On January 26, The Dissenter covered how the CIA funded unethical experiments on Danish orphans for at least two decades from the early 1960s onwards.
These grim trials were conducted as part of the mind control program MKULTRA, which was secretly farmed out overseas as it wound down in the United States due to the threat of exposure.
A 1963 CIA Inspector General report shows that the expansion worldwide had unfolded for some time.
“It does not follow termination of covert testing of MKULTRA materials on unwitting U.S. citizens will bring the program to a halt. Some testing on foreign nationals has been occurring under the present arrangements,” the document stated. “Various U.S. deep cover agents overseas would appear to be more favorably situated than the U.S. narcotics agents to perform realistic testing.”
As such, it’s reasonable—and indeed vital—to ask, where else in the world did the CIA support unethical human experiments on vulnerable and defenseless youths?
West Germany, the country forged in May 1949 from the military occupation zones of the U.S., United Kingdom, and France, could be one place where the mind control program expanded.
Helmut Kentler and the Pedagogical Center
At precisely the same time that CIA-directed psychological torment of Danish orphans was underway, authorities in West Berlin were dabbling with something even more diabolical – state-endorsed pedophilia.
Psychologist Helmut Kentler advocated in the 1960s for placing vulnerable youths in the care of pedophiles—on the ostensible basis that “loving environments” would effectively integrate them into society.
An influential figure, Kentler used his extensive political connections to market his ideas directly to lawmakers and state institutions.
Kentler established the Pedagogical Center in February 1965 to conduct various tests and trials. The results were supposed to help educational authorities develop best practices for nurturing the nation’s youth.
Fully endorsed by the city’s Senate and Social Democratic Party (SPD) and West Berlin Mayor Willy Brandt, the Center was granted a multi-million dollar budget, along with 37 staff. It was overseen by SPD Senator for Schools and Education Carl-Heinz Evers, who knew Kentler personally. (Brandt later served as West German chancellor 1969 – 1974.)
Children in West Berlin were sent to live with pedophilic foster parents at Kentler’s direction in 1969.
Kentler’s ideas gained increased currency in the wake of incendiary student protests, which erupted across much of the Western world the previous year. These mass actions revitalized the writings of Austrian psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich, in particular his early 1930s works The Sexual Struggle of Youth and The Mass Psychology of Fascism.
Reich’s thesis was suppression of sexuality went hand-in-hand with obedience to authoritarianism, as an individual’s perspectives and predispositions were formed during their formative years. The argument went that it was necessary for people of all ages to become sexualized, and embrace their sexuality.
The resurrection of Reich’s ideas was no doubt welcome to West Germany’s occupying powers. The notion Germans were psychologically and genetically disposed towards aggression and dictatorship—and that German society needed to be drastically reordered to blunt these tendencies—was widespread in the aftermath of World War II.
A key architect was Scottish-born psychiatrist Donald Ewen Cameron, who played a significant role in the Nuremberg trials. His work The Social Reorganization of Germany argued Germans craved strict order and regimentation delivered by strong leaders, and these inclinations were fostered during childhood. He went so far as to advocate restrictions on which Germans could have offspring as a result.
Cameron’s shaping of post-war Germany is largely forgotten. Strikingly, he is more well known for his contributions to the MKULTRA program. He sought to create a real-life “Manchurian Candidate” for the CIA via various macabre means, such as forcing his patients to listen to hours of audio messages while under the influence of a drug cocktail that left their mind a “blank slate,” onto which new behaviors could be programmed.
The monstrous technique was called “psychic driving.” While it failed to produce remote-controlled humans as hoped, its “primary values” were said to be “penetration of defenses [and] elicitation of hitherto inaccessible material,” which may account for why Cameron’s methods of sensory deprivation and psychological torment were widely practiced on Guantanamo Bay prisoners in the “War on Terrorism.”
The Likelihood That The CIA Encouraged The Kentler Experiments
An independent University of Hildesheim investigation of the Kentler experiments published in June 2020 concluded that a “network” of actors “tolerated, strengthened, and legitimized pedophile positions [and] also arranged and justifed pedophilic assaults in foster homes, shared apartments and other care constellations.” These actors systematically covered up “physical, sexual, or emotional mistreatment of children.”
