Tuesday, August 9, 2022

Chief of Pathology

 


Chief of Pathology

Dr. Ute Kruger is a researcher and senior physician at Lunds University in Sweden. She’s the former Chief of Pathology, a field that she’s worked in for the last 25 years, with a specialty in breast cancer diagnosis for the past 18 years. She’s studied thousands of autopsies and breast cancer samples. She’s extremely familiar with the industry and patient age, tumor size, and malignancy grade are all within her field of expertise and have had a natural rhythm throughout her career. That natural rhythm came to a halt in 2021 once the vaccine rollout began.

Dr. Kruger initially thought that these turbo cancers, as she calls them, were due to delayed doctor appointments from Covid lockdowns, but that period is long over, and the tumors are still growing aggressively, and in younger patients. She reported some of these cases to the FDA, and while some higher-ups initially agreed to meet with her, they canceled the meeting with no explanation the next day and sent a phone agent to take her report instead.

Six months ago Dr. Kruger appeared at a panel in Germany to present her theory that vaccination is causing aggressive tumors, and she asked for help from the doctors at that summit in collecting data. Unfortunately, few of them have been willing to collect that data and share it with her.


She ended off by saying “I studied medicine because I wanted to help people. But now it feels like I’m watching people being killed and there’s nothing I can do”.

The first step to solving any issue is acknowledging there’s a problem. We have a huge problem, and in order to begin to resolve it, it must be acknowledged. It’s time to start pressuring doctors to speak out. Any doctor who’s aware enough to understand that something is off must begin to address the issue. An additional motivation may be the pressure of knowing that it’s all about to blow up, and they don’t want to be standing on the wrong side of the line when it does.

Wednesday, August 3, 2022

Why Global Elite Don’t Want to End World Hunger

 Story at-a-glance:

  • In 2008, an article touting the benefits of world hunger for creating a cheap, motivated workforce was published on the United Nations’ (UN) website.
  • The article resurfaced recently on Twitter and went viral; it was promptly taken down by the UN within 24 hours.
  • The crux of the article is that the elite class has a distinct motivation to not end world hunger, because if everyone is well-nourished, there may be no one willing to provide cheap labor and slave away at some of the most physically demanding and unpleasant jobs on the planet.
  • While the UN claimed the article was satire, its author denied that it was a satirical piece and said it was intended to raise awareness that some people benefit from the existence of hunger in the world.
  • The UN released its 2022 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, which warns that a perfect storm of disasters, economic vulnerability and ecosystem failures are occurring, which predicts a coming global collapse.

What could be good about world hunger? Plenty, according to an article written by now-retired University of Hawaii professor of political science George Kent.

The story first ran in 2008 and went largely unnoticed for more than a decade, even though it was, bizarrely, published on the UN website.

It wasn’t until the article resurfaced on Twitter that it went viral — and was promptly taken down by the UN within 24 hours.

In response, the UN Chronicle tweeted:

“This article appeared in the UN Chronicle 14 years ago as an attempt at satire and was never meant to be taken literally. We have been made aware of its failures, even as satire, and have removed it from our site.”

Kent, however, who is now the deputy editor for World Nutrition magazine, told Newsbusters that this isn’t the case.

Kent said:

“I never intended it as satire. I did not hope that it would be read as praise for hunger. My main point was and still is that some people benefit from the existence of hunger in the world. That helps to explain why hunger is so persistent in many places.”

‘No one works harder than hungry people’

The crux of Kent’s article — satire or not — is that the elite class has a distinct motivation to not end world hunger, because if everyone is well-nourished, there may be no one willing to provide cheap labor and slave away at some of the most physically demanding and unpleasant jobs on the planet.

Kent wrote:

“Hunger has great positive value to many people. Indeed, it is fundamental to the working of the world’s economy. Hungry people are the most productive people, especially where there is a need for manual labor.”

“… For those who depend on the availability of cheap labor, hunger is the foundation of their wealth … Much of the hunger literature talks about how it is important to assure that people are well fed so that they can be more productive. That is nonsense. No one works harder than hungry people. Yes, people who are well nourished have greater capacity for productive physical activity, but well-nourished people are far less willing to do that work.”

Kent wrote that the NGO Free the Slaves estimates that 27 million people in the modern world could be defined as slaves, meaning they cannot walk away from their jobs. That was in 2008.

In 2022, Free the Slaves states that 40 million men, women and children are forced to work against their will, generating $150 billion in profits annually for traffickers.

