Author Archives: marcia

Borders and Bodies — No More Fake Churches

Posted on by

Arizona Whistleblowers Expose the Human Sex Trafficking Business at the US Border

July 5, 2023 Health Impact News 2

A new documentary titled “Cages – Epic Human Trafficking Truth” features whistleblowers from Arizona who say that human sex trafficking involves extortion, rape of men, women and children, and murder. Vicious crimes occur daily at the US Mexican border as a result of Biden’s open border policies. Migrants are willing to commit serious crimes to pay off cartels. The US Government is working together with Mexican drug cartels to allow this sex trafficking enterprise to flourish inside the United States. The money that is brought in through human sex trafficking buys lawyers, judges, law enforcement agencies like the FBI, and elections.

Link for video:         https://www.bitchute.com/video/v0ZVp1j49tmT.

Health Impact News also posted this video, also from the “Cages – Epic Human Trafficking Truth” documentary, that features an unidentified woman who says that the homeless encampments in Phoenix are extremely dangerous. She said that her church group helps people living on the streets by feeding the homeless and rescuing girls who are involved in being sex trafficked. She made the claim that infants and adults are being burned in the street. The police ignore the problems and crimes in the encampments and are herding people to a large camp near the capitol. She said that humanitarians from the Assembly of God Church are “fake” and are actually trafficking people who are living on the streets.

Link for video:         https://www.bitchute.com/video/kmhUzvFWKuKw/

Health Impact News:          https://healthimpactnews.com/2023/arizona-whistleblowers-expose-the-human-sex-trafficking-business-at-the-u-s-border/

Full documentary “Cages – Epic Human Trafficking Truth”:      https://rumble.com/v2vxvhz-cages-epic-human-trafficking-truth.html

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2023/07/arizona-whistleblowers-expose-the-human-sex-trafficking-business-at-the-us-border/

Between A Rock-efeller and a Hard Place

Posted on by

“The Greatest History Never Told”

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

VIDEO LINK:    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwOuN39VHo

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Ivor Cummins interviews Jacob Nordangard, a Swedish researcher and author, about The Great Reset and plans for a totalitarian future
  • The interview takes you on a journey from the late 19th century to present day, laying out the nefarious path of how we ended up in the place we are today, on the verge of takeover by a corrupted few
  • Nordangard is the author of “Rockefeller: Controlling the Game,” a book that explores how this prominent family funded and shaped key aspects of society, from environmental and climate research to education, medicine, politics and agriculture, all using propaganda techniques
  • The Rockefellers’ goal was a transformation of the world’s economy, culture and governments into a new world order — with the Rockefellers and their select cronies at the helm
  • Much of the new world order’s plans are based on crisis management, and the idea that a great crisis will occur that will lead to the great transition, where globalists will swoop in to save the day, transforming society into the promised paradise — which actually takes away sovereignty

A common mantra was chanted by world leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic — a Great Reset is necessary to “build back better” from the crisis and create a new sustainable future. This future is one led by a powerful global cartel eager to gain control over society and, ultimately, humanity.

But this message of a new world order swooping in to save the masses from a fearful enemy didn’t start during the pandemic. Its origins go much deeper.

In the video above,1 Ivor Cummins, a biochemical engineer with a background in medical device engineering and leading teams in complex problem-solving, interviews Jacob Nordangard, a Swedish researcher and author who has a Ph.D. in technology and social change, a Master of Social Science in geography and a Master of Social Science in culture and media production.

Nordangard is the author of “Rockefeller: Controlling the Game,” a book that explores how this prominent family funded and shaped key aspects of society, from environmental and climate research to education, medicine, politics and agriculture, all using propaganda techniques. Their goal was a transformation of the world’s economy, culture and governments, into a new world order — with the Rockefellers and their select cronies at the helm.

The interview takes you on a journey from the late 19th century to present day, laying out the nefarious path of how we ended up in the place we are today, on the verge of takeover by a corrupted few.

While the topics covered are a good primer, it is important to understand that the interview fails to uncover any information on Rockefeller’s link to the Rothschild family, who are exponentially wealthier, as they have been global bankers for centuries before the Rockefellers started and are likely stealthily pulling their strings.

The Rockefellers’ Rise to Powerpandemics

 

In the late 19th century, John D. Rockefeller became the richest man in the world. He started Standard Oil Corporation in 1870, which soon came under fire. In 1911, Standard Oil was ruled an unreasonable monopoly and split into 34 companies, which became Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, Amoco, Marathon and others.2

To improve his image and exert more world control, Rockefeller got into philanthropy, allowing him to avoid taxation and put money into society in ways that would benefit his businesses. Rockefeller founded the University of Chicago and the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, allowing him to set the research agenda to further their own interests.

Then, in 1913, John D. Rockefeller set up the Rockefeller Foundation. Around the same time, Andrew Carnegie, who was in the steel industry, also became very wealthy and set up a foundation. Nordangard explains:3

“The idea was to have this money and make it work for … a new order of the world and that was meant to be built on management philosophy, because they thought that the government of the day was not efficient — it was inefficient.

So they thought it’s better for us to influence the politics and direct it more international, because that’s a very important thing with the foundation of their work … it was an internationalist course and that was just for it to create this good world where we would have a big human family and all these buzzwords, but it was more about business.”

Meanwhile, at the time, Rockefeller still had an image problem. The Foundation he created under his named was deemed “a menace to the future political and economic welfare of the nation.”

The Foundation, in partnership with Andrew Carnegie and educator Abraham Flexner, then set out to centralize U.S. medical schooling, orienting it to the “germ theory” of disease, which states that germs are solely responsible for disease and necessitate the use of pharmaceuticals to target said germs.

With that narrative in hand, Rockefeller financed the campaign to consolidate mainstream medicine, adopt the philosophies of the growing pharmaceutical industry and shutter its competition.

Rockefeller’s crusade caused the closure of more than half of U.S. medical schools, fostered public and press scorn for homeopathy, osteopathy, chiropractic, nutritional, holistic, functional, integrative and natural medicines, and led to the incarceration of many practicing physicians.4

What many don’t realize, however, is that the Rockefeller Foundation was the precursor to the World Health Organization and also played an important role in the transition of the League of Nations to the United Nations.5,6

The Shapers of Our Future

In 1940, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund was set up to act as the philanthropic arm for the five Rockefeller brothers, the grandchildren of John D. Rockefeller — John, Nelson, Laurance, Winthrop and David. It, too, echoed the same talk of world domination via a new world order. In 1959, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund announced:7

“We cannot escape, and indeed should welcome, the task which history has imposed on us. This is the task of helping to shape a new world order in all its dimensions — spiritual, economic, political, social.”

Eventually, the Rockefellers, who were instrumental in setting up the United Nations, came to view it as their own private club,8 and each of the grandsons became powerful in their own right. Nelson Rockefeller became vice president of the U.S. while David Rockefeller became the head of Chase Manhattan Bank, for instance. The Fund devoted money to various activist groups to influence public opinion, and also relied on philanthropy as part of their propaganda.

In order to gain public trust and favor, however, you need to tell the truth. To do this, they focused on recreating the perception of what’s true to match their agenda, so what they said fell in alignment. If you notice any connection to what occurred during the pandemic, with fact checkers called upon to reshape the truth to fit an overarching narrative, it’s not a coincidence.

In the beginning, there was public outrage against Rockefeller’s empire, with people aware that he was ruining small businesses and trying to run the government. So, he hired Ivy Lee, known as the father of PR, to massage his image. Soon, the media began featuring images of Rockefeller hugging his grandchildren and giving away dimes to poor children.9

Here again you’ll notice a connection to modern-day Bill Gates, who tried to monopolize the early computer market with his software company Microsoft. Using PR and philanthropy, he was able to change his ruthless corporate image to one of a generous philanthropist. But, like Rockefeller, Gates uses his donations to grow his own wealth, as the money spent on “charity” ultimately ends up benefiting his own investments and/or business interests

Creating Problems of Global Scale

In order to establish a new world order, there needs to be problems that are global in scope. The Rockefellers contacted influential people to discuss what problems would apply, settling on science as a buzzword, with global health and pandemics, along with oceanography and meteorology, as areas in need of management. “They’re perfect to make a global fear narrative,” Cummins says.10

He paraphrases a statement from Nick Hudson, chairman and founder of Pandemics Data & Analysis (PANDA), who stressed the importance of scrutinizing any “global” issue calling for the world to come together to solve it. As you can see, these issues started decades ago, but really ramped up during the pandemic:11

“He says if you see anything coming out that’s apparently a global problem that we all together need to address, but the only permissible solution is a global one and will involve handing more power authority to global organizations — and if descent is in any way crushed or pushed against and censorship in any way or there’s a static idea of the science and a consensus claimed, which is not science — it’s the opposite of science.

Science is always debating. If … one or two or more criteria come together, he said you do not need to look at the … you don’t need to look at the math, you don’t need to look at the science. You know it’s a scam if those conditions are met.”

In the 1950s, the Rockefellers picked up Henry Kissinger, who mentored Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum cofounder and chairman.12 Kissinger recruited Schwab at a Harvard international seminar, which was funded by the U.S. CIA.13

The Rockefellers and early WEF affiliations can also be tied back to the Club of Rome, a think tank that aligned with neo-Malthusianism — the idea that an overly large population would decimate resources — and was intending to implement a global depopulation agenda.

Then, in 1972, a United Nations meeting about climate change was held to come up with a plan to manage the planet in a sustainable manner. This led to the creation of Agenda 21 (Agenda for the 21st Century)14 — the inventory and control plan for all land, water, minerals, plants, animals, construction, means of production, food, energy, information, education and all human beings in the world.

The Great Transition

Much of the new world order’s plans are based on crisis management, and the idea that a great crisis will occur that will lead to the great transition, where globalists will swoop in to save the day, transforming society into the promised paradise.

The idea of the great transition came about in 2002, as the 2000s were deemed crucial years in pushing Agenda 21 forward. But the COVID-19 pandemic ultimately served this purpose. Cummins explains:15

“It [the pandemic] truly was a trigger. It created horrific dystopia mandates. Anti-science became the new science. Every single thing in COVID was anti-scientific. Essentially, in the end, we know that, but it was a trigger for a massive splurge of all of their climate strategies, transgender society atomization strategies have exploded and there’s also a massive change in immigration …

We don’t want to get into immigration in this discussion but it has been many times identified as a way of breaking down nationalism … the United Nations … made it clear we need to destroy national, we need to destroy sovereign nations …”

Meanwhile, WEF introduced stakeholder capitalism and its young global leaders program, along with the idea of managing problems using public-private partnerships. WEF’s “Young Global Leaders” program,16 which is essentially a five-year indoctrination into their principles, with a goal of creating world leaders who don’t answer to their people but to their bosses at WEF.

Graduates include Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, France’s President Emmanuel Macron, Alicia Garza, who cofounded the Black Lives Matter movement, and even actor Leonardo DiCaprio.17 WEF’s annual “Global Risks Reports” started in 2004 to outline the most severe risks we may face in coming years. They then put together working groups, composed mostly of multinational corporations, work on the big agenda.

In 2019, WEF entered into a strategic alliance with the United Nations, which called for the UN to “use public-private partnerships as the model for nearly all policies that it implements, most specifically the implementation of the 17 sustainable development goals, sometimes referred to as Agenda 2030.”18 Agenda 2030 is composed of 17 sustainable development goals with 169 specific targets to be imposed across the globe.

The Great Reset Is Launched

Soon after the COVID-19 pandemic began, global leaders and WEF began calling for The Great Reset. For instance, in June 2020, King Charles, then the Prince of Wales, announced he was launching a “new global initiative, The Great Reset,” along with WEF and His Royal Highness’ Sustainable Markets Initiative.19 A tweet from Clarence House stated:20

“#TheGreatReset initiative is designed to ensure businesses and communities ‘build back better’ by putting sustainable business practices at the heart of their operations as they begin to recover from the coronavirus pandemic.”

Embedded in this future world order will be widespread digitization, data collection and digital IDs intended to track and trace the global population. The United Nation’s Summit of the Future is scheduled for 2024, honing in on “the triple planetary crisis,” the COVID-19 pandemic and the Ukraine war to instill fear and propel their agenda forward.

