"Hey there, fellow Somee.social members! As I'm diving into this awesome platform, I thought it'd be fun to kick things off with a little poll! Here's a question to get us started:

What's your favorite thing about Somee.social so far?

Drop your vote in the comments below, and let's see what resonates most with everyone! Can't wait to hear your thoughts! #Poll #CommunityEngagement"

The Truth About Disease No One's Talking About
It's simple and straightforward, we know what causes them all and that means we can fix them

Dr. Syed Haider
A simple line drawing showing a devilish baby sitting on one side of a scale and an angelic cherub sitting on the other side. The devilish baby has little horns, a mischievous smile, and a tiny pitchfork. The angelic cherub has a halo, wings, and a sweet expression. The scale is balanced, and the background is blank. The drawing uses light, thin lines to suggest details, with most of the area taken up by empty white space.
This is the truth about health and disease.

Most people either don’t understand where disease really comes from and how to get rid of it, or they’ve never really thought through what they do believe about it.

Once you think it through you may find that what you thought you understood or believed is not actually rational. Or maybe your approach to it is isn’t.

People aren’t always rational, and that’s fine as long as they know it.

But in the case of disease the powers that be have purposely obfuscated the truth for profit.

The truth itself isn’t profitable.

Now some people will already know what I’m going to spell out here, but in my experience they still don’t always apply that knowledge in practice, and the reason seems to be that they haven’t fully understood all the implications, and maybe they are still missing pieces of the full picture.

In any event it pays to examine the subject, especially since it’s so near and dear to us.

The one who reads through this and still persists in opposition to the principles outlined, without providing any rational argument against them, yet citing “authorities” and “science” as their support, seems to me similar to those distant ancestors who believed illness stemmed from evil spirits, and as their support cited the “authorities” and “science” of their own time.

A very minimal black and white line drawing of a newspaper cartoon showing a sick patient lying in a hospital bed in the background. In the foreground, an older doctor is speaking with two younger doctors about the patient. The drawing has only the suggestion of shapes with very light, thin lines and no large black areas. The background is completely white, with faint lines indicating the characters and setting. The cartoon has a light-hearted, humorous tone typical of newspaper comics.
THERE COULD BE ANY NUMBER OF CAUSES FOR THIS CONDITION, PERHAPS HE BROKE A MIRROR, OR WALKED UNDER A LADDER, OR SPILLED SOME SALT…

Scientism isn’t actually science.

Calling it science doesn’t make it science.

The science supports what I’m going to outline here, and yet the implications of the clear, well-established and not that new science are ignored for profit and will continue to be ignored for profit as long as most people remain unaware of it.

So to get on with it: illness and health just come down to a balance between “toxins” and “nutrients”.

That’s because we live in a rational universe governed by knowable causes and effects.

More toxins, less nutrients: you get sick.

Shift the balance back far enough and eventually you get better.

That’s because the human body is designed to heal automatically when something isn’t preventing it and when it has the requisite building blocks at hand.

Thank you for reading Dr. Syed Haider. This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

Cut yourself and you heal, you don’t have to apply healing cream to make yourself heal, you just do.

We used to think this didn’t apply to every tissue, like the heart or the brain were exceptions, and then we realized they can also heal and regrow, it just takes longer and may require more effort (with nerves the principle “use it or lose it” changes after an injury to: keep trying to use it or never regain it).

But if you keep cutting yourself in the same spot every day, you’ll never heal no matter how much Neosporin you slather on.

Cutting doesn’t sound like a toxin, so we should define what is meant by a toxin and a nutrient, at least for the purposes of this discussion, where I’m trying to categorize everything at a high level into two opposing buckets.

So what I mean by “toxin” is anything that opposes health and by “nutrient” anything that supports it.

What are all those toxins and nutrients?

How can we go about determining what they might be?




A useful framework for thinking about the question begins with considering that the optimal environment for the human body that should lead to a healthy state of being is the natural environment of this planet.

The environment the body is designed for, whether by natural evolution or intelligent design, or whatever your preferred world view might be.

If a space alien came from a distant planet with an entirely different environment what is the likelihood they would be healthy on earth or any other random rock in the universe? Obviously they are optimized for the environment they originated in.

The idea that something within that environment is by its very nature toxic to them would seem absurd.

Yet people here on earth think that the sun itself is toxic. Some dermatologists recommend applying sunscreen even if you’re just going from your house to the car, or your car to the office.

We know some humans live in physical and social environments closer to the optimal and are therefore much healthier on average. They are outdoors more, exposed to fewer industrial chemicals, eat cleaner, more natural foods. When they move to unnatural environments that foster disease, their health and the health of their offspring deteriorates.

Just like a fish in a dirty fishbowl will be less healthy than one in a clean fishbowl which will be less healthy than one in the ocean it was designed to inhabit, the same goes for human beings.

Improvement and moving concept with a goldfish jumping from a dirty aquarium to a clean one
I AM SO OVER THIS DIRTY FISHBOWL. HEALTHY ME HERE I COME.
So we don’t have statin deficiencies, we have environment deficiencies.

Most people would agree with a lot of what’s been said so far, excepting the sun perhaps, since it’s been so thoroughly pounded into us that it causes cancer, which brings me to my next point.

What makes this topic more complicated is that there are many toxins and nutrients that people don’t usually consider to be such, because they’ve been profoundly miseducated about the way the world works, because there was a time when science had not yet uncovered the mechanistic means by which all these things benefit and harm, so in our eternal hubris we assumed our ancestors were idiots and we knew better.

Now we actually do know better - than many of those in our parents and grandparents generations who thought they knew better than the people who came before who really did know better all along - but old lies die hard: one funeral at a time. And new truths are hard won, by slow awakenings, one doc at a time.

So, along with sunlight lets uncover some more misunderstood or even unknown toxins and nutrients.

On the “toxin” side: nocebo effects can come from your thoughts and beliefs. Negative emotions can physically harm you.

These aren’t fantasies, they are physical realities, because the mind affects the brain affects the body and it’s been proven time and again by real scientists, if you don’t believe it you just have to go read up on it, because not knowing it can kill you, or at least keep you very sick for a very long time.

There are also many other toxins that most don’t consider like pervasive heavy metals, pesticides, plastics, and various other chemicals, artificial light exposure, other non native electromagnetic field (nnEMF) exposures, etc (all of which can be avoided to some extent and in the case of those harbored within us, gotten rid of to a great enough degree that your body is no longer significantly harmed by them).

Image of It's the fluorescents.
On the “nutrient” side these are frequently disregarded: sun, relaxation, just turning off, real intimacy and a lot of it, deep sleep, grounding, timing of food, positive thoughts and emotions, nature in all its glory (eg “forest bathing”), fresh air, clean and perhaps even “structured” water, etc.

If people do become aware of these and become convinced they might have some benefit or harm in them, they still think to themselves: yeah, but how much can it really matter to me after all?

How much can it possibly move the needle?

The answer is surprising: seemingly insignificant things can sometimes make all the difference.

When a woman eats most of her calories can dramatically affect her risk of PCOS and it’s severity.

If she has bigger breakfasts and smaller dinners it lowers insulin resistance, raises ovulation frequency, and lowers testosterone levels.

A team of scientists from University of Aberdeen has found ways of controlling people's meals to compare the impact of a large breakfast or a large dinner.
How much intimacy you have in your life can mean the difference between having a heart attack or not (up to half the incidence of heart disease might be linked to intimacy alone).

How many intimate relationships you have is the number one predictor of how long you live.

Oh, yeah let’s not forget the much maligned sun.

AKA the glorious fusion-reactor-in-the-sky-energy-source for all life on this planet.

If the sun winked out everything, everywhere would die.

How much sun exposure a population has predicts all manner of health outcomes from diabetes to cancer to obesity to heart disease and more.

Not that more sun makes you sicker.

The more sun the better.

And it’s not vitamin D levels that make the difference, because profit driven supplement manufacturers made sure to get that hypothesis tested and it failed - i.e. supplementing vitamin D didn’t achieve the profound effects seen in populations that have high vitamin D due to sun exposure (sure, maybe they didn’t take enough, or took too much, but that’s one of the basic problems with supplementation - it bypasses the bodies feedback loops and can cause it’s own problems too - eg I’ve seen multiple patients who over supplemented D and ended up with immune dysfunction up to and including new autoimmune disease, even though autoimmune disease is thought to be caused by low D, that low D may actually be a helpful maneuver by the body due to the disease itself and evidence does not show improvement of autoimmunity with D supplementation, rather evidence suggests that supplementation worsens it!).

Share

The point is that it’s definitely not just vitamin D that’s important in populations with high D, because in nature when you get vitamin D you get so much more than just vitamin D at the same time.

It is sunlight sufficiency that’s important, because sunlight that isn’t filtered by modern window glass (that blocks crucial invisible wavelengths) has dramatic biological effects beyond just raising vitamin D: it lowers blood viscosity, dramatically improves mitochondrial activity and health, improves sleep timing and depth, improves the gut microbiome, raises the right hormones at the right times, activates certain otherwise dormant hormonal pathways, and much more, probably including many things we still don’t fully understand.


YOU NEED ANYTHING? TEA, COFFEE … VITAMIN D?

And there are many more idiosyncratic relationships between seemingly insignificant lifestyle choices and your health that can be highly specific to you and not most other people.

But, the good new is that 95% or more of what you need to focus on is well known and basically generic to everyone.

So, if this is all rational and logical and doable, why don’t people believe it will work?

Why even after reading this will people still not do anything different?

Because they have heard the message every day of their lives in so many ways from so many people that the cause of disease is some deep mystery.

The old Nazi propaganda secret that’s not so secret any more: a big enough lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.

How many news articles have you seen in your life that bemoan the lack of understanding of xyz disease? What causes it? How to treat it? Scientists just don’t know!

We must spend more money researching it!


