Search Results

https://www.newser.com/story/340192/schools-burn-after-belgium-makes-sex-ed-mandatory.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=miximedia&utm_campaign=rss_home 6 schools have been set on fire this week A series of school arsons in Belgium believed to be connected to a controversial school program in some parts of the country is prompting authorities to strengthen their police response. Interior Minister Annelies Verlinden on Friday called for a halt to the attacks in the French-speaking Wallonia region hours after another school was set on fire, the sixth in the Charleroi area since the start of the week, the AP reports. "We don't touch our schools," the minister tweeted. "Arson attacks in Brussels and Wallonia must stop. I have therefore asked the federal police to provide support to local areas to avoid any escalation." Signs protesting the so-called Evras project were discovered on some of the schools. The Evras program is described as a tool designed to help children and teenagers develop their relational and sexual lives. This school year, some 100,000 pupils in the Wallonia-Brussels federation ages 11-12 and 15-16 will have to attend two sessions, for a total of four hours of training. The program had been around and available to all age groups for years but was not compulsory before this school year. In addition to the arsons, protests gathering a few hundred people have also been organized in Brussels. Several Islamic groups have also condemned the program in a joint statement over fears it will favor the "hypersexualization" of children while rumors about the nature of Evras spread on the Internet. "I would like to call on everyone to calm down and try once again to cut through the lies circulating about the Evras system," the education minister in the Wallonia-Brussels Federation, Caroline Desir, said on Friday. "No, it does not prepare a pedophile system. No, it doesn't plan to make children want to change gender. No, it doesn't plan to teach children how to engage in sexual activities." Charleroi mayor Paul Magnette compared the arsons to a "form of terrorism." "These are arson attacks on schools, which are sacred places," he told Sudinfo media. "They are places where children learn respect and tolerance."

I tell you something… even though times have changed somewhat… don’t expect many “old friends” and family who fell for the psyop, to invite you over for dinner or wanna hang out. There might be a few… but the unjabbed now serve as a constant remind of the terrible decisions they made, and the poor behaviour that was on display by so many. Most want to bury and deny everything they did… and our mere presence makes that impossible to do so. Don’t expect apologies and admissions of wrong doing. It just ain’t gonna happen.

https://expose-news.com/2023/10/01/great-oil-conspiracy-oil-is-not-a-fossil-fuel/ The Great Oil Conspiracy: It has been known since the end of WWII that oil is not a fossil fuel; it is abiotic There are two basic theories for the origin of crude oil: biotic and abiotic. The origin of petroleum or natural gas may seem like a strange debate to have but determining whether this fuel is a fossil fuel or not is important. If these fuels are truly fossil fuels, then they are limited in supply and alternative energy resources would need to be created at some point. If they are not fossil fuels and are created through some form of abiogenesis – a natural process from non-living matter – then the need to develop alternative fuels is diminished. The biotic theory is that oil and gas drilled out of the earth come from the remains of plants and animals trapped underground millions of years ago. These “fossil fuels” took aeons to form and we are using them up far faster than they can be replenished. This fossil fuel theory is, however, just that – a theory. There are many features of the fossil-origin theory which still apparently puzzle some scientists. So, what if the whole theory is wrong? The abiotic theory is an opposing view that has substantial evidence to back it up. This theory goes back centuries and includes as its prominent champions Dimitri Mendeleev, best known for inventing the periodic table. Abiotic Oil Theory While the chemistry is quite complex, environmental chemist Tristan Coleman wrote, the principle behind the abiotic oil idea is actually quite simple. Carbon present in the magma beneath the Earth’s crust reacts with hydrogen to form methane and other hydrocarbons, with many chemically complex intermediate stages. Certain mineral rocks such as granite and other silicon-based rocks act as non-depleting catalysts to speed up the process. Experiments have shown that under extreme conditions of heat and pressure, it is possible to convert iron oxide, calcium carbonate and water into methane as well as hydrocarbons containing up to ten carbon atoms. Such experiments have been undertaken last century by Russian scientists as well as more recently in the US, and even more recently in Sweden. The conditions in the Earth’s mantle would be sufficient for these small hydrocarbons to polymerise into the longer chain molecules found in crude oil, for example. Moreover, the limited oxygen present in the Earth’s magma prevents the hydrocarbons from burning up despite the intense heat and pressure. The hydrocarbons of abiotic origin then migrate out of the mantle into the crust until they escape to the surface or are trapped by impermeable strata, forming petroleum reservoirs. Sketch depicting the migration of abiotic oil upwards from the mantle into reservoirs contained by non-porous rock. Source: The Atlas Report Evidence Supporting Abiotic Theory Some people have been deeply interested in oil and its origins but their advocacy of abiotic theory has many dismissing them as heretics, frauds or idealists. They hold that oil can be derived from hydrocarbons that existed aeons ago in massive pools deep within the earth’s core. That source of hydrocarbons seeps up through the earth’s layers and slowly replenishes oil sources. In other words, it turns the fossil fuel paradigm upside down. Russian and Ukrainian Geologists A 1996 paper by Dr. J. F. Kenney titled ‘Special Edition on The Future of Petroleum’ points out how predictions made that the human race was imminently going to run out of available petroleum “have depended fundamentally upon an archaic hypothesis from the 18th century that petroleum somehow (miraculously) evolved from biological detritus, and was accordingly limited in abundance.” The hypothesis that petroleum originated from biological matter (fossils) “has been replaced during the past forty years by the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum origins which has established that petroleum is a primordial material erupted from great depth,” Kenney wrote. In his paper, Kennedy quoted Professor Vladilen A. Krayushkin, a strong proponent of abiotic theory and Chairman of the Department of Petroleum Exploration at the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, as saying: The eleven major and one giant oil and gas fields here described have been discovered in a region which had, forty years ago, been condemned as possessing no potential for petroleum production. The exploration for these fields was conducted entirely according to the perspective of the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum origins. The drilling which resulted in these discoveries was extended purposely deep into the crystalline basement rock, and it is in that basement where the greatest part of the reserves exist. These reserves amount to at least 8,200 [million] metric tons of recoverable oil and 100 [billion] cubic meters of recoverable gas, and are thereby comparable to those of the North Slope of Alaska. It is conservatively estimated that, when developed, these fields will provide approximately thirty per cent of the energy needs of the industrial nation of Ukraine. Professor Vladilen A. Krayushkin, Chairman of the Department of Petroleum Exploration, Institute of Geological Sciences, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Kiev, and leader of the project for the exploration of the northern flank of the Dni eper-Donets Basin, at the VII-th International Symposium on the Observation of the Continental Crust Through Drilling, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 1994. Vladimir Kutcherov is a Swedish-based Russian geologist and a professor at the Division of Energy Technology at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm. In 2009 he was a co-author of a paper published in the journal Nature Geosciences. The idea that oil comes from fossils “is a myth … we need to change this myth,” Kutcherov said. “All kinds of rocks could have oil and gas deposits.” Alexander Kitchka of the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences estimated that 60% of the content of all oil is abiotic in origin. He said companies should drill deeper to find it. Kitchka said oil may be found in all sorts of geological structures such as volcanic rock or deep-sea thermal vents where companies aren’t looking today. Eugene Island On Eugene Island, Louisiana, in 1995, it was reported that the oil fields were – perplexingly – refilling themselves after being depleted. The findings of Dr. Jean K. Whelan, part of a US Department of Energy exploration program, seem to support the abiotic theory to explain this. She found that the oil likely came from great depths, as abiotic proponents say. In 1999, The Wall Street Journal reported: Production at the oil field, deep in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, was supposed to have declined years ago. And for a while, it behaved like any normal field: Following its 1973 discovery, Eugene Island 330’s output peaked at about 15,000 barrels a day. By 1989, production had slowed to about 4,000 