Search Results

From the CureZone site when it was still accessible: Parasite Cleanse There are hundreds of parasites that can infect humans. Read more in Parasites FAQ . Most known Parasite Cleanse is Hulda Clark 's ( Hanna Kroger's) herbal parasites killing formula: 1. Black Walnut Green Tincture 2. Wormwood Capsules 3. Cloves Capsules These three herbs must be used together. Black walnut hull and wormwood kill adults and developmental stages of at least 100 parasites. Cloves kill the eggs. Only if you use them together will you rid yourself of parasites. If you kill only the adults, the tiny stages and eggs will soon grow into new adults. If you kill only the eggs, the million stages already loose in your body will soon grow into adults and make more eggs. They must be used together as a single treatment. Other parasites killing herbs: • Red clover blossoms (2 capsules, 3 times a day) • Pau D'Arco (2 capsules, 3 times a day) • Pumpkin seeds • Grapefruit seed extract • Apple seeds and bitter almonds • Vitamin C (10 or more grams per day) • Laetrile (as directed by source) • Wheat grass juice (home grown only, not the commercially available powder) • Grapes and grape juice (home-juiced, no meat in the diet) • Echinacea (2 capsules, 3 times a day) • Metabolic enzymes, take as directed • Cayenne pepper

Screening services are also suspended in parts of Canada, Italy, Scotland, and Australia 👍 50-60% of "positive" results are incorrect! So being diagnosed with "breast cancer" in 50-60% of cases proves it was not even there at all. Upon examination, the breast is compressed with a large weight of 10 кРа (1019 kg/m2) & then a healthy, very sensitive mammary tissue is bombarded with radioactive radiation! — stimulates tumor growth & spread of metastases! — study done at 690,000 records show that a large number of breast cancer in completely healthy women after mammography!!! ♥️ Please read & share this document far & wide so that we can educate others!

https://expose-news.com/2024/07/19/putin-wants-widespread-use-of-cbdcs/ Featured image: Russian central bank sets up CBDC trial of Digital Ruble for 2022 (left). On Wednesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin praised the “efficiency and functionality” of the Bank of Russia’s central bank digital currency (“CBDC”) and instructed his government to prepare for the widespread introduction of the digital ruble. On Friday, Edward Slavsquat published an article about Russia’s insatiable appetite for “sustainable development.” In it, he described how the environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) agenda has become an “integral part” of Russia’s business environment, that Moscow is actively involved in promoting the ESG agenda and achieving the United Nations (“UN”) Agenda 2030’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (“SDGs”), and that the UN maintains partnerships with sanctioned Russian companies to pursue the SDGs. He also noted that in May, the Russian Ministry of Economic Development introduced a new standard for reporting on sustainable development that factors in how companies’ “ESG indicators” help to achieve the UN’s SDGs.  To add to the sinister nature of the agenda, the new reporting also factors in “social capital.” “To top it all off,” Slavsquat wrote, “a recent article in Vedomosti explained how Russian businesses were eager to comply with EU ESG regulations. Yes, the same European bloc that is currently pouring weapons into Ukraine.” This appetite for ESG extends into the BRICS countries.  “BRICS isn’t just enthusiastic about ESG – it’s also boosting confidence in carbon credit scams,” Slavsquat said. That was on Friday.  For anyone who still believes Russia is opposing the UN’s plan to take over and control the world, you need to read Slavsquat’s report on Friday. You can read the full article HERE . Russia is not only going full steam ahead on ESG and Agenda 2030, but the country is also well advanced in implementing totalitarian digital control through the use of a CBDC.  Yesterday Slavsquat reported that Russian President Vladimir Putin has called for the full-scale implementation of the digital ruble, Russia’s CBDC. Putin calls for “full-scale implementation” of digital ruble By Edward Slavsquat Praising the “efficiency and functionality” of the Bank of Russia’s CBDC, Russian President Vladimir Putin instructed his government on Wednesday to prepare for the widespread introduction of the digital ruble. “Now we need to take the next step, namely: move to a broader, full-scale implementation of the digital ruble in the economy, in business activities and in the financial sector,” Putin  said  during a meeting on economic issues. Since August 2023, the Bank of Russia has been conducting a pilot program for the digital ruble involving 12 banks, 600 individuals and 22 trade service enterprises. The programme will be expanded in September to include an additional 20 credit institutions. Participants will be able to make  payments via QR code  during the second phase of testing. The law on the digital ruble was  adopted  in July 2023, designating the Bank of Russia’s CBDC as the third form of national currency. The CBDC will be introduced into the economy beginning in 2025. Below is a sampling of Russian media reports about Putin’s desire to see the mass introduction of the digital ruble (Sources: URA ,  Business Gazeta ,  Interfax ,  Vedomosti ). Despite  widespread opposition  to the digital ruble from  across Russia’s political spectrum , the Bank of Russia and its  media cheerleaders  claim that the traceable, programmable, centralised digital token will help bypass sanctions and fight corruption through greater financial transparency. However, Moscow already  has an alternative to SWIFT  that can be used to circumvent sanctions, and the Bank of Russia already has the ability to  monitor all money transfers  in the country. December 2021. Source:  rbc.ru On Russian Telegram channels, reactions to Putin’s call for the “full-scale implementation” of the digital ruble were mostly negative. [Below, we have shown the images in Slavsquat’s article followed by a translation of the text using the translation tool provided by Telegram.  We were unable to find the Telegram post shown in the last image to be able to translate it.] Source: https://t.me/kommersant/69118 The good news is that the Russian government might be too incompetent to fulfil Putin’s dream of a CBDC paradise. “Considering the fantastic ability of the Russian authorities to fail any projects, scepticism about [the widescale adoption of the digital ruble] does not dissipate,” Russian commentator Anatoly Nesmiyan  observed . About the Author Edward Slavsquat is a moniker sometimes used by Riley Waggaman, an American writer and journalist who has lived in Russia for close to a decade.  He has contributed to many websites, including  Anti-Empire , Russian Faith,  Brownstone Institute ,  Unlimited Hangout , and  Geopolitics & Empire . He worked for Press TV, Russia Insider and RT before going solo. He publishes articles on a Substack page titled ‘ Edward Slavsquat ’ which you can subscribe to and follow  HERE , and you can follow him on Twitter  HERE .