GEORGE, RUMOR HAS IT THAT YOU’RE CLOSING IN ON A CURE FOR CANCER, AND I WANTED TO REMIND YOU THAT OUR RESEARCH FUNDING SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS THAT!
AS ALWAYS THANKS FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE COMPANY AND OUR SHAREHOLDERS.

That’s just a big fat lie: the truth is the only thing the establishment doesn’t know is how best to monetize it, which is the sole purpose of every dollar of government-funded, industry-directed research.

We know what causes illness and health.

There are only so many things that populate a very short list that can possibly account for both.


PS. The basics are simple, but things do get complicated rather quickly, especially when people go to doctors who misinterpret their symptoms and labs as something “wrong” rather than as maneuvers around a bad situation that are usually benefitting the patient.

Patients are given wrongheaded “solutions” instead of addressing root causes and in many instances just helping the body in its attempt to overcome those root causes.

The body fighting off root causes is usually seen as a disease in itself.

One of the best examples of this being a viral infection - all the symptoms are due to your own immune system getting rid of the virus - suppressing those symptoms just lets the virus get a stronger foothold inside you.

Many of the symptoms we consider illnesses are similar attempts by the body to root out something that’s gotten in.

Resolving complex multilayered problems involving many previous wrong moves is like this:

Imagine a brash upstart chess player who has a couple years of study and gampelay under their belt goes to Central Park and sti down to play with one of the scruffy looking beggars. He thinks how hard can this be and bets big on the outcome. Quickly he realizes he has been taken for a fool and is far outmatched. The longer he plays the worse it gets. At some point he bows out and brings in a really skilled replacement to help him. The farther along the game is, the harder it will be for the skilled replacement to correct the situation.

In reality almost every doctor is playing checkers, not realizing their actually in a game of chess.

If you’re ready to let a grandmaster take over the board, the best in the world is Hakim Shabaz.


I’m not prone to hyperbole so when I say he is in a league of his own I mean it.

Practically speaking that will sometimes mean that what he recommends seems weird, but cell phones would have seemed weird 300 years ago, it doesn’t mean they don’t work, it just means we’re too far behind to understand what’s going on.

Either do the work to understand enough to believe deeply that the approach will work, or take a leap of faith.

Either way just do it.

Consult The Hakim

https://blog.mygotodoc.com/p/the-truth-about-disease-no-ones-talking

The Fed's "Doomsday Book" Has Been Revealed
The Corbett Report

by James Corbett
corbettreport.com
May 26, 2024

Back in 2011, shareholders of insurance giant American International Group (AIG) filed a $40 billion class action lawsuit against the US government over the terms of its controversial bailout of AIG during the 2008 financial crisis.

In 2014, the trial case came to focus on an intriguing oddity. In cross-examination, the plaintiffs learned of a set of documents that the New York Fed—the heart of America's Federal Reserve central bank and the primary wheeler-dealer in the chaotic days of the global financial collapse—dramatically refers to as its "Doomsday Book."

This book, it was discovered, contained the various legal opinions and memoranda that the Fed used to determine what power it has to manipulate the financial system in the event of a large-scale crisis. And, it seemed, there was a good chance that the central broke its own rules with all its bailout shenanigans and financial sleight-of-hand during the 2008 collapse.

However, the plaintiffs' reasonable request to see the book and examine these supposed emergency powers was immediately rebuffed by the Fed. New York Fed lawyer John S. Kiernan, for example, was adamant that the Fed would not open up the book for the court. "Of the tens of thousands of documents that we have produced in this case, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has sought to retain confidentiality because of the internal sensitivity of only this one," he told the United States Court of Federal Claims.

The court was eventually able to pry the relevant documents out of the Fed's clutches, but the Doomsday Book has remained under court seal for years . . . until now.

Late last year, an enterprising researcher managed to get his hands on a copy of the elusive book. And what that book contains should shock you (if you're paying attention).

What Is The Doomsday Book?


The very first thing to note about the "Doomsday Book" is that you can now read it for yourself! . . . kind of. I'll get into that qualification in a bit. But first, I do recommend you download the publicly available content for yourself. You can download it as a PDF file from The Wall Street Journal website HERE.

And, since Corbett Reporteers might not like to give WSJ their traffic (and because these types of files have a pesky habit of disappearing down the internet rabbit hole), I've also gone ahead and preserved a copy on my server HERE! (You're welcome!) Still, you never know when/if/how information online will go missing or become inaccessible, so don't dither. Download it now, while you can!

Alright, now that you have a copy saved locally, here's the first question: what is the doomsday book, exactly?

The short answer—taken from an article announcing its release last December—is that the doomsday book is "an internal document used to guide the Federal Reserve’s actions during emergencies."

The longer answer is that the Doomsday Book is not a book at all. Instead, it's a collection of documents, legal opinions and memoranda that have been assembled and maintained by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) over the course of decades. It was first compiled in the 1990s and has been revised four times, thus creating five versions of the "book" (that we know of). The latest version is Version 5.0 and it includes extensive revisions to various memoranda and opinions—revisions that were made to reflect the legal and regulatory changes wrought by the 2010 Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (see the "Note on Legal Evolution" on page 46 of the PDF document).

According to the Prefatory Matters section of the latest revision (page 44 of the PDF document):

The Doomsday Book is intended to help lawyers of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York aid their clients in crisis management. It was originally distributed to a limited set of lawyers and select senior staff members. This has changed with time, as more lawyers are drawn into crisis management. Now, all FRBNY lawyers receive a copy of the Doomsday Book.

The same passage also explains that the book "is not intended as an 'off-the-shelf' solution to any particular crisis" but as a "playbook" of general advice that may require modification depending on the circumstances.

So, the next question to be answered is . . .

How Did The Doomsday Book Get Released?


As indicated above, the Doomsday Book first came to the public's attention during the 2014 Starr International Co. v. United States trial, in which AIG shareholders were suing the government over the Fed's questionable bailout practices. (If you need a primer on that trial to bring you up to speed, you're in luck! I wrote an article about the case and its startling conclusion in these very pages nine years ago!)

During the trial, Timothy Geithner—who was president of the FRBNY during the global financial collapse—not only confirmed the existence of the book, but admitted that he relied on it to guide his actions in the crisis. “It’s kind of a big, fat binder,” he told the court, adding that “we did occasionally go back and consult it as things were eroding around us. . . . It was a reference material that described precedent and authority.”

And, as also noted above, although the plaintiffs' lawyers were able to get their hands on a copy of the book's index, the Fed successfully petitioned the court to keep the documents under court seal. Some quotations from the book were read into the court record during testimony, but, aside from that, no specific information on the documents was forthcoming.

Enter Emre Kuvvet. He's a Professor of Finance at Nova Southeastern University who, recognizing the importance of this elusive emergency operations document, filed a Freedom of Information Act request to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the book . . . and was promptly rejected. Not one to give up so easily, Kuvvet then filed a simple Freedom of Information request with the FRBNY and—"for reasons unknown to me," as Kuvvet wryly observes—was duly provided the 122-page document that you just downloaded.

Now, in order to understand why the FRBNY's compliance with this request is so unusual, you have to understand the difference between the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System—the twelve-member panel appointed by the US president and confirmed by the US Senate to oversee the Federal Reserve System—and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York—the most powerful of the twelve regional banks that are responsible for the banking operations of the Federal Reserve System.

If you need a refresher on the deliberately confusing structure of the United States' "decentralized central bank," might I humbly suggest that you watch (or re-watch) Century of Enslavement: The History of The Federal Reserve? If and when you do so, you will see for yourself the moment when Federal Reserve Board Senior Counsel Yvonne Mizusawa argues in court that the Federal Reserve Regional Banks (not the Board) are private banks and thus not "persons under FOIA."

In other words, the Federal Reserve argues that the records of the Fed's regional banks—including their legal opinions, memoranda, internal records and, of course, the New York Fed's coveted Doomsday Book—are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. However, no doubt concerned with the optics created by an un-FOIA-able central bank, the FRBNY has a "Freedom of Information Requests" page on its website in which it boasts that "the New York Fed is committed to complying with the spirit of FOIA and has had a Freedom of Information Policy or related practice for decades."

In other words, the New York Fed does not believe itself to be legally obligated to give up any of its precious documents . . . but it might occasionally choose to do so if you ask nicely. Accordingly, the FRBNY provided Kuvvet with versions 4.1 (2006) and 5.0 (2012) of the book's index. He then set to work writing an extensive article about the documents, "What Is in the Federal Reserve’s Doomsday Book?" (paywalled content), which was published in the Spring 2024 edition of The Independent Review.

The title of Kuvvet's article raises another very good question, namely . . .

What Is In The Doomsday Book?


Remember when I said you can download the book for yourself . . . kind of? Well, here's the rub: the 122-page PDF document that was released in 2022 and is now available for download is not the full collection of documents. Rather, what has been released is an introduction to the book.

Spread out over more than 100 pages, this introduction includes an extensive index of the contents of the full book; a listing of the titles and dates of the various agreements, memos and opinions that form the full collection; the Fed's own internal notes explaining what the collection is; an explanation of what the various sections of the book contain; and even an especially revealing explanatory passage containing the frank admission that "the powers of a Federal Reserve Bank are far greater than is commonly supposed" (page 33).

The latest version of the Doomsday Book introduction reveals that the book consists of three volumes:

Volume I – Pre-2008 Legal Documents

Volume II – Post-2008 Legal Documents

Volume III – Memoranda

For a complete listing of what documents are contained in each volume and what subject each document covers, you can browse through the confusing and repetitive PDF document or you can read Kuvvet's article for a more logical (if still ponderous) listing.

