrates exactly what the result of our war on skin cancer has accomplished:

    Finally, since many suspected the COVID vaccines might lead to an increase in melanoma (or other skin cancers), I compiled all the available annual reports from the American Cancer Society into a few graphs:


    Conclusion

    Dermatology’s need to create a villain (the sun) to justify its racket is arguably one of the most damaging things the medical profession has done to the world. Fortunately, the insatiable greed of the medical industry went too far during COVID-19, and the public is now starting to question many of the other exploitative and unscientific practices we are subjected to. It is my sincere hope that our society will begin re-examining dermatology’s disastrous war against the sun.

    I in turn am incredibly grateful because this new political climate has made it possible to expose a variety of unscrupulous tactics in medicine which have remained largely unchallenged for decades.

    Author’s note: This is an abbreviated version of a full-length article about Dermatology’s Disastrous War Again the Sun that also discusses safer ways to treat or prevent skin cancer and the nutritional approaches (e.g., avoiding seed oils) which make it possible for the skin to tolerate and be nourished by longer sun exposures. For the entire read with much more specific details and sources, and those approaches please click here.


    (End of AMD’s quoted article. Link to original: https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/dermatologys-horrendous-war-against.)

    Share

    To help me continue my work, you may make a one-time gift here: https://ko-fi.com/truth613

    https://substack.com/home/post/p-146483737
    Dermatology's Horrendous War Against The Sun, and the True Origins of the American Medical Association Untangling Dermatology's Huge Skin Cancer Scam - and deep corruption that enables them to get away with it. Brucha Weisberger BS”D I’m republishing this extremely important article from A Midwestern Doctor, which not only explains how very important sun exposure is in preventing cancer, other illnesses, and death, but also exposes the criminality at the very foundation of the American Medical Association, starting more than 100 years ago and continuing since. I’d like to note that if we just take a few moments to think deeply about the “sun is dangerous” propaganda we’ve grown up with, we realize that it cannot possibly be true. The sun has been shining on the world since G-d created it, and people have traditionally spent their days outdoors tending to their fields and animals. Sunscreen was not invented, and cancer was not prevalent. Since we’ve started spending more time indoors and applying sunscreen, we’ve only seen an increase in cancer, heart disease, and other modern illnesses. Aside from the historical impossibility of the medical establishment’s claims, there’s also logic - observation of the universe shows that G-d always sets things up to work as a perfect, beneficial system, with everything that’s needed for survival provided. There’s no conceivable way that He made the sun to be harmful for us, requiring modern chemical sunscreens to combat it. By A MIDWESTERN DOCTOR Story At a Glance: •Sunlight is crucial for health, and avoiding it doubles mortality rates and cancer risk. •Skin cancers are the most common cancers in the U.S., leading to widespread “advice” to avoid the sun. However, the deadliest skin cancers are linked to a lack of sunlight. •The dermatology field, aided by a top marketing firm, rebranded themselves as skin cancer (and sunlight) fighters, becoming one of the highest-paid medical specialties. •Despite billions spent annually, skin cancer deaths haven't significantly changed. Likewise, the Dermatology profession has buried a variety of effective and affordable skin cancer treatments. Note: this is an abridged version of a longer article. (BW: Click for expanded version. I have included a few pieces of AMD’s longer article which I felt were extremely significant.) I always found it odd that everyone insisted I avoid sunlight and wear sunscreen during outdoor activities, as I noticed that sunlight felt great and caused my veins to dilate, indicating the body deeply craved sunlight. Later, I learned that blocking natural light with glass (e.g., with windows or eyeglasses) significantly affected health, and that many had benefitted from utilizing specialized glass that allowed the full light spectrum through. This ties into one of my favorite therapeutic modalities, ultraviolet blood irradiation, which produces a wide range of truly remarkable benefits by putting the sun’s ultraviolet light inside the body. Once in medical school, aware of sunlight's benefits, I was struck by dermatologists' extreme aversion to it. Patients were constantly warned to avoid sunlight, and in northern latitudes, where people suffer from seasonal affective disorder, dermatologists even required students to wear sunscreen and cover most of their bodies indoors. At this point my perspective changed to “This crusade against the sun is definitely coming from the dermatologists” and “What on earth is wrong with these people?” A few years ago I learned the final piece of the puzzle through Robert Yoho MD and his book Butchered by Healthcare. Note: This comment I received perfectly illustrates the dysfunctional status quo. The Monopolization of Medicine Throughout my life, I’ve noticed the medical industry will: •Promote healthy activities people are unlikely to do (e.g., exercising or quitting smoking). •Promote unhealthy activities industries make money from (e.g., eating processed foods or taking a myriad of harmful pharmaceuticals). •Attack beneficial activities that are easy to do (e.g., sunbathing or consuming egg yolks, butter and raw dairy). As best as I can gather, much of this is rooted in the scandalous history of the American Medical Association, when in 1899, George H. Simmons, MD took possession of the floundering organization (MDs were going out of business because their treatments were barbaric and didn’t work). He, in turn, started a program to give the AMA seal of approval in return for the manufacturers disclosing their ingredients and agreeing to advertise in a lot of AMA publications (they were not however required to prove their product was safe or effective). This maneuver was successful, and in just ten years, increased their advertising revenues 5-fold, and their physician membership 9-fold. At the same time this happened, the AMA moved to monopolize the medical industry by doing things such as establishing a general medical education council (which essentially said their method of practicing medicine was the only credible way to practice medicine), which allowed them to then become the national accrediting body for medical schools. This in turn allowed them to end the teaching of many of the competing models of medicine such as homeopathy, chiropractic, naturopathy, and to a lesser extent, osteopathy—as states would often not give licenses to graduates of schools with a poor AMA rating. BW: Here’s just one paragraph from the article AMD linked above, describing how the Rockefeller cartel took over the medical system. Remember, the Flexner report was funded by The Carnegie Foundation and John D. Rockefeller; Flexner’s brother was the first medical director of the Rockefeller Medical Foundation. In 1910, the same year that the Flexner report was published, the AMA published "Essentials of an Acceptable Medical College" (Report of the Council, 1910), which echoed similar criteria for medical education and a disdain for non-conventional medical study. In fact, the AMA's head of the Council on Medical Education traveled with Abraham Flexner as they evaluated medical schools. The medical sociologist Paul Starr wrote in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book: "The AMA Council became a national accrediting agency for medical schools, as an increasing number of states adopted its judgments of unacceptable institutions." Further, he noted: "Even though no legislative body ever set up ... the AMA Council on Medical Education, their decisions came to have the force of law" (Starr, 1982, 121).(3) BW: More fascinating detail on the Rockefeller takeover, from another site: … the Flexner Report … made the case that old, traditional medicine is bad, and new pharmacologic medicine is good. Rockefeller, as owner of 90% of the American petrol industry at the time, personally stood to gain as petrochemicals were emerging as a profitable sector. Today, they are used extensively in producing active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), solvents, excipients, and packaging materials. The petrochemical industry as it relates to pharmaceuticals alone is valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars today. The pharmaceutical industry, as we know it, stemmed from the initial investment by the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations into medical universities following the Flexner Report’s recommendations. See: https://covid19criticalcare.com/the-flexner-report-and-the-rise-of-big-pharma/ Likewise, Simmons (along with his successor, Fishbein, who reigned from 1924 to 1950) established a "Propaganda Department" in 1913 to attack all unconventional medical treatments and anyone (MD or not) who practiced them. Fishbein was very good at what he did and could often organize massive media campaigns against anything he elected to deem “quackery” that were heard by millions of Americans (at a time when the country was much smaller). After Simmons and Fishbein created this monopoly, they were quick to leverage it. This included blackmailing pharmaceutical companies to advertise with them, demanding the rights for a variety of healing treatments to be sold to the AMA, and sending the FDA or FTC after anyone who refused to sell out (which in at least in one case was proved in court since one of Fishbein’s “compatriots” thought what he was doing was wrong and testified against him). Because of this, many remarkable medical innovations were successfully erased from history (part of my life’s work and much of what I use in practice are essentially the therapies Simmons and Fishbein largely succeeded in wiping off the Earth). Note: to illustrate that this is not just ancient history, consider how viciously and ludicrously the AMA attacked the use of ivermectin to treat COVID (as it was the biggest competitor to the COVID cartel). Likewise, one of the paradigm changing moments for Pierre Kory (which he discusses with Russel Brand here) was that after he testified to the Senate about ivermectin, he was put into a state of shock by the onslaught of media and medical journal campaigns from every direction trying to tank ivermectin and destroy his and his colleagues’ reputations (e.g., they got fired and had their papers which had already passed peer-review retracted). Two weeks into it, he got an email from Professor William B Grant (a vitamin D expert) that said “Dear Dr. Kory, what they're doing to ivermectin they've been doing to vitamin D for decades” and included a 2017 paper detailing the exact playbook industry uses again and again to bury inconvenient science. Before long, Big Tobacco became the AMA’s biggest client, which led to countless ads like this one being published by the AMA which persisted until Fishbein was forced out (at which point he became a highly paid lobbyist for the tobacco industry): Note: because of how nasty they were, they often got people to dig into their past, at which point it was discovered how unscrupulous and sociopathic both Simmons and Fishbein were. Unfortunately, while I know from first-hand experience this was the case (e.g., a friend of mine knew Fishbein’s secretary and she stated that Fishbein was a truly horrible person she regularly saw carry out despicable actions and I likewise knew people who knew the revolutionary healers Fishbein targeted), I was never able to confirm many of the abhorrent allegations against Simmons because the book they all cite as a reference did not provide its sources, while the other books which provide different but congruent allegations are poorly sourced. The Benefits of Sunlight One of the oldest “proven” therapies in medicine was having people bathe in sunlight (e.g., it was one of the few things that actually had success in treating the 1918 influenza, prior to antibiotics it was one of the most effective treatments for treating tuberculosis and it was also widely used for a variety of other diseases). In turn, since it is safe, effective, and freely available, it stands to reason that unscrupulous individuals who wanted to monopolize the practice of medicine would want to cut off the public’s access to it. Note: the success of sunbathing was the original inspiration for ultraviolet blood irradiation. Because of how successful the war against sunlight has been many people are unaware of its benefits. For example: 1. Sunlight is critical for mental health. This is most well appreciated with depression (e.g., seasonal affective disorder) but in reality the effects are far more broad reaching (e.g., unnatural light exposure destroys your circadian rhythm). Note: I really got this point during my medical internship, where after a long period of night shifts under fluorescent lights, noticed I was becoming clinically depressed (which has never otherwise happened to me and led to a co-resident I was close to offering to prescribe antidepressants). I decided to do an experiment (I do this a lot—e.g., I try to never recommend treatments to patients I haven’t already tried on myself) and stuck with it for a few more days, then went home and bathed under a full spectrum bulb, at which point I almost instantly felt better. I feel my story is particularly important for healthcare workers since many people in the system are forced to spend long periods of their under artificial light and their mental health (e.g., empathy) suffers greatly from it. For example, consider this study of Chinese operating room nurses which found their mental health was significantly worse than the general population and that this decline was correlated to their lack of sunlight exposure. 2. A large epidemiological study found women with higher solar UVB exposure had only half the incidence of breast cancer as those with lower solar exposure and that men with higher residential solar exposure had only half the incidence of fatal prostate cancer. Note: a 50% reduction in either of these cancers greatly exceeds what any of the approaches we use to treat or prevent them have accomplished. 3. A 20 year prospective study evaluated 29,518 women in Southern Sweden where average women from each age bracket with no significant health issues were randomly selected, essentially making it one of the best possible epidemiologic studies that could be done. It found that women who were sun avoidant compared to those who had regular exposure to sunlight were: •Overall 60% more likely to die, being roughly 50% more likely to die than the moderate exposure group and roughly 130% more likely to die than the group with high sun exposure. Note: to be clear, there are very few interventions in medicine that do anything close to this. •The largest gain was seen in the risk of dying from heart disease, while the second gain was seen in the risk of all causes of death besides heart disease and cancer (“other”), and the third largest gain was seen in deaths from cancer. Note: the investigators concluded the smaller benefit in reduced cancer deaths was in part an artifact of the subjects living longer and hence succumbing to a type of cancer that would have only affected them later in life. • The largest benefit was seen in smokers, to the point non-smokers who avoided the sun had the same risk of dying as smokers who got sunlight. Note: I believe this and the cardiovascular benefits are in large part due to sunlight catalyzing the synthesis of nitric oxide (which is essential for healthy blood vessels) and sulfates (which coat cells like the endothelium and in conjunction with infrared (or sunlight) creates the liquid crystalline water which is essential for the protection and function of the cardiovascular system). So given all of this, I would say that you need a really good justification to avoid sun exposure. Skin Cancer According to the American Academy of Dermatology, skin cancer is the most common cancer in the United States, with current estimates suggesting that one in five Americans will develop skin cancer in their lifetime. Approximately 9,500 people in the U.S. are diagnosed with skin cancer every day. The Academy emphasizes that UV exposure is the most preventable risk factor for skin cancer, advising people to avoid indoor tanning beds and protect their skin outdoors by seeking shade, wearing protective clothing, and applying broad-spectrum sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or higher. The Skin Cancer Foundation states that more than two people die of skin cancer in the U.S. every hour, which sounds alarming. Let's break down what all this means. Basal Cell Carcinoma Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common skin cancer, making up 80% of cases, with about 2.64 million Americans diagnosed annually. Risk factors include excessive sun exposure, fair skin, and family history. BCC primarily occurs in sun-exposed areas like the face. BCC rarely metastasizes and has a near 0% fatality rate, but it frequently recurs (65%-95%) after removal. The standard excision approach often doesn't address underlying causes, leading to repeated surgeries and potential disfigurement. While BCCs can grow large if left untreated, they aren't immediately dangerous. Treatment is necessary but not urgent. Alternative therapies can effectively treat large BCCs without disfiguring surgery. Note: since the COVID-19 vaccines came out, I have heard of a few cases of BCC metastasizing in the vaccinated, but it is still extraordinarily rare. Squamous Cell Carcinoma Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is the second most common skin cancer, with an estimated 1.8 million cases in the U.S. Its incidence varies widely due to sunlight exposure, ranging from 260 to 4,970 cases per million person-years. Previously thought to be four times less common than BCC, SCC is now only half as common. Unlike BCC, SCC can metastasize, making it potentially dangerous. If removed before metastasis, the survival rate is 99%; after metastasis, it drops to 56%. Typically caught early, SCC has an average survival rate of 95%. Around 2,000 people die from SCC each year in the U.S. Note: unlike more lethal skin cancers, it is not required to report BCC or SCC. Consequently, there is no centralized database tracking their occurrence, so the official figures are largely estimates. Melanoma Melanoma occurs at a rate of 218 cases per million persons annually in the United States, with survival rates ranging from 99% to 35% depending on its stage when diagnosed, averaging out to 94%. However, despite only comprising 1% of all skin cancer diagnoses, Melanoma is responsible for most skin cancer deaths. In total, this works out to a bit over 8000 deaths each year in the United States. Since survival is greatly improved by early detection, many guides online exist to help recognize the common signs of a potential melanoma. What’s critically important to understand about melanoma is that while it’s widely considered to be linked to sunlight exposure—it’s not. For example: Patients with solar elastosis, a sign of sun exposure, were 60% less likely to die from melanoma. Melanoma predominantly occurs in areas of the body with minimal sunlight exposure, unlike SCC and BCC, which are linked to sun-exposed regions. Outdoor workers, despite significantly higher UV exposure, have lower rates of melanoma compared to indoor workers. Many sunscreens contain toxic carcinogens (to the point Hawaii banned them to protect coral reefs). Conversely, existing research indicates widespread sunscreen use has not reduced skin cancer rates. •A mouse study designed to study malignant melanoma found mice kept under simulated daylight develop tumors at a slower and diminished rate compared to those under cool white fluorescent light. There has been a significant increase in many areas from melanoma, something which argues against sunlight being the primary issue as it has not significantly changed in the last few decades. For instance, consider this data from Norway’s cancer registry on malignant melanoma: Note: in addition to these three cancers, other (much rarer) skin cancers also exist, most of which have not been linked to sunlight exposure. The Great Dermatology Scam If you consider the previous section, the following should be fairly clear: •By far the most common “skin cancer” is not dangerous. •The “skin cancers” you actually need to worry about are a fairly small portion of the existing skin cancers. • Sunlight exposure does not cause the most dangerous cancers. In essence, there’s no way to justify “banning sunlight” to “prevent skin cancer,” as the “benefit” from this prescription is vastly outweighed by its harm. However, a very clever linguistic trick bypasses this contradiction—a single label, “skin cancer,” is used for everything, which then selectively adopts the lethality of melanoma, the frequency of BCC, and the sensitivity to sunlight that BCC and SCC have. This has always really infuriated me, so I’ve given a lot of thought to why they do this. Note: a variety of other deceptive linguistic tricks are also utilized by the pharmaceutical company. I am presently working on an article about that was also done with high blood pressure (hypertension). The Transformation of Dermatology In the 1980s, dermatology was one of the least desirable specialties in medicine (e.g., dermatologists were often referred to as pimple poppers). Now however, dermatology is one of the most coveted specialties in medicine as dermatologists make 2-4 times as much as a regular doctor, but have a much less stressful lifestyle. A relatively unknown blog by Dermatologist David J. Elpern, M.D. at last explained what happened: Over the past 40 years, I have witnessed these changes in my specialty and am dismayed by the reluctance of my colleagues to address them. This trend began in the early 1980s when the Academy of Dermatology (AAD) assessed its members over 2 million dollars to hire a prominent New York advertising agency to raise the public’s appreciation of our specialty. The mad men recommended “educating” the public to the fact that dermatologists are skin cancer experts, not just pimple poppers; and so the free National Skin Cancer Screening Day was established [through a 1985 Presidential proclamation]. These screenings serve to inflate the public’s health anxiety about skin cancer and led to the performance of vast amounts of expensive low-value procedures for skin cancer and actinic keratosis (AKs). At the same time, pathologists were expanding their definitions of what a melanoma is, leading to “diagnostic drift” that misleadingly increased the incidence of melanoma while the mortality has remained at 1980 levels. Concomitantly, non-melanoma skin cancers are being over-treated by armies of micrographic surgeons who often treat innocuous skin cancers with unnecessarily aggressive, lucrative surgeries. This heightened awareness led to a dramatic increase in skin cancer screenings and diagnoses, fueled by fears instilled in the public about sun exposure. Alongside this massive sales funnel, there was a significant expansion in the incredibly lucrative Mohs micrographic surgery, promoted as a gold standard for treating skin cancers due to its precision and efficacy in sparing healthy tissue. However, critics argue that Mohs surgery is often overused, driven by financial incentives rather than clinical necessity, contributing to immense healthcare costs. Note: we frequently see patients who developed complications from these surgeries. The commercialization of dermatology was further amplified by the entry of private equity firms into the field. These firms acquired dermatology practices, sometimes staffing them with non-physician providers to maximize profitability. This trend raised concerns about quality of care, with reports of misdiagnoses and over-treatment, particularly in vulnerable populations like nursing home residents—to the point the New York Times authored a 2017 investigation on this exploitative industry. Moreover, the shift towards profit-driven models in dermatology has sparked ethical debates within the medical community. Some dermatologists have voiced concerns over the commodification of skin cancer treatments and the erosion of traditional doctor-patient relationships in favor of more transactional interactions. Despite these challenges, dermatology remains a lucrative field, attracting both medical professionals and investors seeking financial gain from skin care services. Many in turn are victimized by these exploitative practices. The popular comedian Jimmy Dore for example recently covered the Great Dermatology Scam after realizing he’d been subjected to it. After Jimmy Dore’s segment, this story went viral, and as best as I can tell, was seen by between 5 to 10 million people. A few weeks after Dore’s segment, two surveys were released highlighting an “epidemic” of insufficient sun protection which the New York Times then covered (and numerous readers then sent to me since they thought it was a response to my article). Since it was such a classic medical propaganda piece, I will to quote a few lines from it: Two new surveys suggest a troubling trend: Young adults seem to be slacking on sun safety. 14 percent of adults under 35 believed the myth that wearing sunscreen every day is more harmful than direct sun exposure Young adults are often unaware of what sun damage looks like and how best to prevent it Ultraviolet rays — whether from tanning beds or direct sunlight — can damage skin and cause skin cancer, which can be deadly Experts said that Gen Z is uniquely susceptible to misinformation about sunscreen and skin cancer that has proliferated on social media platforms like TikTok. Generously apply — and reapply — sunscreen. UV rays can damage skin even when it’s cloudy or chilly, so experts recommend wearing sunscreen every day. Note: I must emphasize that some skin cancers (e.g., many melanomas) require immediate removal. My point here is not to avoid dermatologists entirely but to consider seeking a second opinion from another dermatologist as there are many excellent and ethical dermatologists out there. Changes in Skin Cancer Given how much is being spent to end skin cancer, one would expect some results. Unfortunately, like many other aspects of the cancer industry that’s not what’s happened. Instead, more and more (previously benign) cancers are diagnosed, but for the most part, no significant change has occurred in the death rate. The best proof for this came from a study which found that almost all of the increase in “skin cancer” was from stage 1 melanomas (which rarely create problems): Another study illustrates exactly what the result of our war on skin cancer has accomplished: Finally, since many suspected the COVID vaccines might lead to an increase in melanoma (or other skin cancers), I compiled all the available annual reports from the American Cancer Society into a few graphs: Conclusion Dermatology’s need to create a villain (the sun) to justify its racket is arguably one of the most damaging things the medical profession has done to the world. Fortunately, the insatiable greed of the medical industry went too far during COVID-19, and the public is now starting to question many of the other exploitative and unscientific practices we are subjected to. It is my sincere hope that our society will begin re-examining dermatology’s disastrous war against the sun. I in turn am incredibly grateful because this new political climate has made it possible to expose a variety of unscrupulous tactics in medicine which have remained largely unchallenged for decades. Author’s note: This is an abbreviated version of a full-length article about Dermatology’s Disastrous War Again the Sun that also discusses safer ways to treat or prevent skin cancer and the nutritional approaches (e.g., avoiding seed oils) which make it possible for the skin to tolerate and be nourished by longer sun exposures. For the entire read with much more specific details and sources, and those approaches please click here. (End of AMD’s quoted article. Link to original: https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/dermatologys-horrendous-war-against.) Share To help me continue my work, you may make a one-time gift here: https://ko-fi.com/truth613 https://substack.com/home/post/p-146483737
    SUBSTACK.COM
    Dermatology's Horrendous War Against The Sun, and the True Origins of the American Medical Association
    Untangling Dermatology's Huge Skin Cancer Scam - and deep corruption that enables them to get away with it.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 5844 Views
  • mRNA COVID jabs found to spread from vaccinated to unvaccinated via AEROSOLS