This Is A State Of Emergency In The United States Get Ready Redacted With Clayton Morris

https://expose-news.com/2024/07/19/fake-meat-is-being-introduced-into-the-uk/ Featured image:  ‘World first’: UK firm Meatly granted approval to sell cultivated meat pet food , Business Green, 17 July 2024 (left). Meatly unveils the world’s first cultivated chicken pet food , Tech EU, 18 March 2024 (right) The UK has become the first European country to approve the sale of artificial meat for pet food. The regulatory clearance was granted to Meatly, a company developing cultivated meat from animal cells. The initial product will be chicken-based and intended for use in dog food.  However, they hope to expand the market and sell their artificial meat to humans. Artificial meat – also known as in vitro , cultivated, cell-based, clean, cultured, lab-grown or slaughter-free meat – is meat that is grown in a cell culture outside an animal’s body instead of inside, naturally. On 2 July 2024, the Animal and Plant Health Agency (“APHA”) approved Meatly’s chicken cells cultivated in a laboratory for use in pet food. Regulators cleared the use of chicken cultivated from animal cells, which London-based lab-grown protein company Meatly is planning to sell to manufacturers. The approval marks the first time a lab-grown pet food ingredient has been authorised, globally. Meatly was founded in 2022 by Owen Ensor and partner Helder Cruz with backing from investor Agronomics , a London-listed biotechnology and synthetic biology venture capitalist company focused on investment opportunities within the field of “cellular agriculture.”  In 2023, Meatly secured funding from Pets at Home , the UK’s leading pet care business. The company plans to sell its product to approved pet food manufacturers, with the first samples expected to hit UK shelves as early as this year . The first pet food to contain Meatly cells will be dog food. Meatly CEO Owen Ensor , a vegan who has a background in the insect protein business, says that the startup has already shipped some of its chicken cells to pet food manufacturers so they can run their own nutritional tests and trial different formulations of pet food made using Meatly’s cells as an ingredient. Meatly will initially focus on scaling up production to reach industrial volumes over the next three years. As reported by Wired , the cells that end up in Meatly’s chicken pâté came from commercially available cells sourced from a fertilised chicken egg. The cells are spontaneously immortalised which means that they can duplicate indefinitely, unlike non-immortalised cells which stop growing after a certain number of duplications. According to Ensor, the finished ingredient is currently costing “double figures” in pounds sterling per kilo, but that is before it is mixed with other ingredients in pet food. “It will be a premium product because the prices are still high,” he says. There is no explicit information on specific health benefits or risks associated with cultivated meat for pets being reported.  They are simply playing on people’s emotions, using the concept of heart-over-head to push this laboratory concoction masquerading as food.  As The Guardian reported : “It is thought there will be demand for cultivated pet food, as animal lovers face a dilemma about feeding their pets meat from slaughtered livestock.” And Ensor stated that Meatly’s cultivated pet food will allow owners to feed their cats and dogs meat “in a way that is kinder to our planet and other animals.”  “Pet parents are crying out for a better way to feed their cats and dogs meat,” he said .  It is no accident that Ensor uses terms such as “pet parents” to market his product which appeals to the heart and not the mind. Four Paws – whose vision is a world where humans treat animals with respect, empathy and understanding is promoting artificial meat for animals but insists that this can only be achieved if the whole world is vegan – shows their lack of respect and understanding of animals and animals needs by campaigning for artificial meat for pets because it is of benefit to the environment. Dogs are carnivores.  They share a common ancestry with other carnivores like wolves, jackals and foxes. While dogs can survive on a diet with some plant matter, they are primarily designed to thrive on a meat-based diet.  To force a dog to survive on a vegan diet is nothing short of abuse. For cats, the need for meat is even greater.  They require a diet rich in animal-based protein to survive. Their bodies are adapted to thrive on a meat-based diet.  Without a steady supply of nutrients that meat provides, cats can suffer from various health problems, including liver and heart issues, skin irritation and hearing loss.  Forcing any cat to eat only plant-based foods is unquestionably abuse. Vegan cats and dogs, it’s preposterous.  What “feel good” lunacy will they come up with next?  Will they give a bag of grapefruits to a lion to eat for breakfast?  They could stoop that low, nothing is surprising anymore.  If you are opposed to giving a pet the meat it needs for its health and well-being, then don’t have a carnivore, e.g. a dog or a cat, as a pet.  Opt for a rabbit or hamster instead. Four Paws reveals the real agenda behind its fake meat campaign in its reasoning of why fake meat benefits the environment. Following the climate change cult talking points, Four Paws states : “The increasing demand for meat and dairy products is having a detrimental effect on the environment and climate. Worldwide, 14.5 to 16.5% of total human-made greenhouse gas emissions stem from the livestock sector, of which the beef and dairy industries play the biggest part due to its methane emissions. Over 80% of all agricultural land is used to produce animal protein.” What all the advocates for artificial meat are effectively saying is that pets should not be eating their natural diet because humans want to feel better about themselves.  This is a heart-over-head approach, prioritising emotions over rational thinking and logic. Is Artificial Meat Healthy for Pets and Good for the Environment as Advertised? As with human diets, the trend towards natural ingredients and avoidance of artificial additives in pet food in recent years has been driven by consumer demand.  This is because of the risks of artificial additives that are already added to pet food can cause allergies, digestive problems, cancer and other unknown risks to our pets’ health. Read more: I’m a pet food expert: avoid these five ingredients in your dog’s food , Northampton Chronicle, 9 February 2024 The Risks of Artificial Ingredients in Cat Food: Health Concerns to Consider , Love Nala, 23 March 2023 Artificial Food Coloring: Is It Good for Your Pet? Taste of the Wild Pet Food, 28 June 2018 Of course, advocates of any fake food, whether driven by ideology or profit,  will present it as a good alternative for consumers who want to be more responsible but do not wish to change their diet. The same people and organisations conveniently brush over or gaslight the ill effects and detrimental impacts of fake food, as well as the negative impacts of replacing naturally sourced food which is appropriate for a species with non-specific lab-grown protein. So, what effects might artificial meat have on our pets? As we stated above, no detrimental impacts to health, society or the environment have been explicitly reported.  