The introduction to Version 4.1, however, does helpfully break down the legal memoranda in the book into broad categories of memo:

"Powers Opinions," which "discuss the legal authority of Federal Reserve Banks to provide various kinds of emergency services and facilities that they are not in the habit of providing under ordinary circumstances";

"History and Policy," documenting the history of the Federal Reserve's policy decisions and previous emergency actions;

"Operational Issues," which "discuss legal aspects of operational issues, and are probably mostly of interest to attorneys";

"Bankruptcy and Insolvency Law Issues," dealing with the legal risk of lending to bankrupt or insolvent firms;

"International Issues," dealing with the cross-border operations the Fed might employ during international crises;

Etc.

As for the agreements, memoranda and opinions themselves, there are some incredibly interesting documents listed that no doubt contain many valuable nuggets of information about the Fed's internal processes.

For the policy wonks and financial eggheads in the crowd, the agreements contained in the book provide a wealth of data on what the Fed believes it is empowered to do during times of crisis. As Kuvvet notes in his "What Is in the Federal Reserve’s Doomsday Book?" article, for instance:

In the Section 13(13) Lending Agreement subsection, the FRBNY states that the section 13(13) lending authority can be useful for nonbank government securities dealers. The FRBNY believes that Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to accept ineligible collateral to supplement eligible collateral.

Conspiracy realists, meanwhile, will no doubt be intrigued by the "Chronology of Events at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York After the World Trade Center Attack" in the "History and Policy" section of the book. According to the Fed's own description on page 35 of the PDF, the document "begins with the morning of September 11, 2001 and concludes with the full resumption of operations on September 24" and "discusses all significant events: financial, operational and humanitarian."

So, how does the New York Fed's internal history of the 9/11 false flag differ from the public version—"The Federal Reserve's Response to the Sept. 11 Attacks"—on the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis' website? Does it include information on the puzzling monetary events taking place in the lead-up to those attacks—events that include the largest June-August spike in the currency component of the M1 money supply in half a century? Does it hold the clue to the Die Hard 3-esque gold heist that may or may not have taken place in New York on the day of the attacks?

Good questions!

Unfortunately, until such time as some intrepid reporter, professor of finance or Corbett Reporteer jumps through the hoops of the New York Fed's Freedom of Information Requests process and pries this specific document—or any of the other documents listed in the Doomsday Book index—from the bankster's clutches, we won't know for sure. After all, we only have the titles of these documents and a cursory description of them from the Doomsday Book's index.

All of this leads us to the most important question . . .

What Does It Mean?


The first-order takeaway from the Doomsday Book is that the Fed apparently believes that it has the authority to do quite a bit more in the event of an emergency than has been specifically authorized by the Federal Reserve Act.

For a line-by-line, blow-by-blow analysis of these presumed powers and the Fed's arguments surrounding them, I highly suggest reading Kuvvet's article. In it, you will learn, for instance, that the Fed believes it has the authority to bail out cities during "emergency situations" . . . whatever those are.

Surprisingly, the FRBNY states that section 13(3) lending authority extends to municipalities, and that there is an additional independent section 14(b)(1)17 lending authority for municipalities. Thus, the FRBNY considers that it has the legal authority to rescue municipalities in emergency situations. The Doomsday Book does not define what those “emergency situations” are.

Even more remarkably, the Fed also reserves the power to receive "equity kickers"—that is, take an ownership stake in a company and presumably even take over a company entirely—when engaged in emergency lending. This is the power that was under scrutiny during the aforementioned AIG shareholder lawsuit, Starr International Co. v. United States, and it raises the specter of the Fed taking over and potentially running companies or even vast swaths of the economy in the face of a truly catastrophic economic collapse.

Per Kuvvet:

Lenders receive equity kickers frequently to compensate for risk. The FRBNY received an equity kicker in the AIG loan. The FRBNY considers that the scope of the power to receive an equity kicker remains uncertain, particularly whether the National Bank Act restrictions on equity kickers apply to Reserve Banks. The memorandum titled “Equity Kickers and Reserve Bank Loans” contends that they do not. Lenders sometimes employ guarantees appurtenant to financial transactions, and often employ guarantees in workout contexts. The memoranda titled “AIG Loan Restructuring-Reserve Bank Powers” and “Authority of Reserve Banks to Issue Guarantees on Behalf of Depository Institutions” explore the limits of the guarantee power.

But perhaps the most brazen statement of the Fed's self-proclaimed emergency power comes in the section on "Powers Opinions" on page 33 of the Doomsday Book PDF.

The powers opinions discuss the legal authority of Federal Reserve Banks to provide various kinds of emergency services and facilities that they are not in the habit of providing under ordinary circumstances. [. . .] A constant theme runs through them all: the powers of a Federal Reserve Bank are far greater than is commonly supposed.

This is perhaps the most succinct statement of the banksters' arrogance that have ever been set to paper. In other words, the Fed's own internal document is gloating that the Fed reserves itself powers that the public do not know about and presumably would not approve of if they did. This does not trouble the Fed or its legal counsel in the slightest.

So, what are we to make of this galling arrogance?

Writing in The Hill, op-ed contributor Doug Branch—whose bio notes that he served as Deputy Staff Director of the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) and Deputy Chief of Staff to a Financial Services Subcommittee Chairman in the US government—predictably opines that what is needed is for the government to step in and rein in the Fed, passing legislation to "unambiguously authorize" those emergency powers that the Fed claims and that Congress deems necessary. Congress should also, in Branch's opinion "reserve the right to disapprove [of a Fed emergency power] through an after-action process."

Although Branch's answer sounds perfectly straightforward and reasonable—reasonable to statists who believe in The Most Dangerous Superstition, at least—it fails to grasp an extremely basic fact, one that governs all such "emergency powers" and "states of exception." Namely, the fact that power—especially emergency power—is a thing that is demonstrated, not codified.

Case in point: the Starr International Co. v. United States case in which the Doomsday Book's existence was first revealed. If you read my 2015 article on that case, you'll know that case's insane conclusion. The court ultimately ruled that the Fed had indeed overstepped its powers in the course of the AIG bailout . . . but imposed no penalty and awarded the prosecution nothing.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court concludes that the Credit Agreement Shareholder Class shall prevail on liability due to the Government’s illegal exaction, but shall recover zero damages, and that the Reverse Stock Split Shareholder Class shall not prevail on liability or damages.

Naturally, the Fed took this decision as vindication that it had acted legally.

The Federal Reserve strongly believes that its actions in the AIG rescue during the height of the financial crisis in 2008 were legal, proper and effective. The court's decision today in Starr International Company, Inc. v. the United States recognizes that AIG's shareholders are not entitled to compensation for that decision, and that the Federal Reserve's extension of credit to AIG prevented losses to millions of policyholders, small businesses, and American workers who would have been harmed by AIG's collapse during the financial crisis. The terms of the credit were appropriately tough to protect taxpayers from the risks the rescue loan presented when it was made.

This is how power operates. It acts—illegally if need be—and the judge comes along afterward to clean up the mess.

The fact that the Fed's powers have not been delineated down to the nth degree is a feature of the system that the banksters have created, not a bug, as Doug Branch suggests. The banksters who own and run the Fed and who control Congress through blackmail, bribery and extortion are not going to make the mistake of stating exactly what powers they do and don't possess. And they're certainly not going to allow such limitations on their powers to be codified into law. Instead, they will act as power always acts: unilaterally, unapologetically, and without asking for permission.

Sorry (not sorry) to burst your bubble, Mr. Branch, and all those other "common sense" thinkers who believe that government is the answer to the problem that was created by the (bankster-controlled) government, but there is no tinkering around the edges here. No amount of legislation is going to make the entire corrupt Federal Reserve System into anything other than the bankster cartel that it was designed to be.

No, we do not need to "rein in" the Fed or set up yet another government committee to try to codify its powers. We need to abolish the Fed itself and bring about a separation of money and state altogether. That is the real takeaway from the Fed Doomsday Book.

For enterprising researchers out there, I look forward to hearing about your own exploration of these documents and your own adventures with the FRBNY's "Freedom of Information Request" process.

The cockroaches always scurry from the light, so let's see if we can shine some more of it on this whole sordid mess.

Like this type of essay? Then you’ll love The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter, which contains my weekly editorial as well as recommended reading, viewing and listening. If you’re a Corbett Report member, you can sign in to corbettreport.com and read the newsletter today.

Not a member yet? Sign up today to access the newsletter and support this work.


https://open.substack.com/pub/corbettreport/p/the-feds-doomsday-book-has-been-revealed?r=29hg4d&utm_medium=ios

A better way to challenge scientific consensus
Are COVID vaccines safe? I think not, but the "scientific consensus" is that they are. How can we definitively determine who is right? I suggest a way using science!

Steve Kirsch
David Douglass quote: Truth in science is always determined from observational facts.
Executive summary

In this article, I suggest a simple way to resolve scientific disagreements on important issues.

The method is simple:

The two parties mutually agree on a series of experiments to resolve the conflict.

The experiments are designed so the results are reproducible, for example, by having several independent efforts doing the same thing.

Win or lose, the “mainstream view” party (who should be led by a prominent scientist in the field being explored) agrees to write up the results of the experiment(s) and submit it to a prominent peer-reviewed technical journal.

The “mainstream” party gets a large monetary award (a research grant) upon publication. The more prestigious the author, the higher the reward.

We pay all costs in addition to the reward for people’s time and to fund the experiment(s).

The idea is to make this “an offer that nobody can refuse.”

For example…

Suppose we want to prove whether vaccines cause autism.

The two parties could agree on two experiments and how they are carried out such as:

Gather data from a randomly selected list of parents of autistic kids which looks at the date the parents first noticed symptoms of ASD vs. the date of the most recent vaccination prior to the diagnosis.

Gather the same data from doctors who treat autistic kids.

The parties agree in advance what success (for each hypothesis) looks like.

The parties agree that if both experiments agree with each other on deciding the question that they will publicly accept the result as scientific truth going forward, until such time as there is more persuasive data showing otherwise.

If we set the reward at $1M and there are no takers, the question is resolved by default.