    New peer-reviewed research published in the journal ImmunoHorizons shows that individuals who have been "vaccinated" for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) can spread antibodies generated by the injections to unvaccinated individuals through aerosols.
    Because of the lengthy mask mandates that plagued the country for several years during the "pandemic," scientists at the University of Colorado decided to take a closer look at whether or not fully jabbed people can transfer mRNA-generated antibodies to their fully un-jabbed peers. It turns out that they can.

    Using a combination of tests to detect SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in the worn masks of fully jabbed lab members, researchers identified the immune system-produced proteins, which circulate the bloodstream and neutralize foreign substances such as viruses and bacteria.

    "Consistent with results reported by others, the researchers identified both immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies in the saliva of vaccinated individuals and on their masks," reports explain.

    "Based on their observations, the researchers hypothesized droplet or aerosolized antibody transfer might occur between individuals, similar to how droplets and aerosolized viral particles are transferred by the same route."

    (Related: To "repair heart muscle" damaged by mRNA COVID injections, drug giant Moderna released a second injection, also with mRNA.)

    COVID jab "shedding" delivers "passive immunization" to the unvaccinated

    To test their hypothesis, researchers obtained and compared nasal swabs from non-jabbed children living in fully jabbed, fully non-jabbed, and COVID-positive households. Based on this, they learned that high IgG in the noses of fully jabbed parents was "significantly associated" with an increase in intranasal IgG in fully non-jabbed children from the same household.

    Comparatively, nasal swabs obtained from children living in fully non-jabbed households, meaning nobody in the family got injected for COVID, showed a "complete deficit of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody detected."

    "In other words, their findings suggest aerosol transmission of antibodies can occur between COVID-19 vaccinated parents and their children – and the tendency for this transfer is directly related to the amount of nasal or oral antibodies found in those who received vaccines," reports explain.

    What this research definitively shows is that vaccine "shedding" is very real, and that unvaccinated people are being "passively immunized" by their fully vaccinated friends and family members whenever they are around them breathing in their tainted aerosols.

    "But this would provide minimal immunity for the 'bystanders' based on the fact that the original mRNA vaccines provide so little protection," commented Brian Hooker, chief scientific officer at Children's Health Defense about the lack of protection produced by passive immunization.

    Not only are the fully jabbed not protected from anything related to covid, but so are the fully non-jabbed that they contaminate with antibody-laced aerosols. In the end, everyone gets polluted with the same toxic chemicals that Hooker warns can cause autoimmunity and "all sorts of reactions" in bystanders due to a similar "molecular mimicry between the COVID-19 Ig [immunoglobulin] antibodies and human proteins."

    Other studies have shown that molecular mimicry between foreign molecules and human molecules can produce an autoimmune response that causes antibodies to function incorrectly and to interact against human proteins.

    If these Ig antibodies can transmit from person to person through aerosols, then there is no reason to believe that spike proteins generated by COVID injections cannot be transmitted as well, Hooker says.

    "This could cause immunization of the bystanders as well as problems associated with spike protein toxicity to bloodstream components and other tissues," he explained.

    According to French pharmacist and biologist Helene Banoun, spike proteins manufactured by the body after it is jabbed for COVID circulate as exosomes, or extracellular vesicles released from cells that transport spike protein through circulation.

    There is never a good reason to get injected for COVID. Learn more at Vaccines.news.

    Sources for this article include:

    TheEpochTimes.com

    Newstarget.com


    mRNA COVID jabs found to spread from vaccinated to unvaccinated via AEROSOLS

    https://www.naturalnews.com/2023-08-04-mrna-covid-vaccines-spread-vaccinated-unvaccinated-aerosols.html
    mRNA COVID jabs found to spread from vaccinated to unvaccinated via AEROSOLS New peer-reviewed research published in the journal ImmunoHorizons shows that individuals who have been "vaccinated" for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) can spread antibodies generated by the injections to unvaccinated individuals through aerosols. Because of the lengthy mask mandates that plagued the country for several years during the "pandemic," scientists at the University of Colorado decided to take a closer look at whether or not fully jabbed people can transfer mRNA-generated antibodies to their fully un-jabbed peers. It turns out that they can. Using a combination of tests to detect SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in the worn masks of fully jabbed lab members, researchers identified the immune system-produced proteins, which circulate the bloodstream and neutralize foreign substances such as viruses and bacteria. "Consistent with results reported by others, the researchers identified both immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies in the saliva of vaccinated individuals and on their masks," reports explain. "Based on their observations, the researchers hypothesized droplet or aerosolized antibody transfer might occur between individuals, similar to how droplets and aerosolized viral particles are transferred by the same route." (Related: To "repair heart muscle" damaged by mRNA COVID injections, drug giant Moderna released a second injection, also with mRNA.) COVID jab "shedding" delivers "passive immunization" to the unvaccinated To test their hypothesis, researchers obtained and compared nasal swabs from non-jabbed children living in fully jabbed, fully non-jabbed, and COVID-positive households. Based on this, they learned that high IgG in the noses of fully jabbed parents was "significantly associated" with an increase in intranasal IgG in fully non-jabbed children from the same household. Comparatively, nasal swabs obtained from children living in fully non-jabbed households, meaning nobody in the family got injected for COVID, showed a "complete deficit of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody detected." "In other words, their findings suggest aerosol transmission of antibodies can occur between COVID-19 vaccinated parents and their children – and the tendency for this transfer is directly related to the amount of nasal or oral antibodies found in those who received vaccines," reports explain. What this research definitively shows is that vaccine "shedding" is very real, and that unvaccinated people are being "passively immunized" by their fully vaccinated friends and family members whenever they are around them breathing in their tainted aerosols. "But this would provide minimal immunity for the 'bystanders' based on the fact that the original mRNA vaccines provide so little protection," commented Brian Hooker, chief scientific officer at Children's Health Defense about the lack of protection produced by passive immunization. Not only are the fully jabbed not protected from anything related to covid, but so are the fully non-jabbed that they contaminate with antibody-laced aerosols. In the end, everyone gets polluted with the same toxic chemicals that Hooker warns can cause autoimmunity and "all sorts of reactions" in bystanders due to a similar "molecular mimicry between the COVID-19 Ig [immunoglobulin] antibodies and human proteins." Other studies have shown that molecular mimicry between foreign molecules and human molecules can produce an autoimmune response that causes antibodies to function incorrectly and to interact against human proteins. If these Ig antibodies can transmit from person to person through aerosols, then there is no reason to believe that spike proteins generated by COVID injections cannot be transmitted as well, Hooker says. "This could cause immunization of the bystanders as well as problems associated with spike protein toxicity to bloodstream components and other tissues," he explained. According to French pharmacist and biologist Helene Banoun, spike proteins manufactured by the body after it is jabbed for COVID circulate as exosomes, or extracellular vesicles released from cells that transport spike protein through circulation. There is never a good reason to get injected for COVID. Learn more at Vaccines.news. Sources for this article include: TheEpochTimes.com Newstarget.com mRNA COVID jabs found to spread from vaccinated to unvaccinated via AEROSOLS https://www.naturalnews.com/2023-08-04-mrna-covid-vaccines-spread-vaccinated-unvaccinated-aerosols.html
    WWW.NATURALNEWS.COM
    mRNA COVID jabs found to spread from vaccinated to unvaccinated via AEROSOLS – NaturalNews.com
    New peer-reviewed research published in the journal ImmunoHorizons shows that individuals who have been “vaccinated” for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) can spread antibodies generated by the injections to unvaccinated individuals through aerosols. Because of the lengthy mask mandates that plagued the country for several years during the “pandemic,” scientists at the University of Colorado decided […]
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1473 Views
  • A Critical Look at a COVID-19 Vaccination Study: Clarity is Key
    July 7, 2024
    Uncategorized
    By Sarena L. McLean MSc. (Epidemiology & Biostatistics), Health Sciences Researcher & Member of Doctors for Covid Ethics (2021)

    The study “A Critical Analysis of All-Cause Deaths during COVID-19 Vaccination in an Italian Province” by Alessandria et al. aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on all-cause mortality while correcting for immortal time bias (ITB). Conducted in the Piedmont region of Italy, the study utilized a retrospective cohort design using a dataset from the Italian National Healthcare System, residents aged 10 and older, from January 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022 (Alessandria et al., p. 2). The authors aligned follow-up periods to ensure comparability between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, dividing the cohort into groups based on vaccination status: unvaccinated, one dose, two doses, and three or four doses.

    The study found an increased risk of death associated with receiving one or two doses of the vaccine, with less clear results for three or four doses. Covariates analyzed included gender, age, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cardiovascular disease, kidney diseases, cancer, and SARS-CoV-2 infection status. The authors used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate hazard ratios for all-cause mortality and employed Restricted Mean Survival Time (RMST) and Restricted Mean Time Lost (RMTL) for additional measures of survival and life expectancy (Alessandria et al., p. 4).

    1. Strengths of the Study

    The study used an innovative ITB correction, designed for accurate vaccination impact assessment. Additionally, the use of a large dataset from the Italian National Healthcare System provided a comprehensive dataset for analysis. Importantly, the authors chose to complete an all-cause mortality analysis versus examining COVID-19 death statistics, which are rife with misclassification errors. The all-cause mortality is not only more robust but also captures the impact from other indirect effects of COVID-19 such as delayed medical treatments.

    2. Areas for Improvement

    2.1. Overall Presentation

    The article requires clarity, and a few items are missing. For example, when beginning to read the abstract, the authors lay out the analysis problem in general, which is an excellent consideration. However, the authors would best help the reader orient themselves first by providing an overview or context. We know nothing about the work, so help us follow along with you. There is no clear research question, and all reviewers want to see clear hypotheses, objectives, and purpose. I struggled at first to understand the unstratified sample size. Do not make work for the reader is always good advice.

    There are many indications the authors were innovative and thorough in their approach and diligent in their process. Unfortunately, there were details and explanations missing that created a lot of questions during the review. It is challenging to discern if there are methodological or statistical analysis issues or are simply missing pieces of information creating a conversation about items that are already addressed and valid. The comments below are intended to demonstrate what arose in this review.

    2.2. Descriptive Statistics

    More detailed descriptive statistics are needed to provide context for the study population and their baseline characteristics. These statistics are vital for both lay readers and academics to understand the foundation of the investigation and provide essential information to assess both the statistical approach and interpret the findings. As a health science researcher, I am always looking for the measures of central tendency because I am interested in the distribution of these variables. Additionally, this item relates to the above point about unclear or missing details. The scientific method is predicated on the ability to replicate a study. We are unable to do that in this instance because the information is unclear. For example, I am assuming the authors chose not to provide details about vaccine manufacturers or types of vaccines for a substantial reason. However, there is no discussion about this. We are all challenged by word counts in publishing our work; yet some background and explanatory information is crucial.

    2.3. Covariates/Confounders

    Multicollinearity

    The study includes several covariates that may have the potential to cause multicollinearity issues. Age and sex are unlikely to present problems. Cancer and infection are only moderately correlated with other conditions, while hypertension and COPD, though more correlated with other comorbidities, are still manageable within the model. However, cardiovascular disease is highly correlated with multiple conditions, notably hypertension and diabetes, which can complicate the analysis. The most significant concerns are diabetes and kidney disease, which are strongly correlated with each other and with other chronic conditions. This high correlation, known as multicollinearity, which can severely impact the stability of the regression coefficients, making it difficult to determine the individual effect of each variable. For example, the study’s regression model might show a misleadingly high effect of vaccination on mortality if the true effect is confounded by the combined impact of diabetes and kidney disease, leading to unreliable results. I would have preferred to read the authors’ comments on the associations among their covariates briefly in prose or shown in a table.

    Limited Covariates

    The covariates were limited in this study. This is generally problematic, because it limits the ability to control for factors that can significantly influence health outcomes. Specifically from a social epidemiological perspective, missing covariates highly correlated with poor health outcomes, such as socio-economic status (SES), access to healthcare, and mental health status, can lead to residual confounding where we may miss the opportunity to see what is truly driving the relationship(s) resulting in poor outcomes (Alessandria et al., p. 4). Importantly, these same factors were directly impacted by COVID-19 response measures. For instance, individuals with lower SES often face greater barriers to healthcare access and may have challenging living conditions, which can increase their vulnerability and result in an increase in both the burden of disease, and mortality. The study did include clinical covariates such as chronic diseases like hypertension, diabetes, COPD, cardiovascular disease, kidney diseases, cancer, and SARS-CoV-2 infection status, but broader social determinants of health were overlooked (Alessandria et al., p. 4).

    Statistical Methods

    An early question about the model was the exclusion of deaths in the first 2-week time period after vaccination. For example, we know that cardiac death occurs in that time frame; thus, the omission of this time period could impact the results.

    It was unclear from the paper whether the authors examined and could assure readers that the data met the assumption criteria for the Cox model statistical analysis. The assumption required for a Cox model to be robust and valid is that the hazard ratios for the covariates must be constant over time (Alessandria et al., p. 5-6). Confirming this would be helpful for readers, as it would address concerns about the robustness of the statistical analysis. There is some information in the notes for Table 3, which do demonstrate the authors were addressing this issue along with a reference to the Schoenfeld’s test (Alessandria et al., p. 4). However, in my view, it remains unclear if the assumption is sufficiently addressed, particularly with respect to the confounders. By providing more comprehensive evidence of how the proportional hazards assumption was tested and addressed for each covariate (and confounders) including detailed plots or test statistics and explaining the stratification rationale would strengthen the study’s validity and address concerns effectively.

    If the proportional hazards assumption is violated in a Cox regression model, it can cause several problems. The estimates of the hazard ratios may be biased, meaning they do not accurately show the true relationship between the covariates and the risk of the event occurring. This can lead to incorrect statistical tests and confidence intervals, causing wrong conclusions about the effects of the covariates. In the context of the study by Alessandria et al., if this assumption is violated, it could compromise the validity of their findings about the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on all-cause mortality. The observed effects might be due to changes over time rather than a true relationship, leading to erroneous results.

    While Kaplan-Meier survival curves and a simplified Cox model do not directly address immortal time bias as comprehensively as the authors’ approach, these methods can be adjusted to partially mitigate ITB. Incorporating time-dependent covariates can help align risk periods correctly. As Tabachnick and Fidell (2013) explain, using time-dependent covariates within Cox regression can effectively handle violations of the proportional hazards assumption, providing more reliable results.

    The advanced and complex nature of the original analysis, combined with missing or unclear foundational information, such as the research question and descriptive statistics, makes it difficult to determine if the authors’ findings are robust. For example, when reviewing Table 3.0, the covariate ‘Infection’ with SARS-CoV-2 shows hazard ratios of less than 1 compared to the population without infection, which is curious. Amon subjects who had received a single dose, the HR was 0.58, which suggests that the SARS-CoV-2-infected group had 42% lower hazard or risk compared to the non-infected group. I did not find any outcomes listed in the paper that suggested a lower risk made sense given the outcomes referred to are death and COVID-19-related deaths (Alessandria et al., p. 3).