That doesn’t mean there are none, it simply means they don’t want us to consider them or be aware of them; they simply want to sell their product or ideology and the more unsuspecting the consumer is, the better the sales. To give some indication of the health impacts lab-grown food may have on our pets, we need to turn to what little information there is on the health impact of these “foods” on humans.  After all,  Ensor himself believes their pet food will become the natural starting point for the human cultivated meat market in Britain. A Meatly spokesperson told Just Food that, despite the company currently being “primarily focused on pet food,” its processes and products are safe and healthy for humans. “We will likely license our industry-leading technology to human food companies,” they said. In 2020, a paper was published by two French researchers which reviewed ‘ The Myth of Cultured Meat ’.  The researchers aimed to update the current knowledge of cultured meat by reviewing “recent publications and issues not well described previously.” “Although these are not yet known, we speculated on the potential health benefits and drawbacks of cultured meat,” the authors said.  The abstract continued: Unlike conventional meat, cultured muscle cells may be safer, without any adjacent digestive organs. On the other hand, with this high level of cell multiplication, some dysregulation is likely as happens in cancer cells. Likewise, the control of its nutritional composition is still unclear, especially for micronutrients and iron. Regarding environmental issues, the potential advantages of cultured meat for greenhouse gas emissions are a matter of controversy. Consumer acceptance will be strongly influenced by many factors and consumers seem to dislike unnatural food.Ethically, cultured meat aims to use considerably fewer animals than conventional livestock farming. However, some animals will still have to be reared to harvest cells for the production of in vitro meat. Finally, we discussed in this review the nebulous status of cultured meat from a religious point of view. Indeed, religious authorities are still debating the question of whether in vitro meat is Kosher or Halal (e.g., compliant with Jewish or Islamic dietary laws). The Myth of Cultured Meat: A Review , Frontiers Nutrition, 7 February 2020 From an environmental impact point of view, the paper disputes that lab-grown protein is of known benefit to the environment: Generally speaking, the production of cultured meat is presented as environmentally friendly, because it is supposed to produce less [greenhouse gases] (which is a matter of controversy), consume less water and use less land (this point being obvious) in comparison to conventional meat production, from ruminants particularly. However, this type of comparison is incomplete and sometimes biased or at least, partial. The Myth of Cultured Meat: A Review , Frontiers Nutrition, 7 February 2020 From a health point of view, the paper also disputes that lab-grown protein is the healthy “food” it is claimed and pointed out that the health consequences are largely unknown: Health and Safety … we do not know all the consequences of meat culture for public health, as in vitro meat is a new product. Some authors argue that the process of cell culture is never perfectly controlled and that some unexpected biological mechanisms may occur. For instance, given the great number of cell multiplications taking place, some dysregulation of cell lines is likely to occur as happens in cancer cells, although we can imagine that deregulated cell lines can be eliminated for production or consumption. This may have unknown potential effects on the muscle structure and possibly on human metabolism and health when in vitro meat is consumed. Antibiotic resistance is known as one of the major problems facing livestock. In comparison, cultured meat is kept in a controlled environment and close monitoring can easily stop any sign of infection. Nevertheless, if antibiotics are added to prevent any contamination, even occasionally to stop early contamination and illness, this argument is less convincing.… no strategy has been developed to endow cultured meat with certain micronutrients specific to animal products (such as vitamin B12 and iron) and which contribute to good health. Furthermore, the positive effect of any (micro)nutrient can be enhanced if it is introduced in an appropriate matrix. In the case of in vitro meat, it is not certain that the other biological compounds and the way they are organised in cultured cells could potentiate the positive effects of micronutrients on human health. Uptake of micronutrients (such as iron) by cultured cells has thus to be well understood. We cannot exclude a reduction in the health benefits of micronutrients due to the culture medium, depending on its composition. And adding chemicals to the medium makes cultured meat more “chemical” food with less of a clean label. The Myth of Cultured Meat: A Review , Frontiers Nutrition, 7 February 2020 The use of language to psychologically manipulate the public is a well-known tactic in the fake food industry as the paper demonstrated: Some authors have demonstrated that consumers tend to strongly reject the name “in vitro meat.” Moreover, the term “cultured” is less disliked than the terms “artificial” and “lab-grown.”  This is confirmed by [a study] which concluded that participants have a low level of acceptance of cultured meat because it is perceived as unnatural. The Myth of Cultured Meat: A Review , Frontiers Nutrition, 7 February 2020 Perceived as unnatural?  It is not a perception; it is unnatural and is precisely why consumers do not and will not trust it, ever.  The paper acknowledged this, albeit once again referring to it as a “perception”: Ethics … many consumers have concerns about food safety mainly due to the unnaturalness perception of cultured meat, as discussed previously. The Myth of Cultured Meat: A Review , Frontiers Nutrition, 7 February 2020 The bottom line is, if the lab-grown protein they are attempting to market as “cultivated meat” was genuinely healthy and of benefit to the environment, then people would not need to be manipulated using psychological tricks to consume it or purchase it for their pets.  The vast majority of consumers are not as unintelligent as ideologues and profiteers would like them to be.  Additionally, we do not want to hand over control of what we eat to nameless, faceless “scientists” in a laboratory who work for companies and oligarchs with questionable ideologies and whose focus is on profit.  It’s not only accidents or safety oversights we are concerned about.  It is nefarious activities over which we have no oversight or control.  How long is it before a psychopath or sociopath decides to add something to the lab-made concoction and poison the lot of us?  Oh wait, uber-rich psychopaths have already done that with the rollout of the covid injections.