Described as a “once-in-a-generation opportunity to enhance cooperation on critical challenges and address gaps in global governance, reaffirm existing commitments including to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the United Nations Charter, and move towards a reinvigorated multilateral system that is better positioned to positively impact people’s lives,”21 — this is but one more checkmark toward reaching the new world order the Rockefeller’s first dreamed up so many years ago.

In order to survive in this brutal climate, a new societal contract will be necessary, they’ll say — one in which we all become citizens of the world. As Cummins says:22

“So, the citizens that were sovereign and national, we had all this beautiful diversity around the world and people traveled between all cultures. We now are all responsible as some kind of global pawns to help commit, to fix the made-up nonsense crises that they’ve created.”

And a big part of the plan will involve readying for the next crisis — and obeying their orders on how to react when it occurs. They’ll put emergency platforms into place under the promise that they’ll dissolve once the crisis is solved. But if the crisis never ends, neither will their new authoritarian regime.

Nordangard adds, “It’s a very big part of this, so everyone should be prepared for a crisis, and they will also have protocols that tell them what to do when the crisis hits … everybody has to obey.”23 For more details and documentation of this important history lesson that’s rarely told, be sure to pick up a copy of Nordangard’s book, “Rockefeller: Controlling the Game.”

from:    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/07/15/the-greatest-history-never-told.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20230715&foDate=true&mid=DM1433418&rid=1856418422

Using The Excuse of HEALTH to Enslave Humanity

Posted on by

Launch of a New Doorway to Freedom

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

Here is the lnk for the Video with Dr. Meryl Nass:

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The World Health Organization is laying the foundation to take control over all aspects of everyone’s lives, across the world, under the auspice of “biosecurity”
  • A new organization called Door to Freedom is being set up as a one-stop shop where everyone can learn what the plan is and what we can do to stop it. Door to Freedom also hopes to align freedom organizations around the world to act in concert to get the word out more widely
  • The global cabal that is trying to seize control over the world have access to loads of capital, but they’re also using our tax dollars. The U.S. government has spent some $5 trillion on the pandemic response. Much of that money went to bribe media, hospitals, influencers, churches, medical groups and other social organizations to push the official narrative
  • Current laws give immunity to a lot of bad actors, including the Federal Reserve, the Bank of International Settlements, everybody who works for the WHO and the UN, federal government employees as well as many private organizations. Vaccines and their manufacturers are also indemnified
  • We need to pass new laws that eliminate all of these indemnifications, so that we can retroactively take them to court for the crimes they’ve committed

In this video, I interview repeat guest Dr. Meryl Nass, who has a monthly podcast with journalist James Corbett on Children’s Health Defense (CHD) TV. Their show is focused on the implementation of the World Health Organization’s efforts to install global tyranny with respect to health and global governance.

The implications for public health are enormous and extremely troubling. The WHO is basically laying the foundation to take control over all aspects of everyone’s lives, across the world, under the auspice of “biosecurity.”

In this interview, Nass explains how the WHO is being set up as a central governing body for the world, and what we can do to stop it. She also details the price she’s paid for taking a stand against the false COVID narrative and offering early treatment.

Sacrificial Lamb

Nass was one of the doctors who, during the COVID pandemic, offered patients early treatment in Maine and Maryland. As a result, her medical license was suspended and the medical board forced her to undergo psychiatric evaluation. Apparently, in the present era, doctors who think saving lives is more important than following unscientific medical advice created by bureaucrats is considered insanity. She comments:

“This whole pandemic, and the takeover of the world by ‘elites, (global cabal)’ has been orchestrated primarily through fear, and one thing that’s necessary is to make doctors cooperate. To do that, the best way is to scare them, and the best way to scare them is to threaten their medical licenses …

In July and August of 2021, there were national news reports of several doctors who were prescribing ivermectin and [who] were being investigated, but none of them actually lost their licenses.

Apparently, this was not enough to stop doctors from prescribing ivermectin, and in states where it was allowed, hydroxychloroquine. These are both licensed drugs and the federal government had no legal authority to take them off the menu.

Licensed doctors could prescribe licensed drugs, as could nurse practitioners, PAs [physician’s assistants], et cetera. Neither one had a black box warning, neither one was a controlled substance. They were both safe, and they both had been used for a number of decades.

So, instead, it had to be done through the states — because states regulate medical practice in the U.S., and pharmacy practice — so, about 30 states issued either guidelines or rules to pharmacists and doctors telling them whether they could prescribe these drugs and under what circumstances.

That had happened in early 2020. In my case, the board got an anonymous complaint against me saying I was spreading misinformation — another charge that the government really needed to control people on. They couldn’t have the truth coming out about COVID, the drugs, the vaccines, and about this whole takeover.

So, they created this baloney concept of ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation’ and ‘malinformation’ and pretended that it was the law, that people who spread misinformation could be charged, and had to stop. A whole huge system was created within the federal government to surveil our online presence and go after people [who went against the narrative].

So, I was accused, initially, not of using these drugs, because I used them legally, but of spreading misinformation. And I think that the feds were looking for an excuse to really scare doctors … I was fairly well known.

So they went after me and said, ‘Not only are we investigating you, but we find, even before an investigation goes forward, even before any hearing, before the medical board even gets to see you and you get to say one word to them, we’ve decided that you are such a danger to the people of Maine, we must immediately suspend your license.’ They did that on January 12, 2022.”

Kangaroo Court

Nass has not been able to practice medicine since. Before the first hearing, the state medical board tried to get her to plea bargain and surrender her license voluntarily. She refused. By then, she was already working with CHD, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who founded CHD, offered to pay for her legal defense.

Of course, before the first hearing, they realized they couldn’t possibly take Nass to court for misinformation. After all, the First Amendment allows her to say whatever she wants. So, they dropped the misinformation charges and charged her with using medications off-label instead — only, that’s perfectly legal as well.

So, they dropped that charge, and instead argued she’d been speaking ill of the COVID vaccines. But that wasn’t a winning strategy either, because, of course, they didn’t want to defend the shots in court.

“So, basically, they went through my records and they tried to find little piddly things, like my records weren’t neat enough. I had been doing telemedicine and I hadn’t written down the vital signs for a patient, things like that,” Nass says.

“So in the hearings that have gone on so far, we’ve managed to shoot down all of those charges. There’s nothing substantive, there’s nothing left for them. In fact, the attorney general didn’t even question my last witness, who was Harvey Risch, an emeritus professor and M.D., Ph.D., from Yale, who blew apart the part-time ER doctor’s testimony that I hadn’t done things correctly.

So, that’s where we are. They don’t have a case, so what they want to do instead is drag this out forever, which will do two things that are good for them: One, prevent me from being able to say I won my case and get national attention for that, because they managed to put me in the national news when they took my license;

No. 2, they want to cost Children’s Health Defense a whole lot of money by just dragging it out, and it doesn’t cost them anything to drag it out. They’ve got the assistant attorney generals who are already working for the state managing the case.

Somebody up there is pulling the strings and figured out how to make this as painful as possible for myself and CHD. Well, I want to assure them that it’s not painful at all because we’ve had up to 180,000 people watching each hearing in real time.

CHD and Epoch Times have streamed every one, so everyone has been able to see what kind of kangaroo court this is, and the state of Maine has a black eye already. So let’s go forward. Let’s give them some more black eyes.”

Most Doctors Are Between a Rock and a Hard Place

Unfortunately, threatening a doctor’s medical license is an exceptionally effective way to ensure compliance, and an effective coercion to follow the rules even though they are wholly unlawful. The reason for this is simple economics. Most doctors owe hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans, and unless they’re independently wealthy, they can’t afford to go into private practice.

That means they work as an employee for a hospital or big clinic, where the rules are being set by hospital administrators. In addition to that, medical education is wholly captured by Big Pharma, and has been for the last 100 years. As such, medical students are being brainwashed from Day One. On top of that, you have peer pressure.

“We’re in the middle of a war,” Nass says. “It’s a war about who gets control of people, and doctors just happened to be a necessary chess piece for them. By doing this to me and others, the state has been very successful at getting most doctors to keep their mouth shut and go along, and comply with what they want.”

Indeed, it takes enormous courage and commitment to patient welfare to buck a system that has all these built-in pressures. In my estimate, perhaps only 5% of the 1 million doctors in America took a stand against the COVID tyranny.

“More than 75% of doctors are employed by somebody else, and that means they don’t have a say,” Nass explains. “If they’re employed by a hospital, the hospital bean-counters said, ‘Look, everybody who comes in is getting remdesivir, that’s it, if they’re admitted with COVID.’ And they can’t fight back.

There was so much money involved that people who tried to fight back lost their jobs. And this was what hospitals and employers were told to do by government and so-called ethicists like Art Caplan. You fire people and then everybody else goes along. So that’s what happened.

The other thing is … you can’t expect someone to believe something if their salary depends on their not believing it. So there’s that. The peer pressure is huge, for several reasons. One is malpractice. If you don’t go along with everybody else, you are liable for malpractice if your patient doesn’t do well.

So if I give someone hydroxychloroquine for COVID and they wind up dying, I can be sued for malpractice because I wasn’t following the standard of care. But if I gave them remdesivir and they die, I was following the standard of care, and I can’t be sued for that.

These are terrible things. This means that the entire profession has been pushed — through these rules and standards — to do things wrong. And all of this was probably thought of, or even planned, long ago, so that it would be relatively easy to control all the doctors.”

The Global Takeover Is Well Underway

As noted by Nass, most of you who are paying attention will have noticed that all kinds of crazy things are now happening all at once. We were mandated to get fast-tracked “vaccines” that turned out to be both ineffective and extremely dangerous, and even though the proverbial cat is now out of the bag, government is still trying to pressure people into taking additional boosters.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has authorized vaccine manufacturers to make a third, bivalent, version of the mRNA shot, to be rolled out in the fall in combination with the flu shots.

“Why would that be, when everyone knows that after a few weeks, [the shots] make you more susceptible to get the disease, as well as have heart attacks, strokes, blood clots, et cetera, and sudden death?” Nass asks.

We’re also facing the rollout of a central bank digital currency (CBDC) and an international digital vaccine passport. We also know that the U.S. government was funding the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) to design more lethal coronaviruses. Why did they do that? To what end?

We’ve also seen stupendous changes within our school system. Transgender ideology now trumps everything else. We’ve seen a rapid growth of online schooling and the lowering of educational standards at all levels, all while using the right pronoun has become incredibly important.

We’ve also seen a radical shift away from true environmentalism in favor of a “green” agenda that forces the poor and middle class to lower their standard of living while the wealthy profit. The fact is, the destruction of our environment and the raping of underdeveloped countries for their natural resources was done by the same globalists that now blame all of these problems on the public.

“What’s going on now is that the ‘elites’ (global cabal) have somehow gained control of enough pieces of our culture and our education system, and certainly our mass media and government, to roll out these cultural concepts and convince people of their validity,” Nass says.

“The elites have decided — they’ve got the ability now, through surveillance, through control of media and control of governments — to take over much of the world. The simplest and most legal way for them to do that, without having to fight wars, is to take over public health, and wrap the rest of the world into public health.

So public health is not just between you and your doctor. Public health now involves wild animals … They want to control the interactions of humans and wild animals.

They also want to control what happens with our livestock … so, livestock have become part of health. Ecosystems have also become part of health, and so has everything else. The name for this is ‘One Health.’

The WHO, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) — the world organization on animal health — and the UN Environmental Program, are all pushing for these things to be part of One Health and public health.

This didn’t happen by chance. It’s a scheme … funded by the Rockefeller Foundation around 2009. Many U.S. federal agencies are supposed to be using the One Health approach. This means that health problems have to be solved with a whole committee of people, not just doctors, not just veterinarians, but you need the ecologists, the plant pathologists, the livestock people, et cetera.

Everybody has to work together. But that’s not enough. You also have to throw in the police. You also have to throw in governments and legislators and everyone else into this concept of One Health.”

As noted by Nass, One Health is already enshrined in U.S. law in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), so there’s no question that U.S. agencies are all on the same track as the WHO.

Who’s Part of the Global Cabal?

In the interview, Nass goes on to name some of the organizations that are part of the global cabal that is reworking society for their own aims. Named players include the Rhodes organization, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission and Chatham House, which is the equivalent of the Council on Foreign Relations in the U.K.

All these groups, and many more, are linked to each other. Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger cofounded the Trilateral Commission and was a Rhodes scholar and member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Kissinger selected Klaus Schwab to create the World Economic Forum (WEF) in 1971, and they’ve been working together ever since.