Among them, about 50%, or 21 million, are stuck in forced labor slavery in industries that depend on manual labor, such as farming, ranching, logging, mining, fishing and brick making, and service industries, such as dish washers, janitors, gardeners and maids. However, these figures don’t include people who are “slaves to hunger,” Kent notes, which could, perhaps, apply to any of us.

Kent said:

“They do not include people who might be described as slaves to hunger, that is, those who are free to walk away from their jobs but have nothing better to go to. Maybe most people who work are slaves to hunger?

“For those of us at the high end of the social ladder, ending hunger globally would be a disaster. If there were no hunger in the world, who would plow the fields? Who would harvest our vegetables? Who would work in the rendering plants? Who would clean our toilets? We would have to produce ick making, and service industries, such as dish washers, janitors, gardeners and maids. However, these figures don’t include people who are “slaves to hunger,” Kent notes, which could, perhaps, apply to any of us.

Kent said:

“They do not include people who might be described as slaves to hunger, that is, those who are free to walk away from their jobs but have nothing better to go to. Maybe most people who work are slaves to hunger?

“For those of us at the high end of the social ladder, ending hunger globally would be a disaster. If there were no hunger in the world, who would plow the fields? Who would harvest our vegetables? Who would work in the rendering plants? Who would clean our toilets? We would have to produce our own food and clean our own toilets.”

I would contend that the number of slaves is actually exponentially higher due to debt. This is especially true for most physicians who have graduated in the last ten years.

They are in debt up to their eyeballs from school loans and work in some large clinics where they have no control or autonomy and are forced to follow the narrative. Failure to comply results in the loss of their job and the inability to purchase food or pay for shelter.

UN predicts total societal collapse

In addition to advertising how to create a cheaper workforce by leveraging world hunger, the UN released its 2022 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR2022), which paints a dismal picture of the future.

The GAR2022 states:

“Risk creation is outstripping risk reduction. Disasters, economic loss and the underlying vulnerabilities that drive risk, such as poverty and inequality, are increasing just as ecosystems and biospheres are at risk of collapse. Global systems are becoming more connected and therefore more vulnerable in an uncertain risk landscape.”

The report warns that a perfect storm of disasters, economic vulnerability and ecosystem failures are occurring, which predict a coming global collapse if things don’t change — and fast.

Noam Chomsky concurs, stating at the American Solar Energy Society’s 51st annual conference held June 21, “The challenge ahead is beyond anything humans have ever faced. The fate of life on the planet is now at hand.”

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists introduced the Doomsday Clock in 1947. It represents a countdown to global nuclear annihilation. During the height of the Cold War, it came its closest to midnight — two minutes — then cooled, stretching to 17 minutes by 1991.

In 2015, around the time the film was released, increased instability had moved the clock back to three minutes to midnight, due to modernizations in global nuclear weapons and “outsized nuclear weapons arsenals,” with world leaders failing to “act with the speed or on the scale required to protect citizens from potential catastrophe.”

In an update released on January 20, however, the Bulletin reported that the world is “at doom’s doorstep,” with the clock moving to just 100 seconds to midnight.

According to Counterpunch:

“It will be set again in January [2023], and Chomsky believes a good case can be made to move the second hand even closer to midnight, which is the final hour when humanity self-destructs, either with a bang or suffocation.”

Some of the concern centers on the deterioration of rational discourse, with censorship reaching unprecedented levels.

Americans are being kept in the dark

Chomsky spoke with Counterpunch about the way Americans are being misled about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. While stating that it “should be clear that … [it] has no (moral) justification,” it was not an unprovoked invasion.

“Of course, it was provoked. Otherwise, they wouldn’t refer to it all the time as an unprovoked invasion,” he said.

The background of the war, which is missing in mainstream media coverage, that provoked the invasion is NATO expansion.

Chomsky explained:

“This is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of every high-level US official in the diplomatic services who has any familiarity with Russia and Eastern Europe.

“This goes back to George Kennan and, in the 1990s, Reagan’s ambassador Jack Matlock, including the current director of the CIA; in fact, just everybody who knows anything has been warning Washington that it is reckless and provocative to ignore Russia’s very clear and explicit red lines.

That goes way before (Vladimir) Putin, it has nothing to do with him; (Mikhail) Gorbachev, all said the same thing. Ukraine and Georgia cannot join NATO, this is the geostrategic heartland of Russia.”

What is particularly chilling is that Americans haven’t been allowed to hear this side of the story — and most are unaware that they’re being kept in the dark and fed propaganda.

Chomsky continued:

“By now, censorship in the United States has reached such a level beyond anything in my lifetime. Such a level that you are not permitted to read the Russian position. Literally. Americans are not allowed to know what the Russians are saying. Except, selected things.