    Finally, an important suggestion is to clearly state what you are not going to do. It clears up any confusion and lays a boundary for why we do not venture into areas that are beyond the scope and resources we have in our work. Overall, it takes away a critique of the reviewers.

    3. Conclusion

    There could be valuable findings in this study, but the presentation is hindered by insufficient foundational information and very complex data analysis. Simplifying the methods and ensuring clarity in objectives and descriptive statistics would enhance the study’s reliability and accessibility. It would allow the reader to move beyond the initial information without so many questions. In this study, the investigators have been bold to embrace an untraditional statistical approach thus, to truly add to the body of literature, the detail is important. By embracing a more rigorous review process, we uphold the integrity of science and contribute to more reliable and impactful research.

    For the authors, consider revising the study to address these concerns and recirculate their work. It is innovative yet complex, so clarity is key. I give credit to the authors for stepping out boldly to address gaps in the research.

    4. References

    Alessandria, M. et al. (2024) A Critical Analysis of All-Cause Deaths during {COVID}-19 Vaccination in an Italian Province. Microorganisms 12:1343 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12071343

    Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using Multivariate Statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.



    A Critical Look at a COVID-19 Vaccination Study: Clarity is Key

    by Sarena L. McLean, MSc.

    The study “A Critical Analysis of All-Cause Deaths during COVID-19 Vaccination in an Italian Province” by Alessandria et al. aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on all-cause mortality while correcting for immortal time bias (ITB). Conducted in the Piedmont region of Italy, the study utilized a retrospective cohort design using a dataset from the Italian National Healthcare System, residents aged 10 and older, from January 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022 (Alessandria et al., p. 2). The authors aligned follow-up periods to ensure comparability between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, dividing the cohort into groups based on vaccination status: unvaccinated, one dose, two doses, and three or four doses.

    Read the full report: https://doctors4covidethics.org/a-critical-look-at-a-covid-19-vaccination-study-clarity-is-key/
    A Critical Look at a COVID-19 Vaccination Study: Clarity is Key July 7, 2024 Uncategorized By Sarena L. McLean MSc. (Epidemiology & Biostatistics), Health Sciences Researcher & Member of Doctors for Covid Ethics (2021) The study “A Critical Analysis of All-Cause Deaths during COVID-19 Vaccination in an Italian Province” by Alessandria et al. aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on all-cause mortality while correcting for immortal time bias (ITB). Conducted in the Piedmont region of Italy, the study utilized a retrospective cohort design using a dataset from the Italian National Healthcare System, residents aged 10 and older, from January 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022 (Alessandria et al., p. 2). The authors aligned follow-up periods to ensure comparability between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, dividing the cohort into groups based on vaccination status: unvaccinated, one dose, two doses, and three or four doses. The study found an increased risk of death associated with receiving one or two doses of the vaccine, with less clear results for three or four doses. Covariates analyzed included gender, age, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cardiovascular disease, kidney diseases, cancer, and SARS-CoV-2 infection status. The authors used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate hazard ratios for all-cause mortality and employed Restricted Mean Survival Time (RMST) and Restricted Mean Time Lost (RMTL) for additional measures of survival and life expectancy (Alessandria et al., p. 4). 1. Strengths of the Study The study used an innovative ITB correction, designed for accurate vaccination impact assessment. Additionally, the use of a large dataset from the Italian National Healthcare System provided a comprehensive dataset for analysis. Importantly, the authors chose to complete an all-cause mortality analysis versus examining COVID-19 death statistics, which are rife with misclassification errors. The all-cause mortality is not only more robust but also captures the impact from other indirect effects of COVID-19 such as delayed medical treatments. 2. Areas for Improvement 2.1. Overall Presentation The article requires clarity, and a few items are missing. For example, when beginning to read the abstract, the authors lay out the analysis problem in general, which is an excellent consideration. However, the authors would best help the reader orient themselves first by providing an overview or context. We know nothing about the work, so help us follow along with you. There is no clear research question, and all reviewers want to see clear hypotheses, objectives, and purpose. I struggled at first to understand the unstratified sample size. Do not make work for the reader is always good advice. There are many indications the authors were innovative and thorough in their approach and diligent in their process. Unfortunately, there were details and explanations missing that created a lot of questions during the review. It is challenging to discern if there are methodological or statistical analysis issues or are simply missing pieces of information creating a conversation about items that are already addressed and valid. The comments below are intended to demonstrate what arose in this review. 2.2. Descriptive Statistics More detailed descriptive statistics are needed to provide context for the study population and their baseline characteristics. These statistics are vital for both lay readers and academics to understand the foundation of the investigation and provide essential information to assess both the statistical approach and interpret the findings. As a health science researcher, I am always looking for the measures of central tendency because I am interested in the distribution of these variables. Additionally, this item relates to the above point about unclear or missing details. The scientific method is predicated on the ability to replicate a study. We are unable to do that in this instance because the information is unclear. For example, I am assuming the authors chose not to provide details about vaccine manufacturers or types of vaccines for a substantial reason. However, there is no discussion about this. We are all challenged by word counts in publishing our work; yet some background and explanatory information is crucial. 2.3. Covariates/Confounders Multicollinearity The study includes several covariates that may have the potential to cause multicollinearity issues. Age and sex are unlikely to present problems. Cancer and infection are only moderately correlated with other conditions, while hypertension and COPD, though more correlated with other comorbidities, are still manageable within the model. However, cardiovascular disease is highly correlated with multiple conditions, notably hypertension and diabetes, which can complicate the analysis. The most significant concerns are diabetes and kidney disease, which are strongly correlated with each other and with other chronic conditions. This high correlation, known as multicollinearity, which can severely impact the stability of the regression coefficients, making it difficult to determine the individual effect of each variable. For example, the study’s regression model might show a misleadingly high effect of vaccination on mortality if the true effect is confounded by the combined impact of diabetes and kidney disease, leading to unreliable results. I would have preferred to read the authors’ comments on the associations among their covariates briefly in prose or shown in a table. Limited Covariates The covariates were limited in this study. This is generally problematic, because it limits the ability to control for factors that can significantly influence health outcomes. Specifically from a social epidemiological perspective, missing covariates highly correlated with poor health outcomes, such as socio-economic status (SES), access to healthcare, and mental health status, can lead to residual confounding where we may miss the opportunity to see what is truly driving the relationship(s) resulting in poor outcomes (Alessandria et al., p. 4). Importantly, these same factors were directly impacted by COVID-19 response measures. For instance, individuals with lower SES often face greater barriers to healthcare access and may have challenging living conditions, which can increase their vulnerability and result in an increase in both the burden of disease, and mortality. The study did include clinical covariates such as chronic diseases like hypertension, diabetes, COPD, cardiovascular disease, kidney diseases, cancer, and SARS-CoV-2 infection status, but broader social determinants of health were overlooked (Alessandria et al., p. 4). Statistical Methods An early question about the model was the exclusion of deaths in the first 2-week time period after vaccination. For example, we know that cardiac death occurs in that time frame; thus, the omission of this time period could impact the results. It was unclear from the paper whether the authors examined and could assure readers that the data met the assumption criteria for the Cox model statistical analysis. The assumption required for a Cox model to be robust and valid is that the hazard ratios for the covariates must be constant over time (Alessandria et al., p. 5-6). Confirming this would be helpful for readers, as it would address concerns about the robustness of the statistical analysis. There is some information in the notes for Table 3, which do demonstrate the authors were addressing this issue along with a reference to the Schoenfeld’s test (Alessandria et al., p. 4). However, in my view, it remains unclear if the assumption is sufficiently addressed, particularly with respect to the confounders. By providing more comprehensive evidence of how the proportional hazards assumption was tested and addressed for each covariate (and confounders) including detailed plots or test statistics and explaining the stratification rationale would strengthen the study’s validity and address concerns effectively. If the proportional hazards assumption is violated in a Cox regression model, it can cause several problems. The estimates of the hazard ratios may be biased, meaning they do not accurately show the true relationship between the covariates and the risk of the event occurring. This can lead to incorrect statistical tests and confidence intervals, causing wrong conclusions about the effects of the covariates. In the context of the study by Alessandria et al., if this assumption is violated, it could compromise the validity of their findings about the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on all-cause mortality. The observed effects might be due to changes over time rather than a true relationship, leading to erroneous results. While Kaplan-Meier survival curves and a simplified Cox model do not directly address immortal time bias as comprehensively as the authors’ approach, these methods can be adjusted to partially mitigate ITB. Incorporating time-dependent covariates can help align risk periods correctly. As Tabachnick and Fidell (2013) explain, using time-dependent covariates within Cox regression can effectively handle violations of the proportional hazards assumption, providing more reliable results. The advanced and complex nature of the original analysis, combined with missing or unclear foundational information, such as the research question and descriptive statistics, makes it difficult to determine if the authors’ findings are robust. For example, when reviewing Table 3.0, the covariate ‘Infection’ with SARS-CoV-2 shows hazard ratios of less than 1 compared to the population without infection, which is curious. Amon subjects who had received a single dose, the HR was 0.58, which suggests that the SARS-CoV-2-infected group had 42% lower hazard or risk compared to the non-infected group. I did not find any outcomes listed in the paper that suggested a lower risk made sense given the outcomes referred to are death and COVID-19-related deaths (Alessandria et al., p. 3). Finally, an important suggestion is to clearly state what you are not going to do. It clears up any confusion and lays a boundary for why we do not venture into areas that are beyond the scope and resources we have in our work. Overall, it takes away a critique of the reviewers. 3. Conclusion There could be valuable findings in this study, but the presentation is hindered by insufficient foundational information and very complex data analysis. Simplifying the methods and ensuring clarity in objectives and descriptive statistics would enhance the study’s reliability and accessibility. It would allow the reader to move beyond the initial information without so many questions. In this study, the investigators have been bold to embrace an untraditional statistical approach thus, to truly add to the body of literature, the detail is important. By embracing a more rigorous review process, we uphold the integrity of science and contribute to more reliable and impactful research. For the authors, consider revising the study to address these concerns and recirculate their work. It is innovative yet complex, so clarity is key. I give credit to the authors for stepping out boldly to address gaps in the research. 4. References Alessandria, M. et al. (2024) A Critical Analysis of All-Cause Deaths during {COVID}-19 Vaccination in an Italian Province. Microorganisms 12:1343 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12071343 Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using Multivariate Statistics (7th ed.). Pearson. A Critical Look at a COVID-19 Vaccination Study: Clarity is Key by Sarena L. McLean, MSc. The study “A Critical Analysis of All-Cause Deaths during COVID-19 Vaccination in an Italian Province” by Alessandria et al. aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on all-cause mortality while correcting for immortal time bias (ITB). Conducted in the Piedmont region of Italy, the study utilized a retrospective cohort design using a dataset from the Italian National Healthcare System, residents aged 10 and older, from January 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022 (Alessandria et al., p. 2). The authors aligned follow-up periods to ensure comparability between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, dividing the cohort into groups based on vaccination status: unvaccinated, one dose, two doses, and three or four doses. Read the full report: https://doctors4covidethics.org/a-critical-look-at-a-covid-19-vaccination-study-clarity-is-key/
    DOCTORS4COVIDETHICS.ORG
    A Critical Look at a COVID-19 Vaccination Study: Clarity is Key
    By Sarena L. McLean MSc. (Epidemiology & Biostatistics), Health Sciences Researcher & Member of Doctors for Covid Ethics (2021) The study 'A Critical Analysis of All-Cause Deaths during COVID-19 Vaccination in an Italian Province' by Alessandria et al. aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on all-cause mortality while correcting for immortal time bias (ITB). Conducted in the Piedmont region of Italy, the study
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 2314 Views
  • “Brain Dead” is NOT Dead! LIVE people are murdered daily for organs and to “save money”
    You MUST KNOW that “no brain activity” means NOTHING except that doctors didn’t do the tests that would find the brain activity. Don’t let your loved one be killed.

    Brucha Weisberger
    BS”D

    From the beginning of time, people knew that cessation of heartbeat and breath meant death. This is the G-d-given definition, and it is logical. Since it’s real, this definition does not require anything to “prop it up.”

    Of course, G-d, Who creates life, is the only One Who has the authority to say when it ends, and to end it. Unfortunately, two motivations came into play in the 20th century to create a new, and false, “definition” of death.

    Marina Zhang at Epoch Times explains in her June 2024 article, “Brain-Dead People May Not Be Dead—Here’s Why.” https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/are-brain-dead-people-really-dead-5629496

    The definition of brain death, also known as death by neurological criteria, is when a person falls into a permanent coma, loses their brainstem reflexes and consciousness, and can’t breathe without stimulus or support.

    Yet a person’s heart can be beating, his or her organs functional, and he or she can fight off infection, grow, and even carry babies to term. (Delivery of a Healthy Baby from a Brain-Dead Woman After 117 Days of Somatic Support: A Case Report - PMC https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8141338/)

    Though they may exhibit no signs of consciousness, some areas of the brain may still work. About 50 percent of brain-death patients retain activity in their hypothalamus, which coordinates the body’s endocrine system and regulates body temperature.

    However, all of this stops if they are taken off life support.

    What is the big rush to declare death and take people off of breathing assistance?

    First, there is a need for transplant organs, and second, a wish to “save resources” by having people hurry up and die already.

    From Rachel Aviv’s article in the New Yorker, 2018: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/02/05/what-does-it-mean-to-die

    Until the nineteen-sixties, cardio-respiratory failure was the only way to die. The notion that death could be diagnosed in the brain didn’t emerge until after the advent of the modern ventilator, allowing what was known at the time as “oxygen treatment”: as long as blood carrying oxygen reached the heart, it could continue to beat. In 1967, Henry Beecher, a renowned bioethicist at Harvard Medical School, wrote to a colleague, “It would be most desirable for a group at Harvard University to come to some subtle conclusion as to a new definition of death.” Permanently comatose patients, maintained by mechanical ventilators, were “increasing in numbers over the land and there are a number of problems which should be faced up to.”

    Beecher created a committee comprising men who already knew one another: ten doctors, one lawyer, one historian, and one theologian. In less than six months, they completed a report, which they published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The only citation in the article was from a speech by the Pope. They proposed that the irreversible destruction of the brain should be defined as death, giving two reasons: to relieve the burden on families and hospitals, which were providing futile care to patients who would never recover, and to address the fact that “obsolete criteria for the definition of death can lead to controversy in obtaining organs for transplantation,” a field that had developed rapidly; in the previous five years, doctors had performed the world’s first transplant of a pancreas, a liver, a lung, and a heart. In an earlier draft, the second reason was stated more directly: “There is great need for the tissues and organs of the hopelessly comatose in order to restore to health those who are still salvageable.” (The sentence was revised after Harvard’s medical dean wrote that “the connotation of this statement is unfortunate.”)

    In the next twelve years, twenty-seven states rewrote their definitions of death to conform to the Harvard committee’s conclusions. Thousands of lives were prolonged or saved every year because patients declared brain-dead—a form of death eventually adopted by the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and most of Europe—were now eligible to donate their organs. The philosopher Peter Singer described it as “a concept so desirable in its consequences that it is unthinkable to give up, and so shaky on its foundations that it can scarcely be supported.” The new death was “an ethical choice masquerading as a medical fact,” he wrote.

    Legal ambiguities remained—people considered alive in one region of the country could be declared dead in another—and, in 1981, the President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems proposed a uniform definition and theory of death. Its report, which was endorsed by the American Medical Association, stated that death is the moment when the body stops operating as an “integrated whole.” Even if life continues in individual organs and cells, the person is no longer alive, because the functioning organs are merely a collection of artificially maintained subsystems that will inevitably disintegrate. “The heart usually stops beating within two to ten days,” the report said.

    The commission’s staff philosopher, Daniel Wikler, a professor at Harvard and the first staff ethicist for the World Health Organization, told me that he didn’t think the commission’s theory of death was supported by the scientific facts it cited. “I thought it was demonstrably untrue, but so what?” he said. “I didn’t see a downside at the time.” Wikler told the commission that it would be more logical to say that death occurred when the cerebrum—the center for consciousness, thoughts, and feelings, the properties essential to having a personal identity—was destroyed. His formulation would have rendered a much broader population of patients, including those who could breathe on their own, dead.

    Despite Wikler’s reservations, he drafted the third chapter of the report, “Understanding the ‘Meaning’ of Death.” “I was put in a tight spot, and I fudged,” he told me. “I knew that there was an air of bad faith about it. I made it seem like there are a lot of profound unknowns and went in the direction of fuzziness, so that no one could say, ‘Hey, your philosopher says this is nonsense.’ That’s what I thought, but you’d never know from what I wrote.”

    So much for “brain dead” being a scientific definition.

    It is truly horrifying to contemplate that living, feeling people have their vital organs barbarically cut out while they are alive. Organs must be “harvested” from live donors in order to be viable. Live, in the true sense of the word - the heart is beating. (As you will see in this article, there is awareness, as well, even if the person cannot express it.)

    From Marina Zhang’s ET article:

    Among European anesthesiologists, there is an ongoing debate about whether brain-dead organ donors should be given consciousness blockers during organ procurement.

    Some argue that they should do so in case patients feel pain. Others disagree. Surprisingly, the anesthesiologists’ position is “not based on the claim that patients were incapable of experiencing pain,” but, instead, out of concern that the public might have doubts about the brain-death diagnosis, bioethicists Dr. Robert Truog and Franklin Miller (who has a doctorate in philosophy) wrote in their book, “Death, Dying, and Organ Transplantation.”

    Dr. Ronald Dworkin, a research fellow and anesthesiologist, wrote in an article on organ procurement that he chose to give consciousness blockers because he thought his patient “might still be a ‘little alive’, [sic] whatever that means.”

    Mr. Miller, who is also a professor of medical ethics in medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, said the label of brain death is misleading. He and Dr. Truog, professor of anesthesiology and director emeritus of the Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics, are of the opinion that brain-dead people are alive but likely will not regain consciousness and recover.

    See this chilling account by a doctor, in the ET article:

    It was 1989, and she was still a resident anesthesiologist, Dr. Heidi Klessig recalled in her book, “The Brain Death Fallacy.”

    One day, her attending anesthesiologist told her to prepare a brain-dead organ donor for organ removal surgery.

    Upon examining the patient, Dr. Klessig was surprised to find that the man looked exactly like every other critically ill, living patient and, in fact, better than most.

    “He was warm, his heart was beating, and his monitors showed stable vital signs,” Dr. Klessig wrote. “Nevertheless, on his bedside exam, he checked all the boxes for brain death, and the neurologist declared him ‘dead.’”