Did the COVID vaccines save lives?

This question is even easier to test. We pick hospitals at random and look at the vaccination rates of people hospitalized for COVID vs. the flu.

This is a simple, fair test.

Anyone rejecting attempts like this to expose the truth is not acting in good faith.

Summary

The problem with challenging scientific consensus is that the party with the mainstream beliefs simply ignores anyone who challenges them.

So it’s up to the challengers to get their attention.

By providing a large monetary incentive to create and execute a set of mutually agreeable scientific experiments to answer the question, we may be able to make progress on these intractable issues which have been unresolved for decades.

What’s new here is large monetary incentives combined with a mutually agreeable set of experiments.

This resolves the issue under investigation definitively.

Either: 1) the mainstream party accepts and we do the experiments or 2) the mainstream party refuses to engage in which case it is a tacit admission of defeat.

Either way, there is finally resolution on each issue explored.

Let me know what you think of this idea in the comments.

Share


https://kirschsubstack.com/p/a-better-way-to-challenge-scientific

Ultimate General Knowledge Challenge 50 Tricky Questions to Test Your Mind #quotes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3RRUQB_56Q&t=38s

How To Start a Freelance Business Video Upgrade

Starting a freelance business is not just as simple as waking up in the morning, rolling out of bed, and opening your laptop.

Freelancing is not just an easy way to monetize your hobbies and nor is it easier than a “proper” job.

Nevertheless, freelance work is some of the most rewarding work you will ever do.

Freelance can be done part-time, on the side, or, eventually, it may turn into a full-time job.

This video course will give you all the tools that you need to be a successful freelancer. It will tackle common problems and answer the most common questions that new freelancers have.

Topics covered:

The Top 5 Benefits To Being A Freelancer
Top Time Management Tips For Freelancers To Maximize Your Productivity
5 Reasons Why You Need To Find A Niche As A Freelancer
How To Write A Captivating Freelance Profile To Score Valuable Clients
Top Things To Remember When You Are Becoming A Freelancer
Things To Define In Order To Be A Successful Freelancer
The 5 Best Ways To Build A Freelance Portfolio
4 Reasons To Persevere With A Freelance Business
The Secret To Finding Freelance Work Online
The Most Effective Platforms To Market Your Freelance Business On


You will get a ZIP (182MB) file

When Israel Bombed AP’s Gaza Office

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

Wednesday was Nakba Day—the day commemorating the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians with the creation of Israel, in 1948—but there was another anniversary worth remembering. The day a foreign country bombed the offices of a major U.S. press outlet, accusing it, without evidence, of harboring terrorists. And a significant portion of the US media spun the story to support the foreign country.

On May 15, 2021, as part of its “Operation Guardian of the Walls” military campaign in Gaza, Israel bombed the Associated Press offices’ building, based on the still evidence-free claim that the AP headquarters “housed Hamas”. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, the week prior, IDF bombed two other office buildings that “housed more than a dozen international and local media outlets.”



Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) gave the tenants of the al-Jalaa Building in Gaza—which included AP, other news agencies including Al-Jazeera, and residential homes—a stern warning. IDF informed them they had one hour to evacuate their homes before the building would be bombed by Israeli missiles. Sixty minutes and three Israeli missiles later, the 12-story building was leveled to the ground.

The IDF posted a short vague statement that provided no evidence for their claim the building was being used by terrorists but made sure to repeat the term “Hamas terror organization” four times, in just four sentences—five times if you count “Hamas military intelligence” in the headline.



The AP’s CEO at the time, Gary Pruitt, said the news agency had been in the building for 15 years and “we have had no indication Hamas was in the building or active in the building.”

So could Israel have been lying? Well, retired US Army colonel and former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, Lawrence Wilkerson seems to think so.



Let me let me preface these remarks with I never, never, ever believe Israeli figures. I’ve been in the government too long to know that the Israelis are patent liars in their intelligence community, in their propaganda community, certainly, and in their leadership. They are inveterate liars. Let me say that again. They are liars. So you can’t believe anything that comes out of Jerusalem. It’s all propaganda.

The fact that Israel lied to the international press just one week prior about a fake ground invasion, to trick Hamas into giving up their positions, doesn’t help Israel’s case. On the contrary, it clearly shows that Israel puts military victory over truth, and has no respect for the press.



Israeli military spokesman Lt. Col. Jonathan Conricus claimed that “Hamas used the building for a military intelligence office and weapons development” but “could not provide evidence” to back up the claims without “compromising” intelligence efforts.

This “trust me I have the evidence” bullshit is reminiscent of the false narrative that fueled the 2003 Iraq War and the more recent Trump/Russia hoax. Such a pathetic cover story is enough to make most conservatives cringe but ultimately, many conservatives were tricked into celebrating anti-American terrorism—the bombing of civilian infrastructure that housed an American news outlet.

A pro-Israel disinformation campaign, attempting to justify the bombing, began at the Washington Free Beacon before spreading across conservative media. The Republican-aligned Beacon has a history of lying and smear campaigns. It was founded by Bil Kristol, famous for helping the Bush admin lie America into the disastrous Iraq War. It went on to fund the Fusion GPS anti-Trump research that would later, under Democrat tutelage, hire Christopher Steele, a crucial source of the Trump/Russia investigation hoax, and more recently, the Beacon reported the Jewish girl “Stabbed in the Eye” hoax as fact.

On the same day of the AP building bombing, the Beacon published an “exclusive” to defend IDF’s missile attack on the American press in Gaza. It cited two sources: (1) a Twitter post of Beacon contributor Noah Pollak, and (2) an old article published seven years prior in 2014 by Matti Friedman, a former AP reporter, and former IDF soldier.

Pollack’s Twitter post cited an anonymous source he described as, “a well-placed friend in the IDF,” claiming that the AP office building “contained multiple Hamas operations & offices including weapons manufacturing and military intelligence,” adding that, “The building also housed an Islamic Jihad office. And AP’s local reporters knew about it.”



“This info will come out soon,” he said.



Yes, that’s right. He said, “This info will come out soon.” Over three years later now, “this info” supporting his claims still hasn’t come out.

That alone is enough to completely discredit Pollak. But he’d already proven himself uncredible. He ran the Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI) (another “clown show” created by Kristol) which even the President of the Anti-Defanation League—not exactly an anti-Israel organization—called “misleading, distorted, inaccurate”. He was also caught leading an astroturfed pro-Israel counterprotest on a college campus. (Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?)

Nevertheless, Pollak’s completely unsubstantiated claims were published immediately by the usual suspects—Fox News, Newsmax, New York Post, etc. The Republican party-aligned outlets also followed the Beacon’s lead, citing its second source, Friedman’s 2014 article.

Like Pollak, Friedman also had a “well-placed friend” who “suggests there were indeed Hamas offices” in the AP building.




Oh boy, another anonymous “friend”! Despite sounding so sure of his “intimately familiar with military decision-making” friend’s secret information, Friedman also wrote on Twitter that “Contrary to what I’ve seen attributed to me today, I didn’t write [in 2014] that Hamas operated out of the same building, and don’t know if that’s true”.




The media citing Friedman typically omitted this. And I couldn’t help but notice that the media sharing his 2014 piece in The Atlantic accusing the AP of bias, and the piece itself failed to mention his own bias—his years of service in the IDF, and his “slightly rosier view of the IDF”, according to The Times of Israel.

Now pause for just a moment to ponder how insane it is—even if all of Friedman’s disputed 2014 claims were true—to rely on an article written in 2014 by an IDF vet, who worked at AP in 2006-2011, to justify the IDF bombing Associated Press in 2021, for which the IDF itself provided no evidence to justify.

This is the following 2014 excerpt that made the media rounds after the 2021 bombing:

“The AP staff in Gaza City would witness a rocket launch right beside their office, endangering reporters and other civilians nearby—and the AP wouldn’t report it, not even in AP articles about Israeli claims that Hamas was launching rockets from residential areas. (This happened.) Hamas fighters would burst into the AP’s Gaza bureau and threaten the staff—and the AP wouldn’t report it. (This also happened.) Cameramen waiting outside Shifa Hospital in Gaza City would film the arrival of civilian casualties and then, at a signal from an official, turn off their cameras when wounded and dead fighters came in, helping Hamas maintain the illusion that only civilians were dying. (This too happened; the information comes from multiple sources with firsthand knowledge of these incidents.)”

AP’s Director of Media Relations Paul Colford said Friedman’s story was “filled with distortions, half-truths and inaccuracies”, arguing that Israel challenged the AP with as many dangerous obstacles as Hamas and that AP covered both sides of the conflict.

[Friedman’s] arguments have been filled with distortions, half-truths and inaccuracies…

Like other media covering this story, we dealt with numerous obstacles, including Hamas intimidation, Israeli military censorship, anti-media incitement on both sides of the border, Hamas rocket fire and intense Israeli airstrikes that made it dangerous and difficult to get around Gaza during the fighting.

Courageous AP staffers worked around the clock in Gaza, often at the risk of great personal harm. Intense Israeli airstrikes literally shook the high-rise building housing the AP’s office. Two AP employees were ultimately killed in Gaza, and a third critically wounded and maimed. Our body of work included images and stories about Hamas rocket fire from civilian areas, the suffering of the residents of southern Israel living under the threat of rocket, mortar and tunnel-based attacks, Hamas’ summary executions of suspected collaborators, the fears of Gazans to criticize the group, Hamas’ use of civilian areas for cover and the devastation wreaked on Gazan civilians by Israeli airstrikes and artillery attacks.

Colford confirmed that armed militants entered AP’s offices in the early days of the 2008-2009 Gaza War to intimidate AP but said that AP did not give in to the intimidation.

Regarding a few specific issues that Mr. Friedman has raised most recently:

The AP published numerous photos and TV footage of rockets being launched from Gaza City. AP’s Josef Federman and Hamza Hendawi collaborated on an investigation into Hamas’ use of civilian areas for rocket launches, comparing maps obtained from Israeli military intelligence to facts on the ground.