barrels a day. Then suddenly – some say almost inexplicably – Eugene Island’s fortunes reversed. The field, operated by PennzEnergy Co., is now producing 13,000 barrels a day, and probable reserves have rocketed to more than 400 million barrels from 60 million. Stranger still, scientists studying the field say the crude coming out of the pipe is of a geological age quite different from the oil that gushed 10 years ago. The Great Oil Conspiracy The late Cornell University astronomer Thomas Gold championed the abiotic theory. He said that oil contains organic compounds not because it is derived from fossils but because giant colonies of deep-earth bacteria feed on deep hydrocarbon pools way down in the mantle. He believed that the hydrocarbons we use come from chemical stocks that were incorporated into the Earth at its creation. Since the oil crisis of the 1970s, Gold said that the Earth is hugely well endowed with these hydrocarbons – hundreds of times more so than most geologists, oil companies or OPEC leaders believe. The general belief in scarcity that drives up gas prices and causes fears of inflation, Gold argued, is a mirage that has served vested interests among oil producers for decades. Further reading: * L. Fletcher Prouty: Oil is not a fossil fuel; it is the second most prevalent liquid on Earth, The Exposé, 29 September 2023 * Did the Bilderberg Group orchestrate the 1973 oil crisis? The Exposé, 5 September 2023 * The Energy Non-Crisis, Lindsey Williams, 19 March 1980 In 2012, author and writer Jerome Corsi published a book titled ‘The Great Oil Conspiracy: How the U.S. Government Hid the Nazi Discovery of Abiotic Oil from the American’. In the book, he explained that the Nazis knew that oil is abiotic and that they had been making synthetic oil out of coal. They developed what’s known as the Fischer-Tropsch Process, equations which explained that the earth makes oil under intense pressure and heat deep within the earth on an ongoing basis, even today. In an interview with Crosstalk America shortly after the release of his book, Corsi said that the Fischer-Tropsch equations explained that the earth at deep levels forms oil naturally. “It’s nonsense to think that oil is fossil fuel,” he said. Crosstalk America: The Great Oil Conspiracy (audio), 28 September 2012 (53 mins) In the video above, Corsi explained that the biotic (fossil fuel) theory began by claiming that oil originated from dinosaur matter. Then its advocates moved on to claim that oil came from matter from ancient forests. “Once that theory began to be abandoned, people said: ‘Oh, it’s plankton and other deeper biological material’ … this whole idea there’s kerogen, which is a pre-oil gummy-like substance that is in sedimentary rock that’s forming the oil, is nonsense. It’s not the way chemistry works,” he said. The Nazis realised that under intense pressure and heat, conditions which are in the mantle of the Earth, minerals that contain hydrogen and minerals that contain carbon in the presence of catalysts, such as iron oxide, will release hydrogen and carbon. This will lead to the formation of hydrocarbon molecular chains that develop into the products we know as crude oil or natural gas. “This is an ongoing process. It goes on all the time. It’s natural to the earth. And, in fact, our solar system abundantly produces various forms of hydrocarbons,” he said. The “Peak Oil” theory is also nonsense, Corsi said. This theory started, Corsi said, when a Shell Oil chemist “took a napkin and drew a bell curve, a Hubbert’s curve, and said, basically, that we have a lot of oil, then we peak in the use of oil, then it runs out. But those predictions have never come true.” Note that Corsi said this in 2012. Also note that in 2020, AP News spuriously labelled him a “conspiracy theorist.” Peak Oil, a hypothetical point when global oil production maximises and enters an irreversible decline, has been the holy grail of resource economics for decades. According to Britannica, the first person to advance the Peak Oil theory publicly was Marion King Hubbert, an American geoscientist who worked as a researcher for the Shell Oil Company from 1943 to 1964 and taught geophysics at Stanford University and other institutions. In 1956, Hubbert presented a paper in which he depicted US petroleum production on a bell curve which predicted production peaking between 1965 and 1975 and then declining. Forbes admitted in an article last year that there are hundreds of faulty predictions of Peak Oil. The fault in all these forecasts, Forbes noted, is a failure to recognise oil production as inherently political. Adding that “beliefs and faith in this prophecy drive policy much more than any detached analysis.” It doesn’t sound too dissimilar to anthropogenic global warming which, using pseudoscience coupled with an ideology, has predicted “tipping points” for decades In fact, Forbes linked Peak Oil directly to the much-touted “decarbonisation” agenda: If Peak oil is already here, and we have yet not met our decarbonisation goals, then the implications for energy and the economy would be far-reaching. If Peak oil is to arrive in the near future, then our current decarbonisation strategies, while not ideal, may be sufficient to reach the objectives of the Paris Agreement by 2050 with a temperature increase well below 2oC in comparison to pre-industrial levels. If Peak Oil is far off, decarbonisation and environmental strategies face tremendous obstacles from the oil market and political pressure from the OPEC+ cartel. Recognition that oil is abundant changes the global oil market as well as the much-needed transition to clean energy. Peak Oil: The Perennial Prophecy That Went Wrong, Forbes, 30 November 2022 Sources and further resources: * Abiotic Oil Theory Explained, Health Research Funding * Fuel’s Paradise, Wired, 1 July 2000 * Endless Oil? Forbes, 13 November 2008 * Where Does Crude Oil Come From? Biotic Or Abiotic Processes? Quirky Science, 18 April 2019 * Abiotic Oil a Theory Worth Exploring, US News, 14 September 2011 * Is Fossil Fuel Actually Produced Renewably Inside the Earth? Some Scientists Theorise * ‘Abiotic’ Origins of Oil, The Epoch Times, 25 November 2022 * Abiotic Oil Theory, History Heist * Abiotic Oil, Skeptoid, 27 March 2018

Key Questions What can be done to prevent the use and transportation of toxic and poisonous chemicals like vinylidene dichloride? 21:46 Are germs the symptoms of cellular breakdown? 29:55 What is the reality behind the official narrative of the source Covid 2 virus and the Covid 19 disease? 33:04 Why is graphene oxide destroying reproductive systems? 58:17 How can we restore the alkaline design of the body fluids? 1:23:00 Summary of Podcast Dr. Robert Young and Anders Brunstad held a meeting to discuss various topics, including the Lahina Circle of Fire, directed energy weapons, environmental disasters, and the limitations of technology in studying filterable bacteria and viruses. They also discussed the official narrative of Covid-19 and MRNA vaccines, genetics, and the presence of graphene oxide in vaccines. The scientists questioned the official narrative and suggested alternative theories, including the correlation between the spread of Covid-19 and the implementation of 5G technology. They also discussed the potential harm of vaccines and the need for an alkaline lifestyle to restore the body's natural balance. Dr. Young and Brunstad expressed frustration with the lack of media coverage and called for further investigation into the cause of the wildfires and environmental disasters. They emphasized the importance of responsible and ethical practices in industries that deal with hazardous materials, and the need for stricter regulations and enforcement to protect the environment and public health. They also discussed the urgent need for action and prayer to create a better world, emphasizing the need to fight evil with love, care, and knowledge. Overall, the meeting covered a wide range of topics related to science, technology, and the environment. Dr. Young and Brunstad challenged the official narrative and suggested alternative theories, highlighting the need for further research and investigation. They also emphasized the importance of responsible and ethical practices in industries that deal with hazardous materials, and the need for stricter regulations and enforcement to protect the environment and public health. Finally, they discussed the urgent need for action and prayer to create a better world, emphasizing the need to fight evil with love, care, and knowledge. Chapters and Topics Discussion on Lahina's Circle of Fire 0:05 Discussion on Directed Energy Weapons and Electrical Line Fire 13:32 Discussion on Wildfires and Suspected Foul Play16:24 Discussion on the Environmental Disaster Caused by Vandine Dichloride21:46 The environmental and health impacts of the burning of vandine dichloride, which created a compound called phosgene that caused mass destruction and was covered up by government agencies. Discussion on Filterable Bacteria and Viruses 24:37 Filterable bacteria and viruses Discussion on the Official Narrative of Covid-19 and MRNA Vaccines 31:32 The effects of technology impregnated through various trans vectors on the human body. The Role of Genetics and Environment in Determining Cell Destiny 48:11 Discussion on Graphene Oxide in Vaccines 53:16 Targeted and directed bio weapon The Spike Protein Narrative and Alternative Theories 1:00:54 The Possibility of Deception in Vaccine Development and Distribution 1:08:29 The Importance of an Alkaline Lifestyle for Health 1:18:45 The importance of an alkaline approach to restore the alkaline design of the body fluids. Urging Action and Prayer for a Better World 1:25:40

They hand off the cannibalistic ritual to a company called "Senomyx". Join me in opting out of their satanic rituals.