    Dr. Klessig’s supervising attending anesthesiologist asked her what anesthesia she was going to give the donor for the operation.

    Her answer was a paralyzing agent so the donor wouldn’t move during surgery, as well as some fentanyl to blunt the body’s responses to pain.

    The anesthesiologist looked at her and asked, “Well, are you going to give anything to block consciousness?”

    Dr. Klessig was stunned. Consciousness blockers are given to patients to ensure they aren’t awake and aware during an operation.

    Her education told her that brain-dead patients should not be conscious; apart from having a biologically active body, their minds were gone.

    “I looked at him and said, ‘Why would I do that? Isn’t he dead?’”

    Her attending anesthesiologist looked at her and asked, “Why don’t you give him something to block consciousness—just in case.”

    “I get a pit in my stomach every time I remember his face,” Dr. Klessig told The Epoch Times. “I remember him looking at me over his mask ... It seemed very confusing.

    Please don’t miss the extremely powerful video testimony above.

    It is horrific to realize that parents and other family members are routinely told that their child or loved one is “dead” because of absence of “brain activity” when in reality, the person is alive, and will die only when the family agrees to to having the respirator unplugged - in order words, to have their relative murdered.

    Someone that I know personally told me of an immensely tragic case that he was was involved with, in which a brain-injured child whom he was helping to heal after she had been declared “brain dead,” was murdered after he was removed from the premises. The child had been making progress towards recovery. He knows of many other similar cases. In one case, the child’s father witnessed with his own eyes the nurse giving the child an injection, after which the child’s heart stopped - but the nurse denied administering anything.

    This person that I know told me of a doctor in Louisiana, Dr. Paul Harch, who has helped scores of “brain dead” children and adults to become completely well again - using a walk-in hyperbaric oxygen chamber which accommodates people on life support.

    Dr. Harch uses a special test that can pick up brain activity not picked up on standard brain tests - but hospitals refuse to use it.

    Why do the powers-that-be want people dead, so badly?

    Here are some stories which clearly illustrate how very much alive people who are pronounced “brain dead” actually are. Most of them were collected on this website: https://www.respectforhumanlife.com/survivors

    Harrison Elmer: Three week old boy with meningitis had life support machine turned off - but staged a miracle recovery

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/three-week-old-boy-meningitis-6733061


    Harrison had become desperately ill after being struck down by meningitis and doctors said they could do no more.

    Scans showed he was completely brain dead.

    Heartbroken Samantha Baker, 22, and Adam Ellmer, 26, chose to take Harrison to a hospice so he could pass away peacefully by their side.

    But after the machine was turned off, little Harrison not only managed to breathe on his own, he began an incredible journey back to health.

    Now he is about to reach his third birthday, and is hitting all the milestones as expected.

    Samantha, a full-time mum, said: “When Harrison's life support was switched off we never imagined he would continue to breathe.

    “We were all so heartbroken when we were told he wasn't going to survive, it felt like a real miracle.

    “Despite surviving, doctors still warned us that he would never be able to walk or talk.

    “We were terrified but so thankful he had survived that we just took each day as it came.”

    Jahi Mcmath 2000 - 2018 Declared "Brain Dead" in the state of California in December 2013. She lived five more years in New Jersey post diagnosis


    Jahi’s case is particularly tragic because it didn’t have to happen - she had surgery to remove her tonsils, because of sleep apnea which caused her exhaustion and difficulty focusing. Her post-op observation was grossly lacking, and her unusual bleeding was ignored. Jahi hemorrhaged and lost her pulse. Doctors declared her “brain dead,” but her mother never gave up. She fought and fought against the furious medical “professionals:”

    On December 19th, ten days after the surgery, David Durand, the hospital’s senior vice-president and chief medical officer, held a meeting with the family. They asked Durand to allow Jahi to remain on the ventilator [for six more days], suggesting that the swelling in her brain might subside. Durand said no. They also asked that she be given a feeding tube. Durand dismissed this request, too. The idea that the procedure would help her recover was an “absurd notion,” he later wrote, and would only add to the “illusion that she is not dead.”

    When they persisted, Durand asked, “What is it that you don’t understand?” According to Jahi’s mother, stepfather, grandmother, brother, and Dolan, who took notes, Durand pounded his fist on the table, saying, “She’s dead, dead, dead.”

    Jahi’s mother wouldn’t give up, and moved Jahi to another state. Her family constantly spoke with her and stimulated her. Despite having a death certificate, Jahi was clearly alive. She would move her hands and feet in response to requests, and even began menstruating (a process mediated by the hypothalamus, near the front of the brain.)

    On the (MRI) scans, Machado observed that Jahi’s brain stem was nearly destroyed. The nerve fibres that connect the brain’s right and left hemispheres were barely recognizable. But large areas of her cerebrum, which mediates consciousness, language, and voluntary movements, were structurally intact.

    Unfortunately, Jahi passed away of liver failure after five years of devoted care and of progress.

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/02/05/what-does-it-mean-to-die


    On Thursday, a senior doctor told the High Court she was "shocked" when a baby declared brain stem dead after two tests began breathing by himself two weeks later.

    The court heard that ventilation continued on the four-month-old after he was declared dead because there was an ongoing legal dispute.

    In July, doctors treating him at a London hospital were forced to rescind "the clinical ascertainment of death" after a nurse noticed the infant had independent rhythmic breathing.

    Mr Justice Hayden, who has been asked by Guys' and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust to decide what is in the baby's best interests, said the juxtaposition of a baby being declared dead but then breathing independently is "striking even for those of us experienced in these cases". He called the test "unreliable".

    The doctor said the "wording" of the test could be changed to include a warning about the test's reliability.

    She said she had approached the AMRC to explain what happened, saying it would be "problematic" if news of the test's unreliability "got out in the public domain".

    The brain stem test is a clinical test done when there is clear evidence of serious brain damage that cannot be cured. It is a series of mini tests to check the brain's automatic functions including reaction to light in the eyes, ice-cold water in the ear and a short period off a ventilator to see whether a patient attempts to take a breath.

    Lewis Roberts


    In March 2021, 18-year-old Lewis Roberts was declared brain stem dead after a road accident but began breathing independently hours before his organs were to be extracted for donation. Today he is well enough to play football and basketball.

    Last month his sister told Sky News the test is done too soon.

    "They rushed it through," she said.

    "Eight months ago he was sat in a wheelchair, his eyes were gone, he couldn't speak. From how he was then to how he is now, that just shows that the brain can heal given the time."

    https://news.sky.com/story/brain-death-test-in-uk-under-review-after-baby-declared-dead-began-breathing-independently-12681630

    It’s not only young people who can have miraculous recoveries. Here, a woman in her seventies who had a severe heart attack made a comeback after 6 days of a flat EEG.

    This story by Judy Doobov, from the book Small Miracles for the Jewish Heart, was republished on Chabad.org.

    After sustaining a severe heart attack in 1973, my grandmother sank into a deep coma and was placed on life support systems in the hospital. Her EEG was totally flat, indicating zero brain activity. She was hooked up both to a pacemaker that made her heart beat artificially and a respirator that made her lungs breathe artificially. But technically, as the doctors told me privately, she was basically as good as dead. "She'll never come out of the coma," they said, "and she's better off this way. If she did, her life would be meaningless. She'd exist in a purely vegetative state.

    Even though she was in her mid-seventies and had lived a full life, I refused to believe that my beloved grandmother could simply slip away like this. She was too feisty, too vital to just disappear into a coma. My instincts told me to start talking to her and keep chatting away. I stayed at her bedside day and night, and that's precisely what I did. I spoke to her all the time about my husband and our two small children, about other relatives, about her own life. I told her all the news that was circulating in Australia at the time. I also kept urging her to keep clinging to life, not to give up. "Don't you dare leave us!" I exhorted. "I need you, Mom needs you, your grandchildren need you. They're just beginning to get to know you. It's too soon for you to go!"

    It was hard for me to do battle for my grandmother's life, alone as I was. During the time that she fell ill, I was her only relative in Sydney. Her daughter (my mother) was away overseas on a trip, and my only sibling — a brother — lived in Israel. My husband was home caring for our children so that I could take my post at her bedside. I stood a solitary vigil, but that was not what placed such tremendous pressure on me. What was enormously difficult was being asked to make decisions alone. The emotional burden was huge.

    When four days passed with no signs of life flickering in either my grandmother's eyes or her hands, and no change recorded by the EEG, the doctors advised me to authorize the papers that would turn off the life support systems. I trembled to think that I held the power of consigning my grandmother to an early grave. "But she's really already dead," the doctors argued. "She's just being kept artificially alive by the pacemaker and the respirator. Keeping her hooked up to these machines is just a waste."

    "Well, listen," I said. "It's Thursday afternoon, and in the Jewish religion we bury people right away. My parents are overseas — practically two days away — and they would certainly want to be here for the funeral. But we don't do funerals on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. The earliest we could do the funeral would be on Sunday. So let me call my parents to get ready to fly home, and I'll sign the papers on Sunday." It was all very cold and calculating, but deep inside, my heart was aching.

    Meanwhile, I didn't let up. I kept talking up a storm. "Guess what, Grandma?" I gossiped. "You won't believe who ended up being your roommate here in the hospital! Stringfellow! Your next door neighbor at home, Mrs. Stringfellow, was just brought in with a serious condition. Isn't that a coincidence? She lives next door to you in Sydney and now she's your roommate here in the hospital!"

    On Saturday, I was at my usual post at my grandmother's bedside, getting ready to start a round of tearful goodbyes, when I thought I noticed her eyes blinking. I called a nurse and told her what I had seen. "It's just your imagination, dearie," the nurse said compassionately. "Why don't you go downstairs for some coffee, and I'll stay with her until you come back?"

    But when I returned, the nurse was brimming over with excitement herself. "You know," she said, "I think you may be right. I've been sitting here watching your grandmother, and I could swear I saw her blinking, too."

    A few hours later, my grandmother's eyelids flew open. She stared at me and then craned her neck to look at the empty bed on the other side of the room. "Hey," she yelled, "what happened to Stringfellow?"

    By the time my mother arrived at the hospital the next day, my grandmother was sitting up in bed, conversing cheerfully with the hospital staff, and looking perfectly normal. My mother glared at me, annoyed, sure I had exaggerated my grandmother's condition. "For this, I had to schlep all the way home?" she asked.

    Later, my grandmother told me that while she was in the "coma" she had heard every single word that was said to her and about her. She repeated all the conversations to me, and her retention was remarkable.

    "I kept shouting to you," she said, "but somehow you didn't hear me. I kept on trying to tell you, 'Don't bury me yet.'"

    After she was discharged from the hospital, my grandmother's quality of life remained excellent. She lived on her own as a self-sufficient, independent, and high-spirited lady and continued to live in this manner until her death sixteen years after I almost pulled the plug.

    https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/68197/jewish/Coma.htm

    How the world has spiraled downwards. When I read my husband the Australian miracle story above, which happened fifty years ago, he commented that today, the nurse who offered to “stay with grandma” while the granddaughter took a coffee break would likely have been the one to pull the plug in her absence.

    There are many more stories of survivors of a “brain death” diagnosis on the respectforhumanlife.com site. For example:

    Zack Dunlap


    21 year old Oklahoman Zack Dunlap was declared “brain dead” in November 2007 after a terrible ATV accident. It was so bad that brain matter was coming out of his ear, and a blood flow scan showed no blood flow to his brain. Zack heard the doctors pronounce his 'death'. Minutes before his organ harvest was about to begin, his grandmother prayed for him to live, and his cousin urged him to pray for himself. Within minutes, Zack’s cousin proved that he had reflexes. 48 days after he was declared dead, Zack left the rehab hospital, and lives a fully recovered life. You must read Zack’s entire miraculous story here: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna23768436

    Taylor Hale


    14 year old Iowa girl Taylor Hale was injured in an accident. Her parents were told that she was brain dead and that her brain had “turned to mush;” now she is alive and well: https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/local/daniel-finney/2015/05/12/waukee-faith-healing-graduation/27207307/

    Steven Thorpe


    21 year old Steven Thorpe was declared “brain dead” after a car accident in February 2008, after only two days in the hospital. His parents refused to accept the diagnosis, and demanded a second opinion. After four doctors confirmed the diagnosis, the family still refused to give up, and two weeks later, Steven woke up. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-17757112

    Trenton McKinley


    13 year old Alabama boy Trenton McKinley was diagnosed as “brain dead” in March 2018 after an accident caused severe brain trauma. His parents had signed papers for his organ donation. The day before the harvest surgery he started showing signs of life and began a long recovery.

    “A man from the UAB organ donation came and talked to us in the family conference room about donating five organs to UAB children's hospital that would save five other children. But just a day before doctors were set to end Trenton's life support, he showed signs of cognition, and now he's slowly going through recovery.”

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trenton-mckinley-regains-consciousness-after-parents-sign-papers-to-donate-his-organs-2018-05-06/

    James Howard Jones


    James Howard-Jones was diagnosed “brain dead” after being attacked in April 2022. His family asked doctors to delay the organ donation for a week so James’ friends and family could say goodbye. Waiting the few extra days led to James waking up, despite his diagnosis.

    •Colleen S. Burns 1969 - 2011, was diagnosed "brain dead" after an attempted overdose in 2009. She awoke on the operating table minutes before her organs were to be harvested. Sadly, she passed away in 2011 of depression.

    I remember my disbelief and sadness in 2005 as brain-injured Terry Schiavo was starved and dehydrated to death by her estranged husband - under a court order permitting him to do so.

    And today? That same horrific murder by starvation and dehydration is now an everyday story, “brain dead” or not.

    Terry Schiavo’s brother now campaigns for the right of brain-injured people to food and water, and has an organization to assist families facing brain-injury crisis. See https://terrischiavo.org/terri-schiavo-life-hope-network/ and https://www.lifeandhope.com/.

    What should family members do if faced with the unthinkable diagnosis of “brain death,” G-d forbid?

    Prayer to the One and only Creator of the world is the most effective avenue of all.

    Insist that your religious beliefs do not allow for discontinuation of life support.

    Keep fighting them off to give your loved one time to recover. Do not leave the patient alone, and watch the patient vigilantly, as medical personnel may take matters into their own hands.

    Treatments which have helped “brain dead” patients recover include:

    •hyperbaric oxygen therapy

    •ozone therapy

    •craniosacral visceral manipulations

    •lymphatic drainage therapy

    •transcranial low-level laser therapy (LLLT) or photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy

    •high doses of Omega 3 fatty acids, found in fish oil.

    From Unbekoming’s interview of Lourdes Lavoy, whose “brain dead” daughter is well today:

    When our daughter was hospitalized with a severe brain injury (brain dead), we were informed that the hospital would keep her alive until we could arrive and say our goodbyes. The hospital was unaware that I am Option C. I conducted my own research and discovered that high doses of omega-3 fatty acids found in fish oil could potentially reverse severe brain damage. When we arrived at the hospital, it was not to say goodbye to our daughter, but to instruct the medical staff on how we were going to save her. Chris was respectful and considerate in his approach, but when I noticed that we were not deviating from the hospital's predetermined course of action, I intervened and was less than polite. This is a critical aspect of Option C that people must understand. Option C acknowledges the reality that the hospital does not have complete control over the measures taken to restore a patient's health. My daughter got a high dose of fish oil, as I demanded, and she is alive and well today. The hospital and its doctors cannot compel a patient to receive a particular treatment or dictate how they should proceed with their recovery.

    You can email Lourdes at [email protected]. https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/interview-with-lourdes-and-chris

    Please share and save lives!

    Share

    To help me continue my work, you may make a one-time gift here: https://ko-fi.com/truth613

