“Brownstone Institute looks to influence a post-lockdown world by generating new ideas in public health, philosophy, scientific discourse, economics, and social theory. It hopes to enlighten and mobilize public life to defend and promote the liberty that is critical for an enlightened society from which everyone benefits. The purpose is to point the way toward a better understanding of essential freedoms – including intellectual freedom and free speech – and the proper means to preserve essential rights even in times of crisis.”

In the Spring of 2021 our country had already endured a year of lockdowns, quarantines, travel and work restrictions, social distancing and masking. Most of the country was still glued to legacy media broadcasts featuring daily Covid-19 fatality counts. They also rejoiced at the end to the darkness. A vaccine was available and it worked! “Science” provided the door out of the dungeon. You just had to roll up your sleeve, accept the gift of a medical miracle and walk through. It wasn’t just free, it came with a donut, a hamburger and fries or sometimes even a gift card to Target.

You were also given a sticker you could proudly wear after you walked out of the local pharmacy, or makeshift clinics that popped up in parking lots, complete with emergency resuscitative equipment available just in case, you know, something happened…

The “I’m Vaccinated” sticker labeled you as a responsible member of society who did their civic duty and as someone who was safe to be around.

For me and for ultimately about 1 in 5 of our population, things went from inconvenient to truly frightening. The highly publicized Pfizer/Biontech RCT trial which ostensibly proved that the modRNA technology was spectacularly efficacious and safe was obviously fraudulent, but only if you had had the eyes to see.

• How could they calculate efficacy against symptomatic Covid-19 if they only tested 1 in 20 of symptomatic participants for SARS-COV2?

• How do we know they were accurately reporting adverse events in a timely fashion?

• How do we know that they had long term safety if the participants were, on average, observed for only 6 weeks?

• Why on Earth would they end the trial after six months by giving placebo recipients the jab because of proven “superiority” when it was impossible to know how long this purported protection would last?

• The published results of the trial demonstrated that approximately 2,500 people needed the primary series to prevent a single Covid hospitalization, while the incidence of a Serious Adverse Event was 6 per 1000. Why would you subject yourself to that kind of risk/benefit?

• After six months, all cause mortality was higher in the treatment group. What the hell were we doing?

I asked physician colleagues about all of this. They never read the published trial results in the NEJM. They knew they were safe because that is what they were told.

This was around the time that doctors on a private FB group were beginning to notify the group that they were seeing devastating injuries reported by credible patients soon after the jab.

An Insult to Intuition

How an online Physician community turned into an Echo Chamber

Here I share another body of “inside” information: a report from inside a very large and private group of physicians on a large (and highly regulated) social media platform that will remain unnamed. The original article was published on The Defender, the on-line publication of Children’s Health Defense more than a year ago…

Read more

3 years ago · 96 likes · 75 comments · Madhava Setty, MD

Why wasn’t anyone saying anything?

Qualified voices were saying something but they were being censored. My friends and colleagues were walking through the door that “the science” opened without any understanding of the risks while trusting the dubious reassurances of effectiveness.

For those of us who were trying to sound the alarm things got grim quickly. Our social media posts were taken down, our accounts were deactivated, our podcast appearances had to be gleaned of any mention of the “V” word. Content producers shied away from the most important topic of the time for fear of having their only income stream terminated on short order.

Brownstone Institute

This was when Jeffrey Tucker founded the Brownstone Institute. Watch their one minute long introduction:

And in their words from their website:

Brownstone Institute was one of only a few organizations that grew out of a climate that was extremely hostile to open discussion—a requirement for the advancement of human understanding.

In just five years, Jeffrey Tucker has built Brownstone into a formidable anti-establishment organization that platforms qualified, dissenting voices, publishes in-depth articles, holds conferences, awards fellowship grants to dissidents and hosts “supper clubs”—informal gatherings with a speaker at a casual dinner event where questions can be asked and community members can congregate and build friendships and associations around a common understanding.

The MAHA Report

The MAHA Profile: Jeffrey Tucker, the Libertarian Who Embraced Health Freedom

For years, Jeffrey Tucker, the founder and president of the Brownstone Institute, had been a prominent voice in libertarian circles – writing about liberty and the U.S. Constitution, including as the author and publisher of many books and the editor of Laissez-Faire Books and the founder of a social media site…

Read more

20 days ago · 239 likes · 36 comments · The MAHA Report

How could this organization grow so quickly? Diligence, integrity and the hard work of all involved. And, just as important, the systems which keep us disempowered, surveilled, sick and confused are so blatantly corrupt that such a movement was bound to take root and flourish.

The movement for an independent reinvestigation of the events of 9/11 sits squarely in Brownstone’s mission because when it comes to the manipulation of data, censoring of scientific discussion, creation of false narratives, depletion of resources, erosion of our prosperity, rise of authority and attacks on our rights to privacy and freedom of expression, 9/11 is the elephant in the room. But questioning the official story of 9/11 has been a lightning rod which draws immediate attack from all sides. Things are shifting now.

Brownstone has focused on the rampant corruption of science which resulted in the devastatingly harmful pandemic response. However, it is extremely hard to prove this is the case to someone who blindly trusts the appointed experts and legacy media. In order to prove it to someone else, you have to prove it to yourself first. How do you do that?

Most people believe what they believe because of their trust in a third party, whether it be the former NIAID director Anthony Fauci, MD, or the physician scientists who cite the numerous problems with CDC’s conclusions, peer-reviewed literature and the articles written in the NYTimes. Only a handful of the doctors I know question the science behind the pandemic response. Talking a person with medical training who believes their own medical organizations out of their position is exceedingly difficult.

The 9/11 issue is different. It only takes a few minutes of open consideration of the ample footage of the three skyscrapers in Manhattan coming straight down into their own footprints to see that the public was sold a fantasy, one which led

• to the destabilization of the Middle East

• to vast military expenditures (over six trillion dollars) over two decades leading to deficit spending, monetary expansion and erosion of our prosperity

• to an increased security state

• to traumatic injuries and deaths of our young soldiers

• to mass surveillance of communication between citizens

• to the acceptance that confessions obtained through torture would be admissible as valid and useful

You don’t need to be an epidemiologist or a vaccine expert or suffer a catastrophic vaccine injury to see through the 9/11 lies. Neither do you need to be an architect or structural engineer. You can see it with your own eyes and it leads to the most disquieting reality of all: the “free press”, the biggest guardian against a tyrannical authority is in cahoots with them. If they sold you a story about 9/11, how many other stories are they selling you now?

I found that this part of the deception machine is the most crucial. During the height of the pandemic I would ask my physician friends what it would take for them to change their minds. The universal response was that “if the CDC adjusted their numbers and told us that Covid deaths were being highly exaggerated and the FDA warned us about the safety issues you are raising with the modRNA shots, I would believe you.”

My follow up question was, of course, “How do you know that these agencies are telling the public the truth?”

Answer: “We would hear about it on the news…”

Doctors are not so different from most of their patients. They trust that the media will hold the whole system accountable. 9/11 taught us that on the biggest events, they are not to be trusted.

Here they are telling us the truth a few hours before they were told what not to report. This is a montage of 36 mainstream media sources all reporting explosive events occurring just before and during the destruction of the Twin Towers:

And then, no more.

Thank you to my friend Brianne Krupsaw, the organizer of Brownstone’s Boston Supper Club, who has arranged for me to speak on September 1. Though a small event, it represents a significant step in unifying movements which share a common goal to “enlighten and mobilize public life to defend and promote the liberty that is critical for an enlightened society from which everyone benefits.”

If you are in the Boston area please consider attending and/or supporting Brownstone Institute.

I hope to see you in NYC next month at the Turning the Tide Event, a four-day conference being held in NYC on the 25th anniversary of 9/11 to amplify the growing movement for truth and justice and a more peaceful and accountable government.