https://www.newstarget.com/2024-07-15-doctors-scientists-sign-hope-accord-mrna-jabs.html The Hope Accord is moving forward after cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra tweeted a video of himself explaining that more than 1,000 doctors, scientists and concerned citizens have thus far signed the document, which calls for the immediate suspension of all mRNA jabs. In order for health professionals to reclaim any semblance of medical ethics and set the record straight that mRNA technology is dangerous an unsuitable for use in medicine, Dr. Malhotra is urging everyone who cares, including our readers, to sign the Hope Accord . "In 2015, the editor-in-chief of The Lancet , Richard Horton, wrote a chilling commentary in which he claimed that possibly half of all the medical literature may simply be untrue," Dr. Malhotra says in the video below. "He wrote that science had taken a turn towards darkness. And now it's a question of who is going to take the first step to clean up the system." "The COVID pandemic has revealed a microcosm of the corporate capture of medicine and public health by powerful vested interests in the form of Big Pharma in particular. This is an industry whose business model is one of fraud. And sadly, we have seen the greatest failings of the system with the rollout of an mRNA product that has likely contributed to deaths and serious harm to millions of people around the globe." Dr. Malhotra believes that now is the time to take the next step to clean up the medical system. And the best way for ordinary folks to do this, he says, is to sign the Hope Accord "which calls for the complete suspension of these products but also calls on reclaiming medical ethics." "It's time to act," he pleads. "Please sign this petition and this accord and we can take things further to really genuinely clean up the system." (Related: A recent study found that the many problems associated with mRNA technology "could have fatal consequences" on patients.) Politicians calling for COVID jabs to be pulled from market A number of elected officials are also joining the call for the medical system to be cleaned up starting with the immediate removal of all Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) "vaccines" to be pulled from the market for the safety of the public. Americans for Health Freedom (AHF) says that as of June 25, 2024, 191 politicians, 96 candidates, one surgeon general, one entire state Republican party, one state congressional district, 17 Republican party county committees, and seven physician organizations have all pledged to call for all COVID injections to be banned immediately. All of the above entities have also pledged not to take any more donations from the pharmaceutical industry. A complete list of all of them is available at AmericansForHealthFreedom.org . "I am honoured to be standing alongside my respected colleague, Dr. Malhotra in calling for the restoration of medical ethics," tweeted Dr. Ayiesha Malik, who describes herself on X as "a compassionate GP and integrative doctor." "We won't let history repeat itself. We will stand together and bring hope to the future." One perhaps major setback is that the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the World Health Organization (WHO) just took control of the United Kingdom – and on Independence Day for the United States, no less – with the installment of Keir Starmer as England's new prime minister. The latest news about growing medical industry opposition to mRNA can be found at BadMedicine.news .

https://expose-news.com/2024/07/15/after-decades-of-gaslighting-the-public/ For decades, parents of vaccine-injured children, vaccine-injured adults and others contested the claims that vaccines are the world’s most thoroughly safety-tested products in the world only to be shunned and attacked by the medical community and health agencies. Now a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in the first week of July admits vaccines are not properly studied. “ But let me provide context so nobody is fooled by what they are clearly up to,” Aaron Siri writes. And Like That, The Claim Vaccines Are The World’s Best Studied Product Dies By Aaron Siri Wow. After decades of Dr. Stanley Plotkin and his vaccinologist disciples insisting vaccines are the most well-studied products on the planet, they just penned an  article  admitting precisely the opposite. They just admitted vaccines are not properly studied – neither pre-licensure nor post-licensure. They admitted, for example, “prelicensure clinical trials have limited sample sizes [and] follow-up durations” and that “there are not resources earmarked for post-authorisation safety studies.” Funding Postauthorization Vaccine-Safety Science . Daniel A. Salmon, Ph.D., M.P.H., Walter A. Orenstein, M.D., Stanley A. Plotkin, M.D., and Robert T. Chen, M.D.  Published July 6, 2024 N Engl J Med 2024;391:102-105 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2402379 VOL. 391 NO. 2 That is an incredible reversal. But let me provide context so nobody is fooled by what they are clearly up to. For decades, the medical community insisted vaccines are the most thoroughly studied product ever; for example, Dr. Paul Offit said, “I think we should be proud of vaccines as arguably the safest, best-tested things we put in our body.” For decades, parents of vaccine-injured children, vaccine-injured adults, and other stakeholders contested these claims only to be shunned and attacked by the medical community and health agencies. In 2018, I had the unprecedented opportunity to depose the architect of our vaccination programme and the Godfather of Vaccinology, Dr. Plotkin, and lay bare the evidence that showed what these authors are now finally admitting about the utter lack of vaccine safety trials and studies. See ‘ The Deposition Of Stanley Plotkin ’. After this deposition is made public, Dr. Plotkin goes on a tirade, making demands that FDA add “missing information on safety and efficacy” in vaccine package inserts and that CDC excludes harms from its vaccine information sheets, “lobbying the Gates Foundation to support pro-vaccine organisations,” working to have WHO list vaccine hesitancy as a global threat, lobbying AAP, IDSA and PIDS to “support training of witnesses” to support vaccine safety, etc. See ‘ Dr. Stanley Plotkin, The “Godfather Of Vaccines,” Reaction To Being Questioned ’. The problem is, it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because, at the bottom, there are no proper safety studies. So, there is no safety data to add to the FDA package inserts, and hiding harms by removing them from CDC inserts doesn’t make them go away. Parents and other adults don’t simply stop believing what they have seen with their own eyes because the CDC, WHO, the Gates Foundation, etc., won’t acknowledge them, or worse, they attack them. That brings us to the present in which Plotkin and his disciples realise they can’t cast voodoo on the public. They can’t hide the truth. So, their only option is to try and co-op the truth they have lied about for decades by now admitting that the studies to show vaccines are safe do not exist. But in making that admission, they conveniently fail to admit that for decades they lied, gaslit, defrauded (and I don’t use that word lightly) the public by claiming that vaccines are probably the most thoroughly safety tested products on the planet and that people should rest assured, no stone on vaccine safety was left unturned.    