If YOU truly do not wish to be 'their' slaves any more, YOU must inform YOURSELF on how it is conducted so as to 'see' it. Stand strong and know that YOU CAN LEARN. This book is a great start. (believe they may have sold out, so please go to a library).

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/10/01/who-pandemic-treaty-ihr-amendments.aspx Freedom organizations around the world are uniting for a single cause: to get the word out about how the WHO intends to take control over all aspects of everyone's lives, right down to what you can eat, where you can go and what vaccines you must get. Find out here how it will work. We're in the Middle of a Global Coup — Here's How We Stop It STORY AT-A-GLANCE The World Health Organization's upcoming pandemic treaty and the International Health Regulation (IHR) amendments are part of a global “soft coup” to strip nations of their sovereignty and people of their bodily autonomy and freedom The WHO wants to put into law a requirement that nations must censor their citizens, so that only public health messages aligned with the WHO’s recommendations can be shared The IHR amendments specify that the WHO will dictate which drugs countries must use, and which they cannot, in the event of a pandemic — and possibly outside of pandemics as well The IHRs have been in existence since 1969, but in the current draft of the IHR amendments — the WHO’s recommendations — become edicts that must be followed rather than recommendations that nations can ignore at will The treaty demands the fast-tracking of vaccines, along with liability waivers for vaccine manufacturers. The EU, U.S. and CEPI have already proposed a plan to develop vaccines in 100 days The treaty will apply to all nations that sign on, all the time, even when there are no pandemics ____________________________________________________________________________________________ In this interview board-certified internist and biological warfare epidemiologist Dr. Meryl Nass discusses the dangers posed by the World Health Organization's upcoming pandemic treaty and the International Health Regulation (IHR) amendments. She also wrote about this in a recent article titled "The WHO’s Proposed Treaty Will Increase Manmade Pandemics."1 "I've been reading the different drafts of the amendments and the Pandemic treaty that have been put forward," she says. "They're a mix of things, different ideas put forward by the different [member] countries. And then there's a group within the WHO that tries to harmonize them, and also make sure that what the WHO wants is in them. I had finally read through, line by line, the June 2nd, most recent draft of a pandemic treaty, and it had things that were much worse and more explicit in it than before, and I felt compelled to start writing about it. Then, after I'd written a short piece, I realized it was too important and I needed to write a long piece with background and links, and try to get the message out to a lot of people. Because the only reason these documents and the plan — the biosecurity agenda through the pandemic treaty and the International Health Amendments — have gotten as far as they have is because nobody has read them. [People] don’t understand what the plan is, and may not understand the backstory." Converging Agendas With Identical Goals It’s important to realize that many different aspects of the grand plan are being put into motion by a variety of sectors and globalist organizations at the same time, and while they may appear independent of each other, they’re all leading us in the same direction, toward a unified goal, namely the enslavement of mankind and the centralization of control over the world’s population. We have development of a new financial apparatus involving the rollout of a central bank digital currency (CBDC), for example. "At the same time, the U.N. also wants into the action," Nass says. "It wants to be able to declare global shocks and manage them. And those could be the ones that the WHO wants to manage, which is biological warfare and pandemics that occur in more than one country. So, the U.N. has listed those two, but also all sorts of other potential global shocks, like climate change, supply chain interruptions, cyber events, and even events in outer space. And they finalize it with black swan events, which means anything the U.N. wants to designate as a global shock can be one, and then the U.N. will come out with its management of that event. So, the secretary general of the U.N. is asking its members ... at the annual meeting of the U.N. General Assembly, to give it permission to create this global emergencies platform ... which will give the secretary general and the U.N. authority to manage global shocks. Also at that meeting, the WHO and the U.N. are coming together to try to divvy up how things are going to go for biological warfare and pandemics that affect more than one country. So, look for information coming out on that on September 20." Why Was the Pandemic Treaty Introduced? The WHO proposed the initial plan to grant itself the power to issue global emergency instructions in 2021. The claim was that nations had handled the COVID pandemic so poorly, we need a centralized organization to manage the next pandemic better. "Of course, it was laid out in terms of equity, like the rich countries didn't give the poor countries enough vaccines, etc ... and so many people died. What is never said is that, in fact, almost all the countries of the world were following the WHO’s guidance, and that is what caused this last pandemic to be so devastating. The economic implications were all as a result of the lockdowns, the resulting supply chain interruptions, the closure of schools, etc. So, although the WHO wants this great power, it hasn't said that it's going to do anything differently. Nobody at the level of the WHO, the U.N., or the United States public health authorities or the president has said they did anything wrong. What they want to do is more of the same, and I mean more, lots more," Nass says. WHO Wants To Be a Centralized Ruler of All For example, they want to put into law the requirement that nations must censor their citizens, so that only public health messages aligned with the WHO’s recommendations can be shared. Already, YouTube has announced they will henceforth censor all health information that does not conform to the WHO's narrative. But that censorship is nothing compared to what’s to come. The amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHRs) also specify that the WHO will dictate which drugs countries must use, and which they cannot, in the event of a pandemic — and possibly outside of pandemics as well. As explained by Nass: "The pandemic treaty ... is a completely new document, and each draft has been different than the one before. In the current draft, the director general of the WHO doesn't even need to declare a pandemic. The pandemic treaty will be in effect all the time." The IHRs have been in existence since 1969, but in the current draft of the IHR amendments, the WHO’s recommendations become edicts that must be followed rather than recommendations that nations can ignore at will. In their current form, the amendments do require the director-general of the WHO to declare a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) before he can start giving orders, but there are no standards for what a PHEIC is. It could be anything. He would also have the power to declare a "potential" pandemic, even with limited or no evidence. All Vaccines Will Be Fast-Tracked and Untested The treaty also demands the fast-tracking of vaccines, along with liability waivers for vaccine manufacturers. According to Nass, the EU, U.S. and CEPI have already proposed a plan to develop vaccines in 100 days and manufacture enough for everyone in the country in another 30 days. "It's a completely crazy idea because you don't have time to test the vaccines in human beings if you're developing them in 100 days," Nass says. "The COVID vaccines were developed in 326 days ... That was the Pfizer vaccine. And the median testing in humans was only two months or less. We gave the vaccines to billions of people, and we only found out later what the side effects were. We