The speakers include architects, engineers, firefighters, first responders, chemists, attorneys, medical scientists, filmmakers and powerful voices in the Health Freedom movement. Tickets and list of speakers here.

Subscribe now

A few days ago a dear friend, trusted colleague and triple Board Certified medical specialist and follower of this substack texted me: “So? Are you going to write about Fauci?”

She is an excellent clinician and stands apart from most of my friends in medicine. Unlike most doctors, she knows that former NIAID director Anthony Fauci, MD, didn’t do “the best anyone could have done under the circumstances”.

I know that if I pushed her to explain what he did wrong and why, she wouldn’t be able to respond with any conviction about the specifics. She’s like most of the one million or so doctors in this country—she’s just too busy and exhausted to go down rabbit holes. So we pick sides based on some rough ideas that get refined as the information algorithms learn which posts and articles attract our attention the most. To her credit, she trusts yours truly.

I told her that there were a lot of other people writing about Dr. Fauci. My attention had been on another example of medical misdirection: the preliminary hearing around Tyler Robinson and the stunning information Candace Owens had been sharing from whistleblowers.

On her last livestream which aired July 30, Owens reported that the Emergency Room at Timpanagos hospital where Charlie Kirk had been allegedly shuttled in an SUV by his “security team” had been emptied two hours before Kirk was assassinated. If true this would be the most damning evidence that powerful interests had foreknowledge of the killing and had the power to command a medical center to do their outrageous bidding.

When I was in training at the University of Pennsylvania there were a few times when a large operating room would be prepped for a trauma, with instruments and a surgical technician ready to go at a moments notice. This is happened whenever the POTUS was in town. Our facility, the biggest in the city, was where the President would be brought in a medical emergency. But closing an entire wing of a hospital and moving all the patients and staff to another facility is unprecedented and nonsensical.

There’s no way for any of us to verify this independently. You have trust to either Candace or trust the folks at TPUSA who are hell-bent on putting Tyler Robinson to death for a crime that seems less and less likely that he had the means to pull off. Once again, we are picking sides based on some rough ideas that get refined as time goes on.

Earlier in the week Ms. Owens had been scrutinizing what had been released from the coroner’s report to see if it tracked with basic sense making. Charlie’s left carotid artery and jugular veins had been injured. There were bullet fragments lodged in his cervical spine. These were findings consistent with a gunshot to the left neck. However other things were mentioned: hemorrhaging in both lungs and around the heart. Did this make sense?

No it did not. She properly acknowledged that she did not have medical training and that her opinion couldn’t and shouldn’t be taken as expert opinion. I wrote to her and explained why I thought she was right. She took four minutes on her livestream to read my email to her audience the next day:

As I have repeatedly explained, we as individuals are the ultimate arbiter of validity. We each decide who and what to trust. That is a decision based on our own understanding of what is true/reasonable which is in turn based on other information which we also independently validate in the same way.

The best we can do is to remain curious and attentive to how we reach conclusions. Our job is to hone our intuition.

I am of the opinion that a bullet fired in a downward angle striking one side of the neck could not cause bilateral lung damage AND end up high in the cervical spine. Either the coroner’s report was wrong or something moved at high velocity across his chest and upward.

On to Tony…

In case you were unaware, Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared in a Senate Homeland Subcommittee hearing this week. He was subpoenaed by the panel chair, Senator Rand Paul, MD who has long believed that the former NIAID director hid evidence that SARS-COV2 was the product of gain of function research which his department funded. Prior to exercising his fifth Amendment rights 111 times, Fauci explained why he would be doing so:

"The only conclusion I can reach is that the sole reason he is calling me before this committee is to get me to say something, anything, that could vindicate his repeated public pledges that I end up, in his words, quote, 'behind bars.'

Any reasonable person who has followed his unhinged obsession with me would readily come to the same conclusion."

The controversy began at the outset. Could a person with a Presidential Pardon retain their right to avoid answering questions from a Congressional committee? My understanding is that he could not.

Fauci also took the liberty to offer an opening statement. Legal experts say that by doing so, he automatically waived his rights under the Fifth Amendment.

The point is, none of that really matters. He could be held in contempt of Congress and get hit with a slap on the wrist in the future. What kind of punishment could be reasonably enforced and endured by an 85 year old man? Certainly not the kind of retribution many are looking for.

Fauci supporters immediately took to legacy media platforms to frame this as a disgusting partisan attack upon one of the greatest medical scientists of all time:

USA Today reports “Fauci praised as ‘hero’ by public health experts after Senate hearing”

The Guardian: “Trump administration needs to stop ‘public harassment’ of Fauci and scientists, open letter says”

Meghna Chakrabarti, host of the popular NPR radio program, ON POINT, wasted no time taking to X to offer her interpretation:

Ironically, an investigatory panel which should, in a rational world help people to come together under a common understanding, is actually widening the divide. Posing questions to Dr. Fauci, according to Ms. Chakrabarti, is “awful treatment” in her book. Interestingly she goes further. This kind of treatment, she says, will drive every qualified health professional from public service.

What?

It seems to me that the unqualified would avoid public service because there may be repercussions if they try to hide indefensible mistakes. What is she suggesting? That qualified health professionals shouldn’t be held accountable or that if Senator Paul would just ask him nicely maybe Dr. Fauci would answer his questions? Is that how it works?

The reality is that both sides have an incomplete understanding of the role this man played during the pandemic. Fauci and his throngs of supporters have argued that he had no authority to enforce mask mandates, school closures, the isolation of dying people from their families, restrictions around travel and public gathering and, of course, Covid shot requirements to work or go to school. Neither did he have the authority to demand that State Boards of Medicine suspend or revoke medical licenses of doctors who exercised their authority to use a fully licensed medicine like Hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid.

They are right.

On the other hand, employers and lawmakers at the state and municipal levels took their guidance from this man, who has admitted that some of the irreproachable science he wielded was not based in any evidence.

I believe that the public and the medical and scientific communities have lost the story around Fauci’s actions and those improperly attributed to him.

Covid Origins

One of my physician friends, a surgeon, asked me last week amidst the Fauci testimony (or lack thereof) if I thought the virus came from a lab. This is an old story, but worthwhile to review for those who have forgotten.

It is impossible to prove, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that a virus like SARS-COV2 could not have arisen through natural processes. If this pathogen was created in a lab and was intentionally spread the orchestrators of such a crime will always have (barely) plausible deniability.

However, Dr. Fauci was almost certainly involved in making sure that this highly probable story would never get traction. Fairly incriminating evidence was available way back in 2021 that this was the case.

Let’s follow the timeline. This line of questioning in public discourse was the direct result of a groundbreaking piece on the Tucker Carlson show on Fox News way back in May, 2021. Fox picked up a remarkable essay by Nicholas Wade who unleashed a precise and well informed attack on the natural origins theory of the SARS-COV2 virus on the self-publishing site, Medium.

Mr. Wade, author of the piece “Origin of Covid — Following the Clues”, is a journalist who has covered scientific topics for Science and Nature magazines as well as the NYTimes for decades. In this scintillating essay he told the story that researchers like Dr. Alina Chan and a group of unaffiliated scientists and journalists going by the name of DRASTIC (Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19) have been screaming about since March 2020. Why are we assuming that a virus leapt from another mammalian species into a human host in a wet market in Wuhan province and resulted in a global pandemic within a few weeks when one of the most advanced virology labs in China which happened to be working on bat coronaviruses was also at ground zero?

The reason is in large part due to a seminal article written in Nature Medicine on March 17 2020 by KG Anderson et al that concluded that the virus could not have come from a laboratory. A closer examination into their reasoning reveals a peculiar set of arguments that are, at the very least, non-sensical if not deliberately misleading. This had been pointed out repeatedly for months prior but got little attention as paper after paper continued to cite the Nature Medicine article as the irrefutable last word on the matter, thereby manufacturing a wall of scientific consensus that could never be breached.

