Surviving the Digital Garden of Eden + How to Stop Turbo Cancers.
Joe Biden and Repetition Based Mind Control
read more below…
Isolation Camp Legislation DEFEATED in New York!
more below…
In the dawn of creation, as whispered in the sacred verses of Genesis 2:9, the divine hand of the LORD God fashioned the Garden of Eden—a realm of unparalleled beauty and profound significance. Within its hallowed grounds, every tree that was pleasing to the eye and nourishing to the body flourished, offering sustenance and delight. Two trees, in particular, held the secrets of existence: the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
This biblical narrative, ancient and laden with allegorical depth, has traversed the annals of time to find new resonance in the age of technology and interconnectedness. The Digital Garden of Eden, a metaphorical haven seeded within the vast expanse of cyberspace, bears witness to the remarkable power of human ingenuity, curiosity, and ambition. Just as the LORD God nurtured the Earthly Eden, mankind’s endeavors have led to the cultivation of a new landscape—a realm not of soil and flora, but of code and data.
The proliferation of digital platforms, virtual spaces, and boundless information mirrors the abundance of trees that once adorned the sacred garden. Yet, amidst this digital foliage, stand two towering archetypes: the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Tree of Life, both literal and symbolic, represents the essence of vitality, perpetuity,
and renewal.
It parallels the interconnected networks that sustain our modern existence, enabling the flow of information, commerce, and communication. In the digital realm, this tree extends its branches as the conduit through which our lives unfold, fostering global connections that transcend boundaries. Conversely, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil encapsulates the power of choice and consequence—an eternal reminder that knowledge, when pursued without discernment can yield both illumination and destruction. Our digital Eden teems with information, ideas, and perspectives, all of which beckon us to partake. But in this virtual sanctuary, as in the biblical garden, the quest for wisdom carries the burden of ethical considerations and unforeseen ramifications.
World Council for Health Proposes New Approach for Childhood Vaccines
Cautionary Message to Parents in Wake of Growing Safety Concerns
By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
The World Council for Health is the first international body of physicians, scientists, and health professionals to issue a cautionary statement on the ever-expanding routine childhood vaccine schedule. This is in response to growing concerns over the safety of many vaccines given early at life during the same administration. Here is what the Council said:
“The number of vaccines given to babies and children has increased dramatically without the necessary due diligence by regulatory authorities. Parents are urged to adopt a common-sense, ‘Safer to Wait” approach.”
Growing international concerns about vaccine regulatory processes and vaccine safety have emerged following the widespread regulatory failure of Covid-19 vaccines. The Covid-19 crisis has demonstrated that regulatory bodies, once public protectors, have been deeply corrupted by vaccine industry interests.
In the context of emerging revelations of regulatory body incompetence and corruption, e.g. The Perseus Report, the WCH Health and Science Committee notes that:
Several research studies now indicate that vaccinated children have far worse health outcomes with higher rates of many chronic diseases than non-vaccinated children.
The integrity of scientific research and the regulatory process of childhood vaccines, including the new nasal ‘flu’ vaccine, now being administered en masse in schools is in question.
Pharmaceutical corporations have a long-standing history of misrepresenting products that cause injuries and deaths. Pfizer, for instance, has paid the largest criminal settlement in history for drug fraud. The childhood vaccination schedule provides these unscrupulous corporations with unregulated access to the bodies of our children.
Modern society is experiencing unprecedented rates of autism, asthma, allergies, inflammatory bowel disease, diabetes, obesity, depression and more, for which the root cause/s have not been established.
Much of what we have been told about the success of early vaccines, including smallpox and polio vaccines is emerging as untrue. Clean water, modern plumbing, hygiene, refrigeration, and improved nutrition are real factors that have correlated with the dramatic reduction in many infectious diseases over the past century.
National regulatory agencies have never done the necessary evaluation to determine whether vaccines given to children alone or together according to the ever-expanding childhood vaccination schedules are associated with poor health outcomes compared with children who are not vaccinated.
National regulatory agencies have been turning a blind eye to the mounting evidence linking childhood vaccination with autism that has emerged since a possible link was first suggested in 1998.
National regulatory agencies have also been turning a blind eye to the mounting evidence linking childhood vaccination with other diseases, including asthma, allergies, bowel disease.
The vast majority of children find vaccination with needles painful and long-term psychological harms, including disruption to breastfeeding and maternal bonding, have not been properly evaluated.
There are serious concerns among experts that existing childhood vaccines will be converted to mRNA technology, which has never been proven safe for use in vaccines for adults let alone children, and that this will be done without public awareness, consent and a robust research and regulatory process.
With regard to Covid-19 vaccination, evidence from independent experts and official international databases show that the Covid-19 vaccines are not effective and are not safe, raising serious questions around the authorisation of the Covid-19 vaccines for babies and children.
In addition to these specific considerations, the burgeoning vaccination schedule for children needs to be viewed in the context of the World Health Organization seeking dominion over of human health:
WHO and the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex have financial and ideological interests in the provision of vaccines and has committed to providing 500 vaccines by 2030.
The Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex is creating legislation that would give it power to mandate injections by force.
The WHO supports gain-of-function research, facilitating the creation of dangerous pathogens as well as the vaccines to combat newly created pathogens, thus creating a self-perpetuating vaccine industry based on fear.
Thus the World Council for Health urges parents to consider childhood vaccination very carefully and adopt a common-sense, “Safer to Wait” approach to the vaccination of healthy children.
References:
WCH meeting #101, August 28th 2023. https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/multimedia/brian-hooker-vax-unvax/
Anthony R. Mawson et al., “Preterm Birth, Vaccination and Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Cross-Sectional Study of 6- to 12-Year-Old Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children,” Journal of Translational Science 3, no. 3 (2017): 1-8, doi:10.15761/JTS.1000187.
Anthony R. Mawson, et al., “Pilot Comparative Study on the Health of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated 6 to 12-year-old U.S. Children,” Journal of Translational Science 3, no. 3 (2017): 1-12, doi:10.15761/JTS.1000186.
Brian Hooker and Neil Z. Miller, “Analysis of Health Outcomes in Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children: Developmental Delays, Asthma, Ear Infections and Gastrointestinal Disorders,” SAGE Open Medicine 8, (2020): 2050312120925344, doi:10.1177/2050312120925344.
Brian Hooker and Neil Z. Miller, “Health Effects in Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Children,” Journal of Translational Science 7, (2021): 1-11, doi:10.15761/JTS.1000459.
James Lyons-Weiler and Paul Thomas, “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses along the Axis of Vaccination,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 22 (2020): 8674, doi:10.3390/ijerph17228674.
Wakefield AJ, et al. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet. 1998. doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0.
Turtles All The Way Down. Vaccine Science and Myth. 2022. Editor: Zoey O’Toole. Foreword by Mary Holland.
Kirsch S.If vaccines don’t cause autism, then how do you explain all this evidence? May 2023.
Vax-Unvax. Let the Science Speak. August 2023. Robert F. Kennedy Jr and Brian Hooker, PhD.
Countering the WHO’s “Big Catch-up” Global Campaign and Immunization Agenda 2030. WCH Statement. May 12, 2023.
Rejecting Monopoly Power over Global Public Health. WCH Policy Brief. May 2023.
The Unvaccinated Will Be Vindicated
Watch, even those few of you who are still asleep. ←
What are you afraid of? You have your own mind, right?
Ever since the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, the world has been subjected to one of the most intense psychological fear campaigns in human history. The majority felt compelled to get vaccinated due to fear of COVID or losing their jobs, yet a significant number resisted, choosing not to comply in the face of discrimination, persecution, and loss of livelihood.
Their resilience, in many ways, may have prevented even graver tyranny. Because when you reflect on where we were then and where we are now, you can’t help but think, “Wow. I am so thankful for the progress we’ve made.” Because the unvaccinated were on the verge of being “othered” to the point of being sent straight to the gulags…
LET’S TAKE A TRIP BACK TO SEPTEMBER 9, 2021, WHEN JOE BIDEN ANNOUNCED SWEEPING VACCINE MANDATES.
“Over 200 million Americans have gotten at least one shot. We’ve been patient, and our patience is wearing thin, and your refusal has cost all of us.”
This was the moment that sent a deep chill down my spine and raised all alarm bells that “We are on a very dangerous path,” and I decided there and then, “I can no longer be a spectator.”
The President of the United States was directly threatening his own citizens and blaming a subset of people for the ongoing COVID crisis. I was thinking, “Haven’t we learned from mistakes of the past that you don’t single out one group of people and blame them for the woes of the country?” But this took a global scale…
We were between stages 6 and 7. The government was deliberately propagandizing the vaccinated to turn on the unvaccinated. And they waited until they reached the majority of the populace before doing so…
AND THEN CAME THE TWO-TIERED SOCIETY… (OCTOBER 2021)
Reporter: “So you’ve basically said this is gonna be like … two different classes of people if you’re vaccinated or unvaccinated. You have all these rights if you are vaccinated.”
Jacinda Ardern: *With a grin* “That is what it is. So, yep. Yep.
”So those God-given rights you were born with? “We’re taking those away unless you comply with our demands.”
These policies were overt human rights violations, and it saddens me how so many people were okay with them. But it goes to show the power of propaganda, mind control, and groupthink.
And as if things weren’t getting absurd enough.
If you dared to speak out against the mandates, even if you are vaccinated, you’re just as much “anti-vax” as the unvaccinated. Not my words. Former NT Chief Minister Michael Gunner’s. (November 2021)
.
“If you are anti-mandate, you are absolutely anti-vax. I don’t care what your personal vaccination status is. If you support, champion, give a green light, give comfort to, support anybody who argues against the vaccine, you are an anti-vaxxer. Absolutely! Your personal vaccination status is utterly irrelevant.”
In other words, “If you dare to question the authority of the state, we will also place you into the ‘other’ category.”
And then came discriminatory lockdowns of the unvaccinated. Most notably in Austria. (November and December of 2021)
The unvaccinated were barred from leaving their homes for all “non-essential” purposes. You couldn’t even take your family for a humble meal at McDonald’s without the threat of police barging in to check your papers. Keep in mind that it was well known that the COVID jab did not stop transmission. But governments worldwide continued to punish the unvaccinated, stripping away their jobs, their ability to travel, ability to feed their families…
Neighbors turned on neighbors.
The propaganda became more ridiculous.
They went as far as to divide us with fences…
And Austria even intended to criminalize being unvaccinated… (December 2021)
.
“An Austrian newspaper published the rules the government wants to introduce on first of [February] already here in Austria. Those rules say that if you’re not vaccinated, you can get fined up to 2000 euros each time you’re caught unvaccinated. This can mean, and this is explicitly being said so that you can also get fined more than once a day, or three times, four times, five times if you’re unvaccinated. If you refuse to pay this, the government wants to put us into a separate prison which has to be created for unvaccinated people up to one year.”
On a global scale, the unvaccinated were treated like animals, “others.” So were the people who didn’t want to wear a mask…
An Australian police officer manhandled and appeared to choke a young woman for mask noncompliance outdoors.
“He’s f*cking choking me! You’re choking me! What the F*ck!”
Quarantine camps popped up in Australia.
With fines of up to 5,000 Australian dollars for breaking the rules on their grounds…
But in the face of coercive measures and medical tyranny, a ‘small fringe minority’ took a stand. (January 2021)
The Canadian truckers were the tip of the spear.
Students started walking out of schools with mask mandates
And protests to end the mandates became larger, more frequent, and more fierce across the globe.
In Wellington, New Zealand, the Māori people demonstrated outside of parliament with the famous “Haka,” a ceremonial dance with a history of intimidating its opponents before times of battle.
Thanks to these demonstrations and dissenting voices speaking out, ‘The Science’ was exposed, public opinion shifted, and vaccine mandates went down one by one.
Dr. Ryan Cole speaking at the ‘Defeat The Mandates’ rally in Washington, D.C.
What appeared to be a certain at one point, COVID vaccine mandates for schoolchildren, except for a few outliers, are NOT HAPPENING in the United States.
Thanks to the unvaccinated, their resolve, their courage to say NO in the face of tyranny, there is still a control group for the greatest experiment ever conducted on humanity.
The Unvaccinated Will Be Vindicated
It was not compliance that ended domination by big pharma companies, Bill Gates and his many organizations, and the World Economic Forum; it was the thanks to the people we tried to embarrass, ridicule, mock, and tear down.
We should all try and find some inner gratitude for the unvaccinated as we took the bait by hating them because their perseverance and courage bought us the time to see we were wrong.
So if mandates ever return for COVID, or any other disease or virus, hopefully, more of us will be awake and see the rising authoritarianism that has no concern for our well-being and is more about power and control.
The war on the unvaccinated was lost, and we should all be very thankful for that.
Thank you for making it all the way to the end.
If you had the courage to resist vaccination or speak out against the mandates, I want to offer you my deepest gratitude. Thanks to your bravery and the millions alike, we’ve been spared from the gulags and have the powers that be on the ropes.
There’s much more progress to be made, and we will get there in time, but when you look back at where we were then and where we are now, there is no doubt that WE ARE WINNING!
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
According to recent research, nicotinamide, also known as niacinamide (a form of niacin or vitamin B3), enhances natural killer (NK) cells’ ability to defeat blood cancers
Pretreating NK cells with an unspecified amount of niacinamide upregulated a lymphocyte homing molecule called CD26L, which improved the antitumor functions of the NK cells in several ways
The combination of niacinamide-enhanced NK cells and monoclonal antibody treatment resulted in complete remission in 11 of 19 patients within 28 days, and three had partial response
Niacinamide also protects your skin against ultraviolet radiation damage from the sun, thereby reducing your risk of skin cancer
It’s also been shown to improve survival after cardiac arrest, primarily by restoring tissue NAD+, and can help prevent heart failure
According to recent research,1,2 nicotinamide3 (also known as niacinamide), a form of niacin (vitamin B3), enhances natural killer (NK) cells’ ability to defeat blood cancers.
Scientists have previously tried to use infusions of monoclonal antibodies mixed with NK cells as a novel treatment for blood cancers, with limited success. Now, researchers at the University of Minnesota have discovered that the ability of NK cells to destroy cancer cells can be significantly augmented by pretreating them with niacinamide.
The combination of niacinamide-enhanced NK cells and monoclonal antibody treatment resulted in complete remission in 11 of 19 patients within 28 days, and three had partial response.
Doing so upregulated a lymphocyte homing molecule called CD26L, which improved the antitumor functions of the NK cells in several ways. Unfortunately, the paper doesn’t specify the dose used to achieve these beneficial effects.
Niacinamide Boosts NK Cells’ Ability to Kill Cancer
As reported by Medical Xpress:4
"‘Allogeneic natural killer cell adoptive transfer has shown the potential to induce remissions in relapsed or refractory leukemias and lymphomas,’ writes Dr. Frank Cichocki and colleagues in the journal.
‘Strategies to enhance natural killer cell survival and function are needed to improve clinical efficacy. We demonstrated that natural killer cells cultured ex vivo with interleukin-15 — IL-15 — and nicotinamide exhibited stable induction of l-selectin, a lymphocyte adhesion molecule important for lymph node homing’ ...
In the small preliminary study, Cichocki and collaborators found that nicotinamide not only enhances the activity of natural killer cells but boosts their persistence in the blood and bolsters the capability of these cells not only to hunt down cancer cells, but to handily destroy them.
The combination of nicotinamide-enhanced natural killer cells and monoclonal antibody treatment was safe in 30 patients, including 20 with relapsed or difficult-to-treat non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Among 19 patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, 11 demonstrated a complete response and three had a partial response within 28 days of treatment.5 Nicotinamide appears to protect the natural killer cells from oxidative stress, while enhancing their ability to home in on lymph nodes, the team found ...
Natural killer cells treated with nicotinamide in the lab also demonstrated an increased ability to generate an inflammatory and toxic response against cancer cells."
Niacinamide Restores NAD+ Levels
Another mechanism that can help explain how niacinamide improves the anticancer functions of NK cells is that it boosts the NAD+ (nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide) level in the cells. As explained in the featured study:6
"Elevated NAD+ in NK cells cultured with NAM [niacinamide] may also account for their enhanced function. Recent work has shown that NAD+ concentrations are low in tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes relative to peripheral blood T cells, and NAD+ modulates human T cell function by regulating cellular energy metabolism.
In these studies, reduced NAD+ resulted in attenuated maximal respiratory capacity of mitochondria and concomitant decreases in adenosine 5′-diphosphate (ADP) and ATP.
In agreement with this work, we observed elevated ATP and increased mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation in NK cells cultured with NAM. These metabolic alterations correlated with enhanced natural cytotoxicity, ADCC, and inflammatory cytokine production."
Prime minister Justin Trudeau will never be forgotten for calling Canadians protesting draconian, scientifically flawed COVID-19 mandates ‘Nazis’. In fact, it is remarkable how many Canadians adopted this hateful perception. This seemed to be caused by two or three ‘bad apples’ infiltrating crowds that totaled hundreds of thousands of people over the course of several weeks during the Freedom Convoy run by truckers.
I was accused by colleagues of somehow being a Neo-Nazi by virtue of talking about COVID-19 science in Canada’s capital city of Ottawa while the protests were being held. Coincidentally, I had someone run up to me just five days ago to interrupt a conversation I was having in public within my city of Guelph to scream that I “speak at neonazi rallies”. When I turned to them and calmly asked what they were defining as a ‘neonazi rally’, they implied it was the Freedom Convoy protests and then they refused to engage in a reasonable discussion; instead, they turned and ran away to avoid a discussion of objective facts.
This is the equivalent of telling somebody that attended a sporting event that they support illicit drug use because somebody sitting on the other side of the stadium was caught conducting a drug deal. What ludicrous reasoning!
When I was in Ottawa, I was literally surrounded at times by immigrants that had fled from communist and dictator-run countries. At one point, I had a great conversation with about 30 Polish-Canadians. I also met Jewish people whose families had experienced persecution under the Nazi regime. Another group that I deeply respected were some of Canada’s veterans who had fought against draconian regimes in other countries. So, to be accused of speaking at a ‘Neo-Nazi rally’, including by my own prime minister is egregious and shows great disrespect to Canadians of all backgrounds.
Here is prime minister Justin Trudeau (far right) praising a Nazi in Canada’s House of Commons. Alongside him are Zelenskyy (giving an emphatic fist pump) and deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland (behind Trudeau). Note that Trudeau and Freeland are proud graduates of Klaus Schwab’s Young Leaders Program, run by the World Economic Forum (WEF; yes, the organization that has openly bragged about having captured most of the members of Canada’s governing party; hence the reason more people are referring to my country as a WEF-run state)…
The man they were cheering is 98-year-old Yaroslav Hunka. He fought for the First Ukrainian Division. Apparently, the division changed to this name at the very end of World War II to distance themselves from their true identity, which was the “Waffen-SS Galicia Division”, also known as the “SS 14th Waffen Division”.
After World War II many Nazis changed their identities and pretended to be 'refugees'. This was to avoid capture by obtaining refuge in various countries. Part of Canada’s dark history, and one that I wasn’t taught in public school, is that we happily welcomed many Nazis into our country in the 1950s; Yaroslav Hunka was one of them.
Hunka was introduced in Canada’s packed federal parliament as "a Ukrainian hero, a Canadian hero, and we thank him for all his service". I kid you not.
The Nuremberg war crimes tribunal ruled that the military division with which Hunka served was a “criminal organization”. Members of the division, including Hunka, "committed themselves to German victory, the New European Order, and to Adolf Hitler personally". Canadian soldiers fought against this Nazi division, with some losing their lives as a result.
A statement issued by The Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies indicated that Hunka’s division “was responsible for the mass murder of innocent civilians with a level of brutality and malice that is unimaginable. […] An apology is owed to every Holocaust survivor and veteran of the Second World War who fought the Nazis, and an explanation must be provided as to how this individual entered the hallowed halls of Canadian Parliament and received recognition from the Speaker of the House and a standing ovation.”
Here is a video from Indian media showing the standing ovation in parliament.
Here is another video from independent Canadian media.
Here is a story out of the United Kingdom.
Here are some brief observations about the German pandemic response:
The emergency measure called “3G” caused the greatest controversy among churches and employers. Under the 3G rule, employees were allowed to enter their workplaces only upon the presentation of a certificate proving a vaccination against or recovery from COVID-19, or a current negative test certificate.
Many physicians in northern Germany refused COVID-19 vaccination and cited their lack of trust of the government.
Early treatment was utilized by independent physicians who worked with community compounding pharmacies to provide ivermectin among other medications.
Patients came out to the seminars and confirmed they have sustained vaccine injuries and are being stonewalled by their doctors today.
How to stop Turbo Cancers
Discussion with one of Canada’s Top Oncologists ←
Joe Biden and Repetition Based Mind Control
Joe Biden spoke this Sept on the Anniversary of 9/11. What I noticed was some very particular repetition. Repetition is the basis of all mind control. What's interesting is that the human subconscious pays very close attention to verbs (action words) and little else. Here in this 15 second video clip Joe Biden repeats 3 times that the public should "never forget" 9/11. Why three times, which is a very powerful form of repetition in spell casting? What was the subconscious command here? Was it to forget? Why isn't the phrase being used "always remember 9/11?" Why the word "forget" 3 times? Why would the President be using proven mind control language that programs the subconscious to forget instead of to remember? Was it because 9/11 was shown to be organized from inside the US, as was proven in this documentary and this one as well?
Pilot incapacitations & deaths in Aug-Sep 2023
Sep.23, 2023 - Alaska Airlines Pilot - 37 year old Captain Eric McRae died suddenly in his hotel room during layover
Aug.27, 2023 - Air Canada Flight AC348 (YVR-YOW) Vancouver to Ottawa, one of the pilots felt ill and became incapacitated 50 min before landing in Ottawa.
Aug.17, 2023 - IndiGo Flight (NAG-PNQ) Nagpur to Pune, India, pilot 40 year old Manoj Subramanium died after collapsing at the boarding gate, about to board.
Aug.16, 2023 - Qatar Airways Flight QR579 (DEL-DOH) Delhi to Doha, Qatar, 51 year old pilot collapsed as a passenger inflight and died, plane diverted to Dubai.
Aug.14, 2023 - LATAM Flight LA505 (MIA-SCL) Miami to Santiago, Chile - 2 hours into 8hr flight, 56 year old Captain Ivan Andaur collapsed and died in the lavatory - plane diverted to Panama City!
Aug.9, 2023 - United Airlines UAL1309 (SRQ-EWR) Sarasota to Newark, pilot had a heart attack and lost consciousness in flight
Aug.7, 2023 - TigerAIR Flight IT237 (CTS-TPE) Sapporo to Taipei, copilot had a medical emergency after landing plane in Taipei
Communism: Mayor Of Bankrupt Chicago Wants The Government To Run Stores (Video)
Written by: Daniel Greenfield
Published on: September 24, 2023
It worked in Russia and Cuba, why not Chicago?
On this episode of “Chicago Mayors Say the Darndest Things”.
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson said he wants to open city-owned grocery stores to serve neighborhoods that have become “food deserts” after four Walmart stores and a Whole Foods closed.
It worked in the USSR. It worked in Cuba. It worked in Venezuela. It’s bound to work in Chicago.
Since Illinois just eliminated bail and Johnson came into office to defend criminals, there’ll be nothing in those stores left 5 minutes after they open.
Good thing Chicago is swimming in excess cash that it can just spend on insane plans like this.
UN Summit Pushing “Masterplan for Humanity” Happening NOW in NYC (Video)
The United Nations is hosting the Sustainable Development Goals 2023 conference to supercharge the UN push to implement this so-called “masterplan for humanity,” warns The New American magazine Senior Editor Alex Newman in this episode of Behind the Deep State. The SDGs, as they are known, cover every area of life, and are a recipe for global technocratic government. All of this is a prelude to the Summit of the Future scheduled for 2024.
Are you awake yet?
Lymphatic Cleaning With Kate Shemirani (Video)
Published on: September 23, 2023
During this episode of The Sons of Liberty, nurse and nutritionist Kate Shemirani provides an update on what is going on in the UK, plus we’ll look at the lymphatic system of the body and how the LORD has designed it to work and how to maintain its health. We’ll also discuss what our own governments and corporations are doing to attack our health and, in fact, kill us, despite what they say about caring for us.
You can help Kate as thanks for all the information she supplies by getting your nutritional supplies from her at the links below.
Articles, links and bonus videos mentioned in this episode.
Masons: Trying To Get Us To Believe What It Is That We Are NOT! (Video)
‘Medical Murder’ Becoming America’s #1 Cause of Death (Video)
Mockingbird Media Blackout: UN Made 7 Year Agreement To Implement A Single Global Agenda
Doctors admit they can’t tell Covid apart from allergies or the common cold anymore
BIDENOMICS: August Bankruptcies Spike, 2023 Highest on Record
Almost Half Of All Young Adults In The United States Are Living With Their Parents
Destroyer of California Newsom Hails Destroyer of America Biden
Biden Appoints Gun Ban Lobbyist to Co-Head ‘Office of Gun Violence Prevention’
Dumb People:
Safe and Effective:
by James Corbett
corbettreport.com
September 24, 2023
So, you've watched How BlackRock Conquered the World and you're now aware of how this financial behemoth with trillions of dollars of assets under management has taken over vast swaths of the economy. You know how BlackRock is one of the top institutional investors in seemingly every major Fortune 500 company, and you understand how Fink and the gang are leveraging this incredible wealth to wield political and social power, directing industry and ultimately steering the course of civilization.
And since you did watch that podcastumentary to the very end, you'll also remember how I pointed out that the top institutional investor in most of these companies is not BlackRock, but The Vanguard Group.
So what is The Vanguard Group? Where did it come from? What does it do? And how does this financial colossus fit into the overall BlackRock/ESG/Net Zero plan for the future of the (controlled) economy? Good questions! Let's roll up our sleeves and get to work answering them.
The Rise of Vanguard
Just as the official history of BlackRock starts with the humbling of a rising star of the financial world—with BlackRock founder Larry Fink having supposedly learned a valuable lesson in risk management after he lost $100 million in a single quarter at First Boston investment bank—the Vanguard story, too, begins with the lemons-to-lemonade tale of a financial whiz kid.
In the Vanguard case, the story starts with John Clifton "Jack" Bogle, a titan of the financial industry whose conservative investment ethos was forged, we are told, in the crucible of The Great Depression. Born in New Jersey in May 1929—just months before the great stock market crash that wiped out his family's fortune, drove his father to alcoholism and, ultimately, led to his parents’ divorce—Bogle was forced to buckle down and excel at his schoolwork even as he worked an assortment of jobs to help keep the family afloat.
Beating the odds, Bogle ended up getting a scholarship to study economics at Princeton. But, being an average student at a prestigious institution full of bright, ambitious young phenoms, Bogle knew he would have to produce a stellar senior thesis in order to stand out. Vowing to write about something that had never been covered before, he found his thesis topic in the pages of the December 1949 issue of Fortune magazine: the mutual fund industry.
Mutual funds, Investopedia informs us, are financial vehicles that "pool assets from shareholders to invest in securities like stocks, bonds, money market instruments, and other assets." They had existed in the US in various forms since the late 19th century, but it was a series of acts passed by Congress in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash—including, most notably, the Investment Company Act of 1940—that paved the way for the explosive growth of the mutual fund industry in the mid-20th century. Bogle just happened to read the right article at the right time to catch the very first wave of what would eventually become a financial tsunami.
If Bogle had hoped to turn his flagging academic career around with his thesis, he succeeded. Not only did the thesis lead to a magna cum laude diploma from Princeton, it even caught the eye of Walter Morgan, founder of the prestigious Wellington Fund, the first balanced mutual fund in the United States. Morgan offered the young whiz kid a job at Wellington Management Company, the firm that managed the fund, and Bogle set out on what would become a storied career.
Becoming an assistant manager in 1955, Bogle oversaw a period of explosive growth for the firm and the mutual fund industry as a whole. He persuaded management to capitalize on the public's growing interest in such investments by creating a new fund composed solely of equities, the Wellington Equities Fund. The new fund's success and Bogle's hard work cemented his position as Walter Morgan's hand-picked successor. He would go on to become president of the company in 1967 and CEO in 1970.
It was a decision Bogle made at the height of the go-go '60s bull market, however, that would prove to be what he later identified as his greatest mistake. In 1966, facing growing competition from a crop of newer, riskier mutual funds that were promising investors greater returns than the boring, conservative Wellington funds, Bogle forged a merger with the investment counseling firm of Thorndike, Doran, Paine and Lewis, managers of the up-and-coming Ivest Fund out of Boston.
But Bogle and his new partners quickly found they had different visions for the merged company. So, when the bull market ended in the 1970s and the stock market cratered, the partners banded together to have him fired as chief executive of Wellington Management Company.
Bogle would later identify the merger as the greatest mistake of his career and his subsequent firing as the lowest point of that career. But being let go would serve as the springboard for the creation of The Vanguard Group.
Bogle came up with a plan to turn the lemon of being fired into the lemonade of a new venture:
Jack’s response to his firing was to appeal to the boards of directors of the Wellington funds. These groups were separate from the board of the Wellington Management Company which had just fired Jack. While separate, the boards of the funds were essentially captives of the management company and the chairman of each fund’s board was traditionally the CEO of the management company. That was the way things were done in the mutual fund industry. Nevertheless, Jack suggested that each of the boards consider taking over the management company’s functions.
The boards of the various Wellington funds went along with this idea and they decided to keep Jack as their president. He then proposed that—in a radical break from industry norms—that the fund boards assume responsibility for their own administrative services, which had been hitherto provided by Wellington Management Company. Wellington Management would stay on as the funds' investment advisor and principal underwriter, but the fee the funds paid to the management company would be reduced by $1 million to reflect this changeover in administrative services.
The okay from the board of the Wellington Group of Investment Companies enabled Bogle to form a new corporation to take over the administration of the eleven funds of the Wellington Group. He named it The Vanguard Group after the flagship of Lord Nelson's fleet in the legendary Battle of the Nile.
"Together, the Wellington tie-in, the proud naval tradition embodied in HMS Vanguard, and the leading-edge implication of the name vanguard were more than I could resist," he later explained.
In one stroke, Bogle had created an entirely new entity that ended up revolutionizing the industry: the "mutual" mutual fund, in which profits did not flow to the management company, but back to the funds themselves, meaning that, "as a practical matter, Vanguard attempted to operate at cost and pass the savings on to the shareholders."
There was yet another hurdle Bogle had to surmount. The funds' directors decided that Vanguard was to have the narrowest of mandates: it would only look after the funds' administration and would not be permitted to engage in advisory or investment management activities. Bogle overcame this restriction by proposing a completely passive fund, one that would not be actively managed but instead be tied to the performance of the S&P 500 index.
To say that the initial reaction of seasoned investors to this innovation was disparaging would be an understatement. Dubbed "Bogle's Folly," the idea of investing not in a single company but in an entire index was alternately derided as a "cop out," as a "search for mediocrity," and—given its eschewal of the traditional market ethos of picking winners and dropping losers—as "un-American."
Unfortunately for Bogle, the criticism was not confined to mere name calling. It also helped deter would-be investors from subscribing to the fund. The $150 million underwriting target for the very first mutual index fund, First Index Investment Fund, proved to be overly ambitious. Indeed, when the initial underwriting was finished in August 1976, however, the fund had collected only $11 million. That wasn't even enough to invest in all 500 of the S&P 500 stocks, as was the fund's intention. So the fund managers settled for investing in the top 200 stocks, plus 80 others that had been selected as representative of the remaining 300 stocks. Nevertheless, they pressed ahead, and by the end of the year the fund's assets had grown by $3 million, to $14 million.
"Bogle's Folly" paid off. Literally. The indexing model grew in popularity during the bull run in the early 1980s, and, to capitalize on the idea’s success, Vanguard launched new funds, including a bond index fund and a total market fund that captured the entire stock market minus the S&P 500.
Today, The Vanguard Group is the largest provider of mutual funds in the world and the second-largest provider of exchange-traded funds (ETFs) after BlackRock's iShares. It boasts over $7 trillion of assets under management, and, as we have already seen, is the single largest institutional investor in just about every company of importance in the United States.
Who Owns the Shares?
OK, so, there you go. That's the very condensed nutshell version of how Vanguard rose to prominence. And, as we know, Vanguard is now part of the shadowy financial cabal that owns everything.
. . . Or do we know that? This is where the fact checkers will come in to make their nasally point about how the conspiracy theorists are wrong. And, you know what? For once, they may not be entirely incorrect.
You see, the fact checkers at AAP and Reuters have tackled the question of Vanguard and BlackRock's growing financial oligopoly in the way fact checkers do: by taking the most ridiculous framing of the argument they can possibly find and contrasting it with the opinions of their credentialed "experts."
In AAP's case, "Global corporate monopoly claim dances on edge of reality" takes on the very serious issue of the Vanguard/BlackRock leviathan by refuting a Facebook video featuring someone discussing the problem while performing an interpretive dance.
After conceding that the two investment firms are indeed the largest shareholders in a number of important companies, AAP then explains that this is for a good reason: they are "strategically investing their client’s [sic] money in order get a good return."
Oh, OK, then.
More to the point, AAP then brings in Rob Nicholls—an associate professor of regulation and governance at the UNSW Business School—to lend gravitas to its main thesis: Vanguard and BlackRock don't "own" Pepsi and Coke and Amazon and Apple and all the other companies cited by the conspiracy theorists. Instead, their holdings in these companies are largely passive investments—either ETFs, in which shares are purchased in proportion to market capitalizations, or index funds, in which shares are purchased in proportion to the index on which they are traded. Thus the purchase and selling of shares in these companies is largely automatic: when a company's market cap falls or when its stock gains in relation to the overall index, the associated ETF or index fund would be obligated to offload or purchase shares in order to maintain the fund's mandate.
Thus, to the extent that Vanguard and BlackRock holdings represent passive investment, these holdings do not have any sway over the companies or their actions. The argument here is that Vanguard can't threaten to sell Apple shares if Apple doesn't conform to the woke agenda, because Vanguard can't really sell those shares on a whim. Instead, Vanguard is obligated to hold Apple shares in proportion to Apple's position in the S&P 500 index (at least when it comes to their S&P 500 index fund). And, where there is no credible carrot to reward "good behaviour" (buying shares when Apple does what Vanguard wants) or stick to punish "bad behaviour" (selling shares when Apple doesn't do what Vanguard wants), then there is no way for Vanguard to directly influence Apple's behaviour.
Besides, as Lorenzo Casavecchia, a senior lecturer at UTS Business School, told AAP FactCheck, "an investor can only control a company if they have more than half of the votes cast at a general meeting." But even when you combine the shares of the so-called Big Three investors (BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street), their holdings in these major companies do not even approach a majority. Often, they each hold a single-digit percentage point of overall shares.
What's more, as Reuters points out in its fact check on the topic (citing a BlackRock spokesperson, of course): "BlackRock itself is not a shareholder" in these companies. Instead, "the owners of these securities are our clients, through their investments made on their behalf via the funds managed by Blackrock."
The same goes for Vanguard, which likes to brag in its corporate PR that Vanguard "is owned by its funds, which in turn are owned by their shareholders—including you, if you're a Vanguard investor." So, the way Vanguard frames it, when you inevitably end up at the question of "who owns Vanguard?" (or "who owns BlackRock?" for that matter), the answer will be: "The investors do!"
So, you see? Vanguard and BlackRock (and let's not forget State Street) don't "own" the major corporations. They don't manage those companies or have any influence over them. And, besides, their shares are held on behalf of their investors, so it's the investors who are really the biggest holders of Apple and Exxon and Walmart and all the rest.
Well, I guess that sums it up, folks. Nothing more to see here, right?
Vanguard, BlackRock and the Shadows of Power
Oh, wait. Of course there is more to this story.
True, Vanguard and BlackRock and State Street don't "own" these companies in the straightforward sense, but to say that the trillions of dollars of assets under their management doesn't bring with it the clout needed to sway the direction of corporate America as a whole or even of select companies individually is beyond naive.
Indeed, as many serious, credentialed researchers—as opposed to the interpretive dancing TikTokers "refuted" by the fact checkers—have pointed out, there are ways that these investment companies can flex the muscles that come with trillions of dollars in investable capital.
As even AAP concedes in its fact check (citing Adam Triggs, research director at ANU's Asian Bureau of Economic Research), there is evidence that common ownership of competing firms (like Coke and Pepsi) reduces competition, helping to cement the corporatocracy into place.
This common sensical and obvious point is backed up by researchers like John Coates at Harvard Law School, whose paper, "The Future of Corporate Governance Part I: The Problem of Twelve," outlines how "in the near future roughly twelve individuals will have practical power over the majority of U.S. public companies."
It shouldn't take an economist or a university professor to imagine how such intense concentration of ownership could lead to a raft of problems, from higher prices on consumer products to reduced wages and employment. But while you hold your breath and wait for the fact checkers to tell you why this is a totally wonderful turn of events that won't have any bad consequences whatsoever, you should take the time to digest Coates' own summarization of the inherent threat that such an intense concentration of ownership poses for the market and even for the rule of law itself:
Indexation, private equity, and globalization threaten to permanently entangle business with the state and create organizations—advisors to index funds and private equity funds—controlled by a small number of individuals with unsurpassed power. That concentration of control underscores the gap between ordinary citizens’ experience of disengagement and distance from their government made visible in 2016, and the increasing wealth gap between the ultra-rich and the bulk of the population. Politics is shaped by perceptions. Law—itself a function (in part) of politics—will almost certainly change in response to these trends. The only question is how.
Then there's the question of votes. Of course, shareholders get to vote in corporate elections, including electing directors and voting on shareholder resolutions. So who gets to vote when the shares are actually held by an asset manager on behalf of its clients? Traditionally, it's Vanguard and BlackRock who actually do the voting. Vanguard calls it "stewardship" and likes to brag on its website how its managers "vote in accordance with the funds’ proxy voting policies."
The funds, of course, tell the finger-pointers to just relax. After all, they don't coordinate their votes as a bloc, so their small percentage of votes won't decisively sway anything, anyway. But research published in 2017 found that the Big Three do in fact "utilize coordinated voting strategies and hence follow a centralized corporate governance strategy." Heck, even Bloomberg can see through the propaganda suggesting that their voting power is small and insignificant:
And yet voting power is voting power. The fund companies’ combined votes and back-channel jawboning, in which they make their views known to directors and chief executive officers, could swing the outcome of important matters such as mergers, major investment decisions, CEO succession, and director elections—even if no fund house has the ability to decide the outcome of such matters alone. They're potentially the most powerful force over a huge swath of America Inc. Alarm bells have begun to go off with some regulators, as well as with an ideologically diverse array of academics and activists.
To find out how these votes actually work, you can search Vanguard's public record of proxy votes. For what it's worth, a random search of the most recent Vanguard proxy votes for Exxon shows that Vanguard voted against every single resolution, including the ones pushing the woke green technocratic agenda.
But the issue remains: if the managers get to vote (even if its "on behalf of" their investor-owned funds) in accordance with ill-defined and ever-changing "principles," who really gets to wield the power of the shares?
This is not a trivial issue. BlackRock, at least, recognizing that its claim to be simply a neutral asset manager rather than a civilization-shaping force is undermined by its ability to wield shareholder votes, has made a big PR campaign about introducing and then expanding a scheme to allow investors to opt for voting their own shares.
But when considering the <sarc>incredibly difficult</sarc> question of whether the people running the firms that collectively manage tens of trillions of dollars of assets have any sway whatsoever over the firms they are investing in, there is a simple answer: yes. Yes, they do.
As I explained in How BlackRock Conquered the World, even the boffins and eggheads at the prestigious universities have been forced to concede (after years of careful study, no doubt) that Larry Fink doesn't pen his annual "Letter to CEOs" just for the fun of it. The word of Fink does carry weight in corporate boardrooms.
Sometimes referred to as a "call to action" to corporate leaders, these letters from the man stewarding over a significant chunk of the world's investable assets actually do change corporate behaviour. That this is so should be self-evident to anyone with two brain cells to rub together, which is precisely why it took a team of researchers months of painstaking study to publish a peer-reviewed paper concluding this blindingly obvious fact: "portfolio firms are responsive to BlackRock’s public engagement efforts."
So here's the $20 trillion question: how much power does a Larry Fink or a Jack Bogle really wield over the world through their companies?
Well, on the most basic level, the latter question is easy to answer. Jack Bogle was forced out of the CEO position at Vanguard in 1996, retired as chairman in 2000, and died in 2019, so he isn't wielding much influence these days.
But here's the more serious point: Larry Fink at BlackRock and Mortimer "Tim" Buckley (the current chairman of The Vanguard Group) do exert power over the economy and, ultimately, over society. As long as their companies remain the top institutional investors in the majority of the stock market, the only question is: how much havoc will they wreak by imposing their will on the world?
You have already seen Larry Fink and his woke ESG agenda-pushing. So, how about Buckley? Well, to his credit, Buckley did pull The Vanguard Group out of the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative, claiming that Vanguard is "not in the game of politics" and that "our research indicates that ESG investing does not have any advantage over broad-based investing." And while Vanguard does offer so-called "sustainable" funds and ESG index funds, they amount to a miniscule percentage of the group's offerings, with Buckley saying he wants to "allow investors to express their values and preferences" but the decision whether or not to pursue ESG investment "has to be an individual investor’s choice."
Regardless of how much of this is just corporate blather designed to protect Vanguard from the growing ESG backlash (and subsequent withdrawal of investment funds) that has afflicted BlackRock in recent years, the underlying problem persists. Even if Buckley were an angel descended from heaven to protect us from the green woke mobs, who is to say his successor would be an angel, too? The very fact that people like Fink and Buckley are in a position to sway corporate decisions is itself the problem—not the particular ways they wield (or refrain from wielding) that power.
Ironically, this point was not lost on Jack Bogle. You'll note that Bogle is not a name synonymous with nefarious corporate scheming in the same way that Fink currently is. In fact, in recent decades the now-deceased Bogle has become something of a saint in the investment world.
His idea of "mutualizing" the mutual funds by cutting out the management company middlemen and thus greatly reducing fees has put upwards of a trillion dollars back in the pockets of ordinary investors (and thereby kept it out of the pockets of Wall Street managers). And his common sense, down-to-earth investment strategies that eschewed get-rich-quick schemes and fancy quant-driven investment trends gave rise to an entire movement of investors who call themselves "Bogleheads" (yes, really), and continue to organize conferences in his name.
So what was Bogle's take on the astonishing growth of Vanguard and BlackRock in the years before his death?
Most observers expect that the share of corporate ownership by index funds will continue to grow over the next decade. It seems only a matter of time until index mutual funds cross the 50% mark. If that were to happen, the “Big Three” might own 30% or more of the U.S. stock market—effective control. I do not believe that such concentration would serve the national interest.
He's not wrong there, at least.
As always, I will note that the incredible power that the Finks and the Buckleys of the world wield is in fact our power, derived from our money through our investments of our time, our energy, our labour and our productive power in the service of their corporate agenda. Thus, the fundamental solution to the problem of Vanguard and BlackRock will not come from some outside force. It will come when we withdraw our wealth from their system.
For those who are interested in the solution to the Vanguards and the BlackRocks of the world, they are directed to my recent #SolutionsWatch episode on the subject, How To Defeat BlackRock.
How To Defeat BlackRock - #SolutionsWatch
Sep 20
To support The Corbett Report and to access the full newsletter (including this month’s subscriber only video), please sign up to become a member of the website.
In order to better appreciate the global bio-democide program currently underway, this essay will focus on the complex historical eugenics schemes that were subtly and not so subtly deployed in America.
If we are to survive this transhumanist stealth depopulation plan under the guise of lab created “pandemics,” “vaccines,” GMO processed and lab grown foods, and the deliberately released onslaught of environmental toxins, then we must understand precisely how the One World Government technocommunists will be intensifying their Great Reset and 2030 Agenda over the coming months…
The Origins of Eugenics:
Sir Francis Galton, a pioneering figure in eugenics, was greatly inspired by his half-cousin Charles Darwin, and his theory of evolution. Galton's central belief was that both desirable and undesirable traits were inherited, and he proposed that society should encourage the breeding of those with favorable traits and discourage the breeding of those with unfavorable traits. He coined the term "eugenics" to describe this proposed science of "good birth.”
This foundational understanding of eugenics is crucial as it sets the stage for how the movement developed, and the subsequent policies it influenced during the 20th century.
Sir Francis Galton lived from 1822 to 1911.
Early 20th Century Eugenics in the U.S.
Notable Advocates:
Up is Down, Left is Right:
She’s Jewish and doesn’t believe in Jesus. But you know…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22853558/ Are quantum dots toxic? Exploring the discrepancy between cell culture and animal studies - PubMed (nih.gov)
Despite significant interest in developing quantum dots (QDs) for biomedical applications, many researchers are convinced that QDs will never be used for treating patients because of their potential toxicity.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009279723000637?via%3Dihub Quantum dots are time bomb: Multiscale toxicological study - ScienceDirect
More details can be found in proposals from companies and scientists seeking Pentagon contracts. One such proposal, from a University of Florida researcher, uses insect pheromones encoded with unique identifiers that could be tracked from miles away. Other plans employ biodegradable fluorescent “taggants” that can be scattered by UAVs. Voxtel, a private firm in Oregon, has already made available a product called NightMarks, a nanocrystal that can be seen through night-vision goggles and can be hidden in anything from glass cleaner to petroleum jelly.
Perhaps the most advanced tagging concept is “smart dust,” clouds of “motes,” tiny micro-electromechanical sensors that can attach themselves to people or vehicles. Thousands of these sensors would be scattered at a time to increase the chance of at least one of them reaching its target. Kris Pister, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, was sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa), the Pentagon’s R&D branch, more than a decade ago to work on smart dust and was able to create sensors the size of rice grains. In the beginning, he now says, he and his colleagues imagined “smart burrs” that could attach to a target’s clothing as he or she brushed by, or “smart fleas” that could jump onto their targets. Pister says that this kind of autonomous microsensor is probably still not feasible. In 2001, however, his group succeeded in scattering more-primitive smart-dust motes from a small aerial drone and using them to track vehicles. A single UAV could easily carry thousands of tags, he says.
KNIVES OUT
Media and Architects of Online Censorship Law Heap Pressure on Rumble After it Defends Principle of Neutrality
Media outlets and architects of the UK's censorship law, the Online Safety Bill, are increasing the pressure on neutral video sharing platform Rumble after it refused to bow down to the UK Parliament's pressure to demonetize comedian Russell Brand.
The pressure to demonetize Brand came after anonymous sexual assault allegations were made against him. Brand has denied the allegations and has not been arrested, charged, or convicted of any of the allegations made against him.
Several companies, including YouTube, took action against Brand after the allegations surfaced, despite Brand having no content violations on YouTube. But Rumble stood up to the pressure and rejected the UK Parliament's request to cut off Brand's monetization, with CEO Chris Pavlovski noting that the allegations against Brand have "nothing to do with content on Rumble’s platform."
Now, several media outlets and people who helped craft the UK's online censorship law, the upcoming Online Safety Bill, are targeting Rumble's stance.
Lord Allan of Hallam, a former Facebook executive who advised on the Online Safety Bill, branded Rumble a "crazy American platform" and expressed disdain at Rumble's philosophy of allowing free expression.
He and internet law expert Professor Lorna Woods, an architect of the Online Safety Bill, also complained about Rumble's refusal to bow down to pressure from UK officials and framed it as "grandstand[ing] before the press."
The Times also took aim at Rumble by noting that under the Online Safety Bill, Rumble will have to "prevent children from seeing pornography...material that promotes self-harm, suicide or eating disorders...violent content...material harmful to health, such as vaccine misinformation" and "take down material that is illegal, such as videos that incite violence or race hate."
However, Bryn Harris, the Chief Legal Council for The Free Speech Union, pointed out that The Times' article doesn't actually provide examples of any of the alleged illegal or harmful to kids content on Rumble.
Additionally, the Associated Press piled in on Rumble after it stood up to the demands of UK officials by claiming that Rumble is a "haven for disinformation and extremism."
This mounting pressure comes days after the UK passed the Online Safety Bill — one of the most sweeping censorship laws to ever be introduced in the UK. The controversial censorship and surveillance bill is set to come into law next month.
The censorship provisions in the Online Safety Bill can be aimed at both citizens who post speech that's deemed to cause "harm" and companies that fail to censor this so-called harmful content. The harms in the bill extend beyond physical or direct harm and into the realms of "psychological" harm and "potential" harm. Certain types of "false" communications are also prohibited under the bill.
As UK officials heap pressure on Rumble, reports have revealed that several UK politicians have ties to the pro-censorship Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) and the UK politician that pressured Rumble to demonetize Brand received a donation in kind from Google.
I am beyond disgusted and outraged by the isolation camps regulations that our wicked, possessed governor and our state AG are trying to bring back after their stinky regulations were defeated by the brave soul, attorney Bobbie Anne Cox.
For three years, our sadistic rulers have been torturing us with hypnotic spells turning intelligent people into scared, zombified puddles of drool, with humiliating, oxygen-limiting masks that don’t do squat to protect us from anything and contain a slew of toxic chemicals that wearers breathe in, as well as with their idiotic, intellectually insulting propaganda and their “garbage soup,” contaminated vaccines. Is it not enough? I think it is.
The state of New York already has legislation that takes care of health emergencies. There is no need for this fascistic absurdity that negates due process, logic, compassion, and common sense.
Here is from Bobbie Anne Cox:
This Wednesday, September 13th, at 10:00am, I will be defending my victory in our epic lawsuit, Borrello v. Hohul, where the NYS Supreme Court in Cattaragugus County struck down Governor Hochul and her Department of Health’s unconstitutional “Isolation and Quarantine Procedures” that allowed them to illegally lock you up or lock you down without any proof you were sick, and without any due process protections.
The courtroom is open to the public, so your peaceful presence is permitted if you would like to come and observe. It’s the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division at 50 East Ave., Rochester, NY.
If you cannot attend in person, you can watch livestream on the court’s website! Here is that link: https://ad4.nycourts.gov/go/live/
An excerpt from the legal text
10 NYCRR Section 2.13. Isolation and Quarantine Procedures
(a) Duty to issue isolation and quarantine orders
(1) Whenever appropriate to control the spread of a highly
contagious communicable disease, the State Commissioner of
Health may issue and/or may direct the local health authority to
issue isolation and/or quarantine orders, consistent with due
process of law, to all such persons as the State Commissioner of
Health shall determine appropriate.
(2) Paragraph (1) of this subdivision shall not be construed as
relieving the authority and duty oflocal health authorities to issue
isolation and quarantine orders to control the spread of a highly
contagious communicable disease, consistent with due process of
law, in the absence ofsuch direction lrom the State Commissioner
of Health.
(3) For the purposes of isolation orders, isolation locations may
include home isolation or such other residential or temporary
housing location that the public health authority issuing the order
determines appropriate, where symptoms or conditions indicate
that medical care in a general hospital is not expected to be
required, and consistent with any direction that the State
Commissioner of Health may issue. Where symptoms or
conditions indicate that medical care in a general hospital is
expected to be required, the isolation location shall be a general
hospita[.
(4) For the purposes of quarantine orders, quarantine locations may
include home quarantine, other residential or temporary housing
quarantine, or quarantine at such other locations as the public
health authority issuing the order deems appropriate, consistent
with any direction that the State Commissioner of Health may
issue.
(b) Any isolation or quarantine order shall specify:
(1) The basis for the order;
(2) The location where the person shall remain in isolation or
quarantine, unless travel is authorized by the State or local health
authority, such as for medical care;
(3) The duration ofthe order
(4) Instructions for traveling to the isolation or quarantine localjon,
if appropriate;(5)Instructions for maintaining appropriate distance and taking
such other actions as to prevent transmission to other persons
living or working at the isolation or quarantine location, consistent
with any direction that the State Commissioner of Health may
issue;
(6)If the location of isolation or quarantine is not in a general
hospital, instructions for contacting the State and/or local health
authority to report the subject person's health condition, consistent
withany direction that the State Commissioner of Health may
issue;
(7) If the location of isolation or quarantine is a multiple dwelling
structure, that the person shall remain in their specific dwelling and
in no instance come within 6 feet of any other person and
consistent with any direction that the State Commissionerof
Health may issue;
(8) If the location of isolation or quarantine is a detached structure,
that the person may go outside while remaining on the premise, but
shall not leave the premise or come within 6 feet of any person
who does not reside at the premise, or such other distance as may
be appropriate for the specific disease, and consistent with any
direction that the State Commissioner of Health may issue:
(9)Such other limitations on interactions with other persons as are
appropriate, consistent with any direction that the State
Commissioner of Health may issue:
(10) Notification of the right to request that the public health
authority issuing the order inform a reasonable number of persons
of the conditions of the isolation or quarantine order;
(11)A statement that the person has the right to seek judicial
review of the order;
(12) A statement that the person has the right to legal counsel, and
that if the person is unable to afford legal counsel, counsel will be
appointed upon request.
(c) Whenever a person is subject to an isolation or quarantine
order, the State Department of Health or local health authority, or
the local health authority at the State Department of Health's
direction shall, consistent with any direction issued by the State
Commissioner of Health:
(1) monitor such person to ensure compliance with the order and
determine whether such person requires a higher level of medical
care;
(2) whenever appropriate, coordinate with local law enforcement
to ensure that such person comply with the order; and
(3) the extent such items and services are not available to such
person, provide or arrange for the provision of appropriate
supports, supplies and services, including, but not limited to: food,
laundry, medical care, and medications.
(d)If the location of an isolation or quarantine order is owned by
a landlord, hotel, motel or other person or entity, no such landlord
or person associated with such hotel, motel or other person or
entity shall enter the isolation or quarantine location without
permission of the local health authority, and consistent with any
direction that the State Commissioner of Health may issue.
(e) No article that is likely to be contaminated with infective
material may be removed from a premise where a person is isolated
or quarantined unless the local health authority determines that
such article has been properly disinfected or protected from
spreading infection, or unless the quarantine period expires and
there is no risk of contamination. Such determinations shall be
made pursuant to any direction that the State Commissioner of
Health may issue.
(f)Any person who violates a public health order shall be subject
to all civil and criminal penalties as provided for by law. For
purposes of civil penalties, each day that the order is violated shall
constitute a separate violation of this Part.
(g) Duty of attending physician
(1) Every attending physician shall immediately, upon discovering
a case or suspected case of a highly contagious reportable
communicable disease, cause the patient to be appropriately
isolated and contact the State Department of Health and the local
health authority where the patient is isolated and,if different, the
local health authority where the patient resides.
(2) Such physician shall advise other members of the household
regarding precautions to be taken to prevent further spread of the
disease, consistent with any direction that the State Commissioner
of Health may issue.
(3) Such physician shall furnish the patient, or caregiver of such
patient where applicable, with detailed instructions regardingthe
disinfection and disposal of any contaminated articles, consistent
with any direction that the State Commissioner of Health may
issue.
My interview with Bobbie Anne from last fall in which she went over the regulation in detail:
Isolation Camps in New York State: A Conversation with Attorney Bobbie Anne Cox
October 16, 2022