    https://substack.com/home/post/p-146415265
    “Brain Dead” is NOT Dead! LIVE people are murdered daily for organs and to “save money” You MUST KNOW that “no brain activity” means NOTHING except that doctors didn’t do the tests that would find the brain activity. Don’t let your loved one be killed. Brucha Weisberger BS”D From the beginning of time, people knew that cessation of heartbeat and breath meant death. This is the G-d-given definition, and it is logical. Since it’s real, this definition does not require anything to “prop it up.” Of course, G-d, Who creates life, is the only One Who has the authority to say when it ends, and to end it. Unfortunately, two motivations came into play in the 20th century to create a new, and false, “definition” of death. Marina Zhang at Epoch Times explains in her June 2024 article, “Brain-Dead People May Not Be Dead—Here’s Why.” https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/are-brain-dead-people-really-dead-5629496 The definition of brain death, also known as death by neurological criteria, is when a person falls into a permanent coma, loses their brainstem reflexes and consciousness, and can’t breathe without stimulus or support. Yet a person’s heart can be beating, his or her organs functional, and he or she can fight off infection, grow, and even carry babies to term. (Delivery of a Healthy Baby from a Brain-Dead Woman After 117 Days of Somatic Support: A Case Report - PMC https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8141338/) Though they may exhibit no signs of consciousness, some areas of the brain may still work. About 50 percent of brain-death patients retain activity in their hypothalamus, which coordinates the body’s endocrine system and regulates body temperature. However, all of this stops if they are taken off life support. What is the big rush to declare death and take people off of breathing assistance? First, there is a need for transplant organs, and second, a wish to “save resources” by having people hurry up and die already. From Rachel Aviv’s article in the New Yorker, 2018: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/02/05/what-does-it-mean-to-die Until the nineteen-sixties, cardio-respiratory failure was the only way to die. The notion that death could be diagnosed in the brain didn’t emerge until after the advent of the modern ventilator, allowing what was known at the time as “oxygen treatment”: as long as blood carrying oxygen reached the heart, it could continue to beat. In 1967, Henry Beecher, a renowned bioethicist at Harvard Medical School, wrote to a colleague, “It would be most desirable for a group at Harvard University to come to some subtle conclusion as to a new definition of death.” Permanently comatose patients, maintained by mechanical ventilators, were “increasing in numbers over the land and there are a number of problems which should be faced up to.” Beecher created a committee comprising men who already knew one another: ten doctors, one lawyer, one historian, and one theologian. In less than six months, they completed a report, which they published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The only citation in the article was from a speech by the Pope. They proposed that the irreversible destruction of the brain should be defined as death, giving two reasons: to relieve the burden on families and hospitals, which were providing futile care to patients who would never recover, and to address the fact that “obsolete criteria for the definition of death can lead to controversy in obtaining organs for transplantation,” a field that had developed rapidly; in the previous five years, doctors had performed the world’s first transplant of a pancreas, a liver, a lung, and a heart. In an earlier draft, the second reason was stated more directly: “There is great need for the tissues and organs of the hopelessly comatose in order to restore to health those who are still salvageable.” (The sentence was revised after Harvard’s medical dean wrote that “the connotation of this statement is unfortunate.”) In the next twelve years, twenty-seven states rewrote their definitions of death to conform to the Harvard committee’s conclusions. Thousands of lives were prolonged or saved every year because patients declared brain-dead—a form of death eventually adopted by the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and most of Europe—were now eligible to donate their organs. The philosopher Peter Singer described it as “a concept so desirable in its consequences that it is unthinkable to give up, and so shaky on its foundations that it can scarcely be supported.” The new death was “an ethical choice masquerading as a medical fact,” he wrote. Legal ambiguities remained—people considered alive in one region of the country could be declared dead in another—and, in 1981, the President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems proposed a uniform definition and theory of death. Its report, which was endorsed by the American Medical Association, stated that death is the moment when the body stops operating as an “integrated whole.” Even if life continues in individual organs and cells, the person is no longer alive, because the functioning organs are merely a collection of artificially maintained subsystems that will inevitably disintegrate. “The heart usually stops beating within two to ten days,” the report said. The commission’s staff philosopher, Daniel Wikler, a professor at Harvard and the first staff ethicist for the World Health Organization, told me that he didn’t think the commission’s theory of death was supported by the scientific facts it cited. “I thought it was demonstrably untrue, but so what?” he said. “I didn’t see a downside at the time.” Wikler told the commission that it would be more logical to say that death occurred when the cerebrum—the center for consciousness, thoughts, and feelings, the properties essential to having a personal identity—was destroyed. His formulation would have rendered a much broader population of patients, including those who could breathe on their own, dead. Despite Wikler’s reservations, he drafted the third chapter of the report, “Understanding the ‘Meaning’ of Death.” “I was put in a tight spot, and I fudged,” he told me. “I knew that there was an air of bad faith about it. I made it seem like there are a lot of profound unknowns and went in the direction of fuzziness, so that no one could say, ‘Hey, your philosopher says this is nonsense.’ That’s what I thought, but you’d never know from what I wrote.” So much for “brain dead” being a scientific definition. It is truly horrifying to contemplate that living, feeling people have their vital organs barbarically cut out while they are alive. Organs must be “harvested” from live donors in order to be viable. Live, in the true sense of the word - the heart is beating. (As you will see in this article, there is awareness, as well, even if the person cannot express it.) From Marina Zhang’s ET article: Among European anesthesiologists, there is an ongoing debate about whether brain-dead organ donors should be given consciousness blockers during organ procurement. Some argue that they should do so in case patients feel pain. Others disagree. Surprisingly, the anesthesiologists’ position is “not based on the claim that patients were incapable of experiencing pain,” but, instead, out of concern that the public might have doubts about the brain-death diagnosis, bioethicists Dr. Robert Truog and Franklin Miller (who has a doctorate in philosophy) wrote in their book, “Death, Dying, and Organ Transplantation.” Dr. Ronald Dworkin, a research fellow and anesthesiologist, wrote in an article on organ procurement that he chose to give consciousness blockers because he thought his patient “might still be a ‘little alive’, [sic] whatever that means.” Mr. Miller, who is also a professor of medical ethics in medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, said the label of brain death is misleading. He and Dr. Truog, professor of anesthesiology and director emeritus of the Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics, are of the opinion that brain-dead people are alive but likely will not regain consciousness and recover. See this chilling account by a doctor, in the ET article: It was 1989, and she was still a resident anesthesiologist, Dr. Heidi Klessig recalled in her book, “The Brain Death Fallacy.” One day, her attending anesthesiologist told her to prepare a brain-dead organ donor for organ removal surgery. Upon examining the patient, Dr. Klessig was surprised to find that the man looked exactly like every other critically ill, living patient and, in fact, better than most. “He was warm, his heart was beating, and his monitors showed stable vital signs,” Dr. Klessig wrote. “Nevertheless, on his bedside exam, he checked all the boxes for brain death, and the neurologist declared him ‘dead.’” Dr. Klessig’s supervising attending anesthesiologist asked her what anesthesia she was going to give the donor for the operation. Her answer was a paralyzing agent so the donor wouldn’t move during surgery, as well as some fentanyl to blunt the body’s responses to pain. The anesthesiologist looked at her and asked, “Well, are you going to give anything to block consciousness?” Dr. Klessig was stunned. Consciousness blockers are given to patients to ensure they aren’t awake and aware during an operation. Her education told her that brain-dead patients should not be conscious; apart from having a biologically active body, their minds were gone. “I looked at him and said, ‘Why would I do that? Isn’t he dead?’” Her attending anesthesiologist looked at her and asked, “Why don’t you give him something to block consciousness—just in case.” “I get a pit in my stomach every time I remember his face,” Dr. Klessig told The Epoch Times. “I remember him looking at me over his mask ... It seemed very confusing. Please don’t miss the extremely powerful video testimony above. It is horrific to realize that parents and other family members are routinely told that their child or loved one is “dead” because of absence of “brain activity” when in reality, the person is alive, and will die only when the family agrees to to having the respirator unplugged - in order words, to have their relative murdered. Someone that I know personally told me of an immensely tragic case that he was was involved with, in which a brain-injured child whom he was helping to heal after she had been declared “brain dead,” was murdered after he was removed from the premises. The child had been making progress towards recovery. He knows of many other similar cases. In one case, the child’s father witnessed with his own eyes the nurse giving the child an injection, after which the child’s heart stopped - but the nurse denied administering anything. This person that I know told me of a doctor in Louisiana, Dr. Paul Harch, who has helped scores of “brain dead” children and adults to become completely well again - using a walk-in hyperbaric oxygen chamber which accommodates people on life support. Dr. Harch uses a special test that can pick up brain activity not picked up on standard brain tests - but hospitals refuse to use it. Why do the powers-that-be want people dead, so badly? Here are some stories which clearly illustrate how very much alive people who are pronounced “brain dead” actually are. Most of them were collected on this website: https://www.respectforhumanlife.com/survivors Harrison Elmer: Three week old boy with meningitis had life support machine turned off - but staged a miracle recovery https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/three-week-old-boy-meningitis-6733061 Harrison had become desperately ill after being struck down by meningitis and doctors said they could do no more. Scans showed he was completely brain dead. Heartbroken Samantha Baker, 22, and Adam Ellmer, 26, chose to take Harrison to a hospice so he could pass away peacefully by their side. But after the machine was turned off, little Harrison not only managed to breathe on his own, he began an incredible journey back to health. Now he is about to reach his third birthday, and is hitting all the milestones as expected. Samantha, a full-time mum, said: “When Harrison's life support was switched off we never imagined he would continue to breathe. “We were all so heartbroken when we were told he wasn't going to survive, it felt like a real miracle. “Despite surviving, doctors still warned us that he would never be able to walk or talk. “We were terrified but so thankful he had survived that we just took each day as it came.” Jahi Mcmath 2000 - 2018 Declared "Brain Dead" in the state of California in December 2013. She lived five more years in New Jersey post diagnosis Jahi’s case is particularly tragic because it didn’t have to happen - she had surgery to remove her tonsils, because of sleep apnea which caused her exhaustion and difficulty focusing. Her post-op observation was grossly lacking, and her unusual bleeding was ignored. Jahi hemorrhaged and lost her pulse. Doctors declared her “brain dead,” but her mother never gave up. She fought and fought against the furious medical “professionals:” On December 19th, ten days after the surgery, David Durand, the hospital’s senior vice-president and chief medical officer, held a meeting with the family. They asked Durand to allow Jahi to remain on the ventilator [for six more days], suggesting that the swelling in her brain might subside. Durand said no. They also asked that she be given a feeding tube. Durand dismissed this request, too. The idea that the procedure would help her recover was an “absurd notion,” he later wrote, and would only add to the “illusion that she is not dead.” When they persisted, Durand asked, “What is it that you don’t understand?” According to Jahi’s mother, stepfather, grandmother, brother, and Dolan, who took notes, Durand pounded his fist on the table, saying, “She’s dead, dead, dead.” Jahi’s mother wouldn’t give up, and moved Jahi to another state. Her family constantly spoke with her and stimulated her. Despite having a death certificate, Jahi was clearly alive. She would move her hands and feet in response to requests, and even began menstruating (a process mediated by the hypothalamus, near the front of the brain.) On the (MRI) scans, Machado observed that Jahi’s brain stem was nearly destroyed. The nerve fibres that connect the brain’s right and left hemispheres were barely recognizable. But large areas of her cerebrum, which mediates consciousness, language, and voluntary movements, were structurally intact. Unfortunately, Jahi passed away of liver failure after five years of devoted care and of progress. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/02/05/what-does-it-mean-to-die On Thursday, a senior doctor told the High Court she was "shocked" when a baby declared brain stem dead after two tests began breathing by himself two weeks later. The court heard that ventilation continued on the four-month-old after he was declared dead because there was an ongoing legal dispute. In July, doctors treating him at a London hospital were forced to rescind "the clinical ascertainment of death" after a nurse noticed the infant had independent rhythmic breathing. Mr Justice Hayden, who has been asked by Guys' and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust to decide what is in the baby's best interests, said the juxtaposition of a baby being declared dead but then breathing independently is "striking even for those of us experienced in these cases". He called the test "unreliable". The doctor said the "wording" of the test could be changed to include a warning about the test's reliability. She said she had approached the AMRC to explain what happened, saying it would be "problematic" if news of the test's unreliability "got out in the public domain". The brain stem test is a clinical test done when there is clear evidence of serious brain damage that cannot be cured. It is a series of mini tests to check the brain's automatic functions including reaction to light in the eyes, ice-cold water in the ear and a short period off a ventilator to see whether a patient attempts to take a breath. Lewis Roberts In March 2021, 18-year-old Lewis Roberts was declared brain stem dead after a road accident but began breathing independently hours before his organs were to be extracted for donation. Today he is well enough to play football and basketball. Last month his sister told Sky News the test is done too soon. "They rushed it through," she said. "Eight months ago he was sat in a wheelchair, his eyes were gone, he couldn't speak. From how he was then to how he is now, that just shows that the brain can heal given the time." https://news.sky.com/story/brain-death-test-in-uk-under-review-after-baby-declared-dead-began-breathing-independently-12681630 It’s not only young people who can have miraculous recoveries. Here, a woman in her seventies who had a severe heart attack made a comeback after 6 days of a flat EEG. This story by Judy Doobov, from the book Small Miracles for the Jewish Heart, was republished on Chabad.org. After sustaining a severe heart attack in 1973, my grandmother sank into a deep coma and was placed on life support systems in the hospital. Her EEG was totally flat, indicating zero brain activity. She was hooked up both to a pacemaker that made her heart beat artificially and a respirator that made her lungs breathe artificially. But technically, as the doctors told me privately, she was basically as good as dead. "She'll never come out of the coma," they said, "and she's better off this way. If she did, her life would be meaningless. She'd exist in a purely vegetative state. Even though she was in her mid-seventies and had lived a full life, I refused to believe that my beloved grandmother could simply slip away like this. She was too feisty, too vital to just disappear into a coma. My instincts told me to start talking to her and keep chatting away. I stayed at her bedside day and night, and that's precisely what I did. I spoke to her all the time about my husband and our two small children, about other relatives, about her own life. I told her all the news that was circulating in Australia at the time. I also kept urging her to keep clinging to life, not to give up. "Don't you dare leave us!" I exhorted. "I need you, Mom needs you, your grandchildren need you. They're just beginning to get to know you. It's too soon for you to go!" It was hard for me to do battle for my grandmother's life, alone as I was. During the time that she fell ill, I was her only relative in Sydney. Her daughter (my mother) was away overseas on a trip, and my only sibling — a brother — lived in Israel. My husband was home caring for our children so that I could take my post at her bedside. I stood a solitary vigil, but that was not what placed such tremendous pressure on me. What was enormously difficult was being asked to make decisions alone. The emotional burden was huge. When four days passed with no signs of life flickering in either my grandmother's eyes or her hands, and no change recorded by the EEG, the doctors advised me to authorize the papers that would turn off the life support systems. I trembled to think that I held the power of consigning my grandmother to an early grave. "But she's really already dead," the doctors argued. "She's just being kept artificially alive by the pacemaker and the respirator. Keeping her hooked up to these machines is just a waste." "Well, listen," I said. "It's Thursday afternoon, and in the Jewish religion we bury people right away. My parents are overseas — practically two days away — and they would certainly want to be here for the funeral. But we don't do funerals on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. The earliest we could do the funeral would be on Sunday. So let me call my parents to get ready to fly home, and I'll sign the papers on Sunday." It was all very cold and calculating, but deep inside, my heart was aching. Meanwhile, I didn't let up. I kept talking up a storm. "Guess what, Grandma?" I gossiped. "You won't believe who ended up being your roommate here in the hospital! Stringfellow! Your next door neighbor at home, Mrs. Stringfellow, was just brought in with a serious condition. Isn't that a coincidence? She lives next door to you in Sydney and now she's your roommate here in the hospital!" On Saturday, I was at my usual post at my grandmother's bedside, getting ready to start a round of tearful goodbyes, when I thought I noticed her eyes blinking. I called a nurse and told her what I had seen. "It's just your imagination, dearie," the nurse said compassionately. "Why don't you go downstairs for some coffee, and I'll stay with her until you come back?" But when I returned, the nurse was brimming over with excitement herself. "You know," she said, "I think you may be right. I've been sitting here watching your grandmother, and I could swear I saw her blinking, too." A few hours later, my grandmother's eyelids flew open. She stared at me and then craned her neck to look at the empty bed on the other side of the room. "Hey," she yelled, "what happened to Stringfellow?" By the time my mother arrived at the hospital the next day, my grandmother was sitting up in bed, conversing cheerfully with the hospital staff, and looking perfectly normal. My mother glared at me, annoyed, sure I had exaggerated my grandmother's condition. "For this, I had to schlep all the way home?" she asked. Later, my grandmother told me that while she was in the "coma" she had heard every single word that was said to her and about her. She repeated all the conversations to me, and her retention was remarkable. "I kept shouting to you," she said, "but somehow you didn't hear me. I kept on trying to tell you, 'Don't bury me yet.'" After she was discharged from the hospital, my grandmother's quality of life remained excellent. She lived on her own as a self-sufficient, independent, and high-spirited lady and continued to live in this manner until her death sixteen years after I almost pulled the plug. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/68197/jewish/Coma.htm How the world has spiraled downwards. When I read my husband the Australian miracle story above, which happened fifty years ago, he commented that today, the nurse who offered to “stay with grandma” while the granddaughter took a coffee break would likely have been the one to pull the plug in her absence. There are many more stories of survivors of a “brain death” diagnosis on the respectforhumanlife.com site. For example: Zack Dunlap 21 year old Oklahoman Zack Dunlap was declared “brain dead” in November 2007 after a terrible ATV accident. It was so bad that brain matter was coming out of his ear, and a blood flow scan showed no blood flow to his brain. Zack heard the doctors pronounce his 'death'. Minutes before his organ harvest was about to begin, his grandmother prayed for him to live, and his cousin urged him to pray for himself. Within minutes, Zack’s cousin proved that he had reflexes. 48 days after he was declared dead, Zack left the rehab hospital, and lives a fully recovered life. You must read Zack’s entire miraculous story here: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna23768436 Taylor Hale 14 year old Iowa girl Taylor Hale was injured in an accident. Her parents were told that she was brain dead and that her brain had “turned to mush;” now she is alive and well: https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/local/daniel-finney/2015/05/12/waukee-faith-healing-graduation/27207307/ Steven Thorpe 21 year old Steven Thorpe was declared “brain dead” after a car accident in February 2008, after only two days in the hospital. His parents refused to accept the diagnosis, and demanded a second opinion. After four doctors confirmed the diagnosis, the family still refused to give up, and two weeks later, Steven woke up. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-17757112 Trenton McKinley 13 year old Alabama boy Trenton McKinley was diagnosed as “brain dead” in March 2018 after an accident caused severe brain trauma. His parents had signed papers for his organ donation. The day before the harvest surgery he started showing signs of life and began a long recovery. “A man from the UAB organ donation came and talked to us in the family conference room about donating five organs to UAB children's hospital that would save five other children. But just a day before doctors were set to end Trenton's life support, he showed signs of cognition, and now he's slowly going through recovery.” https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trenton-mckinley-regains-consciousness-after-parents-sign-papers-to-donate-his-organs-2018-05-06/ James Howard Jones James Howard-Jones was diagnosed “brain dead” after being attacked in April 2022. His family asked doctors to delay the organ donation for a week so James’ friends and family could say goodbye. Waiting the few extra days led to James waking up, despite his diagnosis. •Colleen S. Burns 1969 - 2011, was diagnosed "brain dead" after an attempted overdose in 2009. She awoke on the operating table minutes before her organs were to be harvested. Sadly, she passed away in 2011 of depression. I remember my disbelief and sadness in 2005 as brain-injured Terry Schiavo was starved and dehydrated to death by her estranged husband - under a court order permitting him to do so. And today? That same horrific murder by starvation and dehydration is now an everyday story, “brain dead” or not. Terry Schiavo’s brother now campaigns for the right of brain-injured people to food and water, and has an organization to assist families facing brain-injury crisis. See https://terrischiavo.org/terri-schiavo-life-hope-network/ and https://www.lifeandhope.com/. What should family members do if faced with the unthinkable diagnosis of “brain death,” G-d forbid? Prayer to the One and only Creator of the world is the most effective avenue of all. Insist that your religious beliefs do not allow for discontinuation of life support. Keep fighting them off to give your loved one time to recover. Do not leave the patient alone, and watch the patient vigilantly, as medical personnel may take matters into their own hands. Treatments which have helped “brain dead” patients recover include: •hyperbaric oxygen therapy •ozone therapy •craniosacral visceral manipulations •lymphatic drainage therapy •transcranial low-level laser therapy (LLLT) or photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy •high doses of Omega 3 fatty acids, found in fish oil. From Unbekoming’s interview of Lourdes Lavoy, whose “brain dead” daughter is well today: When our daughter was hospitalized with a severe brain injury (brain dead), we were informed that the hospital would keep her alive until we could arrive and say our goodbyes. The hospital was unaware that I am Option C. I conducted my own research and discovered that high doses of omega-3 fatty acids found in fish oil could potentially reverse severe brain damage. When we arrived at the hospital, it was not to say goodbye to our daughter, but to instruct the medical staff on how we were going to save her. Chris was respectful and considerate in his approach, but when I noticed that we were not deviating from the hospital's predetermined course of action, I intervened and was less than polite. This is a critical aspect of Option C that people must understand. Option C acknowledges the reality that the hospital does not have complete control over the measures taken to restore a patient's health. My daughter got a high dose of fish oil, as I demanded, and she is alive and well today. The hospital and its doctors cannot compel a patient to receive a particular treatment or dictate how they should proceed with their recovery. You can email Lourdes at [email protected]. https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/interview-with-lourdes-and-chris Please share and save lives! Share To help me continue my work, you may make a one-time gift here: https://ko-fi.com/truth613 https://substack.com/home/post/p-146415265
    SUBSTACK.COM
    “Brain Dead” is NOT Dead! LIVE people are murdered daily for organs and to “save money”
    You MUST KNOW that “no brain activity” means NOTHING except that doctors didn’t do the tests that would find the brain activity. Don’t let your loved one be killed.
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 5504 Views
  • Second patient to receive a genetically modified pig kidney has died

    Ms Lisa Pisano, 54, before her surgery. She is the first person with a heart pump who is known to have also received an organ transplant. PHOTO: AFP
    NEW YORK - A 54-year-old New Jersey woman who was the second person to receive a kidney transplanted from a genetically modified pig, and who lived with the organ for 47 days, died on July 7, surgeons at NYU Langone Health announced on July 9.