Thus, in their article just published, they pretend they never lied about vaccine safety. They pretend they are now just pointing out that vaccine safety has never really been conducted, as if that was not known to them before. Don’t be fooled. Their real agenda is plain, and it is not to study vaccine safety but rather to confirm that which they already believe. This is crystal clear from the fact that while their article admits the studies have not been done, they write in the same breath that serious vaccine harms are “rare.” But if the studies have not been done, how do they know that? The answer is, they don’t, and they don’t care to know the truth. Their goal is to protect the products they have spent their careers defending and worshipping and that have brought them fame and riches. They also ignore the mountain of studies and data that already exist which clearly show serious vaccine harms. Just take a moment to review the large body of science around one of the adjuvants used in vaccines which multiple studies show can cause serious harm. See ‘ A reactogenic “placebo” and the ethics of informed consent in Gardasil HPV vaccine clinical trials: A case study from Denmark ’. Finally, just look at their proposed solution. After making the a priori conclusion that harms are “rare,” ignoring all the existing studies showing harm, these folk have the audacity to want to raid the federal vaccine injury compensation fund to presumably pay themselves and their compatriots hundreds of millions of dollars to conduct the studies that would, no doubt, seek to confirm their prior conclusion that vaccine harms are “rare,” while ignoring the studies that already show serious harm. So, with that in mind, and sorry for the long wind-up, here are the things they admit in this article for maybe the very first time. “[T]he widespread vaccine hesitancy observed during the covid-19 pandemic suggests that the public is no longer satisfied with the traditional safety goal of simply detecting and quantifying the associated risks after a vaccine has been authorised for use.” Comment: The parents of vaccine-injured children, vaccine-injured adults, and others were never “satisfied” with seeking to assess “risks aftera vaccine has been authorised.” “Post-authorisation studies are needed to fully characterise the safety profile of a new vaccine, since prelicensure clinical trials have limited sample sizes, follow-up durations, and population heterogeneity.” Comment: Let me translate – the clinical trials relied upon to license childhood vaccines are useless with regard to safety since they virtually never have a placebo control, typically review safety for days or weeks after injection, and often have far too few participants to measure anything of value, just see ‘ None of the vaccine doses the CDC recommends for routine injection into children were licensed by the FDA based on a long-term placebo-controlled trial ’; amazingly, I just had a dispute with a Plotkin disciple not long ago in which they were clearly still not ready to admit the above truth: “It is critical to examine adverse events following immunisation (“AEFIs”) that have not been detected in clinical trials, to ascertain whether they are causally or coincidentally related to vaccination.” Comment: No sh** and you have been claiming for decades this was being done! “When they are caused by vaccines (vaccine adverse reactions), the risk attributable to vaccination and the biologic mechanism must be ascertained. That science becomes the basis for developing safer vaccines, if possible, and for determining contraindications to vaccination and the compensation that should be offered for AEFIs.” Comment: Again, no sh**, and you have also been claiming for decades this was being done! “Currently in the United States, when the Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices (ACIP) recommends a new routine vaccine, the only automatic statutory resource allocations that follow are for vaccine procurement by Vaccines for Children (VFC) and for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). Although the ACIP acknowledges the need, there are currently no resources earmarked for post-authorisation safety studies beyond annual appropriations, which must be approved by Congress each year.” Comment: Again, no sh**! But nice of you to finally admit it after decades of gaslighting. “Progress in vaccine-safety science has understandably been slow – often depending on epidemiologic evidence that is delayed or is inadequate to support causal conclusions and on an understanding of biologic mechanisms that is incomplete – which has adversely affected vaccine acceptance.” Comment: More gaslighting because had a proper clinical trial been conducted pre-licensure, we would know the safety before it is unleashed on babies and we wouldn’t need to rely on confounded-biased-conflicted-post-authorisation “epidemiological” studies you now want to conduct which you make clear you only suggest because you want to avoid “public concern and consequent decreases in immunisation coverage,” not because you actually care about safety. “In 234 reviews of various vaccines and health outcomes conducted from 1991 to 2012, the IOM found inadequate evidence to prove or disprove causation in 179 (76%) of the relationships it explored, illustrating the need for more rigorous science.” Comment: Again, no sh**, and I would appreciate if you would please properly cite to the ICAN white paper from 2017 from which you have plainly lifted this point ‘ VACCINE SAFETY: Introduction to Vaccine Safety Science & Policy in the United States ’. “Identifying the biologic mechanisms of adverse reactions – how and in whom they occur – is critical for developing safer vaccines, preventing adverse reactions by expanding contraindications, and equitably compensating vaccinees for true adverse reactions.” Comment: Shameless to pretend you have not for decades ignored or attacked those calling for these studies while pretending a mountain of such studies showing the foregoing don’t already exist. “[T]he budget for vaccine-safety monitoring at the CDC (which is responsible for the majority of US federal efforts) has remained stagnant … at about $20 million per year” which they write is an “inadequate level