In the early days of the war, armed militants entered the AP’s offices in Gaza to complain about a photo showing the location of a specific rocket launch. The AP immediately contacted Hamas, which insisted the men did not represent the group. The photo was not withdrawn and the men were never heard from again. Subsequent videos similarly showed rocket launches from within the urban area. Such intimidation is common in trouble spots. The AP does not report many interactions with militias, armies, thugs or governments. These incidents are part of the challenge of getting out the news — and generally not themselves news.

The Beacon’s “exclusive” was just the beginning. The “trust us we have secret evidence” disinformation campaign continued as the pro-Israel media eagerly forwarded another empty Israeli government claim, from a nameless “senior diplomatic source”, who told the Jerusalem Post of “smoking gun” evidence that Hamas was using the same Gaza building as AP.

“We showed [the US] the smoking gun proving Hamas worked out of that building,” a senior diplomatic source said. “I understand they found the explanation satisfactory.”

What evidence? Who exactly did they “show”? I guess we’ll never know!

If there’s a satisfactory explanation for why IDF bombed an American news agency, you’d think Israel and the US might want to make that known. But they haven’t.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu repeated the claim of secret “smoking gun” evidence on CBS’s Face the Nation, saying, “We share with our American friends all that intelligence”.

Hmmm. Netanyahu and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken appear friendly…

But no, Blinken said he “had not seen any evidence”.

When asked the next day if he’d received any evidence, Blinken didn’t quite confirm receiving anything. He said, “Um…uh…it’s my understanding that uh, we’ve uh, uh received uh, some further information through, uh, uh intelligence channels.” The only thing he actually confirmed was that it’s “not something that [he] can comment on.”

WAPO: Yesterday you said the US requested an explanation from Israel about its bombing of a high rise building containing U.S. and foreign media offices. Have you received anything? And what’s your assessment of that?

BLINKEN: Um. We uh. Did uh. Seek uh. Further information from, uh, Israel on this question. Uh, it’s my understanding that uh, we’ve uh, uh received uh, some further information through, uh, uh intelligence channels. And that’s not something that, that I can comment on.



Click here to watch the video

The following month, in June 2021, Israel’s Channel 12 news reported that IDF Lieutenant-General Aviv Kohavi said that the AP’s journalists drank coffee with Hamas each morning in the building’s cafeteria, whether they knew it or not. The AP called the comments “patently false”, noting “there was not even a cafeteria in the building”. Israel’s Defense Minister Benny Gantz told AP that the IDF General was speaking figuratively. However, Gantz, like all the Israeli officials before him, offered AP no evidence to support IDF’s bombing of the news agencies.

Gantz said Israel has shared its intelligence with the U.S. government. But he indicated that Israel has no intention of making the information public, saying it did not want to divulge its sources.

As usual, the propaganda was not limited to conservative media. The Democrat Party-aligned television network CNN platformed IDF Spokesperson, Lt. Col. Jonathan Conricus. Asked, “Can you show us the evidence?” Cornicus replied, “That’s in process, and I’m sure that, in due time, that information will be presented.”

It’s due time to come to grips with the reality that there is no evidence to justify the attack. Israel bombed an American news agency (with an American bomb), and the American government continues to cover for Israel and continues to fund continued death and destruction in Gaza.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

All images in this article are from the author

Explore this fully editable one page project work assignment PowerPoint template to encourage the students to learn by doing through the real world, challenges, or curriculum questions. This PPT template also helps the students to develop skills for future career growth and academic performance.
Watch Now: https://youtube.com/shorts/u_jvWV3zpt4
Explore Now: https://bit.ly/48SLjGt
#projectwork #projectmanagement #project #onepage #powerpointpresentation #presentation #slide

HOW THE MIND CENSORS THE SOUL - SHUNYAMURTI QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
https://www.bitchute.com/video/NbzJ7-Q0b9k/

Explore this fully editable one page project work assignment PowerPoint template to encourage the students to learn by doing through the real world, challenges, or curriculum questions. This PPT template also helps the students to develop skills for future career growth and academic performance. Explore Now: https://bit.ly/48SLjGt
#project #ProjectManagement #projectwork #ppt #presentation #slides

I DON'T ANSWER QUESTIONS
https://www.bitchute.com/video/ukopkvn1Dqee/

Smartphone Quiz Promotion Offer! Join Now!

Are you a tech-savvy enthusiast who loves testing your knowledge about smartphones? Then look no further! Our Smartphone Quiz Promotion Offer is here to elevate your smartphone expertise and reward you with exciting prizes!

How to Join:

Participating is as easy as unlocking your phone! Simply follow these steps:

Register: Click the registration link provided below to sign up for the quiz promotion. It takes only a few seconds to join the fun!

Quiz Time: Once registered, get ready to put your smartphone knowledge to the test! Our quiz consists of engaging questions covering various aspects of smartphones, from the latest features to historical milestones.

Score Big: Answer each question to the best of your ability. The more correct answers you provide, the higher your chances of winning!

Win Prizes: Stand a chance to win exciting prizes, including brand-new smartphones, accessories, vouchers, and more! Don't miss out on the opportunity to elevate your tech game and walk away with fantastic rewards.

Why Participate:

Expand Your Knowledge: Learn fascinating facts and updates about the world of smartphones while having a blast.
Win Exciting Prizes: Score high in the quiz and win fabulous prizes that will enhance your smartphone experience.
Join a Community: Connect with like-minded individuals who share your passion for all things tech and smartphones.
Don't miss out on this fantastic opportunity to showcase your smartphone prowess and win amazing prizes! Click the link below to register and embark on a journey of knowledge and rewards.

Join Now:https://shorturl.at/bgLW7

Terms and conditions apply. Promotion valid for a limited time only.

The emergence of nanobot society
OUTRAGED HUMAN













So, they injected it into the military, police, emergency services.... Now everyone is injected with a device with a "real IP ADDRESS"....






0:00

Thank you very much. So one word of notice before we begin,

0:03

all the technologies that you are going to see here now are real.

0:06

And with that said

0:07

I'd like to first tell you the story about

0:10

this uh... little girl named Dana

0:12

she's very special for me because she's my daugther

0:14

and Dana was born with a leg condition requiring frequent surgeries like this one

0:19

uh... she had when we were in Boston

0:21

and um... I remember taking her to that particular surgery

0:25

and uh...

0:26

I rembember her being admitted and she was excited at first

0:31

and then just before they got into her the OR

0:33

I looked at her and she was... afraid, she was little worried and

0:38

who wouldn't be? Because surgeries today are complicated

0:41

and they're often very risky.

0:42

Now let's imagine a few years into the future, into the near future hopefully,

0:47

Dana will arrive to hospital for her ??? surgery

0:50

and instead of being prepped for anesthesia for the OR

0:54

the surgeon will just take a syringe and inside the syringe

0:58

there are millions of tiny robots, of tiny machines

1:02

that will be injected into Dana's bloodstream.

1:04

They will autonomously locate the place they need to be in,

1:08

they will excite out the injured tissue,

1:11

then will remove dead cells,

1:13

then they will...

1:14

stimulate and guide the regrowth of healthy cells across those tissue gaps,

1:18

they will release drugs that relief pain and reduce inflammation

1:23

and all the while Dana will be sitting on the chair

1:25

eating a sandwich, reading a book, might be the next

1:28

twilight saga book which she'll be able to read because she will be 16 by then

1:32

And...(giggles)

1:33

uh... when these robots

1:35

have completed their job they'll simply disintegrate

1:39

and disappear from her bloodstream the next day.

1:42

So these nanobots have been envisioned in the past 30 years

1:45

by people like Eric Drexler, Robert Freitas and Ray Kuzweil.

1:49

Today I'm going to show you that these robots exist

1:51

here in Israel.

1:54

I'll show you this syringe

1:56

which I've brought from my lab.

1:58

So this syringe has inside it a thousand billion robots.

2:03

So these robots are each fifty nanometers

2:06

long as you can see in this slide under the microscope.

2:11

Fifty nanometers is about 2000 times thinner than the thickness of your hair

2:16

OK? And... umm... These robots were born actually 3 years ago

2:20

in a research I did with Shawn Douglas, now a UCSF Professor.

2:24

But over the past year and a half

2:25

in my group at Bar-Ilan University

2:27

We've been developing and testing robots for a variety of

2:31

medical and therapeutic tasks.

2:33

We've invented ways of making them safe for use

2:37

and non-inmunogenic

2:38

and we learned how to tune their stability in our bloodstream

2:41

to fit either short-term or long-term

2:44

even days long medical procedures.

2:47

So to carry out medical and therapeutic procedures in our body

2:50

with the upmost precision,

2:51

we need to be able to control molecules

2:53

Controlling molecules is a very simple challenge

2:56

in modern scientific knowledge.

2:58

OK? Let's speak for example about the class of molecules we know as drugs

3:02

So despite...

3:04

amazing progress made in the past four decades

3:06

the way we think about drugs and we the way we use drugs

3:09

has been essentially unchanged

3:11

and it's similar as two hundred years ago

3:14

right? You hear about about big pharmaceutical companies

3:17

spending huge amounts of money

3:19

searching for better, safer drugs.

3:22

Attempts that usually fail.

3:24

OK? but,

3:25

searching for let's say a safer cancer drug,

3:28

half it is a concept that has a flaw in it.

3:30

Because searching for a safer cancer drug

3:32

is basically like searching for a gun that kills only bad people

3:36

We don't search for such guns,

3:37

what we do is training soldiers to use that gun properly

3:42

Of course in drugs we can't do this because it seems very hard

3:45

But there are things we can do with drugs

3:47

for example, we can put the drugs

3:49

in particles from which they difuse slowly.

3:51

We can attach a drug to a carrier

3:54

which takes someplace but, this is not real control.