But why would a researcher like Kristian Anderson, professor of Immunology and Microbiology at the Scripps institute make non-sensical assertions about Covid origins in a scientific publication? Why did his co-authors go along with it? I do not have his background or credentials. I am a clinical anesthesiologist, but I could see the ‘bunk’ in his debunking article.

Anderson et al essentially argued that the virus did not, based on computer modeling, optimally bind with the human ACE II receptor. Thus, they claimed, it was not a product of human design or tinkering. The authors of the paper assure us that if it was a weapon it would have been designed for maximal effect.

The argument is ridiculous. Biological weapon designers would explicitly avoid a perfect fit—the very sign Anderson attributes to human engineering. The whole point of biological weapons is to weaken a population without leaving any fingerprints. The authors of the Proximal Origins paper would have never come to that conclusion of their own.

“Fauci emails” that were released in 2021 under the FOIA hint at what was going on behind the scenes at the time. First, Anderson, whom Dr. Fauci consulted as one of the key experts in the matter, informed him that his team analyzed the virus and had to conclude that parts of the virus look engineered and are “inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory”.

As of January 31, 2020, it would be fair to say that at this point, he seemed to believe that the virus had been engineered while admitting more analysis was required.

Approximately five weeks later, Anderson addresses Dr. Fauci, Dr. Francis Collins (head of the NIH) and Sir Jeremy Farrar, a British medical researcher but perhaps more importantly, former director of the Wellcome Trust, a charitable foundation in the UK focused on mental health, climate and infectious diseases with a 26 billion dollar endowment. Anderson expresses his gratitude for their advice and “leadership” around the infamous paper in Nature Medicine that was soon to be published:

There is no smoking gun here however it seems that Fauci’s hand picked experts on the topic seemed to agree that lab origins was the most plausible theory at the end of January. Five weeks later, with “advice and leadership” from Fauci, Collins and Farrar they changed their tune and proceeded to publish a paper that definitively concluded the opposite position: the virus did not come from a lab. What kind of “advice” would three physician administrators offer the team of researchers who were given the final word on the solution to an extremely complicated molecular puzzle that was, for all intents and purposes, a forensic analysis?

In my opinion Fauci and his boss, Francis Collins, impelled their own consultants to arrive at a conclusion which would divert attention from the dangerous Gain of Function research which they funded.

Anderson and his team may have been willing to go along with Fauci and Collins’ conception of “the greater good” but why would they expect that the entire medical community would accept this reasoning as reasonable? Fauci did what was necessary to make sure this wouldn’t be a problem. Rather than attempting to argue the merits of the specious argument in the “Proximal Origins” paper, he instead did what would work: constantly and publicly accuse anyone who challenged his own experts’ conclusion as a conspiracy theorist.

Dr. Fauci got what he wanted. The world bought an indefensible theory while never taking responsibility for it.

Suppression of Scientific Discussion

Later that year, in October of 2020, former NIH Director Francis Collins, directs Fauci to bring his attention to the “fringe” epidemiologists who authored the Great Barrington Declaration:

One of those fringe epidemiologists, is, of course, the present NIH director, Jay Bhattacharya. Collins calls for a “quick and devastating” take down of a different approach to the pandemic.

Fauci and Collins continued the exchange over the next few days. Those email exchanges have been heavily redacted. Fauci proudly reported to his boss at the NIH that the “take down” was underway. (I can’t seem to find that specific email)

The important point here is that the GBD was a widely supported approach to the pandemic which involved the isolation and treatment of the most vulnerable while letting the majority of the population continue to participate in society, knowing that the infection was highly survivable and would result in broad and enduring natural immunity in the public. In other words, if adopted, this plan would have kept the world open. Businesses would not have shut down, jobs would not have been lost and holiday dinners between loved ones would have continued.

The Suppression of Early Treatment with Repurposed Medications

This is perhaps the greatest misdeed that Dr. Fauci directly participated in. Early on in the pandemic, in the summer of 2020, Fauci attacked the possibility that an old, cheap and well known licensed medication, Hydroxychloroquine could effectively treat Covid-19.

It was known that the disease caused by SARS-COV2 had three predictable stages: viral replication, inflammatory response and clotting. It was already well established that HCQ suppressed RNA virus replication, that it was a potent anti-inflammatory (it’s a go to drug for autoimmune disorders like Rheumatoid Arthritis) and that it was an anticoagulant. It was the ideal medicine to treat Covid-19. The idea that it wouldn’t work, at some level, would be astounding.

While Fauci demanded that properly powered, randomized placebo control trials for HCQ were required before he would sanction the drug, he instead insisted that Remdesivir, an expensive IV medicine with a questionable safety and efficacy profile be the mainstay of treatment.

Why insist on such rigorous proof in the middle of a viral outbreak when no vaccine was yet available? It was because the Emergency Use Authorization for any countermeasure (i.e. modRNA products) would only be in effect if there were no proven efficacious alternatives. If HCQ was shown to work it would obviate the need for a vaccination campaign.

Legacy media had a field day with the dangers of HCQ immediately after the Lancet, still presently considered to be one of the most venerated medical journals, published this paper purportedly demonstrating not just no effect, but harm in HCQ recipients treated for Covid-19.

The data used by the authors was falsified and the paper was retracted two weeks later. This was astonishing to any familiar with medical research and its publication. The authors made up data, drew conclusions from it and got it published in one of the biggest medical journals in the world? How could such a medical journal not verify the validity of the data used in such a massive trial before it was published? What happened to peer-review? Could it have been done on purpose?

The damage was done. The media refused to acknowledge that the HCQ story they ran was wrong. The only way the media juggernaut could be stopped was if someone with Dr. Fauci’s stature brought attention to the “mixup”. Fauci remained mum and the damage caused by Remdesivir is still yet to be quantified. Meanwhile patients treated with sanctioned and harmful protocols continued to die in hospitals driving fear among the public and softening them up for what was to come next: modRNA “vaccines”.

Fauci was the Useful Idiot

Such an assertion will irritate both those who regard him as the mastermind of a global depopulation agenda as well as those who continue to view him as a brilliant scientist and clinician who saved millions of lives at a crucial moment in our history. Call him good, call him evil, but never call him dumb.

Obviously he isn’t dumb. He is a useful idiot, which connotes something different. He was part of a bigger operation of which he himself may not have been completely aware.

To those who regard Fauci as a modern day Josef Mengele because he knowingly exaggerated the risk of Covid as well as the safety and efficacy of the shots, why would he receive the primary series and several boosters? Was it all just a show for the public? Did he get a saline injection for the cameras? Maybe. But according to the public record he contracted Covid-19 a total of three times (twice in 2022 and once in July, 2024) despite having received a total of four boosters. If anything, he served as a good example for the modRNA skeptics.

He’s not the only giant in the establishment who we know readily took the jabs. Dr. Greg Poland, head of the Vaccine Research Group at the Mayo Clinic, was very public about his Covid vaccine injury, tinnitus, which he described as “extraordinarily bothersome” in my face to face conversation with him three years ago. Rather than eschew more shots, Poland was a good soldier and trudged onward, showing up on schedule for his appointment with a booster.

The point is, these doctors and leaders in their fields actually believed in the therapy they exhorted the rest of us to accept despite their own poor experience with them. They modeled proper behavior and compliance for millions while remaining clueless to what was transpiring right in front of them.

They were useful idiots. But to whom? I don’t know exactly, but clearly it was to those way above Fauci’s pay grade. The pandemic response was driven by the big dogs within the National Security Council (NSC).