The fundamental element of this nexus was the Social Democratic Party (SPD). It dominated West Berlin’s assorted political bodies and local governmental departments at every level, and one of the young boys housed with a pedophile claimed the party’s West Berlin branch “deliberately selected” him for the experiment.
Acccording to CIA whistleblower Philip Agee’s 1978 book Dirty Work, Langley played a pivotal role in managing the SPD and shaping its policies throughout the Cold War. He claimed West Germany was “one of the most important operational areas for far-reaching CIA programs, designed to create an internal structure… which would be pro-American and anti-Communist, and to secure commercial interests.”
“The CIA supported not only the CDU (Christian Democratic Union), but also the SPD and the trade unions,” Agee wrote. “The CIA wanted the influence of the two major political parties to be strong enough to shut out and hold down any left opposition… [those] movements had to be discredited and destroyed.”
CIA units involved were “charged with special responsibilities for making contact with organizations and people within the political establishment,” such as the SPD and its elected representatives. “All information collected” was then used “to infiltrate and manipulate these organizations.”
Such penetration surely accounts for the SPD repudiating its radical Marxist roots in 1959 and abandoning all commitments to challenging capitalism.
As Agee described, during this period the CIA worked “systematically” to ensure “socialist parties of the free world [toed] a line compatible with American interests.”
Did the Agency moreover sanction if not outright encourage the Kentler experiments? Was Kentler a “U.S. deep cover agent overseas,” in the CIA Inspector General report’s phrase?
Whatever the truth of the matter, that document also called for MKULTRA experiments to be conducted in dedicated operational settings with strengthened “structure and controls.”
Foster homes and orphanages may have represented ideal environments from the CIA’s perspective. This certainly seems to have been the case in Denmark, as its central population register meant children experimented on could be tracked over the course of many years.
At the very least, it strains credulity to believe the CIA was not well-aware of what Kentler advocated. In fact, one of the Pedagogical Center’s key founders and planning committee members was James B. Conant, the first U.S. Ambassador to West Germany and adviser on educational issues in West Berlin from 1963-1965.
Conant was invited to join the center by Mayor Brandt, and the CIA-connected Ford Foundation. A 1983 National Academy of Science obituary records Conant “played a critical role in rallying support for this project,” eerily adding, “he unquestionably had an influence on adjustments that have been made in German education.”
European Countries Should Seek Answers
It was not until several years after Kentler’s death in July 2008 that his work and legacy was critically examined.
Shockingly, multiple contemporary obituaries paid positive tribute to the psychologist. Berlin daily newspaper Tageszeitung, which avowedly provided a figurative soapbox and megaphone to pedophiles and pro-pedophile organizations, deemed Kentler a “meritorious fighter for a permissive sexual morality.”
In fact, the University of Hildesheim’s probe represented the first truly extensive insight into Kentler’s experiments. It exposed how the psychologist’s narrative of events—that he had sought to place at-risk youths in caring environments in the sincere but dangerously misguided hope it would be beneficial for them, and these trials were short-lived and limited in scope—was completely false. Nonetheless, this was for many years accepted and endorsed even by critical media outlets and academics.
Hildesheim’s report showed facilitating abuse of foster home residents, vulnerable or not, was always Kentler’s primary objective, and the management of pedophile-run accommodations of this type continued until at least 2003.
That year, the foster home of Fritz H (a pseudonym) was closed, having opened 30 years ago. In that time, 10 youths passed through its doors, some simultaneously. Fritz was said to have “constantly and proactively” looked for new foster subjects all along, in a manner that was “unusual”.
Two children, who spent time in Fritz’s home, “impressively” reconstructed their experiences to University investigators, reporting “opaque and incomprehensible procedures, massive experiences of violence and abuse in many instances, and [the] strong influence” of Kentler on the residence.
Among documents related to Fritz’s foster home, a “large number of strong signals in the record,” such as a psychologist’s report, proof of completed legal proceedings regarding child abduction and child sexual abuse, a critical assessment by the Health Office, and an autopsy after the unexplained death of a child in Fritz’s custody, were identified, which should have prompted officials to critically reassess his suitability as a foster parent.
