The Silent Shame of Health Institutions
J.R. Bruning
For how much longer will health policy ignore multimorbidity, that looming, giant elephant in the room, that propagates and amplifies suffering? For how much longer will the ‘trend’ of increasing diagnoses of multiple health conditions, at younger and younger ages be rendered down by government agencies to better and more efficient services, screening modalities, and drug choices?

Multimorbidity, the presence of many chronic conditions, is the silent shame of health policy.

All too often chronic conditions overlap and accumulate. From cancer, to diabetes, to digestive system diseases, to high blood pressure, to skin conditions in cascades of suffering. Heartbreakingly, these conditions commonly overlap with mental illnesses or disorders. It’s increasingly common for people to be diagnosed with multiple mental conditions, such as having anxiety and depression, or anxiety and schizophrenia.

Calls for equity tend to revolve around medical treatment, even as absurdities and injustices accrue.

Multimorbidity occurs a decade earlier in socioeconomically deprived communities. Doctors are diagnosing multimorbidity at younger and younger ages.

Treatment regimens for people with multiple conditions necessarily entail a polypharmacy approach – the prescribing of multiple medications. One condition may require multiple medications. Thus, with multimorbidity comes increased risk of adverse outcomes and polyiatrogenesis – ‘medical harm caused by medical treatments on multiple fronts simultaneously and in conjunction with one another.’

Side effects, whether short-term or patients’ concerns about long-term harm, are the main reason for non-adherence to prescribed medications.

So ‘equity’ which only implies drug treatment doesn’t involve equity at all.

Poor diets may be foundational to the Western world’s health crisis. But are governments considering this?

The antinomies are piling up.

We are amid a global epidemic of metabolic syndrome. Insulin resistance, obesity, elevated triglyceride levels and low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and elevated blood pressure haunt the people queuing up to see doctors.

Research, from individual cases to clinical trials, consistently show that diets containing high levels of ultra-processed foods and carbohydrates amplify inflammation, oxidative stress, and insulin resistance. What researchers and scientists are also identifying, at the cellular level, in clinical and medical practice, and at the global level – is that insulin resistance, inflammation, oxidative stress, and nutrient deficiencies from poor diets not only drive metabolic illness, but mental illnesses, compounding suffering.

There is also ample evidence that the metabolic and mental health epidemic that is driving years lost due to disease, reducing productivity, and creating mayhem in personal lives – may be preventable and reversible.

Doctors generally recognise that poor diets are a problem. Ultra-processed foods are strongly associated with adult and childhood ill health. Ultra-processed foods are

‘formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, typically created by series of industrial techniques and processes (hence ‘ultra-processed’).’

In the USA young people under age 19 consume on average 67% of their diet, while adults consume around 60% of their diet in ultra-processed food. Ultra-processed food contributes 60% of UK children’s calories; 42% of Australian children’s calories and over half the dietary calories for children and adolescents in Canada. In New Zealand in 2009-2010, ultra-processed foods contributed to the 45% (12 months), 42% (24 months), and 51% (60 months) of energy intake to the diets of children.

All too frequently, doctors are diagnosing both metabolic and mental illnesses.

What may be predictable is that a person is likely to develop insulin resistance, inflammation, oxidative stress, and nutrient deficiencies from chronic exposure to ultra-processed food. How this will manifest in a disease or syndrome condition is reflective of a human equivalent of quantum entanglement.

Cascades, feedback loops, and other interdependencies often leave doctors and patients bouncing from one condition to another, and managing medicine side effects and drug-drug relationships as they go.

In New Zealand it is more common to have multiple conditions than a single condition. The costs of having two NCDs simultaneously is typically superadditive and ‘more so for younger adults.’

This information is outside the ‘work programme’ of the top echelons in the Ministry of Health:

Official Information Act (OIA) requests confirm that the Ministries’ Directors General who are responsible for setting policy and long-term strategy aren’t considering these issues. The problem of multimorbidity and the overlapping, entangled relationship with ultra-processed food is outside of the scope of the work programme of the top directorates in our health agency.

New Zealand’s Ministry of Health’s top deputy directors general might be earning a quarter of a million dollars each, but they are ignorant of the relationship of dietary nutrition and mental health. Nor are they seemingly aware of the extent of multimorbidity and the overlap between metabolic and mental illnesses.

Neither the Public Health Agency Deputy Director-General – Dr Andrew Old, nor the Deputy Director-General Evidence, Research and Innovation, Dean Rutherford, nor the Deputy Director-General of Strategy Policy and Legislation, Maree Roberts, nor the Clinical, Community and Mental Health Deputy Director-General Robyn Shearer have been briefed on these relationships.

If they’re not being briefed, policy won’t be developed to address dietary nutrition. Diet will be lower-order.

The OIA request revealed that New Zealand’s Ministry of Health ‘does not widely use the metabolic syndrome classification.’ When I asked ‘How do you classify, or what term do you use to classify the cluster of symptoms characterised by central obesity, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and insulin resistance?’, they responded:

‘The conditions referred to are considered either on their own or as part of a broader cardiovascular disease risk calculation.’

This is interesting. What if governments should be calculating insulin resistance first, in order to then calculate a broader cardiovascular risk? What if insulin resistance, inflammation, and oxidative stress are appearing at younger and younger ages, and ultra-processed food is the major driver?