    The patient, Ms Lisa Pisano, was critically ill, suffering from both kidney and heart failure. She received the pig kidney on April 12, just eight days after implantation of a mechanical heart pump.

    Surgeons were forced to remove the kidney on May 29 after it was damaged by inadequate blood flow related to the heart pump. After the explantation, Ms Pisano resumed kidney dialysis, but was eventually transitioned to hospice care.

    Ms Pisano made medical history as the first person with a heart pump who is known to have also received an organ transplant. Patients with kidney failure are usually ineligible to receive a heart pump because of the high risk of dying.

    Dr Robert Montgomery, director of the NYU Langone Transplant Institute, said Ms Pisano had contributed greatly to the budding field of xenotransplantation, the transplantation of organs from one species to another.

    “Lisa’s contributions to medicine, surgery and xenotransplantation cannot be overstated,” Dr Montgomery said. “Her bravery gave hope to thousands of people living with end-stage kidney or heart failure who could soon benefit from an alternative supply of organs.”

    The first patient to receive a kidney from a genetically engineered pig was Mr Richard Slayman, 62, who had the procedure in March at Mass General Brigham in Boston. Though he was well enough to be discharged two weeks after the surgery, he, like Ms Pisano, suffered from complex medical problems and died within two months.

    Although the field of xenotransplantation has made great strides in recent years, the procedures are still experimental. Only patients who are so sick that they are not eligible to receive a human organ, and are at risk of dying without treatment, have been cleared to receive animal organs.

    The two transplants of kidneys from genetically modified pigs in 2024 were approved under the Food and Drug Administration’s compassionate use, or expanded access, programme for patients with life-threatening conditions. NYTIMES

    https://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/second-patient-to-receive-a-genetically-modified-pig-kidney-has-died
    Second patient to receive a genetically modified pig kidney has died Ms Lisa Pisano, 54, before her surgery. She is the first person with a heart pump who is known to have also received an organ transplant. PHOTO: AFP NEW YORK - A 54-year-old New Jersey woman who was the second person to receive a kidney transplanted from a genetically modified pig, and who lived with the organ for 47 days, died on July 7, surgeons at NYU Langone Health announced on July 9. The patient, Ms Lisa Pisano, was critically ill, suffering from both kidney and heart failure. She received the pig kidney on April 12, just eight days after implantation of a mechanical heart pump. Surgeons were forced to remove the kidney on May 29 after it was damaged by inadequate blood flow related to the heart pump. After the explantation, Ms Pisano resumed kidney dialysis, but was eventually transitioned to hospice care. Ms Pisano made medical history as the first person with a heart pump who is known to have also received an organ transplant. Patients with kidney failure are usually ineligible to receive a heart pump because of the high risk of dying. Dr Robert Montgomery, director of the NYU Langone Transplant Institute, said Ms Pisano had contributed greatly to the budding field of xenotransplantation, the transplantation of organs from one species to another. “Lisa’s contributions to medicine, surgery and xenotransplantation cannot be overstated,” Dr Montgomery said. “Her bravery gave hope to thousands of people living with end-stage kidney or heart failure who could soon benefit from an alternative supply of organs.” The first patient to receive a kidney from a genetically engineered pig was Mr Richard Slayman, 62, who had the procedure in March at Mass General Brigham in Boston. Though he was well enough to be discharged two weeks after the surgery, he, like Ms Pisano, suffered from complex medical problems and died within two months. Although the field of xenotransplantation has made great strides in recent years, the procedures are still experimental. Only patients who are so sick that they are not eligible to receive a human organ, and are at risk of dying without treatment, have been cleared to receive animal organs. The two transplants of kidneys from genetically modified pigs in 2024 were approved under the Food and Drug Administration’s compassionate use, or expanded access, programme for patients with life-threatening conditions. NYTIMES https://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/second-patient-to-receive-a-genetically-modified-pig-kidney-has-died
    WWW.STRAITSTIMES.COM
    Second patient to receive a genetically modified pig kidney has died
    The patient, Ms Lisa Pisano, was critically ill, suffering from both kidney and heart failure. Read more at straitstimes.com.
    Sad
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 868 Views


  • Who has the power to kill the world?
    Money is Power is Money.

    Sasha Latypova
    This is a follow on to the recent article contributed by Catherine Austin Fitts of Solari.com to this stack. If you have not read it, I suggest you do so now. It provides a very clear “big picture” analysis of the covid con, and offers historical perspective to it. Attempts to post this article to Facebook resulted in immediate (within 2 seconds) removal. You will not find this information in propaganda news sources:

    Musings on the Department of Defense

    Musings on the Department of Defense
    Editor’s note: This post was contributed by Catherine Austin Fitts of Solari.com. I learned a lot of information I wasn’t aware of from this article, please don’t skip it! I highly recommend to visit Catherine’s website and subscribe to her report. She offers a wealth of resources, education and true human intelligence.

    Read full story
    I am frequently asked, how do you know who gave the orders to start killing the world under pretenses of a fake pandemic in 2020?

    This question is not a very difficult one, as the power hierarchy is clearly visible: the laws that are being invoked (national emergency, suspension of the Constitution) defense production, weapons purchasing, full liability protection to those who follow the orders to kill. This is not difficult, but requires reading and understanding the relevant public documents, or at least reading my pinned postwhere all this is summarized.

    If you don’t want to read these documents or my prior articles, here is a very simple thought experiment: who do you think has enough power (measured in money) to pull off a global murder operation?

    Catherine Austin Fitts and Carolyne Betts recently spoke on CHD TV, full video here.

    Tweet and transcript from Sense Receptor includes video clip:


    In this clip from a recent episode of the Children's Health Defense series, Financial Rebellion, Investment banker and former HUD official Catherine Austin Fitts describes how the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) has spent $20 trillion of taxpayer money (between 1998 and 2015) that has gone undocumented and unaccounted for. Fitts also highlights the fact that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has done the same with $1 trillion of taxpayer money. Fitts starts out her overview of "the missing money" by noting that in 1994 the New York Federal Reserve Bank and the Federal Reserve (the Fed) bought shares in the Bank of International Settlements (BIS).

    The investment banker notes that the Bank of International Settlements "is the central bank of central banks in Switzerland and operates above the law...[as] they have sovereign immunity and enjoy it in many respects and they can receive and hold money secretly [and] can keep money on their balance sheets secretly." Effectively, Fitts says, the U.S. government buying those shares "made their relationship with the BIS much closer..."

    The investment banker goes on to note that in October 1995 a budget deal in U.S. Congress "basically crashed and burned" and "it was then that...the president of one of the largest pension funds said to [her], 'They'—whoever 'They' is—have given up on the country and are moving all the money out starting in the Fall." Fitts says it was that Fall, October 1997, "when money started to go missing from HUD, as well as the Department of Defense."

    As of today, Fitts says, "there's...$20 trillion between 1998 and 2015 missing from DOD and $1 trillion missing from HUD." "The other thing that started to happen when that money started to go missing...was what I call the Great Poisoning..." Fitts adds. "Literally, it was the next month after the budget deal crashed that OxyContin was approved and the HUD predatory lending started and the pill mill started and really, the targeting of the low-income neighborhoods started, including the roundups coming from the private prison movement." "Undocumentable adjustments then skyrocket[ed]," Fitts adds. Cut to 2001, and "the day before 9/11 Donald Rumsfeld gave a press conference at the Department of Defense...[announcing] that the Department of Defense was missing $2.3 trillion..." video here:

    Fitts was told that one of the offices at the Pentagon that was blown up was the location for the office of Naval Intelligence Research Group, which was investigating the missing money. "The rest is history," Fitts says. "The Patriot Act had passed, and then the DOD got huge appropriations and nobody really cared about the missing money."

    Cut to 2018, and Fitts notes that during the theatrical hearings held during the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress—including both the Senate and the House, Republicans and Democrats—along with the Trump White House "got together and issued a policy called Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board Statement 56." (Fitts refers to it as FASAB 56 or, phonetically speaking, 'Faz-B 56.') "[W]hat FASAB 56 says, very short and simple, is basically the government can keep secret books as a matter of administrative policy, thus refusing to obey all the financial management rules and regulations and laws, including the constitutional provisions for disclosure of financial operations," Fitts says.

    Image
    She adds that "they extended it, along with the classification laws, to private companies and banks doing business with the federal government, which means when you look at the U.S. securities market, the large cap section of the U.S. market...most of the disclosure is meaningless. You have no idea how the money works at many of these companies and the government because they're so intertwined."

    Fitts adds that "the COVID-19 operation could never have happened without that [FASAB 56], because it put the Department of Defense, and [other federal government] agencies in a position to, essentially, access an unlimited amount of secret money."

    Fitts says somebody once told her that FASAB 56 is "a wet dream" as it allows for "secret money for secret operations." "I think it was one month after FASAB 56 passed that suddenly Moderna magically raised $500 million. Quite a coincidence".

    In 2018 the Pentagon failed it’s first-ever audit.

    "'We failed the audit, but we never expected to pass it,' Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan told reporters, adding that the findings showed the need for greater discipline in financial matters within the Pentagon."

    In 2023, the Pentagon failed the 6th audit in a row.

    Image
    June 2024:

    Management Advisory: Review of DoD Funds Provided to the People’s Republic of China and Associated Affiliates for Research Activities or Any Foreign Countries for the Enhancement of Pathogens of Pandemic Potential (Report No. DODIGโ€‘2024โ€‘099)

    The DOD Office of Inspector General issued this statement:


    I wish I were kidding:


    Here is the DOD IG report.

    They simply don’t know how much money they gave to Chinese research laboratories to make scary “bioengineered viruses”.

    So, who gave the orders to kill the world?

    To understand who gives orders, you need to understand who has power to do so. Power is measured in money. Can you think of anyone that can “take” the money from the bank account that is not there? Who has this magical capability? Can Elon Musk do this? Tedros, the war criminal in Geneva? Bill Gates? Fauci?

    NO! They all have to somehow obtain the money first, legally or illegally.

    The Pentagon can however. They spend 10x+ what their official spending budget says, seemingly pulling it out of thin air, for decades, and NEVER ACCOUNT for it.

    This is not some secret, hidden pile of cash, this is better! This money is taken from us in plain sight, openly. They just take it and spend it, and the Congress can go pound sand… OK, admittedly, they had to 9/11 part of the Pentagon offices to burn some of the financial records with a magical Boeing airplane that leaves no traces on the lawn, but whatevs. It sent the proper message, like, freedom is not free… warriors don’t do math…

    It is certainly not “just” the Pentagon which is running this global kill op. The enterprise is complex and is called PHEMCE (Pandemic Enterprise). Here is the detailed map of the fascist octopus kindly provided by the octopus itself:


    Next time someone asserts that “Pfizer captured the FDA” or HHS/Fauci directs DOD, who are just poor little soldiers following orders, you can laugh at this propaganda nonsense. The power structure is quite easy to discern from this map.

    Another insight form this map is blazingly obvious: if someone successfully prosecutes Pfizer for lying about covid vaccines, especially if this is done on the (incorrect) legal theory that Pfizer wasn’t part of the Operation Warp Speed (AG Kobach), how does this theoretical legal victory affect the ability of the DOD-HHS lead Blob to continue the mass murder operation called “Pandemic Preparedness”. If you answered “not at all”, you are right! And that’s exactly why these lawsuits are structured the way they are structured: carefully avoiding going after the real perpetrators.

    Circled in red are the irreplaceable permanent parts of it - the US Government, including the DOD (and all it’s military countermeasures offices), HHS (with all its military countermeasures offices, CDC, FDA, NIH), Congress and White House, and foreign governments, too! They are all “partners” in this Enterprise. They are all connected to the funding, which, as we discussed, comes from the DOD’s unlimited ability to spend without accounting.

    Next layer is the “performers” - the private sector that is receiving the money and orders and is doing the work. These are replaceable parts. There is a nearly unlimited selection of the “performers” all desperate for government cash and replaceable at any time:


    You can see the relevant importance of Pfizer to the entire organization depicted on this chart.

    The Pentagon planned and prepared for this global kill campaign over decades. Since 2020, we are living under permanent military dictatorship. They steal our money and use it to murder us. Simply because they can. Do not comply.

    Art for today: Pink Peonies, oil on panel, 12x12 in.







    Who has the power to kill the world?
    Money is Power is Money.
    Sasha Latypova
    This is a follow on to the recent article contributed by Catherine Austin Fitts of Solari.com to this stack. If you have not read it, I suggest you do so now. It provides a very clear “big picture” analysis of the covid con, and offers historical perspective to it. Attempts to post this article to Facebook resulted in immediate (within 2 seconds) removal. You will not find this information in propaganda news sources:
    Musings on the Department of Defense
    http://donshafi911iamthefaceoftruth.blogspot.com/2024/07/who-has-power-to-kill-world-money-is.html
    Who has the power to kill the world? Money is Power is Money. Sasha Latypova This is a follow on to the recent article contributed by Catherine Austin Fitts of Solari.com to this stack. If you have not read it, I suggest you do so now. It provides a very clear “big picture” analysis of the covid con, and offers historical perspective to it. Attempts to post this article to Facebook resulted in immediate (within 2 seconds) removal. You will not find this information in propaganda news sources: Musings on the Department of Defense Musings on the Department of Defense Editor’s note: This post was contributed by Catherine Austin Fitts of Solari.com. I learned a lot of information I wasn’t aware of from this article, please don’t skip it! I highly recommend to visit Catherine’s website and subscribe to her report. She offers a wealth of resources, education and true human intelligence. Read full story I am frequently asked, how do you know who gave the orders to start killing the world under pretenses of a fake pandemic in 2020? This question is not a very difficult one, as the power hierarchy is clearly visible: the laws that are being invoked (national emergency, suspension of the Constitution) defense production, weapons purchasing, full liability protection to those who follow the orders to kill. This is not difficult, but requires reading and understanding the relevant public documents, or at least reading my pinned postwhere all this is summarized. If you don’t want to read these documents or my prior articles, here is a very simple thought experiment: who do you think has enough power (measured in money) to pull off a global murder operation? Catherine Austin Fitts and Carolyne Betts recently spoke on CHD TV, full video here. Tweet and transcript from Sense Receptor includes video clip: In this clip from a recent episode of the Children's Health Defense series, Financial Rebellion, Investment banker and former HUD official Catherine Austin Fitts describes how the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) has spent $20 trillion of taxpayer money (between 1998 and 2015) that has gone undocumented and unaccounted for. Fitts also highlights the fact that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has done the same with $1 trillion of taxpayer money. Fitts starts out her overview of "the missing money" by noting that in 1994 the New York Federal Reserve Bank and the Federal Reserve (the Fed) bought shares in the Bank of International Settlements (BIS). The investment banker notes that the Bank of International Settlements "is the central bank of central banks in Switzerland and operates above the law...[as] they have sovereign immunity and enjoy it in many respects and they can receive and hold money secretly [and] can keep money on their balance sheets secretly." Effectively, Fitts says, the U.S. government buying those shares "made their relationship with the BIS much closer..." The investment banker goes on to note that in October 1995 a budget deal in U.S. Congress "basically crashed and burned" and "it was then that...the president of one of the largest pension funds said to [her], 'They'—whoever 'They' is—have given up on the country and are moving all the money out starting in the Fall." Fitts says it was that Fall, October 1997, "when money started to go missing from HUD, as well as the Department of Defense." As of today, Fitts says, "there's...$20 trillion between 1998 and 2015 missing from DOD and $1 trillion missing from HUD." "The other thing that started to happen when that money started to go missing...was what I call the Great Poisoning..." Fitts adds. "Literally, it was the next month after the budget deal crashed that OxyContin was approved and the HUD predatory lending started and the pill mill started and really, the targeting of the low-income neighborhoods started, including the roundups coming from the private prison movement." "Undocumentable adjustments then skyrocket[ed]," Fitts adds. Cut to 2001, and "the day before 9/11 Donald Rumsfeld gave a press conference at the Department of Defense...[announcing] that the Department of Defense was missing $2.3 trillion..." video here: Fitts was told that one of the offices at the Pentagon that was blown up was the location for the office of Naval Intelligence Research Group, which was investigating the missing money. "The rest is history," Fitts says. "The Patriot Act had passed, and then the DOD got huge appropriations and nobody really cared about the missing money." Cut to 2018, and Fitts notes that during the theatrical hearings held during the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress—including both the Senate and the House, Republicans and Democrats—along with the Trump White House "got together and issued a policy called Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board Statement 56." (Fitts refers to it as FASAB 56 or, phonetically speaking, 'Faz-B 56.') "[W]hat FASAB 56 says, very short and simple, is basically the government can keep secret books as a matter of administrative policy, thus refusing to obey all the financial management rules and regulations and laws, including the constitutional provisions for disclosure of financial operations," Fitts says. Image She adds that "they extended it, along with the classification laws, to private companies and banks doing business with the federal government, which means when you look at the U.S. securities market, the large cap section of the U.S. market...most of the disclosure is meaningless. You have no idea how the money works at many of these companies and the government because they're so intertwined." Fitts adds that "the COVID-19 operation could never have happened without that [FASAB 56], because it put the Department of Defense, and [other federal government] agencies in a position to, essentially, access an unlimited amount of secret money." Fitts says somebody once told her that FASAB 56 is "a wet dream" as it allows for "secret money for secret operations." "I think it was one month after FASAB 56 passed that suddenly Moderna magically raised $500 million. Quite a coincidence". In 2018 the Pentagon failed it’s first-ever audit. "'We failed the audit, but we never expected to pass it,' Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan told reporters, adding that the findings showed the need for greater discipline in financial matters within the Pentagon." In 2023, the Pentagon failed the 6th audit in a row. Image June 2024: Management Advisory: Review of DoD Funds Provided to the People’s Republic of China and Associated Affiliates for Research Activities or Any Foreign Countries for the Enhancement of Pathogens of Pandemic Potential (Report No. DODIGโ€‘2024โ€‘099) The DOD Office of Inspector General issued this statement: I wish I were kidding: Here is the DOD IG report. They simply don’t know how much money they gave to Chinese research laboratories to make scary “bioengineered viruses”. So, who gave the orders to kill the world? To understand who gives orders, you need to understand who has power to do so. Power is measured in money. Can you think of anyone that can “take” the money from the bank account that is not there? Who has this magical capability? Can Elon Musk do this? Tedros, the war criminal in Geneva? Bill Gates? Fauci? NO! They all have to somehow obtain the money first, legally or illegally. The Pentagon can however. They spend 10x+ what their official spending budget says, seemingly pulling it out of thin air, for decades, and NEVER ACCOUNT for it. This is not some secret, hidden pile of cash, this is better! This money is taken from us in plain sight, openly. They just take it and spend it, and the Congress can go pound sand… OK, admittedly, they had to 9/11 part of the Pentagon offices to burn some of the financial records with a magical Boeing airplane that leaves no traces on the lawn, but whatevs. It sent the proper message, like, freedom is not free… warriors don’t do math… It is certainly not “just” the Pentagon which is running this global kill op. The enterprise is complex and is called PHEMCE (Pandemic Enterprise). Here is the detailed map of the fascist octopus kindly provided by the octopus itself: Next time someone asserts that “Pfizer captured the FDA” or HHS/Fauci directs DOD, who are just poor little soldiers following orders, you can laugh at this propaganda nonsense. The power structure is quite easy to discern from this map. Another insight form this map is blazingly obvious: if someone successfully prosecutes Pfizer for lying about covid vaccines, especially if this is done on the (incorrect) legal theory that Pfizer wasn’t part of the Operation Warp Speed (AG Kobach), how does this theoretical legal victory affect the ability of the DOD-HHS lead Blob to continue the mass murder operation called “Pandemic Preparedness”. If you answered “not at all”, you are right! And that’s exactly why these lawsuits are structured the way they are structured: carefully avoiding going after the real perpetrators. Circled in red are the irreplaceable permanent parts of it - the US Government, including the DOD (and all it’s military countermeasures offices), HHS (with all its military countermeasures offices, CDC, FDA, NIH), Congress and White House, and foreign governments, too! They are all “partners” in this Enterprise. They are all connected to the funding, which, as we discussed, comes from the DOD’s unlimited ability to spend without accounting. Next layer is the “performers” - the private sector that is receiving the money and orders and is doing the work. These are replaceable parts. There is a nearly unlimited selection of the “performers” all desperate for government cash and replaceable at any time: You can see the relevant importance of Pfizer to the entire organization depicted on this chart. The Pentagon planned and prepared for this global kill campaign over decades. Since 2020, we are living under permanent military dictatorship. They steal our money and use it to murder us. Simply because they can. Do not comply. Art for today: Pink Peonies, oil on panel, 12x12 in. Who has the power to kill the world? Money is Power is Money. Sasha Latypova This is a follow on to the recent article contributed by Catherine Austin Fitts of Solari.com to this stack. If you have not read it, I suggest you do so now. It provides a very clear “big picture” analysis of the covid con, and offers historical perspective to it. Attempts to post this article to Facebook resulted in immediate (within 2 seconds) removal. You will not find this information in propaganda news sources: Musings on the Department of Defense http://donshafi911iamthefaceoftruth.blogspot.com/2024/07/who-has-power-to-kill-world-money-is.html
    0 Comments 0 Shares 3716 Views
  • LONGING FOR HIS PRESENCE!
    [PS. 122:1-7]