3:57

When we were thinking about control we're thinking about

4:00

processes is the real world around us

4:02

and what happens when we want to control a process

4:06

that's beyond our capabilities as humans

4:08

we just connect this process to a computer

4:10

and let the computer control this process for us.

4:13

OK? So that's what we do.

4:15

But obviously this cannot be done with drugs because

4:19

the drugs are so much smaller than the computers as we know them

4:23

The computer is in fact so much bigger

4:25

it's about a hundred million times bigger that any drug molecule.

4:28

Our nanobots which were in the syringe

4:31

solve this problem because they are in fact

4:34

computers the size of molecules.

4:36

and they can interact with molecules

4:38

and they can control molecules directly,

4:40

so just think about all those

4:42

drugs that have been withdrawn from the market

4:45

for excessive toxicity

4:46

right?

4:47

It doesn't mean that they are not effective,

4:49

they were amazingly effective,

4:51

they were just guns shooting in all directions

4:53

but in the hands of a well-trained soldier

4:56

or a well-programed nanobot

4:58

using all the existing drugs

5:01

we could hypothetically kill almost any disease.

5:05

So we might not need even new drugs.

5:07

We have amazing drugs already,

5:09

we just don't know how to control them, this is the problem

5:11

and our nanobots...

5:13

hopefully solve this problem and I'll show you how.

5:15

So there is an interesting question "how do we build

5:19

a robot or a machine the size of a molecule?"

5:21

so the simple answer would be: we can use molecules

5:25

to build this machine.

5:26

So we're using molecules, but we're not using just any molecule.

5:30

We're using the perfect, most beautiful molecule on earth, at least in my opinion,

5:34

which is DNA.

5:36

And in fact every part of the robot,

5:38

every part of out nanorobots:

5:40

Moving parts, axis, locks, chasis, software,

5:44

everything is made from DNA molecules.

5:46

And the techonology that enables us to do this

5:49

originated thirty years ago when the pioneering works of Nadrian Seeman,

5:52

culminating 7 years ago in the works of Paul Rothemund from Caltech,

5:56

which was also featured in TED,

5:58

and it's called DNA origami.

5:59

Now in DNA origami we do not use a piece of paper,

6:02

we use a single long strand of DNA

6:05

and we fold it into virtually any shape we want.

6:08

For example these shapes, so these are actual microscopic images

6:12

of shapes the size of molecules that were folded from DNA.

6:16

so the smiley you see here in the center of the screen for example

6:19

are a hundred nanometers in size

6:21

and we make billions of them in few... in a single reaction.

6:24

Now since 2006 several researchers, really talented ones,

6:28

have been expanding the limits of the technically feasible in DNA origami

6:32

and now we have an astonishig array of shapes and objects which we can build

6:35

using this technique.

6:36

And these researchers also gave us computer-aided design tools

6:41

that enable everyone

6:43

very very simply to design objects from DNA

6:46

So these CAD tools amazingly

6:49

enable us to focus o n the shape we want

6:52

forgetting the fact that these structures are in fact assemblies of molecules.

6:57

so this is for example a shape the computer can actually turn into DNA molecules.

7:02

and the output of this CAD software, as you can see,

7:05

is a spreadsheet with fragments of DNA

7:08

which you can attach to a message and send to a company

7:11

one of two dozen companies that make DNA by order and you'll get those DNA's

7:16

several days later to your doorstep

7:18

and when you get them all you need to do is just mix them in a certain way

7:23

and these molecular bricks will self-assemble into

7:26

millions of copies of the very structure that you designed using that CAD software

7:30

which is free by the way, you can download it for free.

7:34

So, let's have a look at our nanorobots.

7:38

So, this is how the nanorobots look like, it's built from DNA as you can see

7:42

And it resembles a clam shell in which you can put cargo

7:45

You can load anything you want starting from small molecules, drugs,

7:49

proteines, enzymes, even nano-particles. Virtually any function

7:54

that molecules can carry out, can be loaded into the nanobot

7:57

and the nanobot can be programmed to turn on and off

8:01

these functions at certain places and at certain times

8:05

this is how we control those molecules

8:07

and so this particular nanorobot is in an off state, it's closed,it's securely

8:12

sequestres anything, any payload you put inside

8:16

so it's not accessible to the outside of the robot,

8:18

for example, it cannot engage target cells or target tissues

8:22

But we can program the nanobot to switch to an on state

8:26

based on molecular cues it finds from the environment

8:30

so programming the robot is virtually like assemblying a combination lock

8:34

using disks that recognize digits,

8:37

but of course instead of digits we are assemblying disks that recognize molecules.

8:42

So these robots can turn from off to on and when they do

8:47

any cargo inside is now accessible,

8:49

it can attack target cells or target tissues

8:52

or other robots which you'll see later on.

8:54

And so we have robots that can switch from off to on

8:58

and off again, we can control their kinetics of transition.

9:02

We can control which payload becomes accessible at which time point

9:05

Let's see an example how these robots for example control a cancer drug

9:12

So what you can do is you can take nanobots,

9:14

you can put the nastiest cancer drug you may find

9:17

into the robots, even a cancer drug

9:19

that's been withdrawn because of excessive toxicity

9:23

Ok? When the robot is locked

9:25

and you put them in your mixture of healthy cells and tumor cells

9:29

nothing happens, no cell is affected, because the robot

9:32

safely sequesters those drugs inside.

9:35

When we unlock the robots

9:37

all cells die because the cargo inside the [robot] attacks anything on sight.

9:42

So all cells eventually die. In this case this is a fluorescent molecule

9:46

to help us see better the output.

9:48

But when we program the nanobots to search for tumor cells particulary,

9:53

so only the tumor cells

9:56

uh... only the tumor cells die because

9:59

the robot doesn't care about the bystander cells, about the healthy cells.

10:04

So it does not harm them at all.

10:06

And we have nanorobots in our lab that can target

10:09

about ten types of cancer already and other cell targets

10:12

and my team keeps expanding this range monthly.

10:17

So these are nanorobots and to another topic

10:22

organisms in nature, like bacteria and animals

10:26

have learned very early in evolution that working in a coordinated group

10:29

conveys advantage

10:31

and capabilities beyond those of the individual

10:34

and since we are interested in

10:36

very complex medical procedures, very complex therapeutic settings,

10:40

we're wondering what we could do

10:42

if we could engineer artificial swarm behaviors

10:46

into our nanobots as well so we could have extraordinarily large groups of nanobots

10:51

Can we teach them to behave like animals, like insects

10:55

and how do you do this? So the question is interesting.

10:58

So you could think one way to do it would be

11:01

to look at a natural swarm like this one of fish

11:04

and simulate the dynamics of the entire swarm and then try to write the codes

11:09

in molecules of course

11:10

that mimic the same behaviour

11:12

this is virtually impossible, it's impractical

11:15

what we do is we take the single fish or a single nanobot in our case

11:20

and you design a very basic set of interaction rules

11:23

and then you take this one, this nanobot, you make a billion copies of it

11:27

and you let the behaviours emerge from that group

11:31

let me show you some examples of the things we can already do

11:35

for example, just as ants

11:38

can shake hands and form physical bridges between two trees

11:42

or two remote parts of the same tree,

11:44

we already have nanorobots that can reach out for each other

11:47

touch each other and shake hands in such a way

11:49

they form physical bridges.

11:51

Then you can imagine these robots

11:53

extending, making bridges extending from one-half

11:56

to the other half of an injured tissue,

11:58

an injured spinal cord for example

12:00

or an injured leg in the case of Dana, my daughter

12:03

and once they stretched over that tissue gap

12:06

they can apply growth factors, as payloads, and those growth factors

12:10

stimulate the re-growth and guide re-growth of cells across the gap.

12:14

So we already did that and...

12:17

we have robots that can cross regulate each other just like animals do in groups

12:21

and this is amazing because as you can see here

12:24

you can have two types of robots, Type-A and Type-B

12:28

they can cross regulate each other, such that "A" is active

12:32

while "B" is not and viceversa.

12:34

So this is good for combination therapy

12:36

with combination therapy we take multiple drugs, right?

12:39

and sometimes two or more of these drugs

12:41

can collide and generate side effects,

12:43

but here you can put one drug here, one drug here

12:46

and the robots will time the activities so that

12:49

one drug is active, the other is not and then they can switch

12:52

and so two or more drugs can operate at the same time without actually colliding.

12:57

Another example that we did is the quorum sensing.

13:00

Now quorum sensing is great, it's a bacterial inspired behaviour

13:05

It means nanorobots can count themselves

13:08

and they can switch to "on" only when reaching a certain population size

13:12

this is a mechanism invented by bacteria in evolution

13:15

and they regulate amazing behaviours based on just their population density

13:18

for example, bioluminescence, this one of the well-studied examples

13:23

so our robots can count themselves and switch to on

13:26

only when reaching a certain population size which we can program.

13:29

This is great because this is a mechanism of programming a drug

13:33

to become active only when reaching a certain dose

13:36

around the target, regardless of its inherent dose-response curve.

13:41

One last I'm gonna show to you is computing,

13:43

so this nanobots can do computing.

13:45

How's so? If you think about your computer at home,

13:48

the processor of the computer is in fact a gigantic swarm of transistors

13:53

In an i7 core for example you have 800 million transistors approximately

13:58

and they're set to interact in certain ways to produce logic gates

14:02

and these logic gates are set to interact to produce computations

14:05

so we can also produce computation by setting interactions between nanorobots

14:10

to emulate logic gates like you see here

14:13

and they form chains and they form pairs

14:15

and my team in Bar-Ilan University [has] already developed several architectures

14:19

of computing based on interacting nanorobots

14:22

and to prototype these

14:24

we are using animals, very interesting animals

14:27

these are cockroaches,

14:28

they are very easy to work with, the're very sweet,

14:30

they're actually from South America

14:32

and I'm a Soutamerican myself so I fell kinda related

14:35

[Laughter]

14:36

And hum... so what we do is we inject those robots into the cockroach

14:40

and to do that we of course had to put the cockroaches to sleep

14:43

have you ever tried putting cockroach to sleep?