of funding.” Comment: Again, shameless to pretend parent groups have not been yelling about this issue for decades only to be ignored and attacked. “The public [now] also wants public health authorities to mitigate and prevent rare but serious adverse events – which no longer seem rare when vaccines are given to millions or billions of people.” Comment: They have always been given to millions or billions of people, and the studies showing the harms they cause are not rare and they already exist, but you don’t really care about that reality as vaccine safety is not really the goal. If they are really interested in the truth about what injuries vaccines cause and the rate at which these injuries occur, then they should welcome convening a bipartisan panel that could first review all the very concerning studies and hard data that already exist on this topic (often by scientists not on pharma’s dole) and we could design additional studies together and have them run in the open so everybody has to live with the result. (Among other reasons to demand the study be conducted in the open is that I have witnessed firsthand what happens when a study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children in large multi-million person datasets, using historical insurance data, showed vaccinated children had multiple times the rate of numerous chronic diseases – the study gets buried hence the need to do it in the open.)   Plotkin and company should welcome studies that can show vaccines have not contributed to the rise in chronic childhood disease (many of which are immune-mediated diseases) from 12% of children in the early 1980s (when CDC recommended 7 routine childhood injections) to over 50% of children now (when CDC recommends over 90 routine childhood injections). And I think they do welcome such studies if they can assure that the outcome would show vaccines do not cause these harms. Alas, the reality is that (as they know) studies showing vaccines contribute to this rise already exist. But their goal, in any event, is not to really study safety. Rather it is to prove their prior assumption that vaccines are safe and harms are “rare.” This approach is how they designed VAERS, V-SAFE, VSD, and every other “safety” system. As is transparent from their article, the only reason they even pretend to care about vaccine safety is that they want to avoid a reduction in vaccine uptake – not actually assure safety. That all said, if they are really well-meaning, I would welcome collaborating. To be fair, I will email all four of them to request a meeting to review existing science and design studies mutually agreed upon. If they are really interested in vaccine safety, they should welcome that (I have no hard feelings despite their attacks on me and I hope they can rise above any hard feelings they have for the sake of protecting children). Most importantly, I’m willing to live with the results of those studies. Are they? About the Author Aaron Siri is an American lawyer and managing partner of Siri & Glimstad.  He has extensive complex civil litigation experience, including civil rights involving mandated medicine, class actions and high-stakes disputes.

https://expose-news.com/2024/07/16/michael-yon-the-invasion-of-ireland/ A month ago, Micheal Yon posted a video on Twitter to explain what is happening in Ireland with the wave of immigration which he says is actually an invasion. Ireland has a military of about 6,700 but an estimated 120,000 “migrants” have entered the country.  These “migrants” are clearly invaders, “I’ve been there looking at it [in 2022],” he said and discussed a map prepared by a “military man” that shows the locations of the facilities that are housing the invaders. In Dublin County alone, there are 36 of these locations where between 30-2,000 men are being housed.  “If you’re familiar with Dublin, some of these locations control the entry and exit points of the city,” he said. “They seem to set up in militarily significant locations.  In other words, so that you can be controlled – if you’re in Dublin you can be controlled.” The Invasion of Ireland, with Michael Yon By John Waters ‘The consequences are ultimate!’ Abnormal abdications notwithstanding, might we decide that, rather than doing evil with conscious aforethought, the creeps-in-charge really are stupid enough to believe they are ushering in a “progressive” paradise, and not forming an execution squad for their own people? I posted that tweet on Saturday, by way of setting the scene for tonight’s post, which consists of a recent broadcast by the American military veteran, campaigner and journalist Michael Yon, whose work I have been following for the past couple of years. It is my belief that this video, which ought to have reached a much wider audience than it has, was subject to some process of suppression by the tech overlords. Michael’s post is entirely devoted to the situation in my country, Ireland, and is based on information gleaned directly on a trip he made here in 2022, and indirectly from research recently provided to him by a person with a military background here in Ireland, which I am in a position to authenticate. The picture he paints is bleak indeed: that, as in other parts of the West, the recent influxes of outsiders – mostly males between the ages of 25 and 35 – amount to a stealth invasion of our country, with a view to its capture and the eradication and replacement of its indigenous population. If this sounds far-fetched to you, then be assured that it would to me also if I had not for four years been observing a deliberate culling of our population to the tune of more than 20,000 people, many of them young and healthy, as a result of a poison injection (“clear weapons of war,” says Yon), rendered all but mandatory by the corrupt and abusive policies of our government, and a further 1,500 people mercilessly killed – mainly in nursing homes – between March and May of 2020, in order to ramp up the scare factor. ( Click HERE for my 2020 report .) There is also a radical slump in births over the past three-and-a-half years, clearly connected to the rollout of the mRNA poison injections. In the tweet reproduced above, I appear to leave open the possibility that some of the Irish politicians responsible for this democide may have been oblivious by virtue of stupidity of what they were embroiled in. I say this purely because we cannot entirely rule it out, and not to extend any credit to these people for tender feelings. Michael Yon himself, who met the Sinn Féin leader, Mary Lou McDonald, when in Ireland, described her as having “an IQ of about room temperature!” I accordingly leave open the possibility of a fool’s pardon being issued to some of those potentially implicated, for two reasons: I am not yet able to come to terms with the possibility that all of them are so irredeemably evil as to be complicit