In 1993, the WEF founded a Young Global Leaders program to groom international heads of state. Today, Germany, France, Canada, Finland and other countries are led by graduates of this program.

“It’s not exactly a secret society, but Klaus Schwab and his group have managed to identify people who would go along with their program,” Nass says. “I suspect these are people who are not the most intelligent, who lack imagination and are very obedient.

Therefore, they have been convinced that climate change is a dire emergency, and that they need to take extraordinary measures to deal with it — even if they have to reduce the population, even if they have to reduce our standard of living, even if they have to impose 15-minute cities, get rid of air travel and … eat bugs.”

How the WHO Is Being Set Up as the Central Authority

As explained by Nass, from its inception in 1948, the WHO has been an organization that transferred money from wealthier countries to poorer countries to help them with health problems like tuberculosis, AIDS and malaria.

During the COVID pandemic, the WHO and diplomats from member countries decided that a comprehensive pandemic treaty was necessary. The justification was that COVID had been mismanaged, hence we need a central decision-maker.

“Of course, what was never said is that things were managed so poorly because most countries were following the WHO advice, which was absolutely awful,” Nass says.

If this pandemic treaty goes through, either a regional epidemic or global pandemic would authorize the WHO to step in and dictate how the matter should be addressed. WHO members are also working on amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHRs), which would strip member nations of their sovereignty to make health-related decisions.

And, recall that “health” is being redefined to include all aspects of life, under the already existing One Health paradigm. As Nass explains:

“What has been proposed is that either a regional director-general or the WHO director-general can simply declare a public health emergency of international concern, or the potential for a public health emergency of international concern.

Once they make that declaration, all these powers would then accrue to the director-general of the WHO, if it’s for all countries, or if it’s regional, to that regional director-general.

That person could then say, ‘OK, medicines in your country need to be shipped to this other country.’ Intellectual property on how to make vaccines need to go away. Let’s say Abbott has a vaccine to combat whatever it is. They have to now give the recipe to Rwanda so they can make that vaccine in their own country and use it for their own people.

They can close borders. The WHO director-generals could basically take control of anything. If they say, ‘Oh, people are getting this from animals,’ they can stop contact with animals, stop you eating chicken or whatever, because One Health has taken jurisdiction over ecosystems.

The entire planet is ecosystems, and that’s part of One Health. Animals and plants are also part of One Health. So, they can tell you what to eat, they can tell you where to go and where not to go. They can lock you in your home. They can put masks on you, they can mandate vaccinations — if these [IHR] amendments and the pandemic treaty are passed.

They’re still being negotiated. The final versions are not out. But we have certainly criticized and analyzed the early versions, and they will be voted on next May [2024], and could potentially go into force on a provisional basis. The treaty could go into force almost immediately.”

How These Instruments Alter the WHO’s Existing Authority

In many ways, it seems the WHO was already exercising these powers, or at least attempting to, during the COVID pandemic. So, how do these two instruments — the IHR amendments and the pandemic treaty — alter their existing authority? Nass explains:

“There are existing international health regulations and they’ve been in existence since at least 1969 … Although the WHO claims that part of the IHRs that exist right now are binding, they aren’t binding. So, countries followed them, but there was no legal requirement for them to do so.

The International Health Regulations stated very clearly that the way they were to be carried out was with ‘full respect for freedom of persons’ dignity and human rights.’ In the new version that is being negotiated, they have struck that out. There is no longer a need to respect human rights, dignity or freedom of persons.

And, they have specifically said that these new regulations will be binding on countries, and countries are required to have a focal point that is required to carry them out and report back to the WHO how they’ve been carried out.

There are additional new provisions that countries are required to perform surveillance of their populations. They want you to think this is surveillance of only bacteria or surveillance of only social media, but it’s both. So, the WHO could require people to be swabbed in your country, whether or not they’re crossing a border.

Say there’s an outbreak. Everybody has to line up and get swabbed to see if they’re infected with X. And animals have to be surveilled as well, because they’re looking for pathogens that have the potential to be become pandemics. So that is supposed to happen.

Now, there’s a huge problem with that, and that is, you can always find viruses that have the potential to become pandemics … So, if you start surveilling for them, you’re going to find them, which means that would allow the director-general of the WHO to declare a public health emergency anytime he or she wants.

The other surveillance is they require countries to surveil their social media and mainstream media, and censor anything that goes against the public health messaging of the WHO. So this is big. This is huge.”

Is Global Tyranny an Inevitability?

While it may seem there’s no way to derail this proverbial bullet train, Nass remains optimistic. “This is a dystopian future that actually is not good for anybody. Even the people who want it are going to find it’s not good for them either,” Nass says.

Now, the global cabal that is trying to seize control have access to essentially unlimited capital. But they’re also using our tax dollars. As noted by Nass, the U.S. government has spent some $5 trillion on the pandemic response.

“That’s our money, not theirs,” she says, “and a lot of that money, most likely, went to bribe media.” Hospitals were also paid to go along with the narrative, as were celebrities, churches, medical groups and other social organizations.

“These very wealthy people do not want to spend their own money to take over the world. They want to spend our money or put us in debt. But are these expenditures justified and legal?

If we get governments of people who are responsive to normal life, we can investigate where that money went. What are these public officials doing? We can put them on trial, and we can probably even claw back a lot of this money.

Now, to do that might require some new laws, but if we had really good people in office — like Bobby Kennedy — we could potentially create the laws, very quickly, that will allow us to try government officials and others, heads of media, et cetera, if they’re doing things that are against the law.”

Why We Need New Laws

The reason we need new laws is because current laws give immunity to a lot of bad actors, including the Federal Reserve, the Bank of International Settlements, everybody who works for the WHO and the UN, and federal government employees as well as many private organizations.

Vaccines and their manufacturers are also indemnified. We need to pass new laws that eliminate all these indemnifications, so that we can retroactively take them to court for the crimes they’ve committed.

“This whole thing goes against the principles of the Constitution, the principles of natural law. This is a dystopian nightmare that was figured out by some very clever people in public relations and in consulting groups. We know the French government paid something like €1 billion or €2 billion to McKinsey to help manage the pandemic response.

So we can identify organizations that have brought these things on us and go after them. We also need to tell our members of Congress, our parliamentarians, and legislators, we don’t want this dystopia. Government doesn’t give us rights. We have rights. We are giving government authority. Government doesn’t have authority and own us. We own the government.

We’ve been led to believe that it’s the other way around, but it isn’t. And we can fix all this. There are about 50 members of Congress already who have signed on as co-sponsors to HR79 [the WHO Withdrawal Act1]. We need to get out of these international organizations.

The UN is trying to do something similar. The WHO was simply pulled in because there was an opportunity to gain control legally through the WHO because of the way its constitution exists, because of several Supreme Court cases, et cetera, there was an ability to use the WHO. The cabal may try to use other international organizations or other means to gain control.

But look, there’s a few thousand of them. There’s 8 billion of us. This is like a million to one. We can beat them. We don’t have to go along with any of it. If everybody says no, if the police don’t enforce, if the Army doesn’t enforce, it’s not going to happen. So people just need to realize what’s going on.”

Door to Freedom

To that end, Nass is working with a new organization called Door to Freedom. Their website, which will launch shortly, will contain all the relevant WHO and UN documents, criticisms of those documents, and both long and short explanations of what’s going on.

It’ll be a one-stop shop where everyone can learn what the plan is and what we can do to stop it. Door to Freedom also hopes to align freedom organizations around the world to act in concert to get the word out more widely.

Personally, I’m skeptical about the likelihood of winning this battle through legislative efforts because this cabal has been working on this plan for decades, if not centuries. So, they already have everything buttoned up, or close to it. Perhaps someone like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. could get it done, but it will take a small miracle to get him into office as well.

What I do hold out hope for is that public resistance will block attempts of implementation. So, the key, I think, is to educate people. Henceforth, most of the day-to-day choices you make will take the world either closer to freedom, or closer to slavery, so it’s crucial to understand where we are, where the cabal intends to take us, and how they intend to get us there.

That way, you can make decisions and take actions that will move us in the opposite direction. Door to Freedom will be able to help you understand all of that, so please bookmark doortofreedom.org, and check back regularly.

from:    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/07/16/who-global-tyranny.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20230716&foDate=true&mid=DM1433941&rid=1857121056

Thirsty in the Woods?

Posted on by

Survival Skills: 10 Ways to Purify Water

Access to safe drinking water is critical in camping or survival situations

BY  | 

One of the top survival priorities in an emergency is to find and disinfect enough drinking water to supply your needs. Whether your crisis situation is unfolding in the desert after becoming lost or in your own home after a natural disaster, the human body can only last three days without any drinking water at all. Good thing there are abundant water sources across most of the globe, and multiple ways to disinfect the water. Which method of water processing is right for different situations? Follow along here and find out.
One of the top survival priorities in an emergency is to find and disinfect enough drinking water to supply your needs. Whether your crisis situation is unfolding in the desert after becoming lost or in your own home after a natural disaster, the human body can only last three days without any drinking water at all. Good thing there are abundant water sources across most of the globe, and multiple ways to disinfect the water. Which method of water processing is right for different situations? Follow along here and find out.
SHARE

One of the top survival priorities in an emergency is to find and disinfect enough drinking water to supply your needs. Whether your crisis situation is unfolding in the desert after becoming lost or in your own home after a natural disaster, the human body can only last three days without any drinking water at all.

Good thing there are abundant water sources across most of the globe, and multiple ways to disinfect the water. Which method of water processing is right for different situations? Follow along here and find out.

tree sap spigot

Finding a Water Source

Depending on your location and situation, water can be abundant or virtually non-existent.

Before you can disinfect the water, you have to find it. Depending on your location and situation, water can be abundant or virtually non-existent. Water can come from freshwater surface sources like streams, creeks, ponds, and lakes. If you are able to distill the water, you can even use brackish or salty water as a source.

Let’s not forget precipitation as an emergency water supply. Rain, snow, sleet, hail, ice, and dew can be collected for water. Fresh rain that didn’t fall through a jungle or forest canopy should be safe enough to drink as is. New snow can be melted for drinking without processing as well.

Water issuing from springs and other underground sources can also be safe in most areas. Water coming from tapped trees like maple and birch can be safe to drink and abundant in late winter. But most other water sources should be considered “dirty” and must be disinfected with one of the following methods.

boiling water

Boiling

In order to kill the parasites, bacteria, and other pathogens in water, the most reliable thing to do is boil the water.

In order to kill the parasites, bacteria, and other pathogens in water, the most reliable thing to do is boil the water. Boiling will not evaporate all forms of chemical pollution, but it is still one of the safest methods of disinfection. Five minutes of a rolling boil will kill most organisms, but ten minutes is safer. Elevations high enough to effect boiling and cooking times will require slightly more time over the flame.

Boiling can be done over a campfire or stove in a metal, ceramic, or glass container. If no fireproof container is available, heat rocks for 30 minutes in the fire and place them into your container of water. This container could be a rock depression, a bowl burned out of wood, a folded bark container, a hide, or an animal stomach. Don’t use quartz or any river rocks as these can explode when heated.

distillation still

Distillation

In a scenario where the only water available is dangerous water, there aren’t many options. The safest solution is water distillation.

Radiation, lead, salt, heavy metals, and many other contaminants can taint your water supply after a disaster, and trying to filter them out will only ruin your expensive water filter.

In a scenario where the only water available is dangerous water, there aren’t many options. The safest solution is water distillation. Water can be heated into steam, and the steam can then be captured to create relatively clean water, despite its prior forms of contamination—including radioactive fallout. Distillation won’t remove all possible contaminants, like volatile oils and certain organic compounds, but most heavy particles will stay behind. For home-based disaster survival situations, a quick way to make a steam distiller is with a pressure canner and some small-diameter copper tubing. The best part of this operation (aside from safe water) is that the canner stays intact. This allows you to shift gears from water distillation to food preservation very easily (providing you are not dealing with radiation). The only tricky part is getting the copper line fitted to the steam vent on the canner’s lid.