still don't have a totally clear view of all the side effects and how often they occur, because our countries have hidden the data ... Today, when FDA is letting things get through right and left without good tests, still only 29% of the vaccines presented to the FDA are given a license; 71% are rejected. It's hard to make a good vaccine. Many have to be thrown away before you get to a safe and effective one. That is, unless you have a complete waiver of liability, and then you can inject people with anything. And there are no manufacturing standards, no safety standard, no efficacy standard. The only ‘standard’ is that the FDA commissioner needs to hope that the benefits outweigh the risks." Never-Ending Pandemics Ahead Both the treaty and the IHR amendments require nations to perform extensive biosurveillance, year-round, and perform genomic sequencing on all pathogens collected. Well, if we’re testing people, livestock, wild animals, farms and factories all the time, we’ll always be able to find pathogens with pandemic potential. So, this will give rise to a never-ending series of pandemic and "potential pandemic" declarations. Any and all of these declarations could then result in lockdowns and new vaccine requirements. And, importantly, these documents will supersede all domestic laws if implemented, so not even the U.S. Constitution will be able to save us. Door To Freedom To prevent this nightmare, Nass has founded a new organization called Door To Freedom (doortofreedom.org), which seeks to educate people around the world about what the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments are, and how they will change life as we know it, and strip us of every vestige of freedom. Door To Freedom has created a poster to explain the impacts the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments will have. Please download this poster and share it with everyone you know. Also put it up on public billboards and places where communities share information. "The WHO appears to be nervous about the fact that some of these bits of information are in fact making it into the mainstream," Nass says, "and so they themselves have made little short videos with Tedros and other people at the WHO denying that this is a sovereignty grab — claiming that the WHO is not even going to be a party of the treaty, etc. Most of their claims are lies. So, it will be confusing. But the WHO is definitely a party to this treaty. The WHO intends — in the June 2, 2023, version, which is called the Bureau Draft — to take management of certain aspects of pandemic control." Who Will Vote on the Treaty and IHR Amendments? The IHR amendments will only require a 50% vote of whoever is in the room at the time of the vote, which will take place at the World Health Assembly’s annual meeting in May 2024.2 Countries will then have only 10 months to send a formal opt-out to the WHO if the amendments pass. Barring an opt-out, all countries will then be required to comply with WHO directives. Nations that have not officially opted out will then be bound by the new terms laid out in the amendments. The pandemic treaty will also be voted on during that meeting. It will require two-thirds vote in favor by the members that are in the room and will go into effect one month after 30 nations have ratified it. The amendments require an active opt-out, while the treaty requires an active opt-in. Any nation that has not signed the treaty will be excluded from its terms. Those who sign the treaty must wait three years before they can get out. "That's important to remember, because I don't think too many people want to give the WHO three years of directing them how to manage public health emergencies before they can can say no," Nass says. It is important to be aware that the treaty will be in force all the time. It won't require a pandemic to give the WHO director-general the power to surveil and censor the entire world, 24/7. Furthermore, as currently drafted, the treaty has essentially blank pages, to be filled in later. New committees will form, and they will determine how the treaty provisions will be carried out and enforced. They can add new provisions too. This is like giving a blank check to the WHO to impose whatever it wants on the world's people. Action Items While the situation seems incredibly bleak, Nass insists there are many things we can do to prevent the WHO’s power grab, including the following: • Call your congressman or congresswoman and urge them to sponsor H.R.79 — The WHO Withdrawal Act,3 introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs, which calls for defunding and exiting the WHO. At the time of this writing, it has 51 cosponsors, all of them Republicans. We cannot get this bill passed without Democrats, so we need to get them to understand what’s at stake. As noted by Nass: "That means 51 congressmen have already been convinced about how bad this is. We the people have to get educated and then push it out to more members of Congress. These provisions are so terrible, if you stand up in front of a room and say, ‘My congresswoman is voting to give away our sovereignty, to have the WHO take away our medications, to transfer our intellectual property to other nations,’ everyone will say ‘That person is terrible.’ So, there's a lot of opportunity to embarrass your members of Congress if they don't understand what this is and vote to get out. I think that's our best bet." The Sovereignty Coalition is making it easier for everyone to make their voices heard. Its Help the House Defund the WHO page will allow you to contact all of your elected representatives with just a few clicks. Simply fill out the required field, click submit, and your contact information will be used to match you with your elected representatives. • Also urge your congressman or congresswoman to sponsor H.R.1425,4 which would require the pandemic treaty to be approved by the Senate. It currently has 27 cosponsors. • Call your senator and urge them to sponsor the Senate version of H.R.1425, which is S.444, the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act.5 It currently has 47 cosponsors. • Share Door To Freedom’s educational poster6 everywhere you can, and direct them to doortofreedom.org for more information. • Also share, share, share information about the IHR amendments and how they will destroy national sovereignty, and increase surveillance and censorship. You can find a quick summary here. In 2021, the U.S. introduced several new amendments that were rejected by other nations, so when it came to a vote in 2022, the U.S. rescinded most of them. If we can make enough noise and get a wellspring of people to push back, saying we will not accept these terms, many of the amendments may simply be withdrawn before they come to a vote in 2024. The WHO is trying to achieve this soft coup on the sly, and exposing how these amendments will eliminate human rights and bodily autonomy, and strip our nation of its sovereignty, will force them to take a step back, because while they are tyrants, they don’t want to be identified as such. We Must Stop the Funding of Our Demise Also be sure to sign up for Door To Freedom’s newsletter so that you can take action when WHO-related bills come up. We need to oppose all funding of the global biosecurity agenda, and Door To Freedom will alert you when it’s time to call on your representatives to oppose funding measures that will further the biosecurity agenda. Other newsletters that will help you stay abreast on this issue are Children’s Health Defense and Stand for Health Freedom. The U.S. has already contributed money to a financial intermediary fund set up through the WHO and the World Bank. But that fund is still many billions short of what it wants, so the WHO is looking for member states to dramatically increase their contributions. The U.S. also committed $5 billion over five years to the global biosecurity agenda when it passed the National Defense Authorization Act in December 2022. So, those contributions are now part of U.S. law, and they’re part of Biden’s proposed budget for 2024. Another $20 billion in mandated spending by the Department of Health and Human Services has been requested in the president's FY 2024 budget