Sasha Latypova and Debbie Lerman summarize the bigger picture here:

https://sashalatypova.substack.com/cp/145279572

Writes Lerman:

“In fact, we know from the official U.S. government pandemic planning documents, that the pandemic response policy was actually not set by these public health figures at all. It was determined by the National Security Council — the advisory board to the President of the United States on matters of national security. Not a public health board. A group of military and intelligence people who advise about war and terrorism. They were in charge.”

The idea that the pandemic response was orchestrated by people in uniform and not lab coats or scrubs is hard for most people to accept. I can understand why you might not believe the receipts that Sasha and Debbie have found. In this piece I outline why I believe them: our pandemic policies from the outset were illogical and became increasingly deranged. Such wacky strategies can only be conjured up and rationalized by people whose business requires them to regard collateral damage as an unavoidable part of public health and a human life as a data point.

My brief summary of their must-read Covid Dossier:

An Insult to Intuition

What really happened during the Pandemic: The Covid Dossier

Connecting the Dots…

Read more

2 years ago · 93 likes · 28 comments · Madhava Setty, MD

Alex Azar: Another Useful Idiot

Do you know who Alex Azar is? I will give you a hint. The name of the person who has his job today is Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Azar was the Secretary of Health and Human Services in the Trump 1.0 administration. He, like many HHS Secretaries, have deep ties to the Pharma industry. Azar is an attorney and was the president of Eli Lily’s US Division for years before taking charge of public health in this country in 2018.

One might wonder why it would be a good idea to have someone like him in charge of the HHS during the early days of the pandemic. Azar has no medical or science training. Perhaps that is why he quietly made one of the most indefensible and egregious public health policy decisions.

On February 4, 2020 Azar used his unique authority as the HHS Secretary to make a PREP (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness) act declaration with regard to SARS-COV2. He deemed this virus a threat to our nation’s security before there was a single death from the virus in this country and only a few hundred in the entire world, nearly all of them in mainland China. The declaration automatically granted those involved in the design, procurement and deployment of countermeasures (i.e. modRNA therapies) immunity from any liability from any damages resulting from the use of such countermeasures.

Notice the timing of the declaration: February 4, 2020. Less than a week after Fauci’s team of crack virologists let him know that it seemed like this virus was “inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory”.

Are you putting it together now? Azar didn’t have any training to make such a determination. The situation as reported did not call for such a drastic decision. The public was barely aware of the threat (real or not) Covid posed at the time but according to our own government we were facing a threat to National Security? Why didn’t we hear about it? Azar didn’t decide to do this. He was told to. He was compliant. He was another useful idiot.

My point is that useful idiots abound in the Covid story. They were the ones on the evening news and cited by the journalists at NPR and USA Today. These include the “experts” at various academic institutions who regurgitated the same story from the same perspective handed to them from the useful idiots above them. They were the ones who never read Anderson’s “Proximal Origins” paper but ridiculed those who challenged it.

Conclusion: Fauci is the Fall Guy

Fauci got his fame. He got his awards. He made his money. He got his pension. He received his Presidential Pardon for any of his actions going back to 2014 when gain of function research was officially banned in this country. And now, instead of exposing the strings which pulled him and public health the good doctor has chosen to respectfully remain silent and protect the system that was really in control.

Senator Hawley (R-MO): “What day of the week is it?”

Dr. Fauci: “On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.”

I personally have little interest in the fate of Anthony Fauci or even if he will be repentant. I believe he will go to his grave believing he did the right thing and his legacy was marred by partisan politics and mudslingers who had no business challenging his expertise and experience. I am interested in how he will be remembered. How will trust between the public and the medical establishment be affected by his choice to remain silent? Recall that he explained why he was not going to answer any questions: he didn’t want to say something that might put him behind bars.

Pleading the Fifth is not an admission of guilt. However you do not have to worry about saying anything incriminating if you’ve have been truthful to that point.

He could have admitted that Covid-19 could have been the result of gain of function research and in retrospect, should have called for an open investigation into this possibility as well as a world-wide moratorium on such research. He didn’t.

He could have admitted that using repurposed drugs like HCQ and Ivermectin was a reasonable strategy and supported their use until we knew more. He didn’t.

He could have admitted that an open discussion around alternative pandemic strategies like the GBD would have been worthwhile at the time and should have supported that approach in select areas to see how it worked. He didn’t.

He could have proven himself to be a true scientist, one who invites discussion and challenges so that better solutions can be reached. He didn’t.

Already protected by a Presidential pardon, he could have earnestly answered questions put to him to restore public trust in medicine. He didn’t.

He will be attacked by many for not responding. He will probably be held in contempt of Congress. He may be slapped with some kind of penalty. The system which inserted his name into conversations across the world for the last few years will let him sweat it out over a few more hearings, outside the scrutiny of the media machine which made him a star.

No, it is not the punishment many are seeking for the man that is Anthony Fauci. But Fauci was more than a career researcher and government bureaucrat; he was the trusted face of a system of institutions, funding, laws, policies and agency capture that drove the pandemic response and shielded those materially involved from rebuke and legal action for their errors, intentional or not. He faced some rebuke at the hearing last week. He may face legal action in the future, but the system suffered little if anything. He is the fall guy for that system.

His biggest critic, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who would have been his boss’s boss had he not retired, has still not rescinded the PREP act declaration around SARS-COV2. Like Alex Azar, Kennedy serves at the pleasure of other forces.

But by pleading the Fifth Dr. Fauci protected himself and the system he fronted by sacrificing the integrity of “the science” which is ultimately earned not only through its achievements but through its own accountability. I would like to believe that through his refusal to answer any and all questions Anthony Fauci has opened the door for a real reformation of the system to happen. Once the system has been shown to be above accountability, trust in it will be lost. With trust depleted its sway over public opinion will be lost.

Are you more likely to trust a medical professional who believes this man is being unjustly attacked or that he, out of cowardice and self-importance missed an opportunity to restore transparency at a time when it is needed more than ever?

Please leave your comments.

Subscribe now

Nine years ago I watched a video of a building being demolished on 9/11/2001 which I never knew existed. It was the Salomon Brothers building, otherwise known as Building 7. NIST, the scientific body tasked with explaining the mechanism of collapse, built a computer model of the building and applied their hypothesis: a decoupling of a single beam from one of 80 columns from the heat of the common office fires burning at the time led to the symmetric, progressive and total collapse of this massive skyscraper in about seven seconds:

But the simulation did not look like what was observed:

If it had, it would not have proved that NIST got it right. However because it didn’t, they proved that their hypothesis was wrong. Yet, NIST astoundingly asserted that

“Given the complexity of the modeled behavior, the global collapse analyses matched the observed behavior reasonably well.”

The NIST investigators were lying.

I convened three good friends, two of whom were engineers and one who ran a construction business and showed them what I had discovered. Like me, none of them had known about building 7. What happened next left me with an unforgettable feeling in the pit of my stomach. Without any hesitation they trusted NIST and not their own eyes.

My world abruptly shifted. Up to that point I assumed that intelligence was a function of possessed knowledge and ability to think abstractly. Greater intelligence results in better conclusions. “Smart” people would edify those with deficiencies in knowledge and/or sense making so that our collective understanding would continue to advance. Why were these otherwise intelligent people coming to the obviously wrong conclusion? Were they subconsciously avoiding the uncomfortable shift I was experiencing?

I have since been interested in how the human mind draws conclusions, individually and collectively. The Asch Conformity experiments proved that only 1 in 4 people are impervious to “group think”, even if there were no repercussions to standing alone. If standing alone comes with the stigma of being a tinfoil hat-wearing nut case, well, there must be less than 1 in 4 who are willing to call it like it is.

Maybe the NIST investigators weren’t lying. Maybe they were seduced by group think too. If that were the case the overwhelming majority of human beings must be susceptible to group think, especially if it is packaged as “scientific consensus”.