Instead, Fritz was regarded as a “robust and immune figure,” and the West Berlin Youth Welfare Office even defended him. There is no reason to believe he was alone.
West Germany was dotted with shared pedophile-run accommodations, where “sexual transgressions and assaults took place” for decades throughout the Cold War.
Another victim interviewed by the university was placed in a foster home run by West Berlin’s District Office in the early 1980s as a youth. He testified to his adoptive father’s “sexual transgressions and assaults,” child pornographic material he found in the man’s possessions, and letters he wrote to authorities about the monstrous conditions in which he lived. No authorities took action.
Those tasked with administering these vile experiments were allowed to commit awful crimes against vulnerable children for many decades. They benefited from a strict code of silence on the part of officials. A similar dynamic existed in Denmark, where authorities shredded records related to CIA experiments on orphans after learning the criminal conspiracy was finally being scrutinized by outsiders (decades after the fact).
An urgent need exists for potential CIA connections to the Kentler scandal to be independently investigated. Moreover, all European countries should work to uncover which abusive experiments or programs involving children were supported by the agency during the Cold War.
The pandemic response supercharged a mental health crisis and now some in the medical community are publicly calling a dangerous solution – over-the-counter antidepressants. With new science showing long term issues even after discontinuing the drugs, including sexual dysfunction, many are wondering why there is a push to make them available over the counter.
Director Alex Gibney explores how Purdue Pharma worked closely with the FDA to approve OxyContin for widespread use, touting its safety without evidence and campaigning to redefine pain treatment. In the face of insufficient government intervention, Purdue continued to prioritize profit over addiction, creating a market for even deadlier opioids.
A recent op-ed in the Los Angeles Times demonstrates what is a warped interpretation of the term “patriotism.” The op-ed is about former football player Pat Tillman, who was killed in Afghanistan twenty years ago. It’s written by Bill Dwyre, a former sports editor for the Times.
Dwyre reminds us that Tillman was motivated to join the military after the 9/11 attacks. He gave up a $3.6 million football contract to join the U.S. military and was hoping to be sent to Afghanistan to fight the terrorists.
Dwyre writes, “It was a can’t-miss story of patriotism. Americans applauded from the safety and comfort of our homes and communities.” (Since he uses the pronoun “our,” presumably Dwyre fell into the “safety and comfort” group rather than the “patriot” group.)
Unfortunately, however, Dwyre doesn’t explain why Tillman’s act was one of “can’t miss” patriotism. Apparently for him it’s a self-evident truth.
No declaration of war
The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is the higher law that we the people impose on government officials. We are expected to obey their laws, and they punish us when we fail to do so. By the same token, they are supposed to obey our law, the Constitution.
The Constitution requires a congressional declaration of war as a prerequisite to a president’s waging war against any other nation-state. If a president and his army wage war without a congressional declaration of war, they are acting in violation of the law.
It is undisputed that President Bush did not secure a congressional declaration of war from Congress before he ordered his military to invade Afghanistan. That made their war illegal under our form of government.
How can participating in an illegal war be considered “patriotic”? Dwyre doesn’t explain that.
The U.S. was the aggressor under Nuremberg
Moreover, the common perception is that Bush invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban regime, which was governing the country, had been complicit in the 9/11 attacks by having knowingly harbored Osama bin Laden, who U.S. officials suspected had orchestrated the attacks.
Not so. Bush initiated his war because the Taliban regime refused to comply with his unconditional demand to deliver bin Laden into the hands of the Pentagon and the CIA. Yet, there was no extradition treaty between Afghanistan and the United States and, therefore, Afghanistan was operating within its rights under international law to refuse Bush’s unconditional extradition demand.
Nonetheless, knowing that the Pentagon and the CIA would torture bin Laden into confessing to the crime, Afghanistan offered to deliver him to an independent nation for a fair trial. In making the offer, Afghanistan sought the same amount of proof that would be required in a normal extradition hearing. The U.S. government refused the offer, perhaps because it was unable to provide such proof.
Therefore, given that Afghanistan had the authority under international law to refuse Bush’s extradition demand, that makes Bush’s invasion illegal under the war-of-aggression provision of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal.