If in the field, try your luck with a solar still, a simple invention that collects and distills water in a hole in the ground. To build one, place a square of clear or milky plastic (5×5 or 6×6 feet) over a three-feet-deep hole with a clean container centered in the bottom. (Run a drinking tube from the container so that you can drink your gathered water without taking apart the whole still.) Place dirt around the edge of the plastic at the rim of the hole to seal off the still. Place a rock in the middle of the plastic to create a roughly 45-degree cone over the container. Dig the still in a sunny location and in the dampest dirt or sand available. Add green vegetation and even urine to the hole to increase its water production. A transpiration bag is a smaller and less productive version of this set-up, involving a clear plastic bag tied around live vegetation.

Lifestraw

Survival Straws

One of the smallest, lightest of water disinfecting tools to hit the marketplace lately is the straw style of water filter.

One of the smallest, lightest of water disinfecting tools to hit the marketplace lately is the straw style of water filter. Newer models can be used as you would a drinking straw and can also connect to the drain valve on a water heater to clean up the water you might find in a water heater after a disaster. They can also fit onto a garden hose to filter the water running through it. Don’t expect it to filter out every single virus or bacteria that could be growing in there, though—especially a hose that’s been laying in the sun, or a water heater full of tepid water after a prolonged power outage. Most of these filters contain an activated carbon filter element, which not only filters out larger bacteria and pathogens, but also removes odd flavors and odors from the water.

water filter IV bag

Filters

The two main types of water filters in use today are pump-action filters and drip/suction filters.

The two main types of water filters in use today are pump-action filters and drip/suction filters. The former utilize a pump to force raw water through a filter cartridge. The latter are filter cartridges that use a gravity drip action (like an IV bag) or are placed in line on hydration bladder hoses. When used on a hydration bladder, the user simply sucks water through the filter as needed. My favorite (for years now) is the Katadyn Pocket filter. It has a ceramic cartridge with silver imbedded inside. The ceramic filters out the larger pathogens, and the silver kills or disables smaller organisms like viruses. Most filters like this will pump about a quart per minute. If time isn’t an issue, you might opt for a gravity-fed system like the one shown here.

UV light filter

UV Light Devices

UV light is very damaging to small organisms. When used as a disinfection method, it’s surprisingly effective.

UV light is very damaging to small organisms. When used as a disinfection method, it’s surprisingly effective. Devices like the Steripen Sidewinder are battery-free, hand-cranked water purification devices that disrupt the DNA of illness-causing microbes in mere seconds. There are also a few battery-powered Steripen products that pack the same punch on bad bugs, and have been field-proven around the globe. These are not 100-percent effective in water with large floating particles (which pathogens can hide behind or inside), but for clear water of questionable origin these devices will do the trick.

solar water disinfection

SODIS

Solar water disinfection (SODIS for short) is a water treatment method that uses the sun’s energy for disinfection.

Solar water disinfection (SODIS for short) is a water treatment method that uses the sun’s energy for disinfection. The most common technique is to expose plastic bottles full of contaminated water to the sun for a minimum of one day. The sun’s abundant UV light kills or damages almost all biological hazards in the water. The advantages to this way of treating water are plentiful. It’s easy to use; it’s inexpensive or free; and it offers good (but not complete or guaranteed) bacterial and viral disinfection. Furthermore, the method uses no dangerous chemicals, and it does not require constant attention.

But there are some problems with the method. You need sunny weather or two days of overcast sky to reach the maximum effectiveness. You cannot use it in rain; it offers no residual disinfection; it may be less effective against bacterial spores and cyst stages of some parasites; the water and the bottle need to be clear; and the bottle shouldn’t be glass. If that wasn’t bad enough, this method does nothing to help with chemical contamination, and only small bottles (2 liters, max) can be processed.

water disinfection tablets

Disinfecting Tablets

While these two products are using different chemicals, they both seem to be better than 99-percent effective against water-borne pathogens.

Two of the most common and popular water disinfection tablets are Katadyn’s Micropur tablets and Potable Aqua’s iodine tablets. They can both work very effectively, but there are some differences. If you’re stocking a cabin, cave, or BOB with purification tablets, you certainly want to consider the life span of the product. The iodine tablets from Potable Aqua have a one-year shelf life. That’s not bad, but Katadyn‘s Micropur tablets last for two years or more. While these two products are using different chemicals, they both seem to be better than 99-percent effective against water-borne pathogens.

Potable Aqua is the clear winner when it comes to speed. Water treated with those tablets is ready to drink 35 minutes after treatment begins. The Micropur tablets take a full four hours to achieve their maximum disinfecting action. One final thought to consider are the side effects.

The toxicity and flavor of iodine can be a little problematic. The iodine tablets are generally not a good choice for pregnant women or anyone with thyroid issues or shellfish allergies. Picky children are also notorious for failing to drink the iodine-infused water, which could lead to dehydration and other serious repercussions in an already dicey emergency. The Katadyn product is chlorine based, most of which dissipates over the allotted four-hour waiting period, so that product is widely tolerated and tastes much better.

To summarize, the Katadyn Micropur tablets cost more and take longer to work, but they last longer and are widely tolerated. Potable Aqua’s iodine tablets are cheaper and work faster, but taste worse and don’t store as long.

bleach for water purification

Household Chemicals

Either bleach or iodine can be carefully used to disinfect water with good results.

Either bleach or iodine can be carefully used to disinfect water with good results. Generally speaking, the amount of the chemical you use will depends on the water quality and temperature. Cold or murky water needs a little more disinfectant (four drops per quart) than warm or clear water (two drops). After adding the chemical, put the lid back on your water container and shake it for a minute. Then turn the bottle upside down, and unscrew the cap a turn, or two. Let a small amount of water flow out to clean the bottle threads and cap. Screw the lid back on tight, and wipe the exterior of the bottle to get the chlorine on all surfaces. Set the bottle in a dark place, or at least in the shade, and let it sit for 30 minutes if the water is clear and at room temperature. When you open the bottle after the allotted time, it should smell like chlorine. If not, add another drop or two and wait another 30 minutes. Don’t take chances or shortcuts with water safety. The last thing you need in an emergency is dysentery.

You can also use the two common forms of iodine to disinfect your water. Iodine is a more harmful substance than bleach in most people’s bodies, but it is an option. To use iodine, it is critical to identify which type you are using. Tincture of iodine 2% is actually much stronger than 10% povidone-iodine solution. Use 5 to 10 drops of tincture of iodine 2% in one quart of water and allow it to sit in the shade for 30 minutes. Again, flush the threads and wipe down the bottle. Use 5 drops for clear or warm water, and up to 10 for cold or cloudy water. Since 10% povidone-iodine solution is weaker, you’ll need 8 to 16 drops per quart of water. Again, use fewer drops for nice looking water and 16 drops for swamp water. Clean the bottle and wait. An added benefit to iodine products is that you can use them for wound disinfections too. Chlorine does not serve double duty like this, and you should never put bleach on any wounds. Never blend iodine and chorine for water disinfection.

cork filter

Build Your Own Filter

This type of filter has some humanitarians looking hard at conifer wood as a readily available material for water filtration devices in developing nations.

We’ve all seen the survival books displaying a water filter made from charcoal-filled pants hanging from a tripod. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is not a reliable system. It will screen out larger particles, but don’t expect bacteria-free and virus-free water to shoot from this contraption. What could work, however, is a filter made from some flexible hose, glue, and a chunk of pine sapwood. The sapwood’s structure already performs a filtering action in the living wood, screening out air bubbles from the tree sap. Unchecked, these air bubbles would lead to tissue damage.

This type of filter has some humanitarians looking hard at conifer wood as a readily available material for water filtration devices in developing nations. Researchers have successfully used a one-cubic-inch block of pine sapwood as a water filter. (Click here to see their research article.) This chunk of wood was attached to a water supply by using a PVC pipe and some epoxy to prevent water from bypassing the wood filter. Flow rates of several quarts a day were reached in their trials, and E. coli was eliminated by 99.9 percent. These are the same numbers you’ll see from straw-style water filters. Though the wood might allow viruses to pass through (since they are much smaller than bacteria), some water filtration is better than none.

drinking glass of water

Drink It Raw

It’s better to be alive and sickened with pathogens, than dead and pathogen free.

Drinking raw water is certainly a gamble. Even in pristine wilderness areas, the water can be contaminated with all kinds of bowel churning pathogens. Unless you are lucky enough to find a spring that is issuing clean water out of the natural water table, drinking unprocessed water is risky at best. If there’s any way to process the water, it should be attempted before you say “bottoms up” to unprocessed water. But there are always exceptions. If death from dehydration is near, and you cannot treat the water, drink it anyway. It’s better to be alive and sickened with pathogens, than dead and pathogen free.

A water bottle survival kit.
Choose a wide-mouth bottle for easy removal of the items. Outdoor Life Online Editors

Bonus: Build a Water Bottle Survival Kit

A bottle of water can be a valuable commodity to a thirsty person, but it’s not just the water that has worth; the bottle itself can serve many purposes. One of the best uses is as a container for a survival kit. Whether you choose a plastic or metal bottle, here are some items to toss inside.

The Gear

The guts of your water bottle survival kit can be complex and diverse, or down to business. Whatever you stock in the kit, it’s a good idea to include a fair bit of redundancy. Back-ups are always a smart idea when your life may depend on such a small assortment of equipment.

  1. Folding knife and/or mini multitool
  2. Liquid-filled button compass
  3. Small LED flashlight or squeeze light with a spare set of batteries
  4. Bic lighter, ferrocerium rod, and tinder tabs
  5. 40 water purification tablets
  6. Signal mirror and whistle
  7. A space blanket
  8. A Fresnel magnifying lens (back-up fire starter)
  9. 50 feet of 550 cord
  10. Fishing kit, including: 30 yards of monofilament line, 10 bait keeper hooks of various sizes, and split shot
  11. 4 steel safety pins—2 large and 2 small
  12. Small first aid kit
  13. Several feet of Duct tape (could be wrapped around the bottle itself)
  14. A small pouch to hold all of this gear when the bottle is being used to hold liquid

The Bottle

One of the best pieces of gear to hit the outdoor marketplace in recent years is the stainless steel, single-wall water bottle. This rugged vessel is not only crack-proof and crush-resistant, but it can be used to boil your water to make it safe to drink. Important note: If you are using a metal bottle to boil water, the bottle needs to be made of either single-wall stainless steel or some other fire-friendly metal, like titanium, with no paints or coatings. Do not put an insulated bottle or double-wall bottle in the fire. The heat won’t go through properly, and the vessel will probably explode. Skip the aluminum bottles,too, as the metal and the coatings can leach bad stuff into your water.

If you go the plastic route, choose a wide-mouth bottle for easy removal of the items. Also, make sure the bottle is made of Lexan plastic, which can handle higher temperatures without melting, and add a metal cup that fits over the bottle. This gives you the boiling option in an easy and versatile contain

from:    https://www.outdoorlife.com/survival-skills-ways-to-purify-water/

Aspartame – Not So Sweet After All

Posted on by

Top Sweetener Officially Declared a Carcinogen

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

July 14, 2023

aspartame carcinogenic effects

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The World Health Organization has finally gotten around to declaring the popular artificial sweetener aspartame a potential carcinogen
  • The ruling comes from sources with WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), who said aspartame will be listed as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” in July 2023
  • I’ve been warning about aspartame’s cancer-causing potential since 2010, so you can see just how long this danger has been known
  • For over a decade, researchers have been warning of aspartame’s neurotoxicity and carcinogenicity, stating reevaluation of aspartame consumption is “urgent and cannot be delayed”
  • A 2022 large-scale cohort study found people who consumed higher levels of artificial sweeteners had higher risk of overall cancer compared to non-consumers

The World Health Organization has finally gotten around to declaring the popular artificial sweetener aspartame a potential carcinogen.1 I warned about aspartame’s cancer-causing potential on my site over 25 years ago, in my best-selling book, “Sweet Deception: Why Splenda, NutraSweet, and the FDA May Be Hazardous to Your Health,” in 2006, and in an article I wrote for The Huffington Post.2 It’s since been deleted — but you can see just how long this danger has been known.

The ruling comes from sources with WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), who said aspartame will be listed as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” in July 2023.3 Additional findings from the Joint WHO and Food and Agriculture Organization’s Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), which is in the process of updating its aspartame risk assessment, are also expected.4

Donald Rumsfeld’s Hand in Aspartame’s Approval

JECFA has vouched for aspartame’s safety for decades, stating since 1981 that it’s safe when consumed within accepted daily limits.5 It was 1981 when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration first approved aspartame.6 At the time, the late Donald Rumsfeld, former U.S. secretary of defense, was chairman of G.D. Searle, aspartame’s manufacturer, and he was reportedly instrumental in its approval.