14:46

We put in the freezer for seven minutes

14:48

in they fall asleep

14:49

and we can inject these nanorobots inside

14:52

and after 20 minutes they start running around, they're happy.

14:55

And those robots

14:57

while they're doing this, the robots read molecules

14:59

from the cockroaches' inputs

15:01

and they write their outputs in the form of drugs

15:04

activated on those cockroaches' cells

15:06

so we can do, we can see that and we already have, as you can see,

15:09

architectures of interecting nanorobots that can emulate logical operators

15:14

and you can use these as modular parts to build any type universal computer you want

15:19

[....]

15:21

that can control multiple drugs simultaneously

15:25

as a result of biocomputing, this is real universal computing in a living animal.

15:30

Now we already have systems that have [the] computing capacity

15:33

of an 8-bit computer like Commodore 64.

15:36

To make sure we don't lose control over the nanobots after they're injected

15:40

my team [has] developed nanorobots that carry antennae

15:44

these antennae are made from metal nano-particles.

15:47

Now, the antennae enable the nanobots

15:49

to respond to externally applied electromagnetic fields

15:52

so these nanorobots, this version of nanobots

15:55

can actually be activated with a press of a button on a joystick

15:58

or for example using a controller

16:01

such as the Xbox or Wii if you ever had the chance of playing with those

16:05

and you can see one of my students in the lab configuring an Xbox app

16:09

to control nanobots.

16:11

For example you can imagine nanorobots being injected

16:14

to Dana, my daughter for example,

16:16

and the doctor can guide those robots

16:19

into the site, into the leg and just activate them with a hand gesture.

16:23

And you can already see an example where we actually took

16:26

cancer cells and loaded robots with cancer drugs

16:29

and activated the drug by a hand gesture.

16:31

and we can actually kill cancer cells just by doing this,

16:34

as you can see here.

16:36

And the interesting thing is that

16:39

because the controller like the Xbox is connected to the internet,

16:44

the controller actually links those nanobots to the network

16:47

so they have an actual IP address

16:49

and they can be accessed from a remote device sitting on the same network,

16:53

for example, my doctor's smartphone

16:55

So, OK?, just like controlling a controller, this can be done.

17:00

The last thing I'm gonna show is, if you look at our body

17:04

you'll see that every cell type, every organ, every tissue

17:08

has their own unique molecular signature

17:11

and this is equivalent to a physical IP address made of molecules

17:15

and if you know these molecules

17:17

you can use those nanobots to browse the Organism Wide Web, as we call it

17:21

and you can program them to look for bits,

17:23

this could be for example signally molecules between cells,

17:26

and either fetch them for diagnostics

17:28

or carry them to different addresses.

17:30

And we already have robots that can hijack

17:33

signals between cells

17:34

and manipulate an entire network of communications between cells

17:37

and this is great for controlling very complex diseases in which many cell types

17:43

communicate and orchestrate to perpetuate a disease.

17:46

So before I finish I'd just like to thank

17:50

my amazing team at Bar-Ilan University

17:52

and all the colleagues that took part in this extraordinary journey,

17:55

starting from the George Chuch's Lab in Harvard

17:57

and ending today in Bar-Ilan University in the new Faculty of Life Sciences,

18:01

and I really hope that

18:03

anywhere between a year and five years from now

18:06

we'll be able to use this in humans

18:08

and finally witness the emergence of nanobot society.

18:11

Thank you very much.


https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/nanobots-live-cockroach-thought-control/





https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/nanobots-live-cockroach-thought-control/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-scientists-use-nanobots-and-thoughts-to-administer-drugs/


Israeli scientists say they have come up with a way for brain power to control when drugs are released into the body, by using tiny robots made out of DNA to deliver the medication internally.

Researchers at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya and Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan have built the nanobots to which medication is attached and then are injected into the body. The nanobots have a “gate” that opens or closes — thereby controlling drug release — depending on brain activity.

In order to achieve this, the New Scientist magazine said, the researchers developed a computer algorithm that could tell whether a person’s brain was resting or carrying out some form of mental activity, such as math problems. A fluorescent-tinted drug was then added to the nanobots, which were injected into a cockroach placed inside an electromagnetic coil.

Israeli scientists say they have come up with a way for brain power to control when drugs are released into the body, by using tiny robots made out of DNA to deliver the medication internally.

This coil was then connected to an EEG cap worn by a person asked to perform mental calculations. The computer recognized increased brain activity by the cap wearer, which triggered the “gate” on the nanobots inside the cockroach, releasing the fluorescent drug that was visible as it spread through the insect’s body.

The idea is to use the delivery system for people with mental health issues, which are sometimes triggered before sufferers are aware they need medication.

By monitoring brain activity, the nanobots could deliver the required preventative drugs automatically,

for example before a violent episode of schizophrenia.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2102463-mind-controlled-nanobots-could-release-drugs-inside-your-brain/


The group has built nanorobots out of DNA, forming shell-like shapes that drugs can be tethered to. The bots also have a gate, which has a lock made from iron oxide nanoparticles. The lock opens when heated using electromagnetic energy, exposing the drug to the environment. Because the drug remains tethered to the DNA parcel, a body’s exposure to the drug can be controlled by closing and opening the gate.

By examining when fluorescence appeared inside different cockroaches, the team confirmed that this worked.

The idea would be to automatically trigger the release of a drug when it is needed. For example, some people don’t always know when they need medication – before a violent episode of schizophrenia, for instance. If an EEG could detect it was coming, it could stimulate the release of a preventative drug.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxJPceCV51g Nanobots Successfully Used on Living Animal for the First Time - IGN News

0:38

to treat human ailments or weaponized

0:40

hijacked by a snake themed terrorist

0:42

organization and then used to destroy

0:43

Paris but I suppose it's only a matter

0:45

of time


“This syringe has inside it a thousand billion robots.”

https://outraged.substack.com/p/the-emergence-of-nanobot-society?utm_source=cross-post&publication_id=1087020&post_id=143145132&utm_campaign=956088&isFreemail=true&r=1sq9d8&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Follow @zeeemedia
Website | X | Instagram | Rumble

https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/04/the-emergence-of-nanobot-society.html

CASE 01 - Autopsy proven myocarditis death in AUSTRALIA
Barrack Heights NSW, AUSTRALIA - Roberto Garin was only 52 when he ‘died suddenly’ on 28 July 2021. The healthy father of two teenagers began feeling ill 48 hours after his first Pfizer shot and dropped dead in front of his terrified wife Kirsti six days later while she was on the phone to paramedics.
Garin’s family immediately suspected the vaccine caused his death. Kirsti was told her husband was the first person to die after a Pfizer shot. In fact, 176 deaths following Pfizer jabs had already been reported to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), starting in the first week of the vaccine rollout.
But when Kirsti shared her concerns with filmmaker Alan Hashem, who released the video together with the accounts of other vaccine injuries and deaths, it unleashed a storm.
‘Misinformation researchers’ published by the ABC dismissed Kirsti’s ‘claims her 52-year-old husband died from “sudden onset myocarditis” after receiving the Pfizer vaccine’ because it didn’t ‘square with official data’.
Yet that was exactly what forensic pathologist Bernard l’Ons wrote in a brilliant report on his autopsy stating that the deceased’s heart showed a clear transition to severe giant cell myocarditis that could be ‘histologically dated to the time period of the Covid-19 mRNA vaccination’ and it was ‘reasonable to state that the deceased’s previously undiagnosed cardiac sarcoidosis may have transitioned to a fulminating myocarditis as a result of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccination’ noting that myocarditis had been reported in reactions to the Pfizer vaccine. L’Ons proposed a mechanism by which the vaccine could trigger fatal myocarditis and advised that a possible therapeutic implication was that sarcoid patients be given an echocardiogram to detect whether their heart was affected in which case alternative vaccination types could be considered.
All of this was ignored by the TGA which refuses to admit to this day that any death can be attributed to a Pfizer vaccine and was parroted by the ABC. The TGA did admit that as of 22 August it had received ‘235 reports of suspected myocarditis, (inflammation of the heart muscle) and/or pericarditis (inflammation of the membrane around the heart) following vaccination’ with Pfizer but said, ‘These reports reflect the observations of the people reporting them and have not been confirmed as having been caused by the vaccine,’ and that ‘some events may be coincidental and would have happened anyway, regardless of vaccination.’
This is a particularly misleading statement. Four out of five reports to the TGA are submitted not by random ‘people’, but by highly qualified health professionals and in Garin’s case by a forensic pathologist.
Why would the TGA dismiss these reports? That’s a question Associate Professor Michael Nissen could perhaps shed light on. He was appointed to the TGA in February 2021, just as the Covid-19 vaccines were rolled out, to lead its Signal Investigation Unit which investigates safety issues that arise with vaccines in adverse reports or are raised by international regulators or the medical literature.
Prior to his appointment, Nissen was the Director of Scientific Affairs and Public Health at GSK Vaccines from October 2014 to January 2021, a period during which GSK and Pfizer entered into a joint venture. Nissen worked concurrently in hospital-based medical care and academia. He has led over 40 clinical trials and authored over 200 peer-reviewed publications including vaccine studies. In all these areas pharmaceutical companies are a major source of funding.
The TGA is sensitive about managing conflicts of interest for advisory committee members but offers no guidance on its website with regard to staff members although presumably the same principles should, at least in theory, apply. It notes that shares, involvement in clinical trials, employment, contracts, consultancies, grants, sponsorships, board memberships and so on, may give rise to a conflict of interest.
Robert Clancy, an Emeritus Professor of Pathology at the University of Newcastle Medical School and a member of the Australian Academy of Science’s Covid-19 Expert Database wrote in Quadrant online last week that ‘the power of the pharmaceutical industry and its pervasive influence at every level of political and medical decision-making’ has been underestimated in shaping the pandemic narrative which has been driven by commercial imperatives to such an extent that it has crushed scientific debate.
Clancy recounts that his approach to the College of Pathology (of which he was a Senior Fellow, a foundation Professor of Pathology, and past-Chairman of the College committee for undergraduate pathology education) calling for a national study to determine whether Covid vaccination was responsible for the increase in excess mortality in Australia and elsewhere by developing a protocol for post-mortems ‘to answer what is arguably the most important question facing medicine’ met with a rejection and a suggestion to take it instead to the TGA.
Nowadays, dying suddenly has become ominously familiar. According to a new film Died Suddenly available as of this week to stream via Twitter, in the last 18 months, the term ‘Died Suddenly’ has risen to the very top of ‘most searched’ Google terms. The film documents the surge in excess mortality in highly vaccinated countries. Dr. Peter McCullough, internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist, and one of the top five most-published, and most censored, medical researchers in the US, says that sudden death frequently occurs because the heart has been damaged by inflammation caused by Covid vaccines.
Papers that Pfizer and the Food and Drug Administration tried to hide for 75 years show that Pfizer knew in 2020 that myocarditis and pericarditis could be caused by its vaccine.
And in the Pfizer trial in Argentina, a report on a healthy 36-year old  participant – Augusto German Roux – who developed pericarditis immediately after his second Pfizer jab, mysteriously disappeared from the published trial results.
The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) and the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ) belatedly published a warning about myocarditis and pericarditis in September this year.
It was too late for Garin. Had his doctors known, his life might have been saved. His grieving family have still not received a cent in compensation. But Pfizer has apparently grossed nearly $100 billion from its sales of Covid-19 vaccines and treatments.
Rebecca Weisser is an independent journalist.
======