“So, if Putin makes a speech to Russians with all kinds of outlandish claims about Peter the Great and so on, then, you see it on the front pages. If the Russians make an offer for a negotiation, you can’t find it. That’s suppressed. You’re not allowed to know what they are saying. I have never seen a level of censorship like this.”

Are we beyond the point of no return?

The late astrophysicist Enrico Fermi was certain that conditions existed on many planets that would support higher intelligence. The Fermi Paradox is that we’ve never been able to find them.

One explanation, Chomsky noted, is that whenever higher intelligence developed, perhaps it has proven to be lethal, with self-annihilation possibly inherent with higher intelligence, which hasn’t yet gained the moral capacity to save itself.

“We are now confronted with whether that principle holds for modern humans,” Chomsky said.

The UN’s landmark report seems to lean in its favor.

According to an investigative report by Byline Times, a senior adviser to the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction who contributed to GAR2022 stated that the world had already “passed a point of no return,” and this wasn’t being communicated in the report, which was watered down before being released to the public.

The person said, “The GAR2022 is an eviscerated skeleton of what was included in earlier drafts.”

With even the UN appearing to dilute its own findings, Byline Times noted, “Like the fictional film Don’t Look Up, we are more concerned with celebrity gossip and political scandals, seemingly unable — or unwilling — to confront the most important challenge that now faces us as a species.”

The world is heading for a reset

We’re at a pivotal point in history, with many sensing that society is already on edge, and rising inflation, food costs and product shortages threaten to push it over the line.

While we’re told that looming food shortages are primarily the result of climate change and the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the Rockefeller Foundation had already predicted this scenario in July 2020 and was calling for a revamp of the food system as a whole to address it.

Their report, “Reset the Table,” was published just one month after the World Economic Forum (WEF) officially announced its plans for a “Great Reset,” and many of the contributors to the Foundation’s paper are WEF members.

They intend for the current food system to fall apart, so they can then “solve” the problem by introducing a new system based on patented lab-grown synthetic and genetically engineered foods and massive insect farms.

Attacks are coming in from all sides, however, and the food supply isn’t all that they’re after.

An influx of investors — including Wall Street — entered the housing market during the pandemic, drawn in by low mortgage rates, easy access to loans and enticing home appreciation.

It’s now clear that not only did investors, including bigwigs like Blackstone and iBuyers — which make instant, cash offers online — dabble in the housing market during the pandemic, but their participation may have been instrumental in driving up prices and making it harder for the average American to achieve homeownership.

If the average American is pushed out of the housing market, and most of the available housing is owned by investment groups and corporations, you become beholden to them as your landlord. This fulfills part of the Great Reset’s “new normal” dictum — the part where you will own nothing and be happy.

This isn’t a conspiracy theory; it’s part of WEF’s 2030 agenda.

In a world where natural foods are being threatened by lab-grown counterparts, Bill Gates, 

co-founder of Microsoft, owns more farmland than anyone else in the U.S. — and mega asset management firms are buying up so many houses that some believe Wall Street investors could accomplish feudalism in 15 years, the concept of starvation driving labor takes on new meaning.

“No wonder people at the high end are not rushing to solve the hunger problem,” Kent wrote. “For many of us, hunger is not a problem, but an asset.”

You can take control of your health

One of the best things I did as a child was join the Boy Scouts. Many of you know that their motto is “Be Prepared.”

As discussed earlier in this article, and in many of my previous articles, there is a strong likelihood that food shortages are coming. It is my strong recommendation for you to be prepared

Monday, August 1, 2022

Unbelievable: Mexico City Residents Complain Too Many Americans Are Moving There

 


In an ironic twist, residents of Mexico City are rather unhappy about Americans flooding the capital and moving there, an occurrence likely to increase due to inflation, and are telling them they need to go home.

This, according to a new report Wednesday by the Los Angeles Times.

Americans have been flocking to the largest city in Mexico since the pandemic began and, according to the report, “is likely to” see the trend “continue as inflation rises.”

Sunday, July 24, 2022

Thucydides on the politics of a collapsing society

 As a rule those who were least remarkable for intelligence showed the greater powers of survival. Such people recognized their own deficiencies and the superior intelligence of their opponents; fearing that they might lose a debate or find themselves out-maneuvered in intrigue by their quick-witted enemies, they boldly launched straight into action; while their opponents, overconfident in the belief that they would see what was happening in advance, and not thinking it necessary to seize by force what they could secure by policy, were the more easily destroyed because they were off their guard.