request to Congress for International Pandemic Preparedness. More money will also be allocated for this purpose by the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security. Additional funds may also be allocated through the State Department, USAID, the Department of Agriculture and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In all, the U.S. is already set to spend some $30 billion a year on global pandemic preparedness, and part of that is for surveillance of our social media and the internet, and biosurveillance for pathogens with pandemic potential. It seems that with so much money sloshing around, a large number of vested interests support the WHO plan. However, when we citizens reach out en masse, politicians oftentimes are compelled to appease their constituents, especially when it comes to turning over state and federal authority for health to unelected officials of the WHO, an organization well-known for corruption, which unabashedly caters to its biggest donors, particularly Bill Gates. A recent example is offered by Nass: "There’s a group called the Sovereignty Coalition that we are part of. They have the ALIGN Act software and this enables people going to their website, with two or three clicks, to send needed messages to the president, your congressman, senators, governors, etc., and that was used. So, when the funding bill came up a month or two ago for the State Department — and funding for the WHO is in that bill — the Republicans had cut funding in their markup, because ... we got over 4,000 calls and emails to every member of the committee the night before." So, thanks to that outreach, the State Department Foreign Operations appropriations bill draft now has zero funding for the WHO in it. As noted by Nass: "Now that is extraordinary. I'm sure they're going to try to sneak it in somewhere else, but right now the United States has defunded the WHO in the pending legislation, which needs to be voted on, I believe by the end of October. Stand for Health Freedom also has something like that, and Children's Health Defense also has ALIGN Act software. So, we can make this happen. When bills are coming up, when important things are happening, we can get out the action alerts and get people to take action. That's already in place. It's tremendously important, and we'll continue to do that." We Must Connect the Dots for People A common question is who is responsible for this global coup? Also, who’s in charge of it? And why are they doing it, exactly? "The answer is, we don't know who's doing it," Nass says, "but we know there are some very evil, rich people that are [part of it]. We know that Klaus Schwab is part of their apparatus. We know that the World Economic Forum's Young Global Leaders —that Schwab has raised up for the last 30 years — are a big part of implementing these things in their countries ... They're like a large Skull and Bones club where they work together. They come together for meetings, and their job is to elevate each other into powerful positions in industry and government ... So, we have to make people aware of the role of these secret societies, and how they are being used to bring in bad programs. People are already noticing the terrible inflation in the United States, and that's due to the money printing. They had to do the money printing to bribe the schools, the hospitals, the industries, the pharmaceutical makers, and the media in particular, to push this whole pandemic narrative through and make us do what they wanted. Now everybody thinks we're coming up for another pandemic soon. The FDA is pushing out a new COVID vaccine in the middle of September. What are they going to do to us next? Are they going to be able to print money again and dole out $10 trillion of our grandchildren's money? I think people are starting to understand this money printing inflationary spiral, and how it impoverishes us for the benefit of a small group. Those are bits of information — what is needed is connecting the dots. So, in my article, I tried to connect a lot of dots ... Everything in our lives is changing at the same time and people are so confused. We need those who are paying close attention and know how to write to start explaining how these things are connected. We've got nine months until the WHO will vote on these two documents ... At the beginning of May, I was invited to the International COVID Summit at the European Parliament in Brussels, and my talk was on the IHR amendments. I prepared a 10-minute talk ... but at the last minute the sponsors said, ‘Look, you only have five minutes because we've run over’ ... So, I'm like, ‘Oh my God, what do I do?’ I looked at my slides; what are the main points? And I gave a five-minute talk. I thought it must be terrible ... Well, somebody made a three-minute, and somebody made a four-minute, and a five-minute little video of it and sent it around on Twitter and TikTok. Now people have added sound and they've added images. The thing has garnered millions of views. It's extraordinary. But it's because I start off saying, ‘We are experiencing a soft coup. This is what's happening. This is what the WHO is doing.’ And it's so short, people are able to watch it. They see this little old lady who is speaking in a very measured way, and they see the European Parliament insignia behind me, and they're saying, ‘Oh my god, maybe this is real.’ So that little thing has gotten 5 million to 10 million views and TikTokers are now adding to it. So, I think this whole issue of the WHO trying to grab our sovereignty is very meaningful to people. We just have to figure out the right messages, get them out there, and we'll win." Where to Learn More Door To Freedom is unique in that it is trying to introduce these highly complex, interlocking aspects of the global power grab in bite-sized pieces. The website has dozens of short summary articles and videos, with longer in-depth pieces for those who want to dive deeper. We also publish each new draft of the IHR amendments and the treaty as they come out, and I encourage people to have a look at the actual documents. So, to get a good grasp of what’s at stake, be sure to bookmark doortofreedom.org, and start sifting through it. Also, share the site with others and encourage them to learn more. "We’ve put up the documents so people can read them," Nass says. "We have about 30 two-minute reads about the documents, about what's going on, about all sorts of things, trying to connect the dots on transhumanism, CBDCs, child sex education. And we have a large number of longer articles about related subjects. So if you go to the site, it will give you an education about the massive global changes that the globalist cabal is bringing forward right now. As we speak, we're in the middle of the coup. The coup isn't next year. It's not when these documents get voted on. We’re in the middle of it now. The documents are part of it. Once we've completed everything on the website ... we will start building a worldwide coalition of organizations to fight all of this. That's the next step. Children's Health Defense ... are taking up this issue of the WHO, and there are many other organizations I'm working with: Stand for Health Freedom, organizations in England, in the European Union [and] South Africa ... We want to then start pushing regular messaging to the world that will be the same everywhere. Education is the answer, because even if we beat back the WHO, if we don't beat back this entire agenda, the globalists will hit us with something else, either through the U.N. or through other multilateral organizations, or through national laws that are draconian. [We must] make people understand what's happened over these last few years, where it's coming from, what led up to it and where it's going. And I think that's the best we can do. It's really important that we retain our ethics, our morals. We don't want to manipulate people. We've all been manipulated, we've been mind-controlled. The media, the advertising, the education system have all been trying to limit the way people think ... We want you to open your minds, be able to identify propaganda when you see it, so that you can learn to think clearly for yourself. That's when we win."