https://open.substack.com/pub/makismd/p/mrna-injury-stories-australian-dad?r=29hg4d&utm_medium=ios

Moscow vs the WHO: This time for real?
Probably not. But maybe?

Edward Slavsquat
Last week, Russian Senator Alexey Pushkov wrote some very rude things about the World Health Organization on his Telegram channel. RIA Novosti then published these very uncouth comments. What does this mean?

Does this mean that Moscow’s obscenely abusive relationship with the WHO is finally coming to an end? There’s been several false alarms over the past two years but maybe this time it’s not fake news spread by Aussie Cossack? Maybe this time it’s different?

Maybe. Anything is possible. Let’s have a look together.


source: ria.ru
Take the wheel, RIA Novosti:

“The WHO is an organization that should be feared. It can plunge the world into panic in the blink of an eye—there is no control over it. Its connections with the most active supporters of the ‘thinning’ of humanity are shrouded in darkness,” Pushkov wrote.

The senator noted that all WHO failures are “covered up through powerful PR.”

“As it turned out, the WHO management paid influencers for presenting the ugly work of the WHO during Covid in a favorable light,” says Pushkov.

Dang.

Before I type another sentence, allow me to state the following: I agree with everything Pushkov wrote on Telegram and it’s very cool that RIA Novosti used its state media platform to disseminate his hate speech against Dr. Tedros (The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, every NATO state, and other weirdos and sworn enemies of humanity who fund the WHO’s ruthless campaign of global health murder).

But Pushkov is also a senior-ranking member of Russia’s upper house of parliament, which means that if he really thinks the World Health Organization poses an existential threat to Russia, he could always … I dunno … introduce legislation calling for Moscow’s immediate withdrawal? Or at least politely commission a report about why Moscow should leave the WHO post-haste? These are things he could definitely do, or at least recommend, as a Senator.

Telegram rants are fun but is Pushkov a Russian Senator or a manlet blogger? Because “complaining on Telegram about Russia’s WHO membership” is something Edward Slavsquat would do; one would hope that a powerful alpha male Senator would be able to do more than that?


source: The Best Telegram Channel Ever You Should Definitely Subscribe Right Now
All of these questions are irrelevant, actually, because Pushkov doesn’t oppose health terrorism; he just resents the fact that Moscow isn’t getting a bigger piece of the WHO’s health terrorism pie.

For example: Here is another fiery Telegram post from Pushkov dated March 14, 2021:

The “safety of the AstraZeneca vaccine” against the backdrop of deaths and thrombosis—is this what they are trying to convince people of? Half of Europe has stopped using it, there is a scandal in the European Commission, and the company gets off with standard excuses.


source: Telegram
Pushkov’s solution to this public health scandal? Europe should use Sputnik V, an experimental genetic slurry developed in collaboration with AstraZeneca, which, coincidentally, is also linked to thrombosis and blood clots.


source: news.ru
Here’s something else to consider: As Pushkov was writing Telegram tirades against AstraZeneca’s safety record in March 2021, Russian pharmaceutical company R-Pharm was producing AstraZeneca’s “vaccine” and exporting it abroad. This business arrangement continued until September 2022, when R-Pharm suspended production of the British-Swedish clot-shot due to “lack of demand”:


source: tass.ru
YOUR EYES ARE NOT DECEIVING YOU: RUSSIA WAS PRODUCING ASTRAZENECA’S GENETIC THROMBOSIS GOO UNTIL SEPTEMBER 2022.

Furthermore, the Russian government partnered with AstraZeneca to create the Ultimate Clot-Shot, and has repeatedly defended the “safety and efficacy” of the British-Swedish slurry:


source: interfax-russia.ru
“The British media and government need to do a better job of protecting the reputation of AstraZeneca's safe and effective vaccine, which competitors are constantly attacking through the media with facts taken out of context,” the Russian Direct Investment Fund, which financed Sputnik V, and partnered with AstraZeneca, and is also headed by a WEF Young Global Leader, said in October 2021. Yeah, leave AstraZeneca alone you monsters!

Russia pushes for AstraZeneca/Sputnik V cocktail

Russia pushes for AstraZeneca/Sputnik V cocktail
Pushkov is not against forcing unproven, barely tested genetic slurries on the world’s population. No, he is perfectly fine with that. He just wants Russia’s unproven, barely tested genetic slurry to have a bigger market share.

Anyway, no one could accuse Moscow of being unsportsmanlike during the Race to Protect Public Health. Putin even wished the CEO of AstraZeneca “success not only in the Russian market, but also in global markets.”


source: tass.ru
Curiously, I can’t find a single comment from Pushkov—on Telegram or while pontificating in the Senate chambers—about the fact that Russia hopped into bed with AstraZeneca, or that Sputnik V is a crude AstraZeneca clone whose clinical trial data has been classified by the Russian Health Ministry as a “trade secret”. Not a single word about any of this—very weird.

It’s nice that Pushkov was so concerned about the safety and well-being of EU citizens subjected to AstraZeneca’s untested genetic sludge, but why weren’t the same safety standards applied to his assessment of Sputnik V? If you’re a Russian Senator, shouldn’t you be focusing your energies on protecting the health of Russians? It’s charming that Pushkov took time out of his busy Russian senator schedule to worry about Westerners being exposed to thrombosis, but what about Russians being needlessly exposed to thrombosis? Oh right, anyone who talked about that was threatened with arrest or losing their right to practice medicine. I don’t know why Moscow and the Collective West are arch-enemies—they’re so similar.

Sputnik V is an unlawful experiment, patient advocacy group says

Sputnik V is an unlawful experiment, patient advocacy group says
Here’s another illustrative example of Pushkov public health worldview: When Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba called Sputnik V a “hybrid weapon” in December 2020, Pushkov responded by saying that Kiev was murdering its own citizens by not allowing them to get injected with Russia’s safe and effective AstraZeneca clone:


source: lenta.ru
Do you see the problem here?

It’s great that Pushkov is so critical of Western clot-shots. But if he is unable to extend this criticism to Russian clot-shots—which are nearly identical to Western clot-shots—then it’s not clear how Russians benefit from their senator’s based-and-red-pilled takedowns of AstraZeneca (which the Russian government partnered with and repeatedly defended, even as people were dropping dead from horrific post-vaccination AstraZeneca side effects).

So, returning to Pushkov’s hatred of the WHO: Is he advocating for public health policies that don’t rely on unproven genetic injections? Or is he just annoyed that Moscow’s unproven genetic injection—which is identical to the Collective West’s unproven genetic injections—isn’t being injected into more arms?

Meanwhile, Moscow continues to enjoy friendly relations with the WHO—and there is literally zero evidence of the federal government even toying with the idea of withdrawing from this awful organization. Zero. None. If you have such evidence, please, please email me and share it. I’m serious.

Hey, look: There is even an Important Russian Government Medical Authority-Expert who serves on the WHO’s One Health (lol) committee-thing:

He studied in London, of course:


source: who.int
Is Pushkov fighting the space lizards or is he promoting a false clot-shot dichotomy? Are we trapped in a Hegelian clot-shot dialectic, in which the thesis (AstraZeneca) locks horns with the antithesis (Sputnik V), a clot-shot battle that resolves in clot-shot synthesis (they are literally the same clot-shot)?

And what is even the point of opposing the WHO if you support the worst policies promoted by the WHO? It’s just sort of weird.

I guess what I’m trying to say is…

PUPPIES


THEY OPENED THEIR EYES, FINALLY. THEY ARE NOT BLIND. THAT’S GOOD

MOSTLY THEY JUST DO THIS, THOUGH


UNTIL NEXT TIME.




Last week, Russian Senator Alexey Pushkov wrote some very rude things about the World Health Organization on his Telegram channel. RIA Novosti then published these very uncouth comments. What does this mean?

https://edwardslavsquat.substack.com/p/moscow-vs-the-who-this-time-for-real

https://telegra.ph/Moscow-vs-the-WHO-This-time-for-real-04-02