At a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, the FDA had refused to approve aspartame due to concerns that it could induce brain tumors.7 The late John Olney, a renowned neuroscientist who tried to prevent aspartame’s approval, also wrote a letter to the Board of Inquiry in 1987, warning of aspartame’s neurotoxicity, including the potential for brain tumors and damage to children’s brains.8 As reported by Rense.com:9

“The FDA had actually banned aspartame based on this finding, only to have Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld … vow to ‘call in his markers,’10 to get it approved.

On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener, and Reagan’s new FDA commissioner, Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr., appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry’s decision.

It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision, but Hull then installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame’s favor.

Hull later left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position with Burston-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle.”

Aspartame’s Cancer Link Known for Decades

Despite aspartame’s approval, by 1987 a series of investigative reports raised concerns that the chemical’s approval was mired by conflicts of interest, poor quality industry-funded research and revolving-door relationships between the FDA and the food industry.11

By 1996, a team with the department of psychiatry at Washington University Medical School questioned whether increasing brain tumor rates had an aspartame connection. “An exceedingly high incidence of brain tumors” has been identified in aspartame-fed rats compared to rats not fed aspartame, they explained, adding:12

“Compared to other environmental factors putatively linked to brain tumors, the artificial sweetener aspartame is a promising candidate to explain the recent increase in incidence and degree of malignancy of brain tumors.”

Then, in 2006, a study led by Dr. Morando Soffritti, a cancer researcher from Italy who’s the head of the European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences, found that, even in low doses, animals were developing several different forms of cancer when fed aspartame.13

That year, the team concluded aspartame was a “multipotential carcinogenic agent, even at a daily dose of 20 mg/kg body weight, much less than the current acceptable daily intake” and stated a reevaluation of aspartame consumption was “urgent and cannot be delayed.”14

A 2007 follow-up study confirmed the findings of aspartame’s “multipotential carcinogenicity,” even at doses close to the acceptable daily intake for humans. Further, it also demonstrated that when lifespan exposure beginning in utero was assessed, aspartame’s “carcinogenic effects are increased.”15 In 2010, Soffritti and colleagues again warned that aspartame was a carcinogenic agent in rats and mice.16

Research Supporting Aspartame’s Carcinogenicity Is Widespread

These studies were only the beginning of the evidence showing aspartame’s cancer-causing potential. In 2012, Harvard researchers published a study in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, which found:17

“In the most comprehensive long-term epidemiologic study, to our knowledge, to evaluate the association between aspartame intake and cancer risk in humans, we observed a positive association between diet soda and total aspartame intake and risks of NHL [non-Hodgkin lymphoma] and multiple myeloma in men and leukemia in both men and women.”

Adding further concerns over aspartame’s safety, U.S. Right to Know reported:18

“In a 2014 commentary in American Journal of Industrial Medicine,19 the [Cesare] Maltoni [Cancer Research] Center researchers wrote that the studies submitted by G. D. Searle for market approval ‘do not provide adequate scientific support for [aspartame’s] safety.

In contrast, recent results of life-span carcinogenicity bioassays on rats and mice published in peer-reviewed journals, and a prospective epidemiological study, provide consistent evidence of [aspartame’s] carcinogenic potential.’”

A 2020 study further supports the Ramazzini Institute’s (RI) original findings, revealing a statistically significant increase in total hematopoietic and lymphoid tissue tumors (HLTs) and total leukemias and lymphomas in female rats exposed to aspartame.

“After the HLT cases re-evaluation, the results obtained are consistent with those reported in the previous RI publication and reinforce the hypothesis that APM [aspartame] has a leukemogenic and lymphomatogenic effect,” the researchers explained.20

Again in 2021, a review of the Ramazzini Institute data further confirmed that aspartame is carcinogenic in rodents. The researchers noted that their findings “confirm the very worrisome finding that prenatal exposure to aspartame increases cancer risk in rodent offspring. They validate the conclusions of the original RI studies.”21

In response, they called on national and international public health agencies to reexamine aspartame’s health risks, particularly prenatal and early postnatal exposures.22

WHO Warns Against Artificial Sweeteners for Weight Control

Aspartame’s cancer link is especially concerning given its prevalence in diet foods and drinks. Aspartame is used in 1,400 food products in France and more than 6,000 products around the globe. The chemical is commonly found in food products such as sugar-free gum, diet drink mixes and sodas, reduced-sugar condiments and tabletop sweeteners, including Equal and NutraSweet.26

Its high level of sweetness — 200 times greater than sugar27 — and low calories makes it popular among people looking to make their drinks and meals sweeter without the calories of a comparable amount of sugar.

But, in addition to labeling the artificial sweetener as possibly carcinogenic, in May 2023, even the beyond-corrupted WHO released a guideline advising not to use non-sugar sweeteners (NSS) for weight control because they don’t offer any long-term benefit in reducing body fat in adults or children.28

Previously, WHO conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that revealed “there is no clear consensus on whether non-sugar sweeteners are effective for long-term weight loss or maintenance, or if they are linked to other long-term health effects at intakes within the ADI.”29

The systematic review also suggested “potential undesirable effects from long-term use of NSS, such as an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and mortality in adults.” Even cancer was called out in analysis, which included 283 studies and found artificial sweeteners are linked to an increased risk of:30

Obesity Type 2 diabetes
High fasting glucose All-cause mortality
Cardiovascular events Death from cardiovascular disease
Stroke High blood pressure
Bladder cancer Preterm birth and possible adiposity in offspring later in life

Further, according to the WHO study:31

“Mechanisms by which NSS as a class of molecules might exert effects that increase risk for obesity and certain NCDs [non-communicable diseases] have been reviewed extensively and include interaction with extra-oral taste receptors, possibly with alteration of the gut microbiome.

Because sugars and all known NSS presumably elicit sweet taste through the TAS1R heterodimeric sweet-taste receptor, which has been identified not just in the oral cavity but in other glucose-sensing tissues, it is not surprising that such a group of vastly different chemical entities could be responsible for similar effects on health.”

from:    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/07/14/aspartame-carcinogenic-effects.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20230714_HL2&foDate=true&mid=DM1432971&rid=1855621420

Some New “Family Entertainment” from Disney

Posted on by

Disney Produced Cartoon Features Illuminati-Style Elites Drinking Blood and Sacrificing People

July 14, 2023 NewsWars 0

A new Disney produced cartoon series is based around a cult of robed elites drinking blood, carrying out rituals including human sacrifice and worshiping an all seeing eye symbol. While some have suggested it is more of the same weird indoctrination programming we’ve come to expect from Disney, the series, aimed at adults, is produced by Mike Judge, the creator of Idiocracy, King of The Hill and Beavis & Butthead, who is known for his anti-establishment contrarian outlook the world we live in and culture.

A new Disney produced cartoon series is based around a cult of robed elites drinking blood, carrying out rituals including human sacrifice and worshipping an all seeing eye symbol.

However, it might not be entirely what you think.

While some have suggested it is more of the same weird indoctrination programming we’ve come to expect from Disney, the series, aimed at adults, is produced by Mike Judge, the creator of Idiocracy, King of The Hill and Beavis & Butthead, who is known for his anti-establishment contrarian outlook on the world we live in.

Here’s the trailer for Praise Petey which is set to premiere on July 21st on Freeform:

Read full article here…

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2023/07/disney-produced-cartoon-features-illuminati-style-elites-drinking-blood-and-sacrificing-people/

We’re Saving You A Trip!!!

Posted on by

Gates, WHO Envision Future Where ‘Vaccine Patches Could Be Mailed Directly to Peoples’ Homes’

July 14, 2023 Michael Nevradkis, PHD, The Defender at Children’s Health Defense 0

A new vaccine technology that delivers vaccines through microneedles on patches is known as vaccine microarray patches (VMAP). It is backed by global players including the World Health Organization (WHO) Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The patches have yet to be approved by regulators, but are still being promoted. VMAPs are easier to deliver, especially to children, than traditional needle jabs. The head of the National Vaccine Information Center said that vaccine ‘hesitancy’ “has never been about how the product is delivered.” Instead, “it has always been about the lack of evidence demonstrating safety.”

.A new vaccine technology using patches instead of needles is being described as “groundbreaking,” a “game changer” and having the potential to “transform immunisation coverage in lower-income countries.”

Backed by global players including the World Health Organization (WHO) Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, among others, vaccine-containing microarray patches (VMAP) — also known as “micro-array patches” or “microneedle patches,” have been the subject of dozens of scientific papers in recent years.

The claimed benefits of such “vaccine patches” — for everything from measles and rubella (MR) vaccines to various mRNA vaccines — are being widely promoted even though few clinical trials have been completed and no such vaccine has yet been approved by regulators.

Scientific and medical experts who spoke with The Defender raised questions about the technology and warned of potential dangers.

Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center and co-author of the 1985 book “DPT: A Shot in the Dark,” told The Defender:

“Whether it is delivered by a needle or a patch, a VMAP is a biological product that atypically manipulates the immune system to provoke strong inflammatory responses that can lead to injury or death for some who receive it.

“If you look at the medical literature describing microneedle vaccine patches, what you see is a lot of hype about how much easier it will be for the vaccinators to slap a patch on a child’s skin instead of using a needle, and how the ‘painless’ patch can reduce vaccine hesitancy.”

Fisher said vaccine hesitancy “has never been about how the product is delivered.” Instead, “it has always been about the lack of evidence demonstrating safety.”

Brian Hooker, Ph.D., P.E., senior director of science and research for Children’s Health Defense, said that the term “vaccine patch” may also be misleading, as it might be confused with nicotine patches for smokers.

Hooker told The Defender:

“The term ‘vaccine patch’ is misleading in that this microarray technology is nothing like other patch-based delivery systems for nicotine or hormones. This ‘patch’ still breaks the skin in order to deliver the liquid vaccine that is contained in the microarray’s matrix.

“As such, I don’t quite understand how this injection system will be delivered to patients and parents to administer the vaccine directly. That seems quite risky.

“Unfortunately, repackaging the same vaccines in this different platform does nothing to improve their safety — as this seems more a ploy to convince consumers otherwise.”

VMAP backers seek to ‘turn vaccines into vaccinations’

VMAPs can “overcome many obstacles and bottlenecks faced by intradermal vaccine delivery, thus maximising the reach of vaccines to the most remote locations to turn vaccines into vaccination,” according to an article published last week by Gavi.

According to UNICEF, “VMAPs can increase vaccine coverage by increasing acceptability by caregivers and recipients, and administering vaccines more rapidly and easily with minimally trained health care workers” and can “substantially improve the productivity and resilience of governments to expand immunization coverage.”

UNICEF’s position mirrors that of the WHO, the Gates Foundation and the Clinton Health Access Initiative — “The Big Catch-up” — described as “the largest childhood immunization effort ever,” intent on reversing “declines in childhood vaccination recorded in over 100 countries since the pandemic.”

UNICEF said it is “focusing on driving the research, development and scale of VMAPs,” including “identifying barriers for scaling and investigating the need for market pull incentives to spark interest and endorsement by vaccine manufacturers.”

Nevertheless, no VMAPs have yet been approved by regulators, according to Gavi, which states that, at present, “one measles and rubella vaccine patch has completed Phase 1/2 clinical trials. Two additional phase 1/2 clinical trials are planned.”

“Some COVID-19 and flu vaccines are also entering Phase 1/2 trials, and other vaccines such as HPV are undergoing preclinical assessment,” Gavi added.

According to Gavi, data from Phases 1 and 2 of the first-ever clinical trial of VMAPs in children was shared in May during the Microneedles 2023 conference in Seattle and delivered “promising results.”

The trial, conducted in Gambia with 45 adults, 120 toddlers 15-18 months of age, and 120 infants 9-10 months of age, “evaluated the safety, immunogenicity, and acceptability” of an MR vaccine delivered by micro-array technology developed by Atlanta-based Micron Biomedical.

The vaccine itself was developed by the Serum Institute of India, the world’s largest vaccine manufacturer by number of doses produced and sold. The Serum Institute produces the COVISHIELD COVID-19 vaccine, as well as over half of the world’s vaccines administered to babies.

The Serum Institute, along with Bill Gates, are named as defendants in a pair of lawsuits filed by family members of deceased vaccine injury victims in India.