Pre-diabetes and Type 2 diabetes are driven by too much blood glucose. Type 1 diabetics can’t make insulin, while Type 2 diabetics can’t make enough to compensate for their dietary intake of carbohydrates. One of insulin’s (many) jobs is to tuck away that blood glucose into cells (as fat) but when there are too many dietary carbohydrates pumping up blood glucose, the body can’t keep up. New Zealand practitioners use the HbA1c blood test, which measures the average blood glucose level over the past 2-3 months. In New Zealand, doctors diagnose pre-diabetes if HbA1c levels are 41-49 nmol/mol, and diabetes at levels of 50 nmol/mol and above.

Type 2 diabetes management guidelines recommend that sugar intake should be reduced, while people should aim for consistent carbohydrates across the day. The New Zealand government does not recommend paleo or low-carbohydrate diets.

If you have diabetes you are twice as likely to have heart disease or a stroke, and at a younger age. Prediabetes, which apparently 20% of Kiwis have, is also high-risk due to, as the Ministry of Health states: ‘increased risk of macrovascular complications and early death.’

The question might become – should we be looking at insulin levels, to more sensitively gauge risk at an early stage?

Without more sensitive screens at younger ages these opportunities to repivot to avoid chronic disease are likely to be missed. Currently, Ministry of Health policies are unlikely to justify the funding of tests for insulin resistance by using three simple blood tests: fasting insulin, fasting lipids (cholesterol and triglycerides), and fasting glucose – to estimate where children, young people, and adults stand on the insulin resistance spectrum when other diagnoses pop up.

Yet insulin plays a powerful role in brain health.

Insulin supports neurotransmitter function and brain energy, directly impacting mood and behaviours. Insulin resistance might arrive before mental illness. Harvard-based psychiatrist Chris Palmer recounts in the book Brain Energy, a large 15,000-participant study of young people from age 0-24:

‘Children who had persistently high insulin levels (a sign of insulin resistance) beginning at age nine were five times more likely to be at risk for psychosis, meaning they were showing at least some worrisome signs, and they were three times for likely to already be diagnosed with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia by the time they turned twenty-four. This study clearly demonstrated that insulin resistance comes first, then psychosis.’

Psychiatrist Georgia Ede suggests that high blood glucose and high insulin levels act like a ‘deadly one-two punch’ for the brain, triggering waves of inflammation and oxidative stress. The blood-brain barrier becomes increasingly resistant to chronic high insulin levels. Even though the body might have higher blood insulin, the same may not be true for the brain. As Ede maintains, ‘cells deprived of adequate insulin ‘sputter and struggle to maintain normal operations.’

Looking at the relationship between brain health and high blood glucose and high insulin simply might not be on the programme for strategists looking at long-term planning.

Nor are Directors General in a position to assess the role of food addiction. Ultra-processed food has addictive qualities designed into the product formulations. Food addiction is increasingly recognised as pervasive and difficult to manage as any substance addiction.

But how many children and young people have insulin resistance and are showing markers for inflammation and oxidative stress – in the body and in the brain? To what extent do young people have both insulin resistance and depression resistance or ADHD or bipolar disorder?

This kind of thinking is completely outside the work programme. But insulin levels, inflammation, and oxidative stress may not only be driving chronic illness – but driving the global mental health tsunami.

Metabolic disorders are involved in complex pathways and feedback loops across body systems, and doctors learn this at medical school. Patterns and relationships between hormones, the brain, the gastrointestinal system, kidneys, and liver; as well as problems with joints and bone health, autoimmunity, nerves, and sensory conditions evolve from and revolve around metabolic health.

Nutrition and diet are downplayed in medical school. What doctors don’t learn so much – the cognitive dissonance that they must accept throughout their training – is that metabolic health is commonly (except for some instances) shaped by the quality of dietary nutrition. The aetiology of a given condition can be very different, while the evidence that common chronic and mental illnesses are accompanied by oxidative stress, inflammation, and insulin resistance are primarily driven by diet – is growing stronger and stronger.

But without recognising the overlapping relationships, policy to support healthy diets will remain limp.

What we witness are notions of equity that support pharmaceutical delivery – not health delivery.

What also inevitably happens is that ‘equity’ focuses on medical treatment. When the Ministry of Health prefers to atomise the different conditions or associate them with heart disease – they become single conditions to treat with single drugs. They’re lots of small problems, not one big problem, and insulin resistance is downplayed.

But just as insulin resistance, inflammation, and oxidative stress send cascading impacts across body systems, systemic ignorance sends cascading effects across government departments tasked with ‘improving, promoting, and protecting health.’

It’s an injustice. The literature solidly points to lower socio-economic status driving much poorer diets and increased exposures to ultra-processed food, but the treatments exclusively involve drugs and therapy.

Briefings to Incoming Ministers with the election of new Governments show how ignorance cascades across responsible authorities.

Health New Zealand, Te Whatu Ora’s November 2023 Briefing to the new government outlined the agency’s obligations. However, the ‘health’ targets are medical, and the agency’s focus is on infrastructure, staff, and servicing. The promotion of health, and health equity, which can only be addressed by addressing the determinants of health, is not addressed.

The Māori Health Authority and Health New Zealand Joint Briefing to the Incoming Minister for Mental Health does not address the role of diet and nutrition as a driver of mental illness and disorder in New Zealand. The issue of multimorbidity, the related problem of commensurate metabolic illness, and diet as a driver is outside scope. When the Briefing states that it is important to address the ‘social, cultural, environmental and economic determinants of mental health,’ without any sound policy footing, real movement to address diet will not happen, or will only happen ad hoc.

The Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, Te Hiringa Mahara’s November 2023 Briefing to Incoming Ministers that went to the Ministers for Health and Mental Health might use the term ‘well-being’ over 120 times – but was silent on the related and overlapping drivers of mental illness which include metabolic or multimorbidity, nutrition, or diet.

Five years earlier, He Ara Ora, New Zealand’s 2018 Mental Health and Addiction enquiry had recognised that tāngata whaiora, people seeking wellness, or service users, also tend to have multiple health conditions. The enquiry recommended that a whole of government approach to well-being, prevention, and social determinants was required. Vague nods were made to diet and nutrition, but this was not sufficiently emphasised as to be a priority.

He Ara Ora was followed by 2020 Long-term pathway to mental well-being viewed nutrition as being one of a range of factors. No policy framework strategically prioritised diet, nutrition, and healthy food. No governmental obligation or commitment was built into policy to improve access to healthy food or nutrition education.

Understanding the science, the relationships, and the drivers of the global epidemic, is ‘outside the work programmes’ of New Zealand’s Ministry of Health and outside the scope of all the related authorities. There is an extraordinary amount of data in the scientific literature, so many case studies, cohort studies, and clinical trials. Popular books are being written, however government agencies remain ignorant.

In the meantime, doctors must deal with the suffering in front of them without an adequate toolkit.

Doctors and pharmacists are faced with a Hobson’s choice of managing multiple chronic conditions and complex drug cocktails, in patients at younger and younger ages. Ultimately, they are treating a patient whom they recognise will only become sicker, cost the health system more, and suffer more.

Currently there is little support for New Zealand medical doctors (known as general practitioners, or GPs) in changing practices and recommendations to support non-pharmaceutical drug treatment approaches. Their medical education does not equip them to recognise the extent to which multiple co-existing conditions may be alleviated or reversed. Doctors are paid to prescribe, to inject, and to screen, not to ameliorate or reverse disease and lessen prescribing. The prescribing of nutrients is discouraged and as doctors do not have nutritional training, they hesitate to prescribe nutrients.

Many do not want to risk going outside treatment guidelines. Recent surges in protocols and guidelines for medical doctors reduce flexibility and narrow treatment choices for doctors. If they were to be reported to the Medical Council of New Zealand, they would risk losing their medical license. They would then be unable to practice.

Inevitably, without Ministry of Health leadership, medical doctors in New Zealand are unlikely to voluntarily prescribe non-drug modalities such as nutritional options to any meaningful extent, for fear of being reported.

Yet some doctors are proactive, such as Dr Glen Davies in Taupo, New Zealand. Some doctors are in a better ‘place’ to work to alleviate and reverse long-term conditions. They may be later in their career, with 10-20 years of research into metabolism, dietary nutrition, and patient care, and motivated to guide a patient through a personal care regime which might alleviate or reverse a patient’s suffering.

Barriers include resourcing. Doctors aren’t paid for reversing disease and taking patients off medications.

Doctors witness daily the hopelessness felt by their patients in dealing with chronic conditions in their short 15-minute consultations, and the vigilance required for dealing with adverse drug effects. Drug non-compliance is associated with adverse effects suffered by patients. Yet without wrap-around support changing treatments, even if it has potential to alleviate multiple conditions, to reduce symptoms, lower prescribing and therefore lessen side effects, is just too uncertain.

They saw what happened to disobedient doctors during Covid-19.

Given such context, what are we to do?

Have open public discussions about doctor-patient relationships and trust. Inform and overlay such conversations by drawing attention to the foundational Hippocratic Oath made by doctors, to first do no harm.

Questions can be asked. If patients were to understand that diet may be an underlying driver of multiple conditions, and a change in diet and improvement in micronutrient status might alleviate suffering – would patients be more likely to change?

Economically, if wrap-around services were provided in clinics to support dietary change, would less harm occur to patients from worsening conditions that accompany many diseases (such as Type 2 diabetes) and the ever-present problem of drug side-effects? Would education and wrap-around services in early childhood and youth delay or prevent the onset of multimorbid diagnoses?

Is it more ethical to give young people a choice of treatment? Could doctors prescribe dietary changes and multinutrients and support change with wrap-around support when children and young people are first diagnosed with a mental health condition – from the clinic, to school, to after school? If that doesn’t work, then prescribe pharmaceutical drugs.

Should children and young people be educated to appreciate the extent to which their consumption of ultra-processed food likely drives their metabolic and mental health conditions? Not just in a blithe ‘eat healthy’ fashion that patently avoids discussing addiction. Through deeper policy mechanisms, including cooking classes and nutritional biology by the implementation of nourishing, low-carbohydrate cooked school lunches.

With officials uninformed, it’s easy to see why funding for Green Prescriptions that would support dietary changes have sputtered out. It’s easy to understand why neither the Ministry of Health nor Pharmac have proactively sourced multi-nutrient treatments that improve resilience to stress and trauma for low-income young people. Why there’s no discussion on a lower side-effect risk for multinutrient treatments. Why are there no policies in the education curriculum diving into the relationship between ultra-processed food and mental and physical health? It’s not in the work programme.

There’s another surfacing dilemma.

Currently, if doctors tell their patients that there is very good evidence that their disease or syndrome could be reversed, and this information is not held as factual information by New Zealand’s Ministry of Health – do doctors risk being accused of spreading misinformation?