    THE *WALK* OF THE CHRISTIAN BELIEVER!

    In secular English Language, the verb "walk" can simply be understood as, going along or moving about on foot at a moderate pace. And it is found numerous times in the Gospels. However, this same verb is more often used throughout the Old Testament and the epistles of the New Testament in a metaphorical way. In this sense, IT MEANS to FOLLOW A CERTAIN COURSE OF LIFE OR TO CONDUCT ONE'S SELF IN A CERTAIN WAY.

    Many times the verb translated "walk" is in its present tense in the New Testament, which refers to a continued mode of conduct or behavior. In fact, the infinitive "to walk" can be translated, in a Hebraistic way, "to live." That is,how to LIVE as a Christian. For instance,Christians are not to continue to walk in darkness ( 1 John 1:6 ; 2:11 ).

    What John means here is that, Christians should not continue living in ignorance of divine truth, an ignorance that is associated with sin and its evil results. Along with this, their walk should not be characterized by craftiness and cunning ( 2 Cor 4:2 ) or by such sins as immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, sins, which used to characterize their continual living before salvation ( Col 3:5-7 ).

    To the contrary, Christian living should be characterized by newness of life ( Rom 6:4 ), good works ( Eph 2:10 ), love ( Eph 5:2 ), wisdom ( Col 4:5 ), truth (3 John 4), and obedience to the light received from the apostle ( 1 Thess 4:10 ).

    Therefore in this regard, let us identify some other *WALKS OF THE CHRISTIAN BELIEVER!*

    Walk in Love, Eph. 5:2
    Walk by Faith, 2Cor. 5:7

    Walk in Wisdom, Col. 4.5

    Walk with God, Gen.

    Walk in Christ, Col.2:6

    Walk in the Spirit, Gal.5:16

    Walk in Light, 1John 1:7

    Walk in White, Rev. 3:4

    Walk in Truth, 2john

    Walk humbly, Mic.6.8

    Walk in His ways, Deut.5:33

    Walk in the fear of God, Neh.5.9

    Walk in the Word, Ps.1:1-4

    Walk uprightly, Pro. 2.7

    Walk Honestly. Rom. 13:13

    Walk in the old paths, Jer.6:16

    Walk worthy of the Lord, Col.1.10

    Walk worthy of your calling, Eph.4.1

    Walk in the newness of Life, Rom.6:4

    Walk as taught by God, Isa. 2:3

    Walk in your calling, 1Cor.7:17

    Walk in the steps of Abraham, Rom.4:12

    Walk to please God, 1Thas.4:1

    Walk in the light of Heaven, Rev. 21.

    Walk as Jesus walked, 1John.2:6

    Walk in His Commandments,

    Walk in the day, John.11:9

    Walk in good works, Eph.2:10

    Walk in Grace, Gal.6:5-6

    Walk as children of Light, Eph. 5:8

    Walk in one mind, Phil.3:16

    Walk as examples, Phl.3.17

    Walk in the name of God, Mic.4.5

    Walk in Jesus name, Acts.3.6

    Walk in His statutes, Ex.20.19

    Walk in His paths, Dan.9:10

    Walk in the High places, Hab.3.19

    Walk before God, Psa.56:13

    Walk after your God, Deut.13.4

    Walk in the way of goodness, Pro.2.20

    So, you see, the "Christian walk” is a metaphor for practical daily living. The Christian life is a journey, and we are to walk it...we are to make consistent forward progress in it.
    If we haven't been "walking" as believers, it's time to begin. May the Good Lord strengthen us in Christ Jesus' Name, Amen!
    LONGING FOR HIS PRESENCE! [PS. 122:1-7] ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ THE *WALK* OF THE CHRISTIAN BELIEVER๐Ÿ‘Œ! ๐Ÿ•ณ๏ธ๐Ÿ•ณ๏ธ๐Ÿ•ณ๏ธ๐Ÿ•ณ๏ธ๐Ÿ•ณ๏ธ๐Ÿ•ณ๏ธ๐Ÿ•ณ๏ธ๐Ÿ•ณ๏ธ๐Ÿ•ณ๏ธ๐Ÿ•ณ๏ธ๐Ÿ•ณ๏ธ๐Ÿ•ณ๏ธ๐Ÿ•ณ๏ธ๐Ÿ•ณ๏ธ In secular English Language, the verb "walk" can simply be understood as, going along or moving about on foot at a moderate pace. And it is found numerous times in the Gospels. However, this same verb is more often used throughout the Old Testament and the epistles of the New Testament in a metaphorical way. In this sense, IT MEANS to FOLLOW A CERTAIN COURSE OF LIFE OR TO CONDUCT ONE'S SELF IN A CERTAIN WAY. Many times the verb translated "walk" is in its present tense in the New Testament, which refers to a continued mode of conduct or behavior. In fact, the infinitive "to walk" can be translated, in a Hebraistic way, "to live." That is,how to LIVE as a Christian. For instance,Christians are not to continue to walk in darkness ( 1 John 1:6 ; 2:11 ). What John means here is that, Christians should not continue living in ignorance of divine truth, an ignorance that is associated with sin and its evil results. Along with this, their walk should not be characterized by craftiness and cunning ( 2 Cor 4:2 ) or by such sins as immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, sins, which used to characterize their continual living before salvation ( Col 3:5-7 ). To the contrary, Christian living should be characterized by newness of life ( Rom 6:4 ), good works ( Eph 2:10 ), love ( Eph 5:2 ), wisdom ( Col 4:5 ), truth (3 John 4), and obedience to the light received from the apostle ( 1 Thess 4:10 ). Therefore in this regard, let us identify some other *WALKS OF THE CHRISTIAN BELIEVER!* ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk in Love, Eph. 5:2 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk by Faith, 2Cor. 5:7 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk in Wisdom, Col. 4.5 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk with God, Gen. ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk in Christ, Col.2:6 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk in the Spirit, Gal.5:16 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk in Light, 1John 1:7 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk in White, Rev. 3:4 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk in Truth, 2john ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk humbly, Mic.6.8 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk in His ways, Deut.5:33 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk in the fear of God, Neh.5.9 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk in the Word, Ps.1:1-4 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk uprightly, Pro. 2.7 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk Honestly. Rom. 13:13 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk in the old paths, Jer.6:16 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk worthy of the Lord, Col.1.10 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk worthy of your calling, Eph.4.1 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk in the newness of Life, Rom.6:4 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk as taught by God, Isa. 2:3 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk in your calling, 1Cor.7:17 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk in the steps of Abraham, Rom.4:12 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk to please God, 1Thas.4:1 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk in the light of Heaven, Rev. 21. ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk as Jesus walked, 1John.2:6 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk in His Commandments, ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk in the day, John.11:9 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk in good works, Eph.2:10 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk in Grace, Gal.6:5-6 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk as children of Light, Eph. 5:8 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk in one mind, Phil.3:16 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk as examples, Phl.3.17 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk in the name of God, Mic.4.5 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk in Jesus name, Acts.3.6 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk in His statutes, Ex.20.19 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk in His paths, Dan.9:10 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk in the High places, Hab.3.19 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk before God, Psa.56:13 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk after your God, Deut.13.4 ๐Ÿ‘‰Walk in the way of goodness, Pro.2.20 So, you see, the "Christian walk” is a metaphor for practical daily living. The Christian life is a journey, and we are to walk it...we are to make consistent forward progress in it. If we haven't been "walking" as believers, it's time to begin. May the Good Lord strengthen us in Christ Jesus' Name, Amen๐Ÿ™‡๐Ÿ™!
    0 Comments 0 Shares 2898 Views
  • Searching for the best home interior designer in Pune? Our expert designer excels in creating beautiful, functional living spaces that reflect your unique style. With a commitment to quality and attention to detail, we ensure your home becomes a stunning showcase of comfort and sophistication. Contact us today to start your journey towards an exquisitely designed home!
    https://gharpeservice.com/best-home-office-designer-in-pune/
    Searching for the best home interior designer in Pune? Our expert designer excels in creating beautiful, functional living spaces that reflect your unique style. With a commitment to quality and attention to detail, we ensure your home becomes a stunning showcase of comfort and sophistication. Contact us today to start your journey towards an exquisitely designed home! https://gharpeservice.com/best-home-office-designer-in-pune/
    GHARPESERVICE.COM
    Best Home & Office Designer in Pune
    Gharpeservice is one of the best home & office interior designer in Pune dedicated to creating sophisticated living spaces at affordable prices.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 980 Views
  • THAT I MAY KNOW HIM![PHP.3:10]

    MERE CRITICISM CAN'T ROOT OUT THE DECAY FROM THE CHURCH TODAY!

    I was reading a message written about 17 years ago,and I came across something that made me wonder if it's true!

    Could it be that when one generation allows God’s house to become empty the next generation pays the price? Could it be that we are in danger of losing our children to the world because we have neglected to show them the power of God at work in and through the Church? These are heavy questions. And I don’t mean to come on too strong this evening, but let us take a good solid look at ourselves.

    The thing is most of us are now into the third generation as Christians. Most of us, my age, can remember our great-grandparents, our grandparents, and our parents. If you are saved and in the church now, it is probably because you had some strong Christian roots that were handed down from your great-grandparents to your grand-parents, to your parents. In other words, you have a background of folk who knew the Lord as their Saviour

    They were people of sacrifice and prayer. They cherished the Touch of God. Many of them blazed the trails. They laid the groundwork for the revival... the fire that consumed both the old and the young of that generation.

    In that sense,we of today, should be weeping, for we owe a great debt to those old soldiers, but the question for us is: “What’s happened to the fire and the sacrifice, and the prayer in us? What will we be leaving for the generation of young men and young women who are coming after us, who are watching what we do and how we act, and what we say, and how we treat one another, and that is if CHRIST JESUS TARRIES?

    Today, we have so allowed the enemy to frustrate the church and individual families that altars that were sacred have been abandoned. Pastors have gone haywire as God's Work became a financial investment. A money making venture. It NEVER was like this, with the likes of the late archbishop Idahosa that championed prosperity teachings. HOLINESS WAS AND SHOULD STILL BE AN UNCOMPROMISED VIRTUE. Holiness shouldn't be relegated to the background because of prosperity. God NEVER said anywhere in His Word that we would be beggars,as long as we maintain our absolute loyalty to Him. And that *loyalty* means obedience.

    Observing our evangelical Zion, I note that we are infected with a debilitating virus that was once confined to those living in the world. Our humour reflects what we watch on television. Consequently, we are growing increasingly coarse and sarcastic in responding to those about us. We defend ourselves in such a way that it appears that we no longer recognise the enemy. We seem to believe that anyone who does not agree with us deserves our scorn, or even our rage. James addresses the tendency of Christians to bring into the new life attitudes which should have been left in the world. We will do well to review his words and learn how to root out rot in our lives;
    19. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:
    20. For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.
    21. Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. (Jas 1: 19-21)

    Holiness is a concept that is seemingly absent from contemporary religious life. The holiness that is accepted among the saints(including pastors)appears artificial...a pale, insipid imitation of the real thing.
    Our piety is outward; we substitute religious observance for true holiness. The great tragedy of contemporary evangelicals is that we have what has been described as peg-leg religion...we have to strap it on every morning. And we do know that the devil is behind all this and making good use of the opportunity too.

    Please allow me to point out some of the observations I make concerning the absence of holiness.

    There was a day(a time)when modesty in dress and demeanour was a mark of a young woman’s or a young man’s Christian walk. I know that our grandmothers were somewhat fanatical about their dress, but somehow young women today, to say nothing of many older women, are indistinguishable from the world in their dress sense,(just to belong)!

    Perhaps we have forgotten the apostolic admonition that declares, “I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarrelling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works” [1 Timothy 2:8-10]. The Apostle specifically addresses women’s dress, as that is an apparent problem.

    But today,right from kindergarten, parents now dress their children in skimpy worldly attire,all in the name of modernism. When these kids grow up like this, what do we expect from them? And I am talking specifically about supposedly Christian parents...whom should be role models.

    It doesn't end with dress sense and expression.Neither of these observations immediately addresses the lack of gentleness, the absence of civility, or the apparent delight in harbouring hostility that now appears to mark the lives of many of the professed saints of God. We have seen them fight themselves on the electronic,print and even more on social media. Each with their own group of supporters prepared for any kind of showdown. These supporters/followers worship their pastors and not God. The word of their pastors is usually the truth. God help you if you speak evil of their *daddy* in their presence.

    In part, this condition exists and is tolerated, perhaps even fostered, because churches are run like business and congregants generally have a consumer mentality concerning church. Church leaders are too often selected, not on the basis of godliness, but because of their stature in the community, because of their business acumen, according to the size of their portfolio, or by other such criteria that are valued in the world. Congregants are loath to commit themselves to a congregation, and churches are reluctant to hold members accountable to the standards clearly set forth in the Word of God. Attendance at a service is more highly prized than is commitment and submission to the Body of Christ. As result of substituting our own values for godly values, we seldom witness church bodies that are regenerate. What we do witness are churches that are run like business with application of the latest psychological techniques to continue to “grow” the church.

    Pastors are chosen to be administrators instead of being shepherds charged with the ministry of the Word, protecting the flock, oversight of the church, pastoring the people and providing an example in godliness. Consequently, congregations are often ignorant of the Word and of the will of God, and they are frequently unruly in their deportment and conduct. However, Christians usually feel good about themselves, primarily because they are not held accountable for their behaviour and because they see their own behaviour as good as or better than that of the pastor.

    What a tragedy!!! And the devil is gloating over the disaster...but not for long will he gloat, because IT'S BIBLE PROPHECY PLAYING OUT. The most important thing is to be caught on the right side;
    3. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
    4. And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (2Ti 4: 3-4)
    But on which side do we wish to be found...the Lord's side or the devil's side?