That became immediately apparent in the summer of 2020. Once again, it was the “expert” class, those with medical training who accepted that covering with bandanas and surgical masks and separating asymptomatic people by six feet would prevent Covid transmission without any evidence of this. They also insisted that long-term safety could be determined at “warp speed”, that using extremely safe, repurposed drugs to treat Covid would be dangerous and that natural immunity from an infection was inferior to vaccine mediated immunity. We were in more than a crisis of epidemiology; we were in an epistemological one.

Even though I held similar credentials to the doctors who were enamored by the new modRNA technology, my opinion was slandered most often because I was a “9/11 Truther”.

That was just six years ago. Things are a lot different now. Today, defending the official 9/11 story is an invitation for people to question your judgement around every other contentious issue. What happened?

Very little new “evidence” has percolated into the public’s narrow scope of understanding and attention. The 9/11 topic is no longer taboo, in part, because independent platforms and podcasts have taken up the cause. The herd is being driven by new voices. But why are these voices resonating with the public now?

Many are asking questions about a Covid lab leak. Others are wondering about how safe the Covid shots really were. There’s the assassination of Charlie Kirk in full view and the FBI’s absurd theory around that matter. And then the Epstein files. Six million partially redacted documents which have been in possession of our authorities for decades which implicate the most powerful people doing treacherous deeds. These were released to the public with no executive summary? And not a single indictment? Not even an investigation? What more proof do you need that our authorities serve to protect elite offenders and not their victims?

The possibility that we were lied to about what happened on 9/11 is now in play like it has never been before. Are the winds shifting? Is the Tide Turning?

It felt that way last year. The International Center for 9/11 Justice hosted its inaugural Turning the Tide event in Washington DC. An array of powerful voices agreed to speak, including a sitting Senator, Ron Johnson (R-WI). The symposium was live-streamed by Clayton Morris, host of Redacted. Tucker Carlson was about to pull the trigger on his five part series on 9/11. Former Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and Curt Weldon weighed in too.

And then, a few hours before we kicked off the three day event, we learned that Charlie Kirk was murdered at a TPUSA event in Utah. The nation’s eyes were on the hourly updates from the FBI and Utah law enforcement throughout the weekend. Regardless of one’s political views, Kirk’s assassination was an attack upon the foundation of Democracy.

The patriots who founded this country fought valiantly to secure the right for all individuals to express themselves freely. Charlie Kirk was obviously gunned down for his ideas. The question was, which ones?

A lot has been revealed in the months since then, but Kirk’s assassination was more than a capital crime, it was a geopolitical event and shared an eerie and immediate similarity with 9/11: why was the world first told who was responsible for the event by an Israeli PM? Here were my impressions a week later:

The tragic death of Charlie Kirk, though a distraction from the Turning the Tide event last year, has energized the demand for a reinvestigation of the events of 9/11. Last week, Tucker Carlson discussed the issue with Pink Floyd front man, Roger Waters on his platform. Here’s the key segment:

Up to this point Tucker has been insistent that elements inside our own intelligence agencies had foreknowledge of those events but has been unwilling to address the mechanism of the destruction of the twin towers. But in the segment above, he permits Roger Waters to say it like it is:

“The buildings one and two, World Trade Centers one and two and building seven, given all the evidence that exists, and there’s an awful lot, not just of eyewitness testimony, but the films, if you look at the film of the North Tower collapsing, you can see all the explosions in the controlled demolition of that building happening in front of your very eyes.

And there is no other explanation as to how the north tower of the World Trade Center fell down. It didn’t fall down because it was burning aircraft fluid or because an airplane flew into it. It fell down because it was demolished. And the question is, who placed the explosives in it? Who pressed the button? Who demolished the World Trade Center and building 7 and the South Tower? Who did it and why? And those are the questions that we need a proper judicial inquiry to find answers to.”

Is it true that you can see all the explosions in the controlled demolition of that building in front of your very eyes? It is. See for yourself:

In a few short weeks the International Center for 9/11 Justice will be hosting the second annual “Turning the Tide” event in Manhattan to acknowledge and honor all who suffered from those events and mobilize an effort to obtain transparency about what really happened 25 years ago.

In my view, this is a battle that cannot be won in a court room until it is won in the hearts and minds of the people of this planet. In order to do that, we must unite. That is why this event is so important. It will bring together film makers, independent media, health freedom advocates, physicians, architects, researchers, first responders, families of the deceased, firefighters and other activists including Roger Waters.

For the full list of speakers and tentative schedule for the “Turning the Tide” event visit this page. Please consider supporting the work of the International Center for 9/11 Justice here.

Please leave your comments.

Subscribe now

James Corbett has a gift for saying a lot in a few minutes. According to YouTube his “9/11: A Conspiracy Theory” video, now 14 years old, has been viewed over 3.4 million times. The real number is probably higher. The latest polling (from 2023) demonstrate 1/3 of the US population has questions about the story we were fed. A significant portion of these 100 million have no doubt watched his five minute synopsis of what we were told went down that day.

It’s a MUST watch, especially if you know something was off but you just can’t put your finger on why:

Corbett approached the topic the way I do. We probably will never find out what exactly happened or who were involved, but one must be maniacally committed to sealing closed one’s eyes and mind to believe what we were told. There must have been a conspiracy because the official story becomes more absurd the harder you look. To put it another way, it’s absurd to think there wasn’t one.

Nonetheless, concludes Corbett about the official 9/11 account:

“If you have any questions about this story…you are a batshit, paranoid, tinfoil, dog-abusing baby-hater and will be reviled by everyone. If you love your country and/or freedom, happiness, rainbows, rock and roll, puppy dogs, apple pie and your grandma, you will never ever express doubts about any part of this story to anyone. Ever.”

Questioning the 9/11 story places you a hairbreadth away from being an accomplice to the crime yourself. That’s part of the narrative too. This is the seed which once planted can transform a frightened and confused group of people into a cult.

What about 10/7?

In his latest post James answers this question from one of his viewers:

“How certain are you that 10/7 was a False Flag?”

Corbett recorded a 32 minute long video (linked below) in response. But before assembling the evidence which implicates the “Likudniks” in transpiring to allow or abet Hamas fighters to breach the unbreachable Gaza border and commit atrocities against innocent Israelis to justify a genocide against Palestinians, James drops some deep wisdom:

“Well, of course, like any careful and intellectually honest person, I get uncomfortable with the word certain when it comes to something that I do not have direct firsthand knowledge of.”

I do too. Uncertainty is a part of everything we do not know first hand. That is a certainty.

Yet the general public’s irrational demand for unattainable certainty around heterodox perspectives commits them to accept what is decreed by court decisions, “official” investigations and reporting from legacy media as their working theory by default. But courts can be controlled, official investigations have conflicts of interest and corporate/deep state funded media have been churning out propaganda since the 1920’s.

TPUSAers clamor that Candace Owens has offered “zero” proof that Charlie Kirk, head of the most powerful conservative political organization in the country, was killed by a sophisticated hit orchestrated by a vastly powerful network of billionaires and their operatives in the government, military and media because Kirk was exposing their insidious influence over American politics, and yes, even major geopolitical events like October 7th. Only widow-hating “leftists” would believe that story if we have grainy video of a nondescript figure that roughly matches the dimensions of Tyler Robinson (and several other million people) scurrying across a roof top at UVU and Lance Twiggs stating that he heard Tyler confess. Why go with means and motive when you have hearsay from a barely credible witness giving video testimony and a gun that cannot be tied to the murder?

In other words, they are telling us that certainty is required if you dare to propose that powerful interests would conspire to eliminate an adversary but not necessary if you want a 22 year old to be put to death…

No, we cannot be certain that the events of October 7, 2023 were orchestrated by the forces who had the most to gain strategically and economically, but why wouldn’t they? And what could Hamas possibly gain from attacking a country that would surely respond brutally, especially at a time when an extreme right-wing coalition were calling the shots?