in the genocide of their own people, and I have a hope that, in the event that such individuals may be convinced of the truth of what Michael is describing, they may turn away from those who have led them to perdition and speak truthfully to and on behalf of the Irish people. Michael Yon  is a former member of the special operation forces of the US Army, otherwise known as the ‘Green Berets’. At age 19, he successfully completed his Green Beret training, and his subsequent experience in this regiment taught him the art of observing and surviving in the most dangerous environments on earth. In the mid-1990s, he became a writer, photographer and investigator, and has for many years provided detailed reconnaissance from the front lines of global conflicts all over the world. Combining his skills as a writer and photographer, and with the encouragement of fellow veterans, Michael began his career as a war correspondent by travelling to Iraq in December 2004. He has since, on numerous occasions, been embedded with American and British troops in Iraq, initially in a deployment with the 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment of the 25th Infantry Division, in Mosul, which ended in September 2005. He went on to cover some of the world’s most complex conflicts and war zones, travelling to more than 80 countries, including China, India, Bhutan and Vietnam. Most recently, he’s been in South America covering the massive influx of migrants into the United States via the Darién Gap, an until recently unreported path for illegal immigration into America. In this video, posted less than a month ago, he outlines the research referred to above, which pinpoints a total of 36 military-style encampments in the area of Dublin County, and 293 more in the rest of the Republic, accommodating about 120,000 of what he unambiguously calls “invaders” – in camps alone. He points out that the locations of these facilities in the vicinity of Dublin are such as to render it easy to block off the main entry and exit points of the city, with the design of the M50 as a “manmade obstacle” also facilitating the sealing off of the capital from the rest of the country and blocking access and egress. Michael Yon is in no doubt that the objective of this operation is the eradication of the Irish race. He emphasises that he is not in a position to say precisely when this might enter its final stages, but he is unambivalent in stating that “the day is coming”: “We’re clearly going into a bloody war.” I hope in the near future to conduct an interview with Michael Yon to tease out more of the details of his analysis, in particular with a view to dissipating any scepticism that may remain among our people as to the gravity of what we face. In addition, albeit paradoxically, I would like to discuss with Michael the (marginal, and perhaps over-optimistic) possibility that what confronts us here may be related to the generation of what Dr. Michael Nehls calls “pre-traumatic stress disorder,” as outlined in my recent article, ‘ Engineering Stupidity ’. Or is this clutching at straws? To watch Michael Yon’s video on X (Twitter), click HERE or see below. (Allow approximately 1 minute and 20 seconds for the audio to kick in and the brief countdown to begin. The sound at first appears not to be working, but is actually fine.)

https://greenmedinfo.com/blog/invisible-nuclear-threat-within-non-organic-food1 Whether you know it or or not, nuclear waste (cobalt-60) has been used for decades to make your food "safer." There is a profound misunderstanding in the mass market today about the value of certified organic food.  The question is not whether the 50% higher or more you pay at the register for an organic product is really worth the added vitamin, mineral and phytonutrient content you receive.  Even though organic food does usually have considerably higher nutrient density, it is not always the positive quality of what it contains that makes it so special. Rather, it is what you know the organic food does not contain, or what has not happened to it on its journey to your table, that makes buying organic a no-brainer to the educated consumer.  Let me explain. The FDA presently supports and actively promotes the use of cobalt-60 culled from nuclear reactors as a form of "electronic pasteurization" on all domestically produced conventional food. They claim it makes the food "safer."1 The use of euphemisms like "food additive" and "pasteurization" to describe the process of blasting food with inordinately high levels of gamma radiation can not obviate the fact that the very same death rays generated by thermonuclear warfare to destroy life are now being applied to food to "make it safer."  This sort of Orwellian logic, e.g. WAR is PEACE, is the bread and butter of State-sponsored industry propaganda, and also informs other ostensibly "humanitarian" applications of weapons of mass destruction such as radiotherapy and chemotherapy . Inconceivably High Amounts of Radiation Used To "Pasteurize" Your Food This is not a hypochondriac's ranting, as we aren't talking here about small amounts of radiation.  The level of gamma radiation used starts at 1 kiloGray (equivalent to 2,500,000 chest x-rays (40 millirems each) or 166 times a human lethal dose (5 Grays)) and goes all the way up to 30 kiloGray (75,000,000 chest x-rays or 4,980 times a human lethal dose).  The following table is a list of foods that are increasingly being "nuked" for your protection.  Source: FTSI , Food Irradiation How Do You Know If Your Food Has Been Nuked? When you buy conventional food, there is little assurance that it has not been irradiated. Although labeling requirements specify that irradiated food sold in stores should have the international symbol - the Radura - affixed to it, oversight is particularly poor in this regard, and restaurant food and processed food containing irradiated ingredients are not legally required to be labeled as such. Labeled, or not, irradiated food is exposed to the same ionizing gamma radiation that destroyed life in Hiroshima, Chernobyl and now Fukushima. "Primitive" life forms like microbes refuse to ingest irradiated food (which is why we use it), but humans are gullible enough to believe industry pundits and governmental "authorities" like the USDA and FDA, who say doses of radiation applied to your food up to and quite close to a billion chest x-rays worth of ionizing radiation is safe for human consumption. Is Your Health "Collateral Damage" In The War Against Food Perishability? Despite the irresponsible promotion of this process as safe, food irradiation destroys much of the vitamin content of food, produces a number of toxic byproducts: formaldehyde, benzene, and formic acid, as well as unique radiolytic products, e.g. 2-alklycyclobutanoes , that have been demonstrated to be cytotoxic (damages cells), genotoxic (damages DNA), and carcinogenic (causes cancer) in test tube and animal studies. (View peer-reviewed research on gamma irradiation here).   