How can participation in an unconstitutional and illegal war be considered “patriotic”? Unfortunately, Dwyre fails to explain.
If one assumes that the 9/11 attackers were the ones who did the attacking (as compared to the attacks being an “inside job,” as some believe), it’s worth pointing out that they were motivated by the death and destruction that the U.S. government’s foreign policy had wreaked in the Middle East. But of course, a real “patriot” does not bring up that discomforting fact and instead blindly supports the government’s claim that the terrorists attacked us out of hatred for our “freedom and values.”
Tillman’s opposition to the Iraq War
One of the fascinating aspects of Dwyre’s op-ed glorifying Tillman’s patriotism is what he leaves out of the op-ed. Tillman was an outspoken opponent of Bush’s invasion and war of aggression against Iraq. Dwyre doesn’t even mention that, which is revealing.
Keep in mind, after all, that Bush’s war on Iraq was also waged without a congressional declaration of war, making it illegal under our form of government. Bush’s claim that he was waging to war to enforce UN resolutions falls flat because only the UN can enforce its resolutions. The fact is that the U.S. war on Iraq was an even clearer case of a war of aggression under the Nuremberg principles than the U.S. war on Afghanistan.
Despite Tillman’s fierce objections to the U.S. war on Iraq, the U.S. military nonetheless ordered him to “serve” in Iraq, which he did. Keep in mind though that every U.S. soldier takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution and is under a legal and moral obligation to refuse to obey unlawful orders. Tillman chose to obey the unlawful order to deploy to Iraq.
U.S. government lies
After his “service” in Iraq, Tillman was deployed to Afghanistan, where he continued to speak out against the U.S. war on Iraq. It was there that he was killed. As Dwyre points out, the U.S. military initially lied about his death, claiming falsely that he was killed by enemy fire. In fact, what actually happened is that he was killed by his own men in what was described as “friendly fire.”
In 2006, Tillman’s brother, Kevin Tillman, wrote a scathing op-ed on truthdig.com, in which he echoed his brother Pat’s view of the Iraq war: “Somehow American leadership, whose only credit is lying to its people and illegally invading a nation, has been allowed to steal the courage, virtue and honor of its soldiers on the ground.”
Why would’t Dwyre mention Pat Tillman’s (and his brother’s) fierce opposition to the U.S. war on Iraq in his op-ed? My hunch is that it’s because he considers opposition to U.S. wars to be unpatriotic and, therefore, Tillman’s apparent lack of “patriotism” with respect to Iraq doesn’t fit conveniently within his patriotism narrative. Under Dwyre’s warped interpretation of patriotism, apparently it’s only those who blindly support the U.S. national-security state’s foreign wars and its interventionist foreign policy who should be considered “patriots.” Apparently, those who reject such wars and choose instead to remain in the “safety and comfort” of their homes instead of fighting them should be considered non-patriots.
Ben Rubin speaks with Professor David Barnhizer about the ideological capture of American universities, and its implications for the future of higher education and Western civilisation itself.
The UK Column is an independent multimedia news website supported by its members.
On August 30, 2019, BioNTech entered into agreements with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). BMGF agreed to purchase 3,038,674 ordinary shares with nominal amount of k€ 3,039 of BioNTech for a total of k€49,864 (k$55,000). These agreements require BioNTech to perform certain research and development activities to advance the development of products for the prevention and treatment of HIV and tuberculosis. In the event of a breach of the underlying conditions, including such research and development activities, BMGF has the right to sell its shares back to BioNTech at the initial share price or fair market value, whichever is higher, subject to certain conditions. BioNTech’s ability to pay dividends is also limited under the terms of these agreements.
Less than two years after the Gates Foundation purchased the stock (pre-IPO) at $18 per share, it peaked on Aug. 6, 2021 at $389. At that price, the Foundation’s $55 million investment was worth $1,182,044,186.00 ($1.182 billion).
On September 18, 2019—just nineteen days after the Gates Foundation took its huge position in BioNTech stock— a report titled A World At Risk was published by the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, which was founded in 2018 by the World Bank Group and the World Health Organization.