Government agencies have pivoted in the past 5 years to focus intensively on the problem of dis- and misinformation. New Zealand’s disinformation project states that

Disinformation is false or modified information knowingly and deliberately shared to cause harm or achieve a broader aim.
Misinformation is information that is false or misleading, though not created or shared with the direct intention of causing harm.
Unfortunately, as we see, there is no division inside the Ministry of Health that reviews the latest evidence in the scientific literature, to ensure that policy decisions correctly reflect the latest evidence.

There is no scientific agency outside the Ministry of Health that has flexibility and the capacity to undertake autonomous, long-term monitoring and research in nutrition, diet, and health. There is no independent, autonomous, public health research facility with sufficient long-term funding to translate dietary and nutritional evidence into policy, particularly if it contradicted current policy positions.

Despite excellent research being undertaken, it is highly controlled, ad hoc, and frequently short-term. Problematically, there is no resourcing for those scientists to meaningfully feedback that information to either the Ministry of Health or to Members of Parliament and government Ministers.

Dietary guidelines can become locked in, and contradictions can fail to be chewed over. Without the capacity to address errors, information can become outdated and misleading. Government agencies and elected members – from local councils all the way up to government Ministers, are dependent on being informed by the Ministry of Health, when it comes to government policy.

When it comes to complex health conditions, and alleviating and reversing metabolic or mental illness, based on different patient capacity – from socio-economic, to cultural, to social, and taking into account capacity for change, what is sound, evidence-based information and what is misinformation?

In the impasse, who can we trust?

Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.

Author

J.R. Bruning is a consultant sociologist (B.Bus.Agribusiness; MA Sociology) based in New Zealand. Her work explores governance cultures, policy and the production of scientific and technical knowledge. Her Master’s thesis explored the ways science policy creates barriers to funding, stymying scientists’ efforts to explore upstream drivers of harm. Bruning is a trustee of Physicians & Scientists for Global Responsibility (PSGR.org.nz). Papers and writing can be found at TalkingRisk.NZ and at JRBruning.Substack.com and at Talking Risk on Rumble.

View all posts
Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work.

https://brownstone.org/articles/the-silent-shame-of-health-institutions/

https://revolver.news/2024/03/cannibalism-murder-the-fall-of-haiti-first-nation-founded-on-dei/
A gang leader named "Barbecue" is the most powerful man in Haiti.
A cannibal-themed neighborhood cookout....

Lawsuit Claiming COVID-19 Jab Is a 'Biological Weapon' Docketed by Florida Supreme Court
Writ of mandamus calls for halt in distribution of COVID vaccine "weapons of mass destruction."

Jon Fleetwood

In an extraordinary legal move, the Florida Supreme Court has accepted into its system a writ of mandamus that presents a grave portrayal of COVID-19 vaccines, characterizing them as “biological weapons” and “weapons of mass destruction.”

Share Jon Fleetwood


Follow Jon Fleetwood on Instagram @realjonfleetwood / Twitter @JonMFleetwood


A ‘writ of mandamus’ is a court order compelling a party to perform a specific legal duty.

The petitioner, Joseph Sansone (MS, PhD), brings the action with serious accusations regarding the vaccines’ safety, efficacy, and legality.

The case was docketed on Monday under the case number SC2024-0327.

Dr. Sansone’s petition pulls no punches, declaring that “COVID-19 injections have caused countless deaths, permanent injury, and disability.”

He demands immediate action, stating that “the COVID-19 injections are dangerous” and that it is therefore “the duty of the Governor and Attorney General to act immediately to prohibit their distribution.”

The urgency of the matter is underscored as Sansone argues it “is incumbent on this Court to compel the Governor and Attorney General to act immediately.”

A critical aspect of the petition revolves around the scrutiny of the mainstream public health campaign concerning coronavirus jabs.

According to the writ, “A massive mass media and government campaign promoting ‘COVID-19 vaccines’ as safe and effective ‘vaccines’ to prevent infection targeted Florida’s population of approximately 22 million people. This campaign narrative was false and misleading and has led to numerous deaths, permanent injury, and disability.”

Share Jon Fleetwood


Follow Jon Fleetwood on Instagram @realjonfleetwood / Twitter @JonMFleetwood


Sansone’s claim extends to the foundation of the vaccine’s approval process through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

“It is well-established that the FDA clinical trials for the COVID-19 injections were not designed to clinically or statistically demonstrate that the COVID-19 nanoparticle injections prevent infection, prevent transmission, or protect against disease, hospitalizations, and death,” he states.

The foundation of Sansone’s argument hinges on the belief that these shots, due to “shedding,” whereby components of the vaccine are shed from the vaccinated onto the unvaccinated, “pose a risk of harm, including death and disability, to all Floridians whether ‘vaccinated’ or ‘unvaccinated.’”

He goes further, saying, “Every Floridian, including members of this Court, and likely the Respondents, were lied to—COVID-19 injections are not safe, nor are they effective.”

Also central to the writ’s claim is the assertion that “COVID-19 injections containing engineered mRNA nanoparticle technologies meet the legal definition of biological weapons” and “meet the exact criteria of weapons of mass destruction.”

“The facts of this case evidenced above demonstrate nanotechnology present in the COVID-19 injections which do qualify as a device designed and intended to cause harm, as does the use of such technology, and or a biological agent, resulting in death or harm. Repeatedly distributing a biological agent or device causing harm in mass, especially after it is well known to cause harm, qualifies it as a weapon of mass destruction and a biological weapon.”