    We still have more on this coming by His Grace and Mercy, Amen !
    THAT I MAY KNOW HIM![PHP.3:10] ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ MERE CRITICISM CAN'T ROOT OUT THE DECAY FROM THE CHURCH TODAY! ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ I was reading a message written about 17 years ago,and I came across something that made me wonder if it's true! Could it be that when one generation allows God’s house to become empty the next generation pays the price? Could it be that we are in danger of losing our children to the world because we have neglected to show them the power of God at work in and through the Church? These are heavy questions. And I don’t mean to come on too strong this evening, but let us take a good solid look at ourselves. The thing is most of us are now into the third generation as Christians. Most of us, my age, can remember our great-grandparents, our grandparents, and our parents. If you are saved and in the church now, it is probably because you had some strong Christian roots that were handed down from your great-grandparents to your grand-parents, to your parents. In other words, you have a background of folk who knew the Lord as their Saviour They were people of sacrifice and prayer. They cherished the Touch of God. Many of them blazed the trails. They laid the groundwork for the revival... the fire that consumed both the old and the young of that generation. In that sense,we of today, should be weeping, for we owe a great debt to those old soldiers, but the question for us is: “What’s happened to the fire and the sacrifice, and the prayer in us? What will we be leaving for the generation of young men and young women who are coming after us, who are watching what we do and how we act, and what we say, and how we treat one another, and that is if CHRIST JESUS TARRIES? Today, we have so allowed the enemy to frustrate the church and individual families that altars that were sacred have been abandoned. Pastors have gone haywire as God's Work became a financial investment. A money making venture. It NEVER was like this, with the likes of the late archbishop Idahosa that championed prosperity teachings. HOLINESS WAS AND SHOULD STILL BE AN UNCOMPROMISED VIRTUE. Holiness shouldn't be relegated to the background because of prosperity. God NEVER said anywhere in His Word that we would be beggars,as long as we maintain our absolute loyalty to Him. And that *loyalty* means obedience. Observing our evangelical Zion, I note that we are infected with a debilitating virus that was once confined to those living in the world. Our humour reflects what we watch on television. Consequently, we are growing increasingly coarse and sarcastic in responding to those about us. We defend ourselves in such a way that it appears that we no longer recognise the enemy. We seem to believe that anyone who does not agree with us deserves our scorn, or even our rage. James addresses the tendency of Christians to bring into the new life attitudes which should have been left in the world. We will do well to review his words and learn how to root out rot in our lives; 19. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath: 20. For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. 21. Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. (Jas 1: 19-21) Holiness is a concept that is seemingly absent from contemporary religious life. The holiness that is accepted among the saints(including pastors)appears artificial...a pale, insipid imitation of the real thing. Our piety is outward; we substitute religious observance for true holiness. The great tragedy of contemporary evangelicals is that we have what has been described as peg-leg religion...we have to strap it on every morning. And we do know that the devil is behind all this and making good use of the opportunity too. Please allow me to point out some of the observations I make concerning the absence of holiness. There was a day(a time)when modesty in dress and demeanour was a mark of a young woman’s or a young man’s Christian walk. I know that our grandmothers were somewhat fanatical about their dress, but somehow young women today, to say nothing of many older women, are indistinguishable from the world in their dress sense,(just to belong)! Perhaps we have forgotten the apostolic admonition that declares, “I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarrelling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works” [1 Timothy 2:8-10]. The Apostle specifically addresses women’s dress, as that is an apparent problem. But today,right from kindergarten, parents now dress their children in skimpy worldly attire,all in the name of modernism. When these kids grow up like this, what do we expect from them? And I am talking specifically about supposedly Christian parents...whom should be role models. It doesn't end with dress sense and expression.Neither of these observations immediately addresses the lack of gentleness, the absence of civility, or the apparent delight in harbouring hostility that now appears to mark the lives of many of the professed saints of God. We have seen them fight themselves on the electronic,print and even more on social media. Each with their own group of supporters prepared for any kind of showdown. These supporters/followers worship their pastors and not God. The word of their pastors is usually the truth. God help you if you speak evil of their *daddy* in their presence. In part, this condition exists and is tolerated, perhaps even fostered, because churches are run like business and congregants generally have a consumer mentality concerning church. Church leaders are too often selected, not on the basis of godliness, but because of their stature in the community, because of their business acumen, according to the size of their portfolio, or by other such criteria that are valued in the world. Congregants are loath to commit themselves to a congregation, and churches are reluctant to hold members accountable to the standards clearly set forth in the Word of God. Attendance at a service is more highly prized than is commitment and submission to the Body of Christ. As result of substituting our own values for godly values, we seldom witness church bodies that are regenerate. What we do witness are churches that are run like business with application of the latest psychological techniques to continue to “grow” the church. Pastors are chosen to be administrators instead of being shepherds charged with the ministry of the Word, protecting the flock, oversight of the church, pastoring the people and providing an example in godliness. Consequently, congregations are often ignorant of the Word and of the will of God, and they are frequently unruly in their deportment and conduct. However, Christians usually feel good about themselves, primarily because they are not held accountable for their behaviour and because they see their own behaviour as good as or better than that of the pastor. What a tragedy!!! And the devil is gloating over the disaster...but not for long will he gloat, because IT'S BIBLE PROPHECY PLAYING OUT. The most important thing is to be caught on the right side; 3. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4. And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (2Ti 4: 3-4) But on which side do we wish to be found...the Lord's side or the devil's side? We still have more on this coming by His Grace and Mercy, Amen ๐Ÿ™‡๐Ÿ™!
    0 Comments 0 Shares 12984 Views
  • A young man asked his grandfather,
    "Grandpa, how did you live in the past without technology . . .
    without computers
    without drones
    without bitcoins
    without Internet connection
    without TVs
    without air conditioners
    without cars
    without mobile phones?"

    Grandpa answered:
    "Just as your generation lives today . . .
    no prayers,
    no compassion,
    no respect,
    no GMRC,
    no real education,
    poor personality,
    there is no human kindness,
    there is no shame,
    there is no modesty,
    there is no honesty.

    We, the people born between the years 1930-1980, were the blessed ones. Our lives are a living proof."

    ¶ While playing and riding a bike, we have never worn a helmet.
    ¶ after school we did our homework ourselves and we always played in meadows until sunset
    ¶ We played with real friends, not virtual friends.
    ¶ If we were thirsty, we would drink frim the fountain, from the waterfalls, faucet water, not mineral water.
    ¶ We never worried and get sick even as we shared the same cup or plate with our friends.
    ¶ We never gained weight by eating bread and pasta every day.
    ¶ Nothing happened to our feet despite walking barefoot.
    ¶ We never used food supplements to stay healthy.
    ¶ We used to make our own toys and play with them.
    ¶ Our parents were not rich. They gave us love, not material gifts.
    ¶ We never had a cell phone, DVD, PSP, game console, Xbox, video games, PC, laptop, internet chat . . . but we had true friends.
    ¶ We visited our friends without being invited and shared and enjoyed the food with their family.
    Parents lived nearby to take advantage of family time.
    ¶ We may have had black and white photos, but you can find colorful memories in these photos.
    ¶ We are a unique and the most understanding generation, because we are the last generation that listened to their parents.

    And we are also the first ones who were forced to listen to their children.~
    A young man asked his grandfather, "Grandpa, how did you live in the past without technology . . . without computers without drones without bitcoins without Internet connection without TVs without air conditioners without cars without mobile phones?" Grandpa answered: "Just as your generation lives today . . . no prayers, no compassion, no respect, no GMRC, no real education, poor personality, there is no human kindness, there is no shame, there is no modesty, there is no honesty. We, the people born between the years 1930-1980, were the blessed ones. Our lives are a living proof." ¶ While playing and riding a bike, we have never worn a helmet. ¶ after school we did our homework ourselves and we always played in meadows until sunset ¶ We played with real friends, not virtual friends. ¶ If we were thirsty, we would drink frim the fountain, from the waterfalls, faucet water, not mineral water. ¶ We never worried and get sick even as we shared the same cup or plate with our friends. ¶ We never gained weight by eating bread and pasta every day. ¶ Nothing happened to our feet despite walking barefoot. ¶ We never used food supplements to stay healthy. ¶ We used to make our own toys and play with them. ¶ Our parents were not rich. They gave us love, not material gifts. ¶ We never had a cell phone, DVD, PSP, game console, Xbox, video games, PC, laptop, internet chat . . . but we had true friends. ¶ We visited our friends without being invited and shared and enjoyed the food with their family. Parents lived nearby to take advantage of family time. ¶ We may have had black and white photos, but you can find colorful memories in these photos. ¶ We are a unique and the most understanding generation, because we are the last generation that listened to their parents. And we are also the first ones who were forced to listen to their children.~
    0 Comments 0 Shares 8120 Views
  • JUST A MINUTE PLEASE [THE PREACHER'S CORNER]

    WEIGHED IN BALANCE (SCALE) AND FOUND WANTING! [DAN.5:4-5)

    Someday, every one of us is going to be in this world for the last day of our life. Every day that we live should be a day t;:hat we live in reference to that fact, because whether we live until Chist Jesus returns, or die first, there will come a day when our destiny is fixed for eternity and there will be nothing that we can do to change it.
    You know as I have always inferred, MANY OF US DO THINK THAT LIFE ENDS HERE WHEN WE CLOSE OUR EYES IN DEATH, AND HONESTLY, I PITY THEM.

    If it was so,then what s miserable people we would all be(the learned and unlearned) that dedicated their lives to the Work of God!
    Those who are committed to the pursuit of eternal life are deemed and mocked as fools. And why is it so? It's the impression (overblown knowledge that has led to truly scientific, architectural and engineering wonders. A ploy Satan is using to harden the heart of many a soul...THERE CAN NEVER BE ANY HEAVEN MORE THAN THIS;
    In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. (2Co 4: 4)

    Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: (Eph 4: 18)

    Now,let consider the story a Bible character that thought that will never be a *tomorrow*

    4. They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.(JUST LIKE WE HYPE MONEY TODAY.) 5. In the same hour came forth fingers of a man's hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the king's palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote. (Dan 5: 4-5)

    6. It was Belshazzar’s last day on this earth, and we are told that he was giving a party. “They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold and silver, bronze, and iron, wood and stone.” Daniel 5:4. Have you ever read the text in the Bible that says, “The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth”? Ecclesiastes 7:4. “In the same hour the fingers of a man’s hand appeared and wrote opposite the lampstand on the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace; and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote. Then the king’s countenance changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his hips were loosened and his knees knocked against each other.” Daniel 5:5, 6.
    “When God makes men fear, they cannot hide the intensity of their terror.”

    So, Belshazzar called in all of the wise men, those that understand science and philosophy, that they might tell him the meaning of the writing; but they could not do so. “The king cried aloud to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers. And the king spoke, saying to the wise men of Babylon, ‘Whoever reads this writing, and tells me its . around his neck; and he shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.’” Daniel 5:7. Philosophy and science have their proper place, but learning and education will not save you on your last day on earth unless yoou know the God of heaven.

    The queen mother then came to Belshazzar and said, “There is a man in your kingdom in whom is the Spirit of the Holy God. And in the days of your father, light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, were found in him; There's a man and King, 4 Nebuchadnezzar your father—your father the king—made him chief of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers. Inasmuch as an excellent spirit, knowledge, understanding, interpreting dreams, solving riddles, and explaining enigmas were found in this Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar, now let Daniel be called, and he will give the interpretation.” Verses 11, 12.

    BUT ALSO DON'T FORGET...IN THE LION'S DEN... HE TOLD THE KING *INNOCENCE WAS FOUND IN ME*

    Let's be sincere with ourselves...Can innocence be found in us weighed in God's scale!

    So Daniel came in and gave the interpretation of the handwriting that was on the wall. He began by reviewing with him the providence of God in the life of Nebuchadnezzar.

    “But when his heart was lifted up, and his spirit was hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him. Then he was driven from the sons of men, his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild donkeys. They fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, TILL HE KNEW THAT THE MOST HIGH GOD RULES IN THE KINGDOM OF MEN and appoints over it whomever He chooses. But you his son, Belshazzar, have not humbled your heart, ALTHOUGH YOU KNEW ALL THIS, And you have lifted yourself up against the Lord of heaven.” Verses 20–23. By his actions, Belshazzar had despised the God of heaven.

    It's the SAME WITH MANY OF US TOFAY . We despised God and His Word in so many activities or our way of life.
    “The fingers of the hand were sent from Him, and this writing was written. And this is the inscription that was written: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. This is the interpretation of each word. MENE; God has numbered your kingdom and finished it.” Verses 24–16.

    The time is going to come when we will be in this world for our last day, and our character is going to be put into that balance. Though there are stories in the Bible about people who were going in a certain direction who came to a point late in their life when they decided to reverse their direction, those cares are few in number.

    “Many are quieting a troubled conscience with the thought that they can change a course of evil when they choose; that they can trifle with the invitations of mercy, and yet be again and again impressed. They think that after doing despite to the Spirit of grace, after casting their influence on the side of Satan, in a moment of terrible extremity they can change their course. But this is not so easily done. The experience, the education of a lifetime, has so thoroughly molded the character that few then desire to receive the image of Jesus.”

    The judgment is the heart of the message that God Our whole message has to do with judgment, because we are living in the end times when the judgment is taking place.

    When, in the judgment, we are weighed in God’s balances; every detail of our character will be examined. “God weighs every man in the balances of the sanctuary. In one scale is placed His perfect, unchangeable law, demanding perfect obedience. If in the other there are years of forgetfulness, of rebellion, of self-pleasing, with no repentance, no confession, no effort to do right, God says, “‘Thou art
    R
    In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. (2Co 4: 4)

    Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: (Eph 4: 18)
    found wanting.’”

    None of us can weigh out unless someone takes away our guilt and in its place supplies us with the righteous fulfillment of the Law. That is what the gospel is all about.

    We are living in a time when people have become unconcerned about this judgment. They believe that they can live in any way that they please and that it is sufficient to just say, “Lord, I am confessing my sins,” and their sins will be forgiven. But as we just read, if there has been no repentance and no effort to do right, God will say, “No, you are not going to weigh out.”

    “A decree went forth to slay the saints, which caused them to cry day and night for deliverance. This was the time of Jacob’s trouble. Then all the saints cried out with anguish of spirit, and were delivered by the voice of God. The 144,000 triumphed. Their faces lighted up with the glory of God. Then I was shown a company who were howling in agony.”
    JUST A MINUTE PLEASE ๐Ÿ™[THE PREACHER'S CORNER] ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ๐Ÿšฅ WEIGHED IN BALANCE (SCALE) AND FOUND WANTING! [DAN.5:4-5) ๐Ÿšง๐Ÿšง๐Ÿšง๐Ÿšง๐Ÿšง๐Ÿšง๐Ÿšง๐Ÿšง๐Ÿšง๐Ÿšง๐Ÿšง Someday, every one of us is going to be in this world for the last day of our life. Every day that we live should be a day t;:hat we live in reference to that fact, because whether we live until Chist Jesus returns, or die first, there will come a day when our destiny is fixed for eternity and there will be nothing that we can do to change it. You know as I have always inferred, MANY OF US DO THINK THAT LIFE ENDS HERE WHEN WE CLOSE OUR EYES IN DEATH, AND HONESTLY, I PITY THEM. If it was so,then what s miserable people we would all be(the learned and unlearned) that dedicated their lives to the Work of God! Those who are committed to the pursuit of eternal life are deemed and mocked as fools. And why is it so? It's the impression (overblown knowledge that has led to truly scientific, architectural and engineering wonders. A ploy Satan is using to harden the heart of many a soul...THERE CAN NEVER BE ANY HEAVEN MORE THAN THIS; In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. (2Co 4: 4) Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: (Eph 4: 18) Now,let consider the story a Bible character that thought that will never be a *tomorrow* 4. They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.(JUST LIKE WE HYPE MONEY TODAY.) 5. In the same hour came forth fingers of a man's hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the king's palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote. (Dan 5: 4-5) 6. It was Belshazzar’s last day on this earth, and we are told that he was giving a party. “They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold and silver, bronze, and iron, wood and stone.” Daniel 5:4. Have you ever read the text in the Bible that says, “The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth”? Ecclesiastes 7:4. “In the same hour the fingers of a man’s hand appeared and wrote opposite the lampstand on the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace; and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote. Then the king’s countenance changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his hips were loosened and his knees knocked against each other.” Daniel 5:5, 6. “When God makes men fear, they cannot hide the intensity of their terror.” So, Belshazzar called in all of the wise men, those that understand science and philosophy, that they might tell him the meaning of the writing; but they could not do so. “The king cried aloud to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers. And the king spoke, saying to the wise men of Babylon, ‘Whoever reads this writing, and tells me its . around his neck; and he shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.’” Daniel 5:7. Philosophy and science have their proper place, but learning and education will not save you on your last day on earth unless yoou know the God of heaven. The queen mother then came to Belshazzar and said, “There is a man in your kingdom in whom is the Spirit of the Holy God. And in the days of your father, light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, were found in him; There's a man and King, 4 Nebuchadnezzar your father—your father the king—made him chief of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers. Inasmuch as an excellent spirit, knowledge, understanding, interpreting dreams, solving riddles, and explaining enigmas were found in this Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar, now let Daniel be called, and he will give the interpretation.” Verses 11, 12. BUT ALSO DON'T FORGET...IN THE LION'S DEN... HE TOLD THE KING *INNOCENCE WAS FOUND IN ME* Let's be sincere with ourselves...Can innocence be found in us weighed in God's scale! So Daniel came in and gave the interpretation of the handwriting that was on the wall. He began by reviewing with him the providence of God in the life of Nebuchadnezzar. “But when his heart was lifted up, and his spirit was hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him. Then he was driven from the sons of men, his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild donkeys. They fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, TILL HE KNEW THAT THE MOST HIGH GOD RULES IN THE KINGDOM OF MEN and appoints over it whomever He chooses. But you his son, Belshazzar, have not humbled your heart, ALTHOUGH YOU KNEW ALL THIS, And you have lifted yourself up against the Lord of heaven.” Verses 20–23. By his actions, Belshazzar had despised the God of heaven. It's the SAME WITH MANY OF US TOFAY . We despised God and His Word in so many activities or our way of life. “The fingers of the hand were sent from Him, and this writing was written. And this is the inscription that was written: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. This is the interpretation of each word. MENE; God has numbered your kingdom and finished it.” Verses 24–16. The time is going to come when we will be in this world for our last day, and our character is going to be put into that balance. Though there are stories in the Bible about people who were going in a certain direction who came to a point late in their life when they decided to reverse their direction, those cares are few in number. “Many are quieting a troubled conscience with the thought that they can change a course of evil when they choose; that they can trifle with the invitations of mercy, and yet be again and again impressed. They think that after doing despite to the Spirit of grace, after casting their influence on the side of Satan, in a moment of terrible extremity they can change their course. But this is not so easily done. The experience, the education of a lifetime, has so thoroughly molded the character that few then desire to receive the image of Jesus.” The judgment is the heart of the message that God Our whole message has to do with judgment, because we are living in the end times when the judgment is taking place. When, in the judgment, we are weighed in God’s balances; every detail of our character will be examined. “God weighs every man in the balances of the sanctuary. In one scale is placed His perfect, unchangeable law, demanding perfect obedience. If in the other there are years of forgetfulness, of rebellion, of self-pleasing, with no repentance, no confession, no effort to do right, God says, “‘Thou art R In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. (2Co 4: 4) Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: (Eph 4: 18) found wanting.’” None of us can weigh out unless someone takes away our guilt and in its place supplies us with the righteous fulfillment of the Law. That is what the gospel is all about. We are living in a time when people have become unconcerned about this judgment. They believe that they can live in any way that they please and that it is sufficient to just say, “Lord, I am confessing my sins,” and their sins will be forgiven. But as we just read, if there has been no repentance and no effort to do right, God will say, “No, you are not going to weigh out.” “A decree went forth to slay the saints, which caused them to cry day and night for deliverance. This was the time of Jacob’s trouble. Then all the saints cried out with anguish of spirit, and were delivered by the voice of God. The 144,000 triumphed. Their faces lighted up with the glory of God. Then I was shown a company who were howling in agony.”
    0 Comments 0 Shares 13407 Views
More Results