Also, gamma radiation is capable of increasing the allergenicity of food proteins such as milk by denaturing them, and this side effect was found to occur, ironically, even at low radiation doses . How is it, then,  that a process that is so obviously detrimental to human health is allowed? There are at least three reasons driving this dangerous process: Food Sanitization : food irradiation allows for the continuance of the fundamentally unsanitary and unsafe farming practices considered essential for the profitability of large corporation-owned factory farms.  When raw human sewage and wastewater in combination with manure from sick, antibiotic-raised animals is used as fertilizer, virulent strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria can infect the product, getting deep within its tissues where chemical sanitizers can't reach.  Gamma-radiation, which effectively penetrates deep within the product, enables the irresponsible, immoral and unsanitary conditions to remain. Food Globalization: The increased stabilization and reduction in perishability provided by food irradiation supports the continued globalization of food production and distribution, furthering the agendas and profitability of transnational corporations, whose respect for the sovereignty, constitutional rights and public health of the U.S. or any other nation, is secondary to the primary aim of raw, unregulated capitalism in pursuit of profits at all costs . Food Politicization: Finally, the military-industrial complex requires that the public perceive nuclear energy as not just an element of war, or potential ecological disaster, but as something "beneficial" that may protect us from harm. Nuclear waste, once the irrepressible hobgoblin of the nuclear energy industry, is suddenly transformed - under the guidance and support of our government - into both a profitable commodity and a "therapeutic" agent. It Gets Worse: Spraying Our Food With Virus Cocktail To Make it "Better" In the same way that irradiating bacteria contaminated food does nothing to remove the unsanitary processes that cause the underlying problem, in 2006, the FDA passed, without any public review or oversight, the use of bacteriphage virus "cocktails" to be sprayed on meat, in an attempt to prevent Listeria monocytogenes outbreaks.  These bacteria-specific viruses, in theory, lay dormant waiting for virulent and antibiotic-resistant bacteria upon which they prey.   Although the FDA only approves the use of lysic bacteriphages which are not believed to alter the DNA of the cells they infect, the possibility of contamination with lysogenic strains which can alter DNA is significant, owing to the fact that these viruses are only between 20 and 200 millionth of a millimeter in size.  The FDA's decision to define bacteriophages as "Generally Recognized As Safe" (GRAS) food additives is premature, and therefore a red flag to those who are concerned about the underlying food safety issues that are not being addressed. Genetically Modified Organisms: The Food Experiment You Are Already Enrolled In With the country still reeling from the implosion of the financial markets, new attention has been placed on the huge trade deficits the US has with its trading partners.  One major factor in our increasingly disadvantaged global trading position is our decision to use genetically modified organisms (GMO's), despite growing concern over its short and long term adverse effects on the health of the human body and the environment.  For example in 2006 "the most significant event in the history of the U.S. rice industry" occurred, according to David Coia of the USA Rice Federation trade group, when trace amounts of genetically modified rice was found commingled in the U.S. rice supply. According to Green Peace, the U.S. sustained approximately 1.2 billion dollars in losses, when over 30 countries were affected by the contamination, and many closed their markets to U.S. rice, including the European Union and the Philippines.  Why the global outcry? Despite our government's arguably criminal avoidance of the evidence linking genetically modified food to adverse health effects , the governments of other nations are aware of the dire risks to human and environmental health these GMOs pose.  America one of the only countries in the world which does not require GMO ingredients or foods to be labeled as such. We can't expect the rest of the world to so carelessly experiment on its population with foods that have been profoundly altered to contain potentially toxic gene products from other species, as well as contamination with highly toxic agrichemicals such as Roundup , or similar glyphosate-based formulations. Their reluctance to participate in the largest food experiment in the history of our species is directly reflected in the world' s increasing resistance to accepting food exported from the U.S., which has had huge impacts on our economic well-being. If you wish to withdraw yourself as a guinea pig from this national GMO experiment, remember, the only way you can know for sure that you food is not genetically modified is if it is certified organic, or certified GMO-free. (to learn about the devastating health effects of GMOs, go to seedsofdeception.com ) Buying Organic Food: Vote With Your Fork! Food quality has become an oxymoron in this country.  With the state-sponsored promotion of food irradiation, virus-laden food additives, genetic modification, pesticide usage and raw sewage fertilizer, Americans who don't go out of their way to buy only organic food, are unknowing participants in the largest food experiment ever performed in recorded history. Not too long ago, all cultures considered food sacred for its ability to sustain our physical, emotional and spiritual well being from the ground up.  Today, the forces of commodification and naked, unbridled "free market" capitalism have converted food into devitalized metabolic poisons, which slowly render those who consume them into commodities themselves, i.e. sickened patients, against whom are plied the thousands of branded 'snake-oil' potions conjured up by the conventional medical establishment's cauldron-like pharmacopeia . Remember, next time you shop, know that buying organic isn't just about it being more nutritious than conventional food; rather, it provides the only assurance that can still shield you from the veritable minefield of potential health liabilities which is lurking within every supermarket across the land. Also, it enables you to affect real change by voting with your fork when the ballot box or government representatives increasingly moves in the wrong direction. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Resources 1 FDA.gov , Food Irradiation: What You Need To Know