Thucydides on the politics of a collapsing society On history's repeating itself

Friday, July 22, 2022

“It's like a horror movie I'm being forced to watch and I can't close my eyes”

 The calls and text messages are relentless. On the other end are doctors and scientists at the top levels of the NIH, FDA and CDC. They are variously frustrated, exasperated and alarmed about the direction of the agencies to which they have devoted their careers.

“It's like a horror movie I'm being forced to watch and I can't close my eyes,” one senior FDA official lamented. “People are getting bad advice and we can’t say anything.”

That particular FDA doctor was referring to two recent developments inside the agency. First, how, with no solid clinical data, the agency authorized Covid vaccines for infants and toddlers, including those who already had Covid. And second, the fact that just months before, the FDA bypassed their external experts to authorize booster shots for young children.

That doctor is hardly alone.

At the NIH, doctors and scientists complain to us about low morale and lower staffing: The NIH’s Vaccine Research Center has had many of its senior scientists leave over the last year, including the director, deputy director and chief medical officer. “They have no leadership right now. Suddenly there’s an enormous number of jobs opening up at the highest level positions,” one NIH scientist told us. (The people who spoke to us would only agree to be quoted anonymously, citing fear of professional repercussions.) 

The CDC has experienced a similar exodus. “There’s been a large amount of turnover. Morale is low,” one high level official at the CDC told us. “Things have become so political, so what are we there for?” Another CDC scientist told us: “I used to be proud to tell people I work at the CDC. Now I’m embarrassed.”

Why are they embarrassed? In short, bad science. 

The longer answer: that the heads of their agencies are using weak or flawed data to make critically important public health decisions. That such decisions are being driven by what’s politically palatable to people in Washington or to the Biden administration. And that they have a myopic focus on one virus instead of overall health.

Nowhere has this problem been clearer—or the stakes higher—than on official public health policy regarding children and Covid. 

First, they demanded that young children be masked in schools. On this score, the agencies were wrong. Compelling studies later found schools that masked children had no different rates of transmission. And for social and linguistic development, children need to see the faces of others. 

Next came school closures. The agencies were wrong—and catastrophically so. Poor and minority children suffered learning loss with an 11-point drop in math scores alone and a 20% drop in math pass rates. There are dozens of statistics of this kind.

Then they ignored natural immunity. Wrong again. The vast majority of children have already had Covid, but this has made no difference in the blanket mandates for childhood vaccines. And now, by mandating vaccines and boosters for young healthy people, with no strong supporting data, these agencies are only further eroding public trust.

One CDC scientist told us about her shame and frustration about what happened to American children during the pandemic: “CDC failed to balance the risks of Covid with other risks that come from closing schools,” she said. “Learning loss, mental health exacerbations were obvious early on and those worsened as the guidance insisted on keeping schools virtual. CDC guidance worsened racial equity for generations to come. It failed this generation of children.”

An official at the FDA put it this way: “I can’t tell you how many people at the FDA have told me, ‘I don't like any of this, but I just need to make it to my retirement.’”

Right now, internal critics of these agencies are focused on one issue above all: Why did the FDA and the CDC issue strong blanket recommendations for Covid vaccines in children?

Three weeks ago, the CDC vigorously recommended mRNA Covid vaccines for 20 million children under five years of age. Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC, declared that the mRNA Covid vaccines should be given to everyone six months or older because they are safe and effective. 

The trouble is that this sweeping recommendation was based on extremely weak, inconclusive data provided by Pfizer and Moderna.

Start with Pfizer. Using a three-dose vaccine in 992 children between the ages of six months and five years, Pfizer found no statistically significant evidence of vaccine efficacy. In the subgroup of children aged six months to two years, the trial found that the vaccine could result in a 99% lower chance of infection—but that they also could have a 370% increased chance of being infected. In other words, Pfizer reported a range of vaccine efficacy so wide that no conclusion could be inferred. No reputable medical journal would accept such sloppy and incomplete results with such a small sample size. More to the point, these results should have given pause to those who are in charge of public health. 

Referring to Pfizer’s vaccine efficacy in healthy young children, one high-level CDC official—whose expertise is in the evaluation of clinical data—joked: “You can inject them with it or squirt it in their face, and you’ll get the same benefit.”

Moderna’s results—they conducted a study on 6,388 children with two doses—were not much better. Against asymptomatic infections, they claimed a very weak vaccine efficacy of just 4% in children aged six months to two years. They also claimed an efficacy of 23% in children between two and six years old—but neither result was statistically significant. Against symptomatic infections, Moderna’s vaccine did show efficacy that was statistically significant, but the efficacy was low: 50% in children aged six months to two years, and 42% in children between two and six years old.