The report’s title page is illustrated with an image of a coronavirus, and its text is an urgent call to action for the world to invest far more in preparedness for a respiratory viral pandemic. As the report states on page 8:
The report mentions nothing about the need to invest in bolstering bio-laboratory safety. It expressly warns about the threat of a lethal respiratory pathogen “accidentally or deliberately released,” but its entire call to action is to invest a fortune to responding to such a pathogeninstead of preventing it from being released in the first place.
We now know that SARS-CoV-2 was officially detected in December of 2019 but probably emerged and started spreading in August or September of 2019—that is, around the same time A World At Risk was published.
The September 18, 2019 date of the report strongly suggests that someone doing bio-surveillance for the WHO in China obtained intelligence that a SARS coronavirus was already circulating.
Given that the Gates Foundation is the WHO’s second largest donor (after Germany, where BioNTech is headquartered) I wonder if this intelligence was passed to someone in the Gates Foundation months before December 31, 2019—the date the WHO claimed it received its first report of cases of pneumonia of unknown etiology in Wuhan.
If so, it would enable the Foundation to obtain extremely valuable information about emerging infectious disease pathogens—naturally emergent or accidentally or deliberately released—long before other market players obtain this information.
The term election interference entered the American lexicon in late 2016. Following Donald Trump’s surprising victory, allegations that Russia had somehow rigged the contest for Trump were heavily publicized. The so-called Trump-Russia scandal was used to hobble Trump’s presidency, even though the 2019 Mueller Report and subsequent investigations found little support for the allegations.
Now Israel, of all countries, is whining about election interference. Israeli officials and their bought-and-paid-for American mouthpieces have charged that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s call for new elections in Israel is—as Zionist flack and death squad organizer Elliot Abrams put it— “unconscionable interference in the internal politics of another democracy.”
Do countries interfere in each others’ elections? Of course they do. The US is a repeat offender. But Israel’s interference in American politics dwarfs anything America has ever done.
Actually, to say that Israel interferes in US elections is an understatement. Israel practically owns US elections. Former six-term congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) has revealed that shortly after she arrived in Washington, she was pressured to swear a loyalty oath to Israel. She was told that virtually all congressional representatives take the oath, and that any who resist face formidable obstacles to re-election. (Imagine if the Kremlin were making US officials swear loyalty oaths to Russia!)
AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, is by far the most powerful lobby in Washington. Though it pretends to be a domestic group, AIPAC is a front for the Israeli government. Its predecessor, The American Zionist Council (AZC), was investigated by the Eisenhower Administration before it was finally forced to register as a foreign agent by President John F. Kennedy in 1962. Kennedy, who had dedicated himself to shutting down Israel’s nuclear program, was then removed in a coup and replaced with rabid Zionist Lyndon Johnson, who allowed the Israel lobby to change disguises from AZC to AIPAC. (Johnson also facilitated Israel’s nuclear bomb program, including the theft of American nuclear materials and weapons, and rubber-stamped Israel’s 1967 war of aggression, including its false-flag murder of 34 sailors aboard the USS Liberty.)
Since the Kennedy assassinations of 1963 and 1968, Israel’s death grip on American politics has kept getting stronger. American politicians who try to represent America rather than Israel—including Senators William Fulbright, Chuck Percy, and James Abourezk, and Congressmen Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, and Cynthia McKinney—are unceremoniously ejected from office by the state of Israel and its American agents. Those who stand in the way of Israel’s capture of the US military to wage its wars, like Senator Paul Wellstone, risk being removed from office “with extreme prejudice.”
Why didn’t Nixon speak out publicly? Because the Jewish-dominated media would have immediately destroyed him.
Israel’s indirect but effective domination of American media gives Tel Aviv the power to shape Americans’ perceptions. Through its media dominance, Israel rules the American “Overton window,” the spectrum of legitimate mainstream debate, while marginalizing those who threaten its interests as “conspiracy theorists” and “anti-Semites.” Zionist media power can anoint candidates, cover up crimes, and even start wars.