The legal statutes cited in the petition are broad and encompassing, aiming to leverage “Biological Weapons 18 USC § 175; Weapons and Firearms § 790.166 Fla. Stat. (2023); Federal Crime of Treason 18 USC § 2381; Treason § 876.32 Fla. Stat. (2023); Domestic Terrorism, 18 USC § 2331, Terrorism § 775.30 Fla. Stat. (2023); Murder § 782.04 (1)(a) Fla. Stat. (2023); and Genocide 18 USC §1091.”

Through these laws, Sansone seeks an order to “immediately prohibit the distribution, promotion, access and administration of COVID-19 injections, mRNA nanoparticle injections, and all mRNA products in the State of Florida.”

Share Jon Fleetwood


Follow Jon Fleetwood on Instagram @realjonfleetwood / Twitter @JonMFleetwood


This stance is supported by resolutions from “approximately 10 Florida Republican County Political Parties,” calling for a ban on the injections and analysis of their contents.

Dr. Francis Boyle, a key figure in the drafting of the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972, is cited as endorsing the resolution, adding significant weight to Sansone’s arguments.

Sansone’s argument crescendos as he suggests that the stakes involve “the future existence of the human race itself.”

He firmly believes he has a “clear legal right to the requested relief,” positioning his request not just as a legal challenge but as a plea to “protect the public from biological and technological weapons of mass destruction and remove them from the market.”

Citing the fact that, “Since February 21, 2023, approximately 10 Florida Republican County Political Parties, representing millions of people, have passed resolutions declaring Covid 19 injections and mRNA injections biological and technological weapons,” the writ paints a dire picture of the possible threat posed by COVID jabs.

Sansone identifies himself as a victim, stating he “has been targeted with biological and technological weapons of mass destruction,” and expresses his advocacy not only for his rights but for “the millions of Floridians that have been targeted, including friends and family members.”

The petition also makes clear its aim of “not demanding the prosecution of individuals.”

Rather, the mandamus “simply seeks to compel the Governor and Attorney General to enforce the law and protect the public from biological and technological weapons of mass destruction and remove them from the market.”

This legal challenge marks a pivotal moment, thrusting the Florida Supreme Court into the center of a highly charged debate over public health, vaccine safety, and the legal categorization of these interventions.

As the court prepares to deliberate on this unprecedented case, the outcome could set a significant legal and ethical precedent concerning the response to pandemics and the regulation of vaccines.

You can read the full lawsuit here:

Share Jon Fleetwood


Follow Jon Fleetwood on Instagram @realjonfleetwood / Twitter @JonMFleetwood


https://telegra.ph/Lawsuit-Claiming-COVID-19-Jab-Is-a-Biological-Weapon-Docketed-by-Florida-Supreme-Court-03-11


Lawsuit Claiming COVID-19 Jab Is a 'Biological Weapon' Docketed by Florida Supreme Court

In an extraordinary legal move, the Florida Supreme Court has accepted a writ of mandamus that characterizes Covid-19 vaccines as “biological weapons” and “weapons of mass destruction.”

A ‘writ of mandamus’ is a court order compelling a party to perform a specific legal duty. The petitioner, Joseph Sansone (MS, PhD), brings the action with serious accusations regarding the vaccines’ safety, efficacy, and legality.

The case was docketed on Monday under the case number SC2024-0327.
Dr. Sansone’s petition pulls no punches, declaring that “COVID-19 injections have caused countless deaths, permanent injury, and disability.”

He demands immediate action, stating that “the COVID-19 injections are dangerous” and that it is therefore “the duty of the Governor and Attorney General to act immediately to prohibit their distribution.”

https://jonfleetwood.substack.com/p/lawsuit-claiming-covid-19-jab-is

The Legendary Lassie
The Journey Home
The story revolves around a Rough Collie named Lassie, who belongs to a struggling family in Depression-era Yorkshire, England. Due to financial hardships, the family is forced to sell Lassie to a wealthy Duke. However, Lassie's loyalty to her original family is unwavering. In a dramatic and emotional turn of events, Lassie embarks on an incredible journey to return to her beloved owners, overcoming numerous obstacles and challenges along the way.
How To Train Your Puppy.
https://www.digistore24.com/redir/434590/sarafraz/
Heartwarming Bonds
What makes Lassie's story truly iconic is the enduring bond between the loyal Collie and her human family. Lassie's determination, intelligence, and courage resonate with audiences, creating a narrative that transcends the boundaries of time and culture. The journey home becomes a metaphor for love, loyalty, and the unbreakable connection between humans and their furry companions.

Cinematic Legacy
Silver Screen Success
"Lassie Come-Home" was adapted into a highly successful film in 1943, starring Roddy McDowall and Elizabeth Taylor. The film's success catapulted Lassie to stardom, solidifying her place as an enduring symbol of devotion and loyalty. Subsequently, Lassie became the protagonist of a long-running television series, captivating generations of viewers with her intelligence, compassion, and knack for rescuing those in need.
Dog Health eBook + Tennis Ball Machine Automatic Throw Pet!
https://07d02a-3.myshopify.com/products/dog-health-ebook?variant=47648500711756#aff=sarafraz
Enduring Impact
Lassie's story has left an indelible mark on American popular culture, shaping the perception of dogs as not just pets but as integral members of the family. The character of Lassie has become synonymous with loyalty, courage, and the unwavering bond between humans and their canine companions. The iconic image of Lassie, with her distinctive rough coat and expressive eyes, continues to evoke a sense of nostalgia and warmth.