https://expose-news.com/2023/09/29/oil-is-not-a-fossil-fuel-it-is-the-second-most/ During an interview in 1994, L. Fletcher Prouty spoke about what petroleum is. It isn’t what we think it is. It isn’t a fossil fuel. And it is the second most prevalent liquid on Earth, he said. L. Fletcher Prouty was Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff under US President John F. Kennedy. A former colonel in the United States Air Force, he retired from military service to become a bank executive and subsequently became a critic of US foreign policy, particularly the covert activities of the CIA about which he had considerable inside knowledge. He died in 2001 aged 84. During the Second World War, Colonel Pouty served as an army tank commander. He later joined the United States Air Force (“USAAF”) and in 1943 became the personal pilot of General Omar Bradley. Later that year he flew Chiang Kai-shek to the Tehran Conference. Prouty also became involved in work for the Office of Strategic Services (“OSS”). In 1945 he served on Okinawa and was involved in transporting the bodyguard of General Douglas MacArthur to Tokyo. In 1946 Prouty was assigned by the US Army to Yale University. In 1950 he established Air Defence Command and during the Korean War was based in Japan where he was Military Manager for Tokyo International Airport. In 1955 Prouty was assigned to coordinate operations between the USAAF and the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”). For the next nine years, he worked for the Pentagon. He was Briefing Officer for the Secretary of Defence (1960-61), Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Chief of Special Operations (1962-63). Colonel Prouty retired from the USAAF in 1964 and was awarded the Joint Chiefs of Staff Commendation Medal. He later worked for the General Aircraft Corporation (1964-65) and First National Bank (1965-68). He was also a senior director of a government and military marketing organisation. Find out more about Colonel Prouty at L. Fletcher Prouty (Spartacus Educational) and L. Fletcher Prouty (Wikipedia). During an interview in 1994, Bruce Kanier asked Colonel Prouty what he meant when in a talk he said that petroleum wasn’t a fossil fuel and that it was a mineral. Colonel Prouty responded: “[When] oil went from a lubricant to a fuel [ ] it made it valuable. Rockefeller happened to be the smartest man in the business at the time but he made most of his money, or much of it, off the transport of the petroleum as well as selling it. “Putting a price on oil is like putting a price on a pail of water, no initial cost, that’s in the ground. And in those days, they were, some of it, almost what you’d call surface mining the oil, they didn’t go down deep. So, in order to get the price up, they hit on the idea that they would have to make it appear to be scarce. “[Fortuitously] in 1892 there was a convention in Geneva of scientists to determine what organic substances are. Well, the definition of organic is a substance with hydrogen, oxygen and carbon. It’s usually a living substance … At this Geneva convention, Rockefeller took advantage of sending some scientists over who said: ‘Oil, petroleum is hydrogen, oxygen and carbon therefore it must be derived from [ ] the rotting of formerly living matter’. “When the scientific convention was over, they defined oil as the residue from formerly living matter. Well, that makes it a ‘fossil fuel’. “There has never been a fossil, a real fossil, found below sixteen thousand feet … We drill for oil at thirty thousand, thirty three thousand, twenty eight thousand, every day of the week. So, right there we rule it out that it isn’t fossil fuel. It’s called fossil fuel for the minds of the public to feel that it is an asset that is running out [and] being depleted. “If you know the world’s oil supply, you know that it is not going to run out for an awfully long time. It is the second most prevalent liquid on Earth.” For years, Colonel Prouty explained, they preached the propaganda to the highest offices in the USA that oil was a fossil fuel that would run out. “The object of it was, as Kissinger used in his own terms when it was time for him to speak, to create a world price for oil. In other words, not 30 cents a gallon here and 90 cents a gallon there, but let’s get a world price. That’s their goal. And they’re trying to do that with wheat and everything else,” he said. We have embedded the video below to begin with the 8-minute section where Colonel Prouty talks about oil. Bruce Kanier interviews Col. Fletcher Prouty, 12 October 1994 (Disc 1 of 2) (2 hours) If the video above is removed from YouTube, you can watch a clip from it on Bitchute HERE. For those who are interested in reading more from Colonel Prouty on this subject: According to The Col. L Fletcher Prouty Reference Site website, Colonel Prouty “answered e-mails from this site while he was alive” and those responses and commentaries are posted on the website. It includes a ‘Commentary’ labelled ‘Commentary for June – Oil’ and under the website section titled ‘Letters of the Month’ is an email exchange between various people and Colonel Prouty about the ‘Origins of Oil’.

More than 10,000 Ukrainian soldiers have already chosen life and used the Russian 149.200 ‘Volga’ frequency to surrender. https://sputnikglobe.com/20230930/thousands-of-ukrainian-troops-surrender-via-russian-radio-hotline-1113816561.html

https://expose-news.com/2023/09/28/fossil-fuel-treaty-activism-is-funded-by-a-small-group/ A network of activists is calling for a “Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty.” They want a treaty to complement the Paris Climate Agreement to accelerate a global shift from using fossil fuels. In 2021, ahead of COP26 in Glasgow, the World Economic Forum promoted the initiative as: “A new wave of activists is calling for global action and cooperation to phase out fossil fuels.” But is it a “new wave of activists”? To answer that, we need to find out who is hiding behind them. As with all these conspiracies, following the money reveals the puppet masters pulling the strings. Below we attempt to unravel the network to uncover the money behind the calls for a “Fossil Fuel Treaty.” There are several foundations named which makes it fairly heavy going but if you bear with us, you’ll begin to see a pattern and a core group of global foundations emerge. “Fossil Fuel Treaty” Alarmism Despite bold declarations on a website that 8 nation states have supported the “fossil fuel treaty” proposal and 89 cities and local governments have endorsed it – along with an assortment of non-governmental organisations and activists – there is little to no detail of what such a treaty would entail except to “end the era of coal, oil and gas.” “Oil, gas and coal are the root cause of the climate crisis,” the website declares without providing any evidence to back up its numerous fear-mongering mantras. It also makes a ludicrous claim that “fossil fuels are weapons of mass destruction.” We followed the hyperlink contained in the words “endorse as an individual” on its home page hoping to see a sensible proposal that signatories read before putting their names to and endorsing it. But alas, the statement that appears next is as pitiful as the website. Below is a screenshot of the well-evidenced and thoroughly thought-out call for a “new global treaty” that has been signed by more than 620,000 airheads activists: Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, Endorse, retrieved 27 September 2023 There are more words in the details provided to government officials but the statement is still entirely without evidence or any attempt to address the devastation and deaths, globally, that will be caused if such a treaty came into being. The “endorse as a government” has no words at all, governments must simply enter their details without being provided any information on what it is they are “signing.” Yet, as the website claims without evidence, 8 nation states have “endorsed” it. You can see a full list of government officials worldwide at the bottom of THIS webpage who have signed in support of this blatantly flawed activism and so are, without a doubt, unfit to hold public office at any level. Shamefully 39 Members of the UK Parliament and House of Lords have put their names to it. Embarrassingly, not only has Caroline Lucas, Green Party MP for Brighton, signed up to this nonsense, but she is also highlighted as a “treaty champion.” To understand who or what Lucas is supporting, endorsing and promoting it’s always worthwhile taking a look to see who is funding the campaign. As a politician, Lucas would have done the same before she put her name to it and accepted the lofty title of “treaty champion.” “Fossil Fuel Treaty” Funders The “Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty” initiative is funded by nine private foundations: Bulb Foundation, Climate Breakthrough, Fedrick Mulder Foundation, Gower St., The New York Community Trust, Quadrature Climate Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Waverley St. Foundation and Earth/Percent. Below we give a brief description of each. 1. Bulb Foundation is a UK-based charity which, judging by the date mark on the website, was launched in 2023. It has the sole aim of “ending the climate crisis.” It was launched by renewable energy and carbon-neutral gas supplier Bulb, a company named in December 2019 as the UK’s fastest-growing private business. Bulb was founded by Hayden Wood and Amit Gudka in 2013. In 2022, having spent more money than it was making, Bulb went into administration and was taken over by Octopus Energy. On the Bulb Foundation website, failed businessmen Wood and Gudka are shown as trustees. Other trustees include: Sophie Pullan, vice chair of the Bulb Foundation, is a director of the Foundation for International Law for the Environment (“FILE”). She was previously the Operations Director of Global Policies for the European Climate Foundation and the Portfolio Manager for Climate Change at the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation. Amal-Lee Amin was a Senior Advisor to the UK’s COP26 Presidency team. She is director of Climate Change at British International Investment plc (formerly CDC Group plc), the UK’s development finance institute “at the heart of the UK Government’s international financing offer to emerging economies.” 