Another key to Israel’s domination of American politics was succinctly summarized by Rep. Ilhan Omar: “It’s the Benjamins, baby.” Pro-Israel Jews provide a massive share of the bribes, euphemistically described as “campaign contributions,” that power the American political system. Sociologist James Petras, author of The Power of Israel in the United States, has written that the Israel lobby is funded by dozens of billionaires and thousands of millionaires who could all say, like the Democrats’ leading funder Haim Saban: “I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel.”
Finally, Jewish-dominated organized crime, working in tandem with Israel’s black-ops-focused intelligence agencies, exerts a massive yet mostly-invisible influence on American politics. Meyer Lansky, the loyal-to-Israel mobster who controlled J. Edgar Hoover, and Jeffrey Epstein, another notorious Mossad blackmailer of American politicians, are well-known examples. Israel and its criminal accomplices have repeatedly upended American politics, most obviously with the Kennedy assassinations and 9/11.
Today, as the entire American political class endorses the genocide of Gaza, the whole world can see that the US, like Palestine, is a nation under occupation.
The Geneva-based Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor has said that the role of major technology companies and international social media platforms in the killing of Palestinian civilians by Israel in the besieged Gaza Strip must be investigated.
“These companies need to be held accountable if found to be complicit or not to have taken adequate precautions to prevent access to, and exploitation of, users’ information,” the Euro-Med said on Sunday.
The human rights group documented accounts of Palestinian civilians, who, as a consequence of their social media activity, have been singled out as suspects by Israel, despite having taken no military action.
The group noted that there are frequent reports that Israel uses a number of artificial intelligence-supported technological systems to illegally track and monitor Palestinians,
“Google and Israel are collaborating on several technology initiatives, including Project Nimbus, which provides the Israeli army with tools for the increased monitoring and illegal data collection of Palestinians, thereby broadening Israeli policies of denial and persecution, plus other crimes against the Palestinian people,” it said.
This project in particular has prompted significant criticism, driving dozens of company employees to protest and resign, with others being fired over their protests.
UN experts earlier this month said the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and related military directives by Israel in Gaza was leading to an unprecedented toll on the civilian population and infrastructure.
According to the experts, the systematic and widespread destruction of housing, services and civilian infrastructure represents a crime against humanity.
Widespread destruction in Gaza has put the concept of ‘domicide’ in focus in recent months. The concept is increasingly accepted in academia but is not a distinct crime against humanity under international law.
The UN special rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Francesca Albanese, recently described domicide, as well as numerous war crimes and acts of genocide in her report to the Human Rights Council.
Palestinians continue to endure a US-Israeli genocidal war in the besieged Gaza strip, the scene of death and destruction on a daily basis.
The ministry of health in Gaza reports that some 48 Palestinians were killed and 79 others were injured in Gaza in the past 24 hours.
That brings up the total number of victims since October 7 to a staggering number of more than 34,000. Almost 77,000 others have also been wounded.
Hospitals in Gaza are lacking enough medicine and equipment to treat the wounded.
We can all accept that a better diet, fitness, body weight, and good sleep all would contribute to improvements in human health. But what about medical interventions that are applied to us as children and some continuing into adulthood. Products injected into us with no way of getting them out of the body?
The COVID-19 crisis and the mass vaccination debacle has caused all of us to re-evaluate the ever-expanding childhood and adult CDC ACIP vaccine schedule and similar programs outside of the United States.
“Americans remember churches locked down during Covid-19 but liquor stores kept open. They remember strangers with nose swabs pointing at their children. And they remember vaccine mandates for work and school. Americans do not want to repeat those Covid-19 experiences in the future. The people want recognition of their right to decline vaccination and testing. Americans are also interested to learn how the health of the vaccinated compares to the unvaccinated.
This new video “Do Vaccines Make Us Healthier?”, updated for 2024, catalogues important control group science to answer the question, and discusses a legal solution being introduced in the 2024 Congress.
One of the most important lessons of Covid-19 is that America is a better place when people are nice to one another. Indeed, the clear majority of Americans (2/3) oppose all vaccine mandates for school entry, even for vaccines other than Covid-19. See e.g., Des Moines Register Poll (2022) (“Just 34% of Iowa adults now say all children should be required to receive standard shots unless they have a doctor-signed statement showing they have a medical reason not to be vaccinated, the poll shows. That’s down from 59% who supported such a requirement in 2015, when the Iowa Poll asked a similar question about childhood vaccinations.”)
Individual rights and science are not mutually exclusive, but they are mutually under attack. Learning from covid tyranny, America can become stronger and more resilient. The key is to put new learning into action.”
So please sit back and enjoy this important video production and share with others as we all try to see out of the fog of vaccine hubris and gain some clarity on what is going on with human health.
RESOURCES Courtesy of Greg Glaser and Dr. Brian Hooker
1. Unvaccinated Study #1: Analysis of health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children: Developmental delays, asthma, ear infections and gastrointestinal disorders – https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2050312120925344
2. Unvaccinated Study #2: Revisiting Excess Diagnoses of Illnesses and Conditions in Children Whose Parents Provided Informed Permission to Vaccinate Them – https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/59
4. Unvaccinated Study #4: Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12-year-old U.S. children – https://www.oatext.com/pdf/JTS-3-186.pdf
10. Vaccines classified as “unavoidably unsafe” by law – CFR, Comment k “Unavoidably unsafe products” are discussed in the Code of Federal Regulations, Restatement of Torts (Second) 402A (k) § 402A. Special Liability of Seller of Product for Physical Harm to User or Consumer, Comment k. See e.g.,“Unavoidably Unsafe Products: Clarifying the Meaning and Policy Behind Comment K” – https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2953&context=wlulr
11. The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) (shields vaccine makers from legal liability and shifts burden of compensation for vaccine injuries and deaths onto taxpayers) – https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5546
12. 2011 Supreme Court (Bruesewitz): Court ruling that vaccine makers cannot be sued for design defects that harm or kill because the 1986 law acknowledged that vaccines cannot be made safe. (See NCVIA and CFR/Comment K reference)
13. Informed Consent Defense: Unvaccinated Control Group litigation exhibits, testimonies, evidence –
Humanity has arrived at a rare, explosive moment where several avenues of information are converging to shatter a major paradigm much of society and medicine has accepted as their reality. Which direction will we go?
It was last month that Englands health service announced it would stop prescribing puberty blockers to transgender kids. A move that aligned the UK with several other Nordic countries.
Now, the public received the full data dump that drove England’s decision in the form of The Cass Review commissioned by the NHS and lead by former President of the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health Dr. Hillary Cass. Its findings:
Clinicians should be “extreme cautious” giving powerful hormone drugs to kids 16 and under
Most of the 23 clinical guidelines and recommendations for managing gender dysphoria in children and young people reviewed were not independent or evidence based
Of the 50 studies on puberty blockers reviewed, only one was of high quality
Of the 53 studies on the use of hormone treatment, only one was of sufficiently high quality
Perhaps most interestingly, the Cass Review speaks on the medical profession stating doctors can be cautious in implementing new findings yet “quite the reverse happened in the field of gender care for children,” writes the report.
“Based on a single Dutch study, which suggested that puberty blockers may improve psychological wellbeing for a narrowly defined group of children with gender incongruence, the practice spread at pace to other countries.”
The medically-run gender transiting of children has been a controversial subject for years. Its theory and medical practice began to see a major surge in 2014 to which the momentum has continued ever since. The reason, two Dutch studies, with small sample sizes, lack of a control group, and only short-term follow-up.
Despite the ‘robust’ science mainstream medicine purports to operate from, and demand detractors of their orthodoxy produce to argue against what they are doing, the medical transitioning of children using risky drugs and surgical procedures is not supported by ’science’ or even good evidence.
A reanalysis of the two studies that that gave rise to the “gender-affirmative” care for youth worldwide stated, “… the Dutch research suffers from profound, previously unrecognized problems.” From erroneously concluding that gender dysphoria disappeared as a result of “gender-affirmative treatment,” to reporting only the best-case scenario outcomes and failing to properly examine the risks, despite the fact that a significant proportion of the treated sample experienced adverse effects.
A phenomenon coined “runaway diffusion” has seen the medical community mistake a small experiment on children as a proven practice that rapidly spread to general practice settings.
It was also announced today that puberty blockers halted for children in Scotland after Cass review. The dominos appear to be falling.
The mainstream medical community is often hypocritical. When faced with irrefutable evidence of side effects and harm from products, drugs, procedures or even vaccines, those protecting the dominant narrative will claim the science isn’t robust to support such evidence or drive change. They will falsely claim the science is settled.
Often it takes a tremendous external public effort to reach into the medical system’s operating orthodoxy and force change for the better. Such change accomplished is often late and can be underwhelming compared to what needs to be done in realty.
It appears that society and an overzealous medical community can benefit from this early inflection point being granted by the evidence presented in the Cass Review, other simultaneous data points currently merging and the rapidly shifting public sentiment towards medically transitioning children.
The US House of Representatives has passed a bill authorizing the government to liquidate seized Russian assets and transfer the proceeds to Ukraine. It also includes measures forcing the sale of TikTok by its Chinese owners and authorizing stricter sanctions on Russia, China, and Iran.
The bill was passed by 360 votes to 58 on Saturday. Known as the ‘21st Century Peace through Strength Act’, it rolled together a number of previously disparate bills, most notably the so-called ‘Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity (REPO) for Ukrainians Act’, which allows the Biden administration to confiscate billions of dollars’ worth of Russian assets held by American banks and transfer them to Ukraine.
The US and EU have blocked an estimated $300 billion in assets belonging to the Russian central bank since the start of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. The vast majority of these assets are held in Europe, but American banks are sitting on around $6 billion, according to multiple reports in US media outlets.
At present, the US has no legal mechanism to seize these assets, and has moved relatively paltry sums of seized Russian money to Estonia for use in Ukraine.
While the bill passed with bipartisan support, it was strongly condemned by fiscal conservatives and anti-war Republicans. US Senator Rand Paul warned earlier this year that “confiscating Russia’s sovereign assets is an act of economic war” that would undermine global confidence in the US.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) issued a similar warning on Friday, while the Kremlin has declared that any actions taken against its assets would amount to flagrant “theft.”
The ‘Peace Through Strength Act’ also included a measure that would ban TikTok if the app’s Chinese owner, ByteDance, does not sell off its US operations.
The FBI and Federal Communications Commission have long maintained that TikTok passes user data to the Chinese government, but TikTok has repeatedly denied the allegation.
Beijing has argued that forcing a sale “runs contrary to the principles of fair competition and international economic and trade rules.”
The bill also authorizes additional economic sanctions on Russia, China, and Iran.
In a series of separate votes on Saturday, the House approved massive military aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, which along with the ‘Peace Through Strength Act’ will now be combined into a single bill and sent to the Senate for approval. Totaling $95 billion, the legislation will provide $61 billion in aid to Ukraine, $26 billion to Israel, and $8 billion to Taiwan and other countries in the Indo-Pacific region.
House Speaker Mike Johnson relied on support from Democrats to bring the bills to the House floor, but the decision may cost him his job. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), an ardent opponent of funding for Ukraine, has filed a motion to remove Johnson from the speakership. Posting on X (formerly Twitter) after Saturday’s vote, Greene called the aid “despicable,” and said that the US “should be demanding peace, not funding the military industrial complex’s blood money wars fueled by dead bodies in Ukraine.”
The late Barbara Hubbard, a Rockefeller-funded New Age guru, was critical to the development of the ideas, beliefs and technology necessary to market transhumanism as spiritual enlightenment.
BY JOHN KLYCZEK | UNLIMITED HANGOUT | MAY 19, 2022
In 2016, the Global Future Councils of the World Economic Forum (WEF) posted a video entitled “8 Predictions for the World in 2030,” which infamously forecasted a technocratic New World Order in which “[y]ou’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy.” It doesn’t take a stretch of the imagination to ponder how WEF oligarchs plan to roll out “sustainable development” policies which will ration consumer goods in a global “sharing economy” that employs transient “gig” workers who will be rendered into propertyless serfs under a techno-communitarian rendition of neo-feudalism. But how will the globalist technocrats of the WEF sway the virtual peasant class to be happy with their permanent state of digitally indentured servitude? … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
• October 7 | Al Jazeera Investigations 
Aletho News
Aletho News 