Conclusion
In the vast landscape of dog stories, Lassie's tale stands out as a cinematic masterpiece that has transcended generations. The enduring legacy of Lassie's journey home has ingrained itself in the hearts of viewers, reminding us of the profound impact that the bond between humans and dogs can have. Lassie's story remains a timeless tribute to the loyalty and love that our furry friends bring into our lives.

Full episode of Judicial Watch…

https://revolver.news/2024/02/full-episode-of-judicial-watch/

Watch this…

https://revolver.news/2024/02/watch-this-4/

Dissecting “Disease X” And The Pandemic Agreement
Derrick Broze
(TLAV) At the World Economic Forum‘s recent annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, a panel called “Preparing for Disease X” caught the eyes of researchers who are skeptical of the organization and their claimed mission of helping humanity and the planet. The panel included the World Health Organization’s Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus; Shyam Bishen, member of the WEF Executive Committee; and Nisia Trindade Lima, Brazil’s Minister of Health, among others.

“‘Disease X’ is a placeholder for unknown disease,” Tedros explained to the panel. “You may even call COVID as the first Disease X, and it may happen again.”

WHO Director-General Tedros referenced the WHO’s Pandemic agreement discussions, stating that countries need to unite against a “common enemy”.

“This is a common global interest, and very narrow national interest can get in the way,” Tedro stated. “Of course, national interest is natural, but it’s the narrow national interest that can be difficult and is affecting the negotiations even as we speak.”

The WHO’s 194 member nations are slated to meet in May to adopt some version of the WHO’s pandemic treaty and the International Health Regulations (IHR). Recent drafts of the proposed treaty indicate that it poses a threat to national sovereignty and decision making. Fears of loss of sovereignty have led some nations to push back against the agreement.

On Monday the United Nations noted that the Pandemic Agreement may not be finalized in May as planned. The news came from a WHO “Informal Session” on the agreement and IHR. During the session Tedros stated that time was “very short” to find consensus. Tedros specifically blamed “conspiracy theories” for the lack of progress on the agreement.

“The IHR working group are operating amidst a torrent of fake news, lies, and conspiracy theories. There are those who claim the pandemic agreement and IHR will cede sovereignty to WHO and give the WHO Secretary the power to impose lockdowns or vaccine mandates on countries,” Tedros stated. “You know this is fake news, lies, and conspiracy theories. You know these claims are completely false. You know the agreement will give the WHO no such powers. We cannot allow this historic agreement, this milestone in global health, to be sabotaged by those who spread lies.”

Tedros claimed the agreement “will not and can not” cede the sovereignty of member states over to the WHO. However, the language of the most recent draft makes it clear that member nations are expected to be bound by the provisions within the agreement. As you will see in a moment, documents from the 2017 G20 meeting make it clear the IHR are intended to be followed by member nations of the WHO.

What is Disease X?

The phrase “Disease X” has been going viral since the announcement of the WEF panel. The corporate media and the fact checkers have already done their part to assure the masses that it’s only “right wing extremists” who are worried about the talk of this unknown pathogen that could allegedly be “20 times” more deadly than the COVID-19 panic.

One of the reasons the internet is ablaze with talk of “Disease X” is because the public remembers the Event 201 exercise which took place in October 2019 and simulated a coronavirus pandemic sweeping the world 5 months before the world learned of what they would later call COVID-19. As TLAV has extensively reported, many elements of the Event 201 exercise became reality in 2020. Between 2020 and 2022, many people were banned from social media platforms for asking questions about Event 201.

Interestingly, Event 201 is also considered to be a test for “Disease X”, and, as noted by WHO Secretary Tedros, COVID-19 could be considered the first Disease X. Now, after the WEF panel discussing the allegedly upcoming “Disease X”, onlookers are wondering if the world should be prepared for another scamdemic.

So, where did the use of this phrase begin and what does it mean for 2024? This is a brief rundown of some of the various discussions of “Disease X”.

WEF 2017

In January 2017, the World Economic Forum announced the creation of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, or CEPI. The launch of CEPI at the 2017 WEF meeting involved the Wellcome Trust, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation — both of whom had major roles in the response to COVID-19, providing hundreds of millions of dollars in funding.

At the WEF 2019 meeting — one year before COVID-19 emerged — there was also discussion of “Disease X” on a panel titled “Disease X: Confronting a New Era of Biological Threats”. The panel was moderated by Jeffrey M. Drazen, Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, and included panelists Seth F. Berkley, CEO of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and Jeremy Farrar, Director of Wellcome Trust, with closing remarks by Wang Chen, President of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences.

G20 2017: 5C Health Emergency Simulation Exercise

The G20 held a pandemic simulation exercise known as ‘5C Health Emergency Simulation Exercise’ in Berlin, Germany in May 2017. The name “5C” refers to the five C-topics around which the exercise revolved: communication, collaboration, contributions, coordination and compliance. The simulation involved a fictional novel respiratory virus, the Mountain Associated Respiratory Syndrome (MARS) virus.

At the same meeting, the G20 released a statement titled “Berlin Declaration of the G20 Health Ministers: Together Today for a Healthy Tomorrow”, which made it clear that the World Health Organization expects member states to comply with the International Health Regulations (IHR).