It’s the same question we ought to ask about Al Qaeda on 9/11.

Beyond that, PM Netanyahu was also facing corruption charges at the time. There is no better way for a ruler to stay out of prison than to bring their country into endless hot wars.

And…

• Why were warnings from Egypt and Israeli intelligence that Hamas was up to something not heeded?

• Why are IDF soldiers on record stating that they were given stand down orders that morning?

• Why was the IDF response so delayed after reports of an incursion were made?

• Why weren’t the reports of “beheaded babies” able to be substantiated?

• Why did 500 heavily armed IDF soldiers wait 13 hours before entering Kibbutz Be'eri, the site of some of the worse violence on that day?

These were the kind of questions I was asking a few days after the event too.

Like 9/11, the official story around 10/7 becomes more absurd the closer you look. Watch James lay out the evidence in the way that he does best:

You can follow the Corbett report here.

Please leave your comments.

Subscribe now

The preliminary trial of Tyler Robinson, the lone suspect in the murder of Charlie Kirk, began this week. If you are wise and stay off of X you may not be aware that the platform is alit like the skies on July 4th with incendiary volleys between TPUSA spokespersons and independent journalist and friend/confidant of Kirk, Candace Owens and her supporters.

Candace, like myself (and millions of others), knew something was afoot within hours or days of the very public assassination of the conservative influencer who had the ear of the the POTUS. A lone gunman motivated by fringe ideology, evading security and assassinating a towering political figure who was at the verge of bringing the country to a crossroads? Again? The Kennedys. King. Now Kirk.

I didn’t know much about guns at the time. I just didn’t think a 22 year old with no training could shoot a human being for the first time in his life using his grandfather’s rifle from atop a building in full view of Charlie Kirk’s crack security team.

Neither did I know much about Charlie Kirk at the time. I knew him to be a young man who invited discourse around conservative values on liberal campuses. “Prove Me Wrong” was his challenge. What’s the big deal? He had been speaking openly for years. His message hadn’t changed. Why would someone want to take his life now?

But his message had changed. I was unaware that he was undergoing a profound awakening around the intentions of the biggest donors to his powerful political organization, Turning Point USA, which he had founded when he was just 18 years of age.

To put it briefly, Candace Owens believes that Kirk realized that he was being lured, coaxed and cajoled into steering his massive following into supporting an agenda that served Israel and not the United States. Although he had voiced his reservations about entering a war with Iran and questioning the events of October 7th, Kirk had not made a firm, public statement about a plan to distance TPUSA from Israeli interests or divulge the kind of pressure he was under to keep his pro-Israel donors happy.

Candace believes that her friend Charlie was about to let the world know what was going on behind the scenes at Turning Point USA, and that’s why he was taken out. Note that Charlie Kirk could not be coerced. Though you may not agree with his values, he was clean and honest. That, among other things, was his unique appeal to his millions of followers. In other words, the powerful interests with powerful motives had no other option. You can’t silence someone with integrity using blackmail. You have to use bullets.

If we were to adhere to the basics of sleuthing: follow the money, identify who would have means and motive, there’s even less reason to suspect that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk. It’s far more likely that sinister interests were behind the murder. But Andrew Kolvet, Executive Producer of the Charlie Kirk Show, wants the public to believe that Candace is pushing click-bait conspiracy theories for her own gain.

Each side has resorted to vicious character attacks against each other, but when it comes right down to it, Kolvet and his camp repeatedly state that Candace has offered no proof of her theory that this was a professional hit using a sophisticated shaped charge hidden in the microphone which Charlie wore which was remotely detonated by someone on his security team that afternoon.

They are right. On the other hand, what constitutes proof today? Who is the final arbiter of the evidence in our world?

This is where the trial of Tyler Robinson comes in. Kolvet believes that the courts will properly judge what evidence is admissible and decide whether the 22 year old Robinson fired his older-make Mauser-type bolt-action hunting rifle once, struck Kirk from a roof top some 140 yards away, leapt from the building, evaded a manhunt and turned himself in to authorities only to plead his innocence.

The case against Robinson was concocted within hours after the event. The FBI produced the fully assembled weapon, a gift from Robinson’s grandfather, from a wooded area near the purported shooting. Soon after, the FBI released a text thread between their lone suspect and his trans-gender love interest, Lance Twiggs, in which Robinson methodically (and conveniently) explained his motivations (Kirk’s conservative stand was a threat to their way of life), the use of his grandfather’s rifle and where he hid it, the challenges of having a Trump-supporting father and a confession of his undying love for his roommate. Robinson also mentions where to find a written letter of confession he apparently wrote prior to actually carrying out the shooting. The exchange was widely published on many media outlets.

Candace (and others), immediately pointed out that the exchange read like an AI generated response to a request to “Chat, give me an example of a hypothetical text exchange between a man who committed murder and his boyfriend. And please include these details…”

Our Federal Bureau of Investigation apparently was unaware that 22 year olds don’t use expressions like “grab it unseen”, “attempt to retrieve it”, “squad car” or “my old man”.

A lot of other fishy things happened that afternoon and on the days that followed. Kirk’s security team responded with cat-like reflexes the moment the explosion (I mean gunshot) was heard, catching him as he began to slump and putting him on the ground and out of sight. Here they are attending to Kirk, now on the ground in front of them:

Here is the remarkably prescient videographer who points his camera at the rear of the stage the moment the loud “bang” is heard. Note how he never looks at Kirk yet apparently knows what exactly will happen next:

Footage of the gory scene immediately “exploded” on social media but was removed and photoshopped to conform to community standards. It was too graphic. I captured one of the unadulterated segments (viewers beware):

Disregard the red circle and the odd hand signal given by member of Kirk’s security detail, Dan Flood, an instant before the event. What we see is an eruption of dark blood from Kirk’s left neck. The blood must be coming from either the Left Carotid artery or the Left Internal Jugular vein or both. The likelihood of surviving such an injury is small, especially in the field miles from an operating room with a vascular surgeon in attendance. Nevertheless, the first step would have been to identify the source of bleeding and apply pressure.

Given the location of the wound and the high probability that large blood vessels were transected, Kirk would have rapidly gone into hypovolemic shock leading to immediate cardiac arrest. Chest compressions would have been required and initiated within a minute or two.

No such actions were taken. No EMTs were immediately available to do an assessment of injury. There was no access to IVs and defibrillators because no ambulance was ever called. Instead, his security team seemed to bundle him up and carried him into a waiting SUV like a sack of potatoes and sped off. Is that really the protocol in such a situation?

Prominent Israel supporter and Gaza genocide denier, Ben Shapiro, assures us that it is. Here he is assuring us that no chest compressions were performed because Charlie was still alive in the SUV. How did he know this? Team Kirk, while speeding to the hospital and attempting to stabilize their dying charge called Shapiro’s security team to update them in real-time.

Is that part of the protocol too, Ben? In all fairness, this is more a question for Brian Harpole, chief of Kirk’s security team that day.

Questions about the mechanism of injury were immediately raised. Few gun enthusiasts/experts support the idea that a projectile fired from the powerful rifle would have left Kirk’s upper body intact. Yet footage from the cameras behind Charlie conspicuously demonstrate no exit of the 0.30 inch bullet. Moreover, the expulsion of blood from the wound is more consistent with an exit wound. Things weren’t adding up from the jump.

Erika Kirk claims that Charlie was a true man of steel, absorbing the bullet which probably saved those standing behind him. That wasn’t her theory. That was what the surgeon told her. Who would dare to question a medical professional and a grieving widow? Only the most callous and calculating conspiracy theorists.