2. Climate Breakthrough, launched as the Climate Strategies Accelerator in 2015, is based in California. It is an initiative of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation in partnership with the Oak Foundation, the IKEA Foundation, the JPB Foundation, and the Good Energies Foundation. 3. Frederick Mulder Foundation is a UK-based trust funded by private art dealer Frederick Mulder Ltd. Frederick Mulder is a director of the company, the chair of the Foundation and also the Founder of The Funding Network, an organisation based in London that arranges live crowd-funding events to support social change projects, and which he has helped start in several other UK cities and in nine other countries. 4. Gower Street, formerly The Marple Charitable Trust, is a small, UK-based, family-run charitable trust that was set up by Nick and Sophie Marple in 2007. In 2018 Gower Street pivoted the majority of its funds to addressing the climate crisis and in recognition of the urgency of the situation decided to disperse all its funds by 2030. 5. The New York Community Trust (“NYCT”) a New York-based charity was formed in 1924 by 11 banks. In 1928, Rockefeller gave US$2.5 million to NYCT. In 1975, NYCT set up the Westchester Community Foundation and in 1978 it set up the Long Island Community Foundation. In 1979, NYCT created the Energy Conservation Fund which later became the Nonprofit Finance Fund. 6. Quadrature Climate Foundation (“QCF”) based in the UK was launched in 2019 by Quadrature Capital, a multibillion-pound investment fund founded by billionaires Greg Skinner and Suneil Setiya. QCF aims to fight the “climate emergency” and argues that the Paris Agreement does not implement drastic enough environmentalist policies to restrict the use of conventional energy and agricultural practices that it claims are behind the carbon emissions. QCF has received millions of pounds in grants from groups such as the European Climate Foundation, the Carbon Tracker Initiative, and the World Wide Fund for Nature (“WWF”) over the past two years, according to filings with the Charity Commission. 7. Waverley Street Foundation (“WAF”) is based in California and was launched in 2022 by Laurene Powell Jobs, the billionaire widow of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, to fight climate change. Waverley Street has committed to spend the entirety of its endowment – more than $3 billion as of 2022 – by 2035. Its inaugural president is California’s Secretary for Environmental Protection, Jared Blumenfeld. 8. Earth/Percent raises money from the music industry to “support” organisations “addressing the climate emergency.” It was founded by British musician Brian Eno who is also its trustee. Some of its funding goes to changing laws, regulations and economic incentives. It also funds “changing cultural norms and narratives.” 9. Rockefeller Brothers Fund is a regular contributor to both the United Nations (“UN”) and the United Nations Foundation Inc. According to Dr. Jacob Nordangård, the Rockefellers were instrumental in establishing the UN in 1946 and “They view [the UN] as their own little club or organisation.” Wikipedia notes that the United Nations Foundation was set up by CNN founder Ted Turner in 1998. It was originally primarily set up as a grant maker but has evolved into a strategic partner to the UN. The United Nations Foundation’s major partners include ClimateWorks Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, KR Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. Other partners include the Turner Foundation, David and Lucile Packard Foundation and Skoll Foundation. We have only named the partners that are included elsewhere in this article. However, the United Nations Foundation’s 86 partners also include, for example, Pfizer, Wellcome Trust, Amazon and Google. Its President and Chief Executive Officer is Elizabeth Cousens, former US Ambassador to the UN Economic and Social Council, and the co-chairs of the board are Ted Turner and former Prime Minister of Norway Gro Harlem Brundtland. Further reading: Dr. Jacob Nordangård: ‘UN, WEF and G20 form the Troika of Global Governance’, The Exposé, 19 November 2022 Global Foundations Committed to Tackle the “Climate Crisis” It is no coincidence that four out of the nine funders of the “Fossil Fuel Treaty” campaign are also part of a group of global foundations that have, since 2018, committed to investing billions by 2025 to “tackle the climate crisis”: The Bulb Foundation; Climate Breakthough’s partners: the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Oak Foundation, IKEA Foundation, JPB Foundation and Good Energies Foundation; Quadrature Climate Foundation; and, Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Neither is it a coincidence that other foundations named in this article appear more than once. The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (“CIFF”), for example, is included in this group of “climate crisis” investors and also mentioned earlier in the article as the previous employer of Sophie Pullan, the vice chair of the Bulb Foundation. CIFF is the foundation of hedge fund manager Sir Chris Hohn. Hohn is also the single largest donor to Extinction Rebellion in the UK. Self-declared criminal organisation Extinction Rebellion is one of the activist groups which is being used to push the “Fossil Fuel Treaty” agenda forward. Read More: Climate crisis activists seek to put meat on their list of banned “fossil fuel” adverts, The Exposé, 27 September 2023 When did these global foundations first get together to invest in a “climate crisis”? In September 2018 ClimateWorks Foundation published a statement that 29 “philanthropists” had pledged $4 billion over the following five years to combat climate change. The announcement had been made at the UN Global Climate Action Summit (“GCAS”). In 2020, Hohn’s CIFF published an update ahead of the Climate Ambition Summit on 12 December 2020: “The original group is on track to exceed the commitment, thanks to significant increases from several funders, as well as additional philanthropic donors committing new resources. It is now on a trajectory to invest at least $6 billion dollars [sic] by 2025, and likely more as all philanthropists are actively invited to allocate a portion of their portfolio to this important cause.” As listed below, CIFF’s article went on to name the global foundations funding the war on societies under the banner of a “climate crisis.” ClimateWorks’ list of its 27 funding partners looks similar to the list below but also includes notables such as Bezos Earth Fund, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Gates Ventures and Open Philanthropies; but doesn’t include “several funders who prefer to remain anonymous.” 1. AKO Foundation 2. Barr Foundation 3. Bloomberg Philanthropies 4. The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation 5. The Bulb Foundation 6. Bullitt Foundation 7. Sir Christopher Hohn and The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF) 8. The Educational Foundation of America 9. The Generation Foundation 10. Pirojsha Godrej Foundation 11. Good Energies Foundation 12. The Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment 13. The Grove Foundation 14. Growald Family Fund 15. The George Gund Foundation 16. Heising-Simons Foundation 17. William and Flora Hewlett Foundation 18. High Tide Foundation 19. IKEA Foundation 20. Ivey Foundation 21. Joyce Foundation 22. JPB Foundation 23. KR Foundation 24. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation 25. McKinney Family Foundation 26. McKnight Foundation 27. Oak Foundation 28. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation 29. Pisces Foundation 30. Quadrature Climate Foundation 31. Robertson Foundation 32. Rockefeller Brothers Fund 33. Sea Change Foundation 34. Skoll Foundation 35. Turner Foundation 36. Yellow Chair Foundation Although we haven’t followed the money trail further, we are familiar with the activities of several of those named and logic would dictate that the foundations above are all fronts for wealthy self-appointed elites who stand to make a fortune if they can shape the global economy in a way that suits their investments. Let’s, at the very least, help these “climate crisis” investors make a loss on their US$6 billion investment by spreading the truth.