Envisioning a future where ‘vaccine patches could be mailed directly to peoples’ homes’

The lack of any successfully completed clinical trials has not stopped the proponents of VMAPs from claiming this technology will deliver a broad range of benefits.

According to Gavi, VMAPs are “needle-free and pre-dosed,” simplifying the administration of vaccines, which can then “be carried out by minimally trained volunteers.”

Gavi also claims VMAPs “are safer as they overcome the risks related to operational errors” during administration, such as dosage errors and needle-stick injuries.

VMAPs are “easier to distribute,” according to Gavi, due to their light weight and “enhanced thermostability” which addresses “the problem of vaccine storage requirements” and removes “the need for cold-chains.”

Moreover, Gavi claims “The lower level of pain experienced during administration with MAPs would help reduce vaccine hesitancy and increase vaccine acceptability.”

“There are difficulties in reaching the last mile with the current injectable vaccines since they depend on a functional cold-chain and administration by well-trained staff … Furthermore, most vaccines are administered via injection that may cause pain, and discomfort that leads to hesitancy,” UNICEF states.

Healthcare consulting firm Avalere said VMAPs provide “the potential for lower healthcare costs,” “increased compliance due to convenient and pain free application,” are “ideal for patients with needlestick phobias or difficulty swallowing,” and are “easier for children, older people and patients requiring complex care.”

According to CEPI, VMAPs “could enable a future in which vaccine patches could be mailed directly to peoples’ homes, workplaces and schools, avoiding the delay and inconvenience of traditional needle-and-syringe vaccine scheduling and administration.”

CEPI describes itself as “an innovative global partnership between public, private, philanthropic, and civil society organisations launched in Davos in 2017 to develop vaccines to stop future epidemics.”

VMAPs proposed for wide range of vaccines, including mRNA injections

Proponents of VMAP say the purported benefits of this technology can ultimately translate to acting as an “advantageous delivery route for existing vaccines,” including influenza, tetanus toxoid, MR, hepatitis B and “biologics and small molecules.”

According to the WHO, a VMAP for the MR vaccine may be “potentially favourable,” with “perceived operational advantages that could ultimately increase equitable coverage and facilitate vaccine administration in inaccessible areas.”

For the same vaccine, a Jan. 16 article in the Frontiers in Public Health journal states that as vaccination coverage for measles and rubella “has stagnated,” VMAPs “are anticipated to offer significant programmatic advantages to needle and syringe” options and lead to increased vaccination coverage, with “significant demand expected for MR-MAPs between 2030 and 2040.”

And on Jan. 17, CEPI launched preclinical testing for a “high-density microarray patch … to assess its stability, safety and immunogenicity and to evaluate its potential as a rapid-response technology for heat-stable, dried-formulation mRNA vaccines.”

According to CEPI, this initiative was borne out of its January 2022 call for proposals, as part of its “wider strategic goal of harnessing innovative technologies to improve the speed, scale and access of vaccine development and manufacturing in response to epidemic and pandemic threats.”

Gates, World Bank, World Economic Forum connected to VMAP proponents

While Gavi states that “There is a need for investments to fund pilot-scale manufacturing facilities” for VMAPs, Gavi and other entities that are actively promoting this technology are themselves backed by or connected to some of the world’s most prominent investors, as well as major global organizations.

Gavi says it “helps vaccinate almost half the world’s children against deadly and debilitating infectious diseases.” It was established in 1999, with the Gates Foundation as one of its co-founders and one of its four permanent board members.

Gavi maintains a core partnership with UNICEF, the World Bank and the WHO, which includes Gavi in its list of “relevant stakeholders,” while the Rockefeller Foundation also is a partner and board member — and donor — to Gavi.

Gates-related connections extend to PATH president and CEO Nikolaj Gilbert, who is a member of Challenge Seattle, described as “an alliance of CEOs from Seattle area’s largest employers including Microsoft, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Starbucks, and Boeing.” He previously served as director for Big Pharma firm Novo Nordisk.

According to PATH’s 2021 annual report, the organization is funded by organizations including the Gates Foundation, the Schwab Charitable Fund and the Vanguard Charitable Endowment, in addition to the United Nations, Gavi, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Bank and the WHO.

PATH has also received funding from the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, Google and the World Bank for vaccine projects in countries such as India.

The Gates Foundation is also a co-founder of CEPI, along with the Wellcome Trust and the World Economic Forum (WEF). Indeed, CEPI was founded in Davos, Switzerland — home of the WEF’s annual meeting. Its CEO, Dr. Richard J. Hatchett, was previously acting director of the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority.

Several CEPI board members are also connected to entities like the Gates Foundation.

For instance, Dr. Anita Zaidi is the president of gender equality, director of vaccine development and surveillance, and director of enteric and diarrheal diseases programs at the Gates Foundation, while non-voting member Gagandeep “Cherry” Kang, M.D., Ph.D., is chair of the foundation’s Joint Working Group.

Νon-voting member Dr. Juan Pablo Uribe is the global director for Health, Nutrition and Population and director of the Global Financing Facility for Women, Children and Adolescents at the World Bank.

Dr. Mike Ryan, also a non-voting member, is the executive director of the WHO’s Health Emergencies Programme who gained global prominence during the COVID-19 pandemic through his participation in WHO briefings.

And non-voting member Dr. L. Rizka Andalucia is the director-general for Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices at Indonesia’s Ministry of Health. In November 2022, Indonesian Minister of Health Budi Gunadi Sadikin, at the G20 meeting in Bali, called for a “digital health certificate acknowledged by the WHO” that would allow the public to “move around.”

This article was originally published by The Defender — https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/bill-gates-who-vaccine-patch-vmap/

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2023/07/gates-who-envision-future-where-vaccine-patches-could-be-mailed-directly-to-peoples-homes/

Stand up! You Have the Power!

Posted on by

Hey, Check out this video from THE CORBETT REPORT.

There is pushback, and we need to be part of the movement for our own autonomy.

Where we go from here will depend on all of us standing up for our rights as individuals and independent arbiters of our fate;

from:    https://rumble.com/v2zvs94-bohemian-grove-sacrifices-staffers-newworldnextweek.html

Just A little Prick: It’s All Good!

Posted on by

(OK:  WAY TOO LONG FOR A QUICK READ, BUT it is time to acknowledge what we are really dealing with and what you want your future and that of your loved ones to be.)

Propaganda-In-Action: How The Media Minimizes mRNA Vaccine Injuries

“Hurt” by ₡ґǘșϯγ Ɗᶏ Ⱪᶅṏⱳդ is marked with CC0 1.0

POSTED BY: DENNIS RICHES VIA PROPAGANDA IN FOCUS JULY 6, 2023

Propaganda is the Technocrat way of sowing confusion and doubt about what otherwise is self-evident reality. Some people call this “gaslighting”. Whatever you are seeing with your own eyes is miss-interpreted or miss-represented and therefore you should accept the propaganda as being true. This is blatant fraud, but people fall for it time after time, giving the reason why propaganda continues to be sprayed from a firehose. ⁃ TN Editor

I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had… Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

– MICHAEL CRICHTON, LECTURE AT THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, PASADENA, CALIFORNIA, JANUARY 17, 2003. (1)

Within a few months of the SARS-Cov-2 vaccines being injected into millions of people, numerous types of adverse reactions were reported throughout the world. Information about adverse events became an object of intense denial and obfuscation by government agencies and state-funded and corporate-sponsored media, whether the information was in the form of rumors, amateur speculation, or serious scientific inquiry by qualified academics.

However, in 2023, government registries of vaccine injuries now reveal serious deficiencies of the vaccines designed to combat SARS-Cov-2. In a report published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research, the authors analyzed data from regulatory surveillance and self-reporting systems in Germany, Israel, Scotland, the United Kingdom, and the United States “to find long-term adverse events of the COVID products that cannot be captured during the expedited safety analyses.” This extract from the abstract goes on to state:

Our data show, among other trends, increases in adverse event reports if we compare COVID products to influenza and pertussis vaccines and statistically significant higher numbers of hospital encounters in military personnel, as well as increases in incidences of thromboembolic conditions, such as menstrual abnormalities, myocarditis, and cerebrovascular events after the implementation of COVID injection mandates, compared to the preceding five years… Our meta-analysis of both national and international vaccine adverse events emphasizes the importance of re-evaluating public health policies that promote universal mass injection and multiple boosters for all demographic groups. In combination with informal reports from reliable witnesses, limitations of the safety trials, and the decreased lethality of new strains, our research demonstrates that the cost (both monetary and humanitarian) of injecting healthy people, and especially children, outweighs any claimed though unvalidated benefits. (2)

In this late phase of the event that started in 2020, governments and their various propaganda platforms cannot hide these adverse events and are now engaged perhaps in what can be called the “cooling the mark out” phase of the pandemic. An article in The New Yorker in 2015 discussed this sociological phenomenon (3). The term was used in a 1952 study by Erving Goffman to describe an important element of con artistry, but it also describes generally any social mechanism that is needed to help people adjust to material losses and humiliation. When a victim is forced to acknowledge he has been conned or ripped off, the perpetrators have to make some effort to help him adjust. Otherwise, he may do something “irrational” such as pursuing violent revenge, media exposure, criminal charges, or a lawsuit. He needs to be reminded that he still has precious things he could lose, so he has to just accept the loss and humiliation and go back to his wife and children. Governments are doing the same now: “Yes, there have been some rare adverse events. Get in line and fill out this form to apply for your legally entitled compensation. We will be with you shortly.”

Some of the adverse events are mild reactions such as fainting, dizziness, fatigue, and flu-like malaise lasting a few days—just like the viral infection itself, ironically enough. People under age seventy who had a 99.9% chance of recovering quickly from the infection chose instead to suffer this malaise, going along with the social coercion and accepting the unknown risks of vaccination (4). As if it were a scheduled elective surgery, they were simply choosing the timing of when they were going to feel horrible—i.e. “I should get this over with now before my vacation.”

The less mild reactions are myocardial infarction, myocarditis, pericarditis, tachycardia, stroke, blood clots (embolism), aneurysm, tinnitus, Bell’s Palsy, Guillain-Barré Syndrome, transverse myelitis, cancer, heavy bleeding, menstrual irregularities, miscarriage, neurological symptoms, immune system disorders, skin rash, intense pain and numbness, memory loss, “brain fog,” and “inexplicable” sudden death. These conditions can be transitory or, like the last one on the list, permanent.

One can easily find peer-reviewed research papers that confirm the increased rates of these adverse health events after vaccination, yet a curious thing about them is that they often end very tentatively, including a phrase such as the one found in the extract below:

The number of reported cases is relatively very small in relation to the hundreds of millions of vaccinations that have occurred, and the protective benefits offered by COVID-19 vaccination far outweigh the risks. (5)

This tendency was also found in the recent Cochrane review on the efficacy of wearing masks (6). Instead of stating emphatically that in numerous studies there is no evidence to show a benefit in wearing masks, the authors concluded by stating all the ways that the studies they reviewed might contain some undiscovered flaws. It was like they were afraid of having made an important discovery that should change government policy.

Minimization, Exaggeration, Diversion and Distraction in Mass Media and Scientific Journals

Example 1: Putting a Positive Spin on Vaccine-Induced Cancer

Another such example, this one in the popular press, was the story told about the immunologist Dr. Michel Goldman in The Atlantic in September 2022 (7). As an advocate of many vaccines during his career, and in particular as a believer in the salutary effects of the mRNA vaccines, he was confronted with the images on a CT scan that showed lymphatic cancer spreading aggressively in his body soon after his mRNA shots, both after the first two shots and then again after a booster shot a few months later. The cancer connection to the shots was hard to deny because the aggressive growth was extremely rare and also because the first shots were in the left arm and the cancer appeared on the left armpit. The booster was injected in the right arm, then the cancer appeared on the right side.

If the subject matter were not so dark, the article would appear to be a satire of people who can’t think logically or change their views when confronted with new facts. The author, Roxanne Khamsi, goes to extreme lengths to describe the struggle she had to write the story in a way that would not lend support to those who spread “anti-vaccine disinformation.” Dr. Goldman was just as determined, willing to see himself as one of the rare unfortunate ones who must suffer so that so many others may be saved by these supposedly miraculous new drugs.