If Charlie was struck by a bullet, he was hit by a much smaller projectile from the front. Although entry wounds are not usually bloody, the proximity of the entry point to the big blood vessels of the neck could have plausibly resulted in what we observed. If that were the case, Tyler Robinson’s gun could not be connected to the murder and he would be exonerated, leaving a bigger question of who actually pulled the trigger, if one was even pulled.

Within a week, another theory put forward by an independent voice on X, Jon Bray, emerged. Kirk was not shot. He died from injuries sustained from an exploding shaped charge in the microphone he was wearing that day. A “shaped charge” focuses the energy of an explosive in a certain direction and can propel a casing at high velocity, essentially acting like a projectile. That was my working theory back in September, and it still is. The RODE microphone inside of his shirt hiding the shaped charge could have propelled the casing through his anterior chest wall to emerge at the base of his left neck resulting in an expulsion of blood and tissue.

Moreover, independent footage from various vantage points demonstrate more bizarre behavior from those charged with protecting Kirk. They weren’t just anticipating the worst, it seemed like they initiated it:

An Insult to Intuition

The Anatomy of a Conspiracy: Final Thoughts on Charlie Kirk

Or is it…

Read more

a year ago · 78 likes · 86 comments · Madhava Setty, MD

Exploding wearable devices are not unprecedented. Less than a year earlier Israel killed at least 12 and injured thousands by lacing Hezbollah pagers with a highly energetic explosive called Pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN).

Although Candace Owens has been able to assemble a lot of evidence through confidential sources which support the use of such an explosive device, none of this can be independently confirmed.

• Were there chards of black glass on the floor of the SUV into which Kirk’s body was placed as she claims?

• Could these be the shattered remnants of the housing of the RODE microphone he was wearing?

• Was the SUV impounded and held as evidence pending an investigation or was it stripped?

• Did the USG purchase such devices in the months before the assassination from Accurate Energetics Systems, the company whose Tennessee factory mysteriously exploded exactly one month after Kirk was murdered, killing all 16 workers at the plant?

We cannot know. What we do know is that within 72 hours of the assassination, ten inches of soil surrounding the area where Charlie Kirk took his last breath were excavated.

Here is Dan Merrell, the contractor who was hired to place the pavers on the Sunday morning following the Wednesday assassination telling us that this “paver emergency” was ordered by the Governor of Utah and the FBI:

It is highly unfortunate that almost exactly 24 years to the day the soil at “ground zero” was once again not available for the chemical analysis required to establish the use of explosives.

We stood by and watched this happen around the World Trade Center complex when caravans of dump trucks arrived and worked around the clock to haul the dirt and wreckage from lower Manhattan before an investigation could be done properly.

Instead of burying evidence, our authorities were removing it by the truckload. Again.

Conclusion

The case against Tyler Robinson is circumstantial at best. Blurry images of a figure on stairs and a rooftop? Not a single witness to Robinson (or anyone else) firing at Kirk? No evidence that the purported murder weapon was even fired?

Yet Andrew Kolvet and his crew at TPUSA and prominent Israel apologists on X are salivating at the sentencing of Tyler Robinson:

Given the flimsy evidence the public has seen up to this point, why would these folks be so eager to see this trial commence? Do they already know how it will turn out?

And so we are back to the most important question: Who is the final arbiter of the evidence in our world? Kolvet, Turning Point USA and Charlie’s grieving widow who called for forgiveness of Tyler Robinson within days while demanding that anyone asking questions cease and desist will likely get the conviction they want. They are not the only ones.

Here is our President’s son, Donald Trump Jr. in a clip from Fox News offering us his take on the trial (Don Jr. appeared with Erika Kirk in the courtroom on the first day):

“Having seen the evidence with my own eyes, it is very clear to me that Tyler Robinson will be found guilty.”

Sorry Junior. What evidence you saw is part of a frivolous lawsuit, not one that demands the death penalty. I think a guilty verdict maybe clear to you for other reasons.

The young Trump’s appearance aside Erika was more than a show of support; it’s an indication that there are very powerful (and compromised) interests that have a dog in this fight.

Let us not forget that

• JFK was shot from the front (at least twice) but Lee Harvey Oswald was perched above and behind the Presidential motorcade

• RFK was shot from behind but Sirhan-Sirhan was in front

• The public was never told who bet on AA and United Airlines stocks tumbling on 9/11 or why five young Israelis videotaped and celebrated the destruction of the Twin Towers

• It is irrelevant that a lab conducting gain of function research on bat coronaviruses was situated a few miles from the wet-market that spawned a global pandemic

• The long history of the most powerful people doing the most terrible things to the most innocent shouldn’t result in a single indictment if the Dow is over 50,000

Is the highest court in the land really the court of public opinion? History demonstrates that there is no evidence of that either. Is it going to be more of the status quo or could the country finally be at a real Turning Point?

Please leave your comments.

Subscribe now

In space, two aliens are talking to each other:

The first says, “The dominant life forms on the Earth have developed satellite-based nuclear weapons.”

The seconds asks, “Are they an emerging intelligence?”

The first responds, “I don’t think so. They have them aimed at themselves.”

This past weekend I went to see “Disclosure Day” for the second time in the theater. I have rarely shelled out money to see the same movie twice. I didn’t go a second time to be entertained; I was interested in how Steven Spielberg chose to tell the most significant story in the history of our species.

I remained seated through the ending credits, hoping for a little gem for the dedicated viewer (there wasn’t). I wandered out of the theater alone and was drawn into a local haunt where throngs of people were watching the final minutes of a World Cup soccer match between Ghana and Croatia. Soccer, apparently, is what brings us together more than anything else right now.

I struck up a conversation with a young man tending bar. He was a good guy. Even though the bar was packed, he asked me my name and what I did for a living.

“I do a lot of things”, I responded in my typical way in these situations, “but I would call myself a professional conspiracy theorist above anything else.”

• I think that 9/11 was an “inside job”.

• I think that SARS-COV2 was engineered and that the modRNA technology was known to be unsafe and ineffective before it was deployed upon the world.

• I think that climate change is real and if there were a warming trend it isn’t due to CO2 production, yet that narrative has been used to fuel a multi-trillion dollar “green energy” initiative.

• I don’t know if human beings have set foot on the moon but I am confident that at least some of the evidence offered as proof of this endeavor has been doctored.

• I think that the Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex is not interested in health but in perpetuating chronic disease.

• I think that the Military Industrial Complex is not interested in security for the people but in ensuring that we are involved in perpetual conflict.

• I think that Central Banking is designed and wielded not to provide liquidity in times of crisis but to deplete our prosperity over generations.

• Our “free press” never reports on the evidence that supports these conspiracies. Thus, they must be in on them too.

The most compelling evidence supporting my opinions on these matters is the universally irrational response of the mainstream experts to these heterodox views. We conspiracy theorists must be over the target.

When it comes to denigrating those who challenge convention, the intensity and duration of character attacks leveled at those who believe that ExtraTerrestrials have been in contact with our species and that our government has been covering it up is unmatched.

ExtraTerrestrial contact with our species is thus highly likely and probably very ancient as far as I am concerned. Moreover, there are thousands of accounts of contact from credible witnesses, military whistleblowers, official reports of “unexplained aerial phenomena” and, in my opinion the most important, the long history of telepathic communication between humans and non-human intelligence.

All of these have been fabricated by attention seekers? Bruh, Please.

What would be the incentive to keep this astounding truth hidden? Many say it would be the technologies that would be unleashed upon the planet. Zero-point energy devices would obviate the need for fossil fuels. Somebody’s income stream will be jeopardized.

It’s not just about the money, if energy was free or even cheap it would allow splinter communities to live outside of the grid and experiment with new models of socialization—a significant threat to any centralized authority.

And what if devices that can generate and unleash limitless energy fell into the wrong hands? Whoever is concealing this truth must be doing it for our own protection, right?

Others posit that it would send humanity into an existential crisis. Beings far more powerful than us are out there observing us like lab technicians watching rats in a maze?