https://greenmedinfo.com/blog/papaya-power-healing-qualities-tropical-fruit Papaya is more than just a delicious treat, especially when served cold and juicy in its ripeness. It also provides a wealth of benefits against wounds, skin damage and gut problems, to name a few of its precious therapeutic effects lauded since ancient times Papaya is a standout tropical fruit for abundant reasons. Since time immemorial, the whole plant -- from the leaves and seeds to the ripe and unripe fruits -- has been used as a traditional medicine. Today its multifaceted healing properties make the sweet, juicy papaya a nutraceutical fruit made for better health.[i] A single small piece of papaya, weighing 152 grams (g), contains 15 g of carbohydrates, 3 g of fiber and 1 g of protein.[ii] It offers 157% of the recommended daily intake of vitamin C, 33% of the RDI of vitamin A and trace amounts of magnesium, calcium and vitamins such as B1, B3, B5, E and K. From its diuretic and anti-hypertensive to wound healing and anti-tumor benefits, the papaya fruit offers not just delicious taste but also all-around wellness support.[iii] Here are some of its therapeutic benefits. Wound Healing A 2000 study examined the prevalence of the use of papaya as a topical ulcer dressing by nurses in Jamaica.[iv] Among the respondents, 75% reported using topical papaya, thought to promote desloughing, granulation and healing in chronic skin ulcers. "It was cost effective. Papaya was considered to be more effective than other topical applications in the treatment of chronic ulcers," the researchers wrote, although cited some difficulty in preparing the fruit and the occasional burning sensation reported by the patients. In animal models, papaya extract caused a significant effect on the healing process of an incised oral wound.[v] On the 14th day, papaya extract with 75% concentration demonstrated "perfect epithelial layer and fibrillation," according to a 2019 study. A separate study showed that Carica papaya promoted significant wound healing in diabetic rats, with the fruit extract exhibiting antimicrobial activity against five organisms tested.[vi] Dried papaya latex as 1.0% and 2.5% hydrogels was also deemed effective in treating burns and thus supported the traditional use of the fruit for this benefit, based on the findings of 2005 research.[vii] Improved Digestion The enzyme called papain in papaya is believed to make protein easier to digest.[viii] In the tropics, papaya is deemed an effective remedy against constipation and the symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). In a study, subjects who took a papaya-based formula for 40 days experienced notable improvement in constipation as well as bloating.[ix] Even the seeds, roots and leaves have been shown to help treat ulcers in both humans and animals.[x] Anticancer Action The lycopene in papaya has been hailed for its potential to reduce cancer risk.[xi] The papaya leaf is also deemed a likely source of anticancer compounds.[xii] Papaya has received attention particularly for its effects against breast cancer. A 2009 study found that among 14 fruits and vegetables famed for their antioxidant activities, only papaya had a significantly favorable effect when measured against the breast cancer cell line MCF-7.[xiii] "Besides, papaya represents a very interesting fruit to explore its antineoplastic activities," wrote the researchers, who also studied plants like avocado, guava, mango, pineapple, grapes and tomato. Among Chinese women, consumption of fruits and vegetables such as papaya was inversely related with breast cancer risk.[xiv] Skin Wellness The vitamin C and lycopene in papaya are considered protective of skin and may help reduce the signs of aging.[xv] These skin issues include wrinkles, skin sagging and other forms of skin damage, all associated with excess free radical activity.[xvi] Antifungal Properties A 1997 study explored the potential therapeutic use of papaya latex sap combined with a synthetic antifungal and found that the formula worked synergistically to inhibit the growth of Candida albicans.[xvii] In a separate study, papaya latex also inhibited the growth of candida when added to a culture in its exponential growth phase.[xviii] According to the team, "This fungistatic effect is the result of cell wall degradation due to a lack of polysaccharidic constituents in the outermost layers of the fungal cell wall and release of cell debris into the culture medium." Should You Eat Papaya Raw? For all its scientifically documented health benefits, papaya has a unique taste and flavor that's widely celebrated. Ripeness, however, is a factor to consider if you're planning to eat it raw. If ripe, papaya can be eaten raw. Otherwise, it should be cooked before consumption especially if you're pregnant, as the unripe version is high in latex, which can stimulate contractions.[xix] Whatever way you choose to enjoy papaya, the health perks from its strong nutrient and antioxidant offerings are here to stay. References [i] Parle M et al "Basketful benefits of papaya" Int Res J Pharm. 2011 July;2(7):6-12. [ii] Nutrition Data https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/1985/2 [iii] Parle M et al "Basketful benefits of papaya" Int Res J Pharm. July 2011;2(7):6-12. [iv] Hewitt H et al "Topical use of papaya in chronic skin ulcer therapy in Jamaica" West Indian Med J. 2000 Mar;49(1):32-3. [v] Hakim R et al "Effect of Extract toward Incised Wound Healing Process in Mice () Clinically and Histologically" Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2019 ;2019:8306519. Epub 2019 Nov 19. [vi] Nayak S et al "Wound healing activity of Carica papaya L. in experimentally induced diabetic rats" Indian J Exp Biol. 2007 Aug;45(8):739-43. [vii] Gurung S et al "Wound healing properties of Carica papaya latex: in vivo evaluation in mice burn model" Acta Pharm. 2005 Dec;55(4):417-22. [viii] Science Direct, Papain https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/papain [ix] Muss C et al "Papaya preparation (Caricol®) in digestive disorders" Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2013;34(1):38-46. [x] Pinto L et al "Antiulcerogenic activity of Carica papaya seed in rats" Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2015 Mar;388(3):305-17. doi: 10.1007/s00210-014-1069-y. Epub 2014 Nov 25. [xi] Gajowik A et al "Lycopene - antioxidant with radioprotective and anticancer properties. A review" Rocz Panstw Zakl Hig. 2014;65(4):263-71. [xii] Nguyen T et al "Chemical Characterization and in Vitro Cytotoxicity on Squamous Cell Carcinoma Cells of Carica Papaya Leaf Extracts" Toxins (Basel). 2015 ;8(1). Epub 2015 Dec 24. [xiii] Garcia-Solis P et al "Screening of antiproliferative effect of aqueous extracts of plant foods consumed in Mexico on the breast cancer cell line MCF-7" Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2009 May 26:1-15. [xiv] Zhang C et al "Greater vegetable and fruit intake is associated with a lower risk of breast cancer among Chinese women" Int J Cancer. 2009 Jul 1;125(1):181-8. [xv] Schagen S et al "Discovering the link between nutrition and skin aging" Dermatoendocrinol. 2012 Jul 1;4(3):298-307. [xvi] Kammeyer A et al "Oxidation events and skin aging" Ageing Res Rev. 2015 May;21:16-29. [xvii] Giordani R et al "A synergistic effect of Carica papaya latex sap and fluconazole on Candida albicans growth" Mycoses. 1997 Dec;40(11-12):429-37. [xviii] Giordani R et al "Fungicidal activity of latex sap from Carica papaya and antifungal effect of D(+)-glucosamine on Candida albicans growth" Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback. 2005 Dec;30(4):375-87. [xix] Adebiyi A et al "Papaya (Carica papaya) consumption is unsafe in pregnancy: fact or fable? Scientific evaluation of a common belief in some parts of Asia using a rat model" Br J Nutr. 2002 Aug;88(2):199-203.