As Piers Robinson’s lessons on propaganda have taught us, the propagandist doesn’t lie directly. Propaganda operates through exaggeration, omission, incentivization and coercion, and these are in evidence in The Atlantic, in this article, and in all of its coverage of the pandemic (8). Roxanne Khamsi selectively focuses on the most hyperbolic reactions from the “fearmongers [who] have made the problem worse by citing scary-sounding data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System… with insufficient context.” She also had to mention that a vaccination center was set ablaze in Poland. Nowhere in the long article is there any mention of less radical reactions such as the hundreds of scientific papers describing adverse events—studies written by non-fearmongering sober-minded scientists. Such exaggeration and omission move the reader toward an acceptance of the necessity of mass vaccination.

Another facet of this propaganda is its use of what could be called “The New Yorker” genre of journalism. It is a “long read” piece (4,000 words) of narrative storytelling that uses the methods of fictional literature. It dramatizes the story arc of one individual, going deep into his biographical details, thoughts, and feelings. This is the genre that is natural and expected by the educated professional class of people who wake up on Sunday mornings and look for something serious to read, something that will make them feel smart before going back to the grind the next day. It is also a genre used by documentary filmmakers. They may have an important social problem to expose, but they have to find a person at the center of it and tell a story. Otherwise, the audience will tune out. The TED talks tell us it is hardwired in our brains. Humans are storytellers.

The New Yorker genre makes the educated class feel informed and serious: 4,000 words, a deep read, not the superficial stuff that the deplorables read in the New York Post! The length of the piece makes it likely that readers won’t be using their time to read anything else. Most importantly, the use of this genre diverts attention away from the need for an objective understanding of a phenomenon that involves billions of victims. The writer and the subject, Dr. Goldman, say much about the need to understand the science and not inflame radical reactions from the so-called low-information types, but this genre is itself un-scientific, subjective, sentimental, and narrow in its scope.

The most stunning omission in the article is that neither the author nor Dr. Goldman makes the obvious logical conclusion that, considering both the apparent and the still unknown risks, mandatory or coerced vaccination is unethical, especially for a viral infection that 99.9% of people under age seventy can survive. After learning of what happened to Dr. Goldberg, persons in good health, if not propagandized to think otherwise, would logically decide in favor of taking their chances with an infection that will pass in a few days. This is especially true for people who, unlike Dr. Goldman, don’t have a brother who is head of nuclear medicine at a university hospital and may not have timely access to the high quality of health care that Dr. Goldman had.

The article concludes thus:

And as a longtime immunologist and medical innovator, he’s still considering the question of whether a vaccine that is saving tens of millions of lives each year might have put his own in jeopardy. He remains adamant that COVID-19 vaccines are necessary and useful for the vast majority of people.

Many would disagree and say that the vaccines are, at best, only for the non-vast minority of high-risk individuals who accept them with informed consent. Despite his own experience of suffering vaccine-induced aggressive lymphoma, Dr. Goldman believes that a vast majority of people should subject themselves to the risk of suffering the same fate. In September 2022, the time of publication, it had been officially acknowledged that the mRNA shots had not stopped the spread of the virus, had not induced lasting immunity, and may not have lowered the fatality rate of the illness. Other possible explanations:

(1) The virus harmed most of the vulnerable population before the vaccines arrived.

(2) Doctors learned how to treat the disease without resorting to deadly practices such as delayed treatment, ventilators and Remdesivir.

(3) The virus evolved into less deadly variants.

The purported benefits of the vaccines remain unprovable, and explanations (1)-(3) remain as matters of controversy.

Example 2: The Feint After Post-Vaccination Fainting

Other examples of this genre applied to the Covid-19 event are plentiful and easy to find in the media that have been funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation or sponsored by Pfizer and other hidden hands. I will describe just one more that shows that it was still being used in April 2023, three years on as the official narrative becomes untenable.

On April 10th, 2023, NBC News published a 3,400-word piece on the “fainting nurse” social media frenzy that occurred in December 2020 when frontline healthcare workers in the US started to receive the mRNA shots (9). The vaccination of nurse Tiffany Dover was recorded by a local television news crew because it was the big day when the savior vaccines had arrived to supposedly end the pandemic. Unfortunately, the cameras recorded her fainting shortly after receiving her injection.

The article describes how “conspiracy theorists” created an episode of “participatory misinformation” as they circulated her story on social media, exaggerated what the fainting meant, spread rumors of her death, and engaged in a campaign of harassment (a.k.a. doxing) (10). Tiffany remained steadfastly supportive of the vaccination program and believed that her fainting was inconsequential, yet she was traumatized by the doxing and chose to remain silent for two full years. Unfortunately, this choice only intensified the rumors of her death or of her enforced silence.

My critique of this article includes no support for the people who engage in doxing and wild speculation. My criticism is that this genre of journalism consistently associates all disagreement with the official narratives as the work of wild-eyed, deplorable bullies. It consistently ignores the hundreds of scientists who are publishing peer-reviewed articles on vaccine injuries and questioning the abandonment of standard public health policy that started in 2020.

Brandy Zadrozny, the author of this article about Tiffany Dover, felt it was necessary to associate Tiffany’s story with other instances of unhinged conspiracy theory such as the 2020 election being stolen from Donald Trump and the denial of the murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Thus, the very intentional implication here is that if you are concerned about the accumulation of medical journal articles describing a long list of vaccine-related injuries, think twice. You don’t want to be dismissed as one of those cruel and deranged fools who have lost touch with reality. Your family, friends and colleagues are all being trained to ostracize you for wrongthink, so forget about it. You are the mark that needs to be cooled out.

Instead of treating the “participatory misinformation” campaign as a problem of the deplorables that the righteous must struggle to solve, the writers of such articles could start to wonder if there is some legitimate anger driving such regrettable phenomena. There were very sound reasons to worry about a pharmaceutical product being rushed to market in less than a year, especially one that was based on a novel biotechnology. Additionally, fainting, after all, is not always a minor incident, and it is rational to be concerned about it happening so soon after a medical treatment. Furthermore, it would not be unreasonable for a healthy person to decide he would rather risk infection with the virus than suffer side-effects from an unproven vaccine. Not everyone has the good fortune to faint “into the arms of two nearby doctors” (as the fainting was described in the article). Some people break bones and sustain skull fractures. Some people have their adverse reaction after they leave the clinic and are driving home. Some have it months later.

After more than two years since vaccinations began, it should have been clear that, because the mRNA treatments were not as safe and effective as promised, no one should have ever been coerced into taking them. Their heavy promotion, backed by well-funded propaganda campaigns of half-truths and bold lies, was unethical, as was the gaslighting, shaming and shunning of the people who demanded bodily autonomy.

However, at this late date, after so much has been officially admitted about the adverse effects, including death, the author claimed that Tiffany’s story became a rallying point for those “who falsely believe that vaccines are killing and injuring people in droves.” (italics added) Those last two words were probably chosen carefully because without them one could not say they “falsely believe.” It is a fact that they are killing and injuring people, but “in droves” may be ambiguous enough to make the statement passable for a quibbling fact checker. The sentence is now “partially true” if one wants to see it that way.

One can denounce the campaign of coercion and still let Tiffany have her proclaimed “belief” in the vaccines. The issue that should be discussed is the failure of medical ethics in public policy that led to the vilification of people who had a different belief. They did not want to submit themselves to a medical therapy that had been rushed to market with no long-term safety data to support its use. Despite the facts, this issue remains utterly invisible to the writers who specialize in this genre.

The final thing to mention about this article is that, like the article in The Atlantic, it uses the devices of fiction. It focuses on the emotional and physical condition of the subject and thus leads the reader to an engagement with her story. Her eyes are “wide and bright and terribly blue.” They are described again at the end of the article as “electric blue.” The writer emphasizes this because a post-vaccination photo of her was not lit well and her eye color was not visible, and this is what set off rumors that it was not really her in the photo. Nonetheless, the descriptions are unnecessary embellishments. Readers don’t need to know her hair dye choices, either, but these too were described. This news article about a controversial pharmaceutical product could also be reported without the accompanying glamor photos of the very photogenic victim. There are, after all, less glamorous and less fortunate victims of vaccination who suffered fates worse than fainting (11). Tiffany is alive and healthy, and she did not refuse to be filmed on the day of her vaccination. This isn’t really about a story about her fainting and its aftermath, however. The purpose of this genre is the feint—the fake out and distraction from what the public should really be paying attention to.

Example 3: Minimization in Scientific Journal Articles

Let’s return to the scientific journal articles. Concluding statements in scientific papers are not always about objective findings. They are interpretations and opinions by the authors, and they often seem to go in the direction of minimizing the problems revealed by the study. It has always been standard practice for researchers to be humble about the impact of their work, for their conclusions may be disproven by subsequent research. Nonetheless, when it comes to any research related to Covid-19, excessive hesitancy and even fear are evident.

For some reason, the medical specialists authoring these papers never express alarm or suggest a halt to vaccination of individuals who are at low risk of suffering serious harm from the viral infection. Recall that the infectious mortality rate was found to be about 0.1%, more or less, depending on one’s age. It is this low for healthy individuals and higher for the elderly and the unhealthy. As mentioned above, the rate became lower as doctors learned how to treat the infection and abandoned dangerous interventions. Another factor was the virus itself becoming less deadly.

Readers might respond that I am ignoring the millions of cases of “long covid,” but my response is that there is no clinical definition for it, and it may be no different than the post-viral syndrome associated with influenza—a phenomenon which never aroused alarm in society before 2020. The alleged symptoms of long covid also overlap with adverse reactions to the vaccine, so if we must be concerned about long covid, we also have to object to the continued use of therapies that use the spike protein to induce immunity. Doctors are developing treatments for reactions to the spike protein, whether they came from the virus or the mRNA jabs. It is also likely that “long covid” is a side effect of “long type 2 diabetes” and various other chronic (i.e. long duration) illnesses that are the root causes of death by SARS-Cov-2.

The ritualistic minimization of vaccine injuries in the scientific reports is obviously an essential bow of fealty to the scientific priesthood. It is the modern equivalent of Galileo in the 17th century affirming the existence and greatness of God in order to, hopefully, have heliocentrism taken seriously. These researchers may feel privately that the matter is urgent, but they know that in order to shine any light on the issue in a respected medical journal, they will have to bow down to the official doctrine. They justify it as the only way to shine some light on the problem and change the system from within. If they really thought the matter was so trivial, they wouldn’t study it. Medical personnel could just treat their patients without worrying about the speculative role vaccines might have played in their illnesses. A doctor treating a cancer rarely worries about whether it was caused by fallout from nuclear weapons testing because identifying this cause would make no difference in the treatment. Her job is to treat the patient. However, in the late 1950s, some doctors saw a reason to speak out and create the political pressure that halted nuclear tests in the atmosphere in 1963.

The paper cited in the appendix below, to conclude this long essay, was chosen as an example of this minimization. It is concerned with liver diseases following vaccination. I found this one because recently I took note of the 15th mRNA-jabbed person in my social circles to suffer a severe health crisis since January 2021. In the two years before then, I knew of only one medical emergency among friends, family, and colleagues. In the 15th person’s case, it was a pyogenic liver abscess that put him in the ICU and almost killed him.

In studies like this that conclude by minimizing the problem, there is an obvious problem in saying the number of cases is “very small in relation to the hundreds of millions of vaccinations.” When one considers all of the research on adverse events in all other organ systems, one starts to think, as Yogi Berra said, “Little things are big.” Yogi Bear was smarter than the average bear, and Yogi Berra, the “dumb” sage of baseball legend, was, it seems, far smarter than the average immunologist. Little things do start to add up. One case of lymphoma, or fainting, or liver disease may seem insignificant when seen is isolation, but when all the adverse events are seen together from a distance, along with a sharp rise in all-cause mortality, we can start to ask the right questions (12). They are similar to the questions we should ask about the compounding effects of numerous environmental toxicants and pollutants humans are exposed to. One chemical might be declared safe at a certain exposure, but what is the combined effect of hundreds of such chemicals? It looks like the harms are extremely rare only when cases and types of injuries are studied in isolation and the victims are also kept isolated.

We could also add Yogi Berra’s other gems of wisdom that apply to the entire Covid phenomenon. When we find that not much has changed since Galileo’s time, recall that Yogi Berra said, “it’s like déjà vu all over again,” and when you think about all that has happened since March 2020, remember he said, “the future ain’t what it used to be.”