Finally, there is the problem our authoritarians would have if it became clear that they are not the final authority. Authoritarians loathe that and fear that that idea would take hold in the collective. If there were a global cabal, ETs would be an existential threat to them.

What makes more sense? What is your intuition telling you?

Spielberg approaches the topic much like I would have done if I were an iconic filmmaker given broad latitude and resources to tell this story. Without giving away too much of the plot, “Disclosure Day” describes one possible (perhaps plausible?) sequence of events that could lead to the moment humanity accepts the reality that we are not alone. He weaves together some of what I consider the most credible and intriguing threads of the ongoing story of ET and Human contact over the decades:

• The flying saucer crash in Roswell, NM 79 years ago, the seminal “close encounter”. Was it really an errant weather balloon as the military spokespersons insisted? Or did a spaceship from another star system crash upon our planet? You can watch recorded testimony from Colonel Phillip Corso, Sr. who claimed he was present and supervised some of the activities at the crash site. Nobody but you can validate this person’s story.

• Technologies taken from that crash retrieval site and others have been sequestered in commercial aerospace or high-tech industries away from government oversight so that they could be reverse engineered away from public eyes and FOIA requests.

• Elected officials have no access to the technology or the details of any of the events. Why would such secrets ever be given to people who serve no more than two, four or eight years?

• The technologies in question are not simply advanced propulsion systems. These devices are able to interface with consciousness, something we share with all sentient beings.

• ETs are more advanced than us not just technologically, but spiritually. We simply have no idea what potential abilities highly spiritual conscious entities have. Bilocation? Remote viewing? Can they see a person’s entire life experience by gazing into their eyes? Do they know the entire history of our species, the real history, through access to what some may call the Akashic record?

• “Disclosure” will never happen as a result of an act of Congress or an executive order. It will take a coordinated and extremely well-planned strategy among a faction of insiders working together for the benefit of humankind.

• Despite their vastly superior technology, ETs have tried their best to allow our species to move forward (and backward and sideways) through our own decisions, never imposing themselves upon us. We on the other hand have not always been so kind to them.

• Philosophical and religious impediments around disclosure are an important consideration. Many on the planet aren’t ready to confront such a reality. But then again, on what grounds do a small group of people have the right to keep such secrets?

• Those on the inside who brandish such authority are traumatized at some level. Traumatized people traumatize people. Why would we ever expect such folks to act in the interest of anyone else but themselves?

Spielberg attempts to meet the public where they are. There are gratuitous chase scenes and love interests to satisfy the entertainment seeker.

The visionary ideas Spielberg invites his audience to consider are actually ones that are more or less grounded in my own understanding of the world and how it works. The biggest leap he takes from reality is his fantasy about legacy media. The presumption that when given earth shattering evidence the media will bring it to their audience is the epitome of naiveté.

The movie “The Age of Disclosure” is part of the Psy-OP

In contrast to “Disclosure Day” the film “The Age of Disclosure” which premiered at the South by Southwest Film festival last year approached the topic a different way.

Numerous present and former public officials candidly describe a long history of governmental suppression of the ET story. These include:

• U. S. Secretary of State and acting National Security Advisor, Marco Rubio

• Congressmen Kirsten Gillibrand, Tim Burchett, André Carson, Dan Crenshaw, Mike Gallagher and Anna Paulina Luna

• Senator Mike Rounds

• Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper

• Former acting Secretary of Defense Christopher C. Miller

• Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Christopher Mellon

• Retired Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet, former commander of the Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command

The film is narrated by and centers around Luis Alizondo, a former US Department of Defense employee who worked under the auspices of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP). He and fellow whistleblowers, AATIP engineer consultant and parapsychologist Hal Puthoff and his collaborator Eric Davis, PhD allege, among other claims, that they discovered a secret government "Legacy Program" that investigated and concealed evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence for more than 80 years.

Unlike in “Disclosure Day”, the ETs (most often referred to in the movie as UAPs or non-human intelligence) are nearly always portrayed as a threat to National Security. The technology which they possess also poses a threat to the United States if it falls into the hands of our adversaries on this planet.

The film is about gloom and doom. ETs are a mystery. Mysteries are dangerous. Be smart. Be scared.

Almost no mention is given to the reality that if “they” have found ways to get here, they could have had their way with us at any time, but they haven’t. Wouldn’t the sane approach be to drop our anemic weapons and invite them to sit down for a cup of tea and discuss what we might learn from their history? How did they avoid self-destruction and take to the stars?

According to the testimony from those featured in the movie, the folks who are and have been communicating with them do not represent our species. They are power hungry self-centered sociopaths who will stop at nothing to exploit the situation to gather more power through technology and secrecy. Moreover, the long list of high ranking persons interviewed are completely powerless to do anything. Our own Secretary of State can’t get to the bottom of things? Who is really running the planet then?

The audience is being told that there is a threat of unimaginable scale in the skies above and there is nothing we can do about it.

How would Disclosure Happen?

Last month I went to the annual “Contact in the Desert” event in Indian Wells, CA. It is recognized as the largest annual gathering dedicated to UFOs and extraterrestrial phenomena. Eric Davis, Phd (Astrophysics, University of Arizona), who was a central whistleblower in “Age of Disclosure”, was one of the headliners. Davis has long been public about the USG recovery of technologies from ET crash sites. He offered nothing new at the symposium.

I went to his first lecture. After expounding on his long history of work in astrophysics and “exotic” propulsion systems and affiliation with governmental programs, the US Department of Defense and aerospace companies Davis made it absolutely clear that our government was in possession of vehicles which did not originate in our solar system.

None of this was revelatory to the impassioned attendees, but why should anyone else believe him? And why would someone with his bonafides and confirmed association with secret programs be allowed to whistleblow in the first place?

These questions were not lost on the audience who approached him in the Q&A session respectfully, at first.

How, sir, do you know that some of the materials you assure have been recovered from crash sites are not the products of human engineering which you are unaware of, especially if you insist that secrecy is maintained by ultra compartmentalization and siloing of information?

Davis, who typically speaks in sentences that last two minutes long, stammered. He vaguely referred to his own personal but limited experiences with UFOs and reports of “abductions” as proof that they are all of non-human origin.

The audience did not let him off the hook.

How do you know that some of these abduction experiences were not the product of our own manufacture, designed to malign our ET visitors?

Davis did not answer this question either and instead warned the audience of what he saw at Skinwalker ranch in Utah, a remote area that had become a center of research after years of reports of paranormal phenomena including cattle mutilations, vicious red-eyed creatures and radiation burns sustained by witnesses to aerial anomalies. The History Channel ran a series around this story.

Demands to “Answer the damn question!” erupted from the audience. It was obvious to most what he was doing. We can appropriately speculate that Davis was serving an important role, unwittingly or not. Someone has granted him the authority to disclose a few tantalizing details as long as he pushed a fear narrative. Every audience member I spoke with afterwards agreed. It was encouraging.

I spent most of the next day talking to attendees. They unanimously felt that ETs were here, they were mostly benevolent and our authorities had been engaged in disinformation campaigns against experiencers for decades. However when I asked people what a “Disclosure Day” would look like, I didn’t receive any clear answers from anyone.

This is where Spielberg’s movie comes in. The film offers something of much more value than evidence which, in matters such as this one, is always either accepted or dismissed based on foregone conclusions. In order to accept something of this magnitude the collective must be ready and prepared. We are not there yet. We are too afraid. We are too distracted. We aren’t curious enough.

How can we get there?

We have to start telling and listening to the right stories.

Is security only possible through deterrence which overwhelming unilateral power offers? Or is empathy our strength, our source of prosperity and a requirement for our evolution? Spielberg makes a good case for the latter. At the very least we cannot expect civilizations with immense technological power and temperance to introduce