In the Berlin Declaration, under the section focused on “compliance” it calls for stronger tools to force compliance from member states. It reads, “However, countries’ compliance with the IHR and with temporary recommendations issued under the IHR needs to be enhanced.” The document also states that “countries not fulfilling their obligations might be perceived by the international community to be violating international law and thus risk reputational damage”.

As the G20 noted in their declaration, the IHR were passed by the WHO in 2005 and went into effect in 2007. They are considered an “international legal instrument” that is binding on all WHO Member States.

“We acknowledge that efficient global health crisis management can only be ensured through compliance with the International Health Regulations (IHR). We will act accordingly within our obligations under the IHR and support the leadership and coordination of WHO in the event of health crises of international concern,” the document states.

It also says the signatories “affirm WHO’s central role as health cluster lead in particular within the United Nations (UN)”. All “stakeholders” are expected to be “involved in preventing, preparing for and responding to current and future health crises, guided by the leadership of WHO”.

Further, the document states that the “international community needs to fully support the WHO in order for the organization to be able to fulfill its role”.

It is these sorts of statements which have stoked fears of the WHO interfering with the sovereignty of member states.

2018: WHO Research Development Blueprint

In February 2018, the WHO launched the “2018 R&D Blueprint” to focus on diseases which are claimed to represent the highest likelihood of causing a future pandemic. Around this time the WHO added Disease X to the shortlist as a placeholder for a “knowable unknown” pathogen. The WHO said the name “represents the knowledge that a serious international epidemic could be caused by a pathogen currently unknown to cause human disease”. The WHO called for more financing and preparedness for the apparently inevitable future pandemic.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNN “experience has taught us more often than not the thing that is gonna hit us is something that we did not anticipate”.

October 2018: The Trudeau Institute War Game

In addition to Event 201, previous simulations of pandemics have also been touted as preparation for the future event known as “Disease X”. One such simulation took place in October 2018 in Saranac Lake, New York, at a gathering organized by the Trudeau Institute and the State University of New York Upstate Medical University titled, ‘‘Translational Immunology Supporting Biomedical Countermeasure Development for Emerging Vector-Borne Viral Diseases.”

At this gathering a group of biomedical scientists conducted a “war game” for the fictional Disease X. The attendees included basic scientists, physician-scientists, science support professionals, and organizations and institutions with “experience and expertise in identifying and working to solve major global health problems”.

Keynote speakers included representatives from the International Vaccine Institute (IVI), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH).

The scientists concluded that the key to preventing a “global health disaster” resulting from Disease X is to pull “existing public health organizations together in a coordinated, vigorous and sustained effort” to deliver a “safe and effective vaccine”. They called for “leveraging pre-developed vaccine platforms such as injectable formulations of DNA, self-replicating RNA, recombinant proteins and viral vectors”.

March 2020: COVID-19

After the WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic we continued to see references to Disease X from numerous scientific journals and health organizations. In March 2020, The Lancet published a study titled “Disease X: accelerating the development of medical countermeasures for the next pandemic“. A couple months later a paper titled “The Next Pandemic: Prepare for ‘Disease X’” was published in the West Journal of Emerging Medicine.

2021: Disease X Medical Countermeasure Program

By 2021, John Hopkins University’s Center for Health Security launched the Disease X Medical Countermeasure Program. The program was said to “leverage technologies and vaccine platforms most suitable to the viral families that are likely to cause future catastrophic disease outbreaks”.

2022: WHO Updates Their “Research & Development Blueprint”

In November 2022, the WHO announced the launch of a global scientific process to update the list of “priority pathogens” to guide global investment, research, and development (R&D), especially in vaccines, tests, and treatments.

The WHO convened over 300 scientists to consider the evidence on over 25 virus families and bacteria, including “Disease X.” The scientists made recommendations for which priority pathogens needed further research and investment.

2023: Disease X Act of 2023

In June 2023, Congresswoman Lori Trahan of Massachusetts introduced the “Disease X Act of 2023” calling for expanding “the priorities of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) to specifically include viral threats that have the potential to cause a pandemic”. BARDA was created in 2006 as a response to the claims of anthrax attacks in the United States. The agency has been compared to the controversial Department of Advanced Research and Projects Agency, or DARPA.

Trahan’s bill calls for establishing a Disease X Medical Countermeasures Program at BARDA by allowing the HHS to award contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements to “promote the development of Disease X medical countermeasures for viral families with pandemic potential”. The bill also calls for directing BARDA to “accelerate and support the advanced research, development, and procurement of countermeasures and products to address Disease X threats”.

May 2024: The WHO Pandemic Agreement

With only 3 months until the WHO’s official meeting to vote on the Pandemic Agreement, the clock is ticking for the Predator Class and their biomedical agenda. Will they succeed in forcing the agreement down the throats of skeptical nations? If so, will Disease X magically appear? Will the agreement actually lead to the loss of sovereignty?

The language in the agreement appears to be clear that nations will be expected to follow the guidelines and recommendations of the WHO during a claimed pandemic. Whether nations will comply and how exactly the WHO could enforce such measures remains to be seen, but the 2017 G20 Berlin Declaration specifically mentions peer pressure from other nations. This could come in the form of public statements or even financial pressure.

One thing is for certain: those who are paying attention need to know that 2024 is going to be a big year for the Predator Class as they finally attempt to cement their collectivist philosophy in a binding international agreement. Do whatever you can to spread the word and resist their attempts to strip nations and individuals of the right to decide how to respond to claimed health threats.

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/health/dissecting-disease-x-and-the-pandemic-agreement

https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/dissecting-disease-x-and-pandemic.html

New DNC Pipe-Bomb Video Can "Utterly Demolish The Jan6 Narrative": Darren Beattie
"If the Republicans step up, if the speaker steps up, if the relevant congressional figures step up, this is the chance to utterly demolish the January 6th narrative that the regime is using to weaponize the national security state against the American people, and to take Trump off the ballot."

Having acquitted himself extremely well (and calmly) during the ZeroHedge Debate on January 6th, Darren Beattie brandished his considerable tome of facts to discuss with Tucker Carlson the impact of newly-released footage surrounding the pipe-bomb incidents of January 6th (well 5th).

Carlson begins by quite appropriately pointing out the fact that the FBI's ongoing efforts to apprehend those involved (or not) in the Capitol riot contrasts greatly with their apparent inability to identify the person responsible for the pipe bombs:

"The FBI wants you to know that if you were there, you can't hide," highlighting the extensive use of surveillance technology in these efforts.

Except if you hide in plain sight...



Beattie's analysis of the discovery of the DNC pipe bomb, published on Jan. 18 by Revolver.news raises questions about the authorities' response to the bomb at the DNC.

The video shows a man (circled in red in the photo below) - now identified by congressional investigators as an undercover US Capitol Police officer - approached an SUV owned by the Metropolitan Police Department just after 1:05 p.m. on Jan. 6.

Then he walked to an adjacent dark SUV belonging to the Secret Service and spoke to someone in the driver’s seat, Revolver reported.

The vehicle was parked in a driveway of the DNC building at the intersection of Canal Street Southeast and South Capitol Street Southeast in Washington D.C.



But, as Beattie points out, their response is described as "utterly unconcerned."

"What the individual in the backpack is doing is alerting the Metro PD and the Secret Service of the fact that there is a pipe bomb just feet away," underlining the lack of urgency in their actions.

As Joseph Hanneman details, the undercover officer walked off camera back toward the park bench and the bomb at 1:06:34 p.m., the video shows.

Two occupants of the MPD vehicle exited the SUV at 1:07:25, and a third emerged 35 seconds later.

The driver went back into the vehicle to retrieve a COVID mask.

The first indication on Capitol Police radio dispatch that the DNC bomb had been discovered came at 1:07 p.m., according to audio files obtained by The Epoch Times.

“987-Adam, I’m going to declare a 10-100 at the DNC as well,” an officer broadcast on the OPS2 radio channel. “Similar device as was found at the RNC as well. Advising the units on scene what’s going on.”

At 1:09 p.m., the security camera pivoted and zoomed in on the bench, indicating that the U.S. Capitol Police Command Center was aware of the bomb.

In fact, it took more than two minutes for the Secret Service detail protecting Vice President-elect Kamala Harris to visibly react to the presence of the bomb.

Ms. Harris was inside the DNC building at the time the bomb was discovered.

A group of children were allowed to walk near the bench where the bomb sat after the undercover officer discovered the device, Revolver reported.



Children walk past the Democratic National Committee and a pipe bomb (location marked with a circle) found minutes earlier by a Capitol Police undercover officer. (U.S. Capitol Police/Graphic by The Epoch Times)

In the nearly seven minutes after the undercover officer approached the Secret Service detail, the streets were not closed, the sidewalks were not cordoned off, and pedestrians were allowed to walk right past the bomb location, security video shows.

Agents walked back and forth on the driveway and sidewalk near the bomb, and one officer walked close enough to snap a photo of the device before waving at the other officers.

The FBI later determined the bomb was planted the night of Jan. 5, along with a similar device left in an alley near the Republican National Committee, which is where the conversation between Carlson and Beattie goes next.

Beattie mentions that the bomb was found by a pedestrian, Karlyn Younger, in a back alley with a timer set to go off at 1 p.m., coinciding with the certification of the electoral vote, raising questions about the intent and timing of the bomb placements:

"We're told that the RNC bomb was sitting behind a trash can in a back alley, undiscovered for over 16 hours, and yet was randomly stumbled on."

Beattie then discusses the characteristics of the bombs, noting that they were not designed for remote detonation, suggesting they were not intended to explode but rather serve as a diversion.

He also questions how the discoverers of the bombs could be so accurately timed, noting:

"The person who planted the bombs presumably would have had to count or just simply be the luckiest person alive."

In conclusion, Beattie and Carlson discuss the political implications of the January 6th narrative and the lack of thorough investigation into the pipe bombs.

As we started with at the top of this note, Beattie emphasizes the importance of challenging the official narrative, particularly in the context of the upcoming 2024 election.

Watch the abridged discussion below:


Watch the full interview here at TCN...

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/new-dnc-pipe-bomb-video-can-utterly-demolish-jan6-narrative-darren-beattie

The plot of ‘Leave The World Behind’ revolves around a catastrophic collapse in the US triggered by a cyber attack (and mass drone attack) that shuts down the internet and disrupts the global economy.

Another narrative poised to gain prominence between 2024 and 2026 revolves around eco-friendly and scalable Proof of Work (POW) chains, optimizing transaction speed (TPS) and finality, coupled with robust smart contract functionality.

Have a blessed Day ???? #Revolve #PelicanHillResort