References

  1. J.R. Barrio, “Consensus science and the peer review.” Molecular Imaging and Biology. April 2009, 11(5): 293. doi: 10.1007/s11307-009-0233-0. PMID: 19399558; PMCID: PMC2719747.
  2. E. Romero, S. Fry, S., and B. Hooker, “Safety of mRNA Vaccines Administered During the First Twenty-Four Months of the International COVID-19 Vaccination Program,” International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research, 2023, 3(1), 891–910. https://doi.org/10.56098/ijvtpr.v3i1.7
  3. Louis Menand, “Crooked Psychics and Cooling the Mark Out,” The New Yorker, June 18, 2015. “The classic exposition of the practice of helping victims of a con adapt to their loss is the sociologist Erving Goffman’s 1952 article ‘On Cooling the Mark Out.’ … ‘After the blowoff has occurred,’ Goffman explained, about the operation of a con, ‘one of the operators stays with the mark and makes an effort to keep the anger of the mark within manageable and sensible proportions. The operator stays behind his team-mates in the capacity of what might be called a cooler and exercises upon the mark the art of consolation. An attempt is made to define the situation for the mark in a way that makes it easy for him to accept the inevitable and quietly go home. The mark is given instruction in the philosophy of taking a loss.’ What happened stays out of the paper.”
  4. Angelo Maria Pezzullo, Cathrine Axfors, Despina G. Contopoulos-Ioannidis, Alexandre Apostolatos, John P.A. Ioannidis, “Age-stratified infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in the non-elderly informed from pre-vaccination national seroprevalence studies,” Environmental Research, January 2023. This study found that Covid-19’s infection fatality rate (IFR) by age was under 0.1% for those under 70. The breakdown by age was 0.0003% at 0-19 years, 0.003% at 20-29 years, 0.011% at 30-39 years, 0.035% at 40-49 years, 0.129% at 50-59 years, and 0.501% at 60-69 years.
  5. S. Alhumaid et al., “New-onset and relapsed liver diseases following COVID-19 vaccination: a systematic review.” BMC Gastroenterology, October 2022; 22(1):433. doi: 10.1186/s12876-022-02507-3. PMID: 36229799; PMCID: PMC9559550. The abstract states, “Mortality was reported in any of the included cases.” Was the erroneous use of any in this sentence a typographical error or a deliberate ambiguity put into the abstract? There are three options for a correct interpretation: 1. Mortality was not reported in any of the included cases… 2. Mortality was reported in many of the included cases… 3. Mortality was reported in all of the included cases. It is difficult to know the authors’ intended meaning regarding this significant finding from their research. The sample sizes (six figures indicated as sample sizes, n=x) total 41 cases out of the 275 cases studied. This is a fatality rate of 15%, but it is difficult to know what the intended meaning of the 32 authors is, due to the ambiguity described above. One can conclude that any of, many of, all of, or not any of the authors read the abstract carefully before it went to press. In any case, even if there were no deaths, one could take issue with the statement that “patients were easily treated without any serious complications, recovered and did not require long-term hepatic therapy.” Many patients would not feel so optimistic about having had such damage inflicted on a vital organ which is, considering the contemporary food supply and environment, already exposed to enough harm.
  6. Tom Jefferson et al., “Physical Interventions to Interrupt or Reduce the Spread of Respiratory Viruses,” Cochrane, January 30, 2023.
  7. Roxanne Khamsi, “Did a Famous Doctor’s COVID Shot Make His Cancer Worse? A Lifelong Promoter of Vaccines Suspects He Might Be the Rare, Unfortunate Exception.” The Atlantic, September 24, 2022.
  8. “David Miller and Piers Robinson, Propaganda—An introduction by David Miller and Piers Robinson.” YouTube Channel. (3:25~), accessed April 15, 2023.
  9. Brandy Zadrozny, “Conspiracy theorists made Tiffany Dover into an anti-vaccine icon. She’s finally ready to talk about it,” NBC News, April 10, 2023.
  10. It is important to note that this phenomenon has many precedents that occurred long before social media existed. The Dreyfus Affair (1890s) and the death of Azaria Chamberlain in Australia (1980) are just two examples one could refer to. The latter one was the butt of several jokes in poor taste broadcast on mainstream media outlets (referencing the apocryphal phrase “A dingo ate my baby!”) Back then, the incident was referred to benignly by the mass media as a regrettable “media circus.” The panic in the mainstream media about the new panics is interesting in the way it views professional journalism as beyond reproach and “participatory misinformation” as an urgent new threat posed by irresponsible, out-of-control social media platforms and a monstrous new type of people that apparently did not exist in the past.
  11. Megan Redshaw, “Vaccine-Injured Speak Out, Feel Abandoned by Government Who Told Them COVID Shot Was Safe,” Childrens Health Defense Fund, November 3, 2021.
  12. Ed Dowd, “Cause Unknown”: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 & 2022 (Skyhorse, 2022). Website: https://www.theyliedpeopledied.com/: “Between March of 2021 and February of 2022, 61,000 millennials died excessively above the prior 5-year base trend line… The relative timespan and rate of change into the fall of 2021 is a signal that a harmful event occurred to this 25-44 age group. This means that millennials started dying in large numbers at the same times when vaccines and boosters were rolled out. The vaccine clearly had a role, as many previously hesitant folks were forced into compliance.” Or see Aubrey Marcus, “Why Are Healthy People Dying Suddenly Since 2021? w/ Ed Dowd,” January 5, 2023. (31:40~).

Read full story here…

“Cultivated” Is Not Necessarily Great

Posted on by

U.S. approves chicken made from cultivated cells, the nation’s first ‘lab-grown’ meat

The Agriculture Department gave the green light to Upside Foods and Good Meat, which had been racing to be the first in the U.S. to sell meat that doesn’t come from slaughtered animals.
Image: Chef Zach Tyndall prepares Good Meat's cultivated chicken at the Eat Just office in Alameda, Calif., on June 14, 2023.

Chef Zach Tyndall prepares Good Meat’s cultivated chicken at the Eat Just office in Alameda, Calif., on June 14. Jeff Chiu / AP

 / Source: Associated Press
By Associated Press

For the first time, U.S. regulators on Wednesday approved the sale of chicken made from animal cells, allowing two California companies to offer “lab-grown” meat to the nation’s restaurant tables and eventually, supermarket shelves.

The Agriculture Department gave the green light to Upside Foods and Good Meat, firms that had been racing to be the first in the U.S. to sell meat that doesn’t come from slaughtered animals — what’s now being referred to as “cell-cultivated” or “cultured” meat as it emerges from the laboratory and arrives on dinner plates.

The move launches a new era of meat production aimed at eliminating harm to animals and drastically reducing the environmental impacts of grazing, growing feed for animals and animal waste.

Company experiments with lab-grown meat to keep up with future of meat demand

NOV. 23, 202103:34

instead of all of that land and all of that water that’s used to feed all of these animals that are slaughtered, we can do it in a different way,” said Josh Tetrick, co-founder and chief executive of Eat Just, which operates Good Meat.

The companies received approvals for federal inspections required to sell meat and poultry in the U.S. The action came months after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration deemed that products from both companies are safe to eat. A manufacturing company called Joinn Biologics, which works with Good Meat, was also cleared to make the products.

Cultivated meat is grown in steel tanks, using cells that come from a living animal, a fertilized egg or a special bank of stored cells. In Upside’s case, it comes out in large sheets that are then formed into shapes like chicken cutlets and sausages. Good Meat, which already sells cultivated meat in Singapore, the first country to allow it, turns masses of chicken cells into cutlets, nuggets, shredded meat and satays.

But don’t look for this novel meat in U.S. grocery stores anytime soon. Cultivated chicken is much more expensive than meat from whole, farmed birds and cannot yet be produced on the scale of traditional meat, said Ricardo San Martin, director of the Alt:Meat Lab at University of California Berkeley.

The companies plan to serve the new food first in exclusive restaurants: Upside has partnered with a San Francisco restaurant called Bar Crenn, while Good Meat dishes will be served at a Washington, D.C., restaurant run by chef and owner Jose Andrés.

Company officials are quick to note the products are meat, not substitutes like the Impossible Burger or offerings from Beyond Meat, which are made from plant proteins and other ingredients.

Globally, more than 150 companies are focusing on meat from cells, not only chicken but pork, lamb, fish and beef, which scientists say has the biggest impact on the environment.

Upside, based in Berkeley, operates a 70,000-square-foot building in nearby Emeryville. On a recent Tuesday, visitors entered a gleaming commercial kitchen where chef Jess Weaver was sauteeing a cultivated chicken filet in a white wine butter sauce with tomatoes, capers and green onions.

The finished chicken breast product was slightly paler than the grocery store version. Otherwise it looked, cooked, smelled and tasted like any other pan-fried poultry.

“The most common response we get is, ‘Oh, it tastes like chicken,’” said Amy Chen, Upside’s chief operating officer.

Good Meat, based in Alameda, operates a 100,000-square-foot plant, where chef Zach Tyndall dished up a smoked chicken salad on a sunny June afternoon. He followed it with a chicken “thigh” served on a bed of potato puree with a mushroom-vegetable demi-glace and tiny purple cauliflower florets. The Good Meat chicken product will come pre-cooked, requiring only heating to use in a range of dishes.

Chen acknowledged that many consumers are skeptical, even squeamish, about the thought of eating chicken grown from cells.

“We call it the ‘ick factor,’” she said.

Image: A scientist works in a cellular agriculture lab at Eat Just in Alameda, Calif., on June 14, 2023.
A scientist works in a cellular agriculture lab at Eat Just in Alameda, Calif., on June 14. Jeff Chiu / AP

The sentiment was echoed in a recent poll conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Half of U.S. adults said that they are unlikely to try meat grown using cells from animals. When asked to choose from a list of reasons for their reluctance, most who said they’d be unlikely to try it said “it just sounds weird.” About half said they don’t think it would be safe.

But once people understand how the meat is made, they’re more accepting, Chen said. And once they taste it, they’re usually sold.

“It is the meat that you’ve always known and loved,” she said.

Cultivated meat begins with cells. Upside experts take cells from live animals, choosing those most likely to taste good and to reproduce quickly and consistently, forming high-quality meat, Chen said. Good Meat products are created from a master cell bank formed from a commercially available chicken cell line.

Once the cell lines are selected, they’re combined with a broth-like mixture that includes the amino acids, fatty acids, sugars, salts, vitamins and other elements cells need to grow. Inside the tanks, called cultivators, the cells grow, proliferating quickly. At Upside, muscle and connective tissue cells grow together, forming large sheets. After about three weeks, the sheets of poultry cells are removed from the tanks and formed into cutlets, sausages or other foods. Good Meat cells grow into large masses, which are shaped into a range of meat products.

Both firms emphasized that initial production will be limited. The Emeryville facility can produce up to 50,000 pounds of cultivated meat products a year, though the goal is to expand to 400,000 pounds per year, Upside officials said. Good Meat officials wouldn’t estimate a production goal.

By comparison, the U.S. produces about 50 billion pounds of chicken per year.

It could take a few years before consumers see the products in more restaurants and seven to 10 years before they hit the wider market, said Sebastian Bohn, who specializes in cell-based foods at CRB, a Missouri firm that designs and builds facilities for pharmaceutical, biotech and food companies.

Cost will be another sticking point. Neither Upside nor Good Meat officials would reveal the price of a single chicken cutlet, saying only that it’s been reduced by orders of magnitude since the firms began offering demonstrations. Eventually, the price is expected to mirror high-end organic chicken, which sells for up to $20 per pound.

San Martin said he’s concerned that cultivated meat may wind up being an alternative to traditional meat for rich people, but will do little for the environment if it remains a niche product.

“If some high-end or affluent people want to eat this instead of a chicken, it’s good,” he said. “Will that mean you will feed chicken to poor people? I honestly don’t see it.”

Tetrick said he shares critics’ concerns about the challenges of producing an affordable, novel meat product for the world. But he emphasized that traditional meat production is so damaging to the planet it requires an alternative — preferably one that doesn’t require giving up meat all together.

“I miss meat,” said Tetrick, who grew up in Alabama eating chicken wings and barbecue. “There should be a different way that people can enjoy chicken and beef and pork with their families.”

Associated Press
from:    https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/us-approves-chicken-made-cultivated-cells-nations-first-lab-grown-meat-rcna90439