Then there’s the matter of how long a vaccine gives protection. We know from data in adults that it’s generally a matter of months. But we have no such data for young children.

“It seems criminal that we put out the recommendation to give mRNA Covid vaccines to babies without good data. We really don’t know what the risks are yet. So why push it so hard?” a CDC physician added. A high-level FDA official felt the same way: “The public has no idea how bad this data really is. It would not pass muster for any other authorization.”

And yet, the FDA and the CDC pushed it through. That slap in the face of science may explain why only 2% of parents of children under age five have chosen to get the Covid vaccine, and 40% of parents in rural areas say their pediatricians did not recommend the Covid vaccine for their child.


This isn’t the first time that Covid vaccines recommendations based on scant evidence have been pushed through these agencies. 

Most recently, back in May, the lack of clinical evidence for booster shots in young people created a stir at the FDA. The White House promoted it hard even before FDA regulators had seen any data. Once they saw the data, they weren’t impressed. It showed no clear benefit against severe disease for people under 40. 

The FDA’s two top vaccine regulators—Dr. Marion Gruber, director of the FDA’s vaccine office, and her deputy director, Dr. Philip Krause—quit the agency last year over political pressure to authorize vaccine boosters in young people. After their departure they wrote scathing commentaries explaining why the data did not support a broad booster authorization, arguing in the Washington Post that “the push for boosters for everyone could actually prolong the pandemic,” citing concerns that boosting based on an outdated variant could be counterproductive.

“It felt like we were a political tool” a CDC scientist told us about the issue. That insider went on to explain that he got vaccinated early but chose not to get boosted based on the data. Ironically, that person was unable to go on a trip with a group of parents because proof of being boosted was required. “I asked for someone to show me the data. They said the policy was based on the CDC recommendation.”

As one NIH scientist told us: “There’s a silence, an unwillingness for agency scientists to say anything. Even though they know that some of what’s being said out of the agency is absurd.”

That was a theme we heard over and over again—people felt like they couldn’t speak freely, even internally within their agencies. “You get labeled based on what you say. If you talk about it you will suffer, I’m convinced,” an FDA staffer told us. Another person at that agency added: “If you speak honestly, you get treated differently.” 

And so they remain quiet, speaking to each other in private or in text groups on Signal.

One subject these doctors and scientists feel passionately about but feel they cannot bring up is natural immunity. Why, they wonder, are we insisting on immunizing children who already have some immunity to the disease due to having contracted Covid?

As of February, 75% of children in the U.S. already had natural immunity from prior infection. It could easily be over 90% of children today given how ubiquitous Omicron has been since then. The CDC’s own research shows that natural immunity is better than vaccinated immunity and a recent New England Journal of Medicine study from Israel has questioned the benefits of vaccinating previously infected persons. Many countries have long credited natural immunity towards vaccine mandates. But not the U.S.

In this, the leaders of these American health agencies made the U.S. an international outlier in how it treats children. Sweden never offered vaccination to children under 12. Finland limits Covid vaccines to children under 12 who are at high risk. The Norwegian Institute of Public Health has appropriately stated that “some children may benefit” but “previous infection offers as good of protection as the vaccine against reinfection.” Denmark announced on June 22 that its recommendation to vaccinate any children under age 16 was a mistake. “The vaccinations were not predominantly recommended for the child’s sake but to ensure pandemic control,” said Søren Brostrøm, head of the Danish Ministry of Health. 


It is statistically impossible for everyone who works inside of our health agencies to have 100% agreement about such a new and knotty subject. The fact that there is no public dissent or debate can only be explained by the fact that they are—or at least feel that they are—being muzzled.

It is an ancient, moral requirement of our profession to speak up when we believe questionable treatments are being proposed. It is also good for the public. Imagine, for example, a world in which those scientists who suggested that masking for children and school lockdowns were worse for public health were not smeared but instead debated? 

The official public health response to Covid has undermined the public's belief in public health itself. This is a terrible outcome with potentially disastrous consequences. For one thing, because of these sloppy and politicized policies, we run the risk of parents rejecting routine vaccines for their children—ones we know are safe, effective and life-saving.

The leaders of the CDC, the FDA and the NIH should welcome internal discussion—even dissension—based on the evidence. Silencing physicians is not "following the science." Less absolutism and more humility by the men and women running our public health agencies would go a long way in rebuilding public trust.

https://www.commonsense.news/p/us-public-health-agencies-arent-following

  the convenient method the  Soviet authorities  resorted to was to  weaponize psychiatry  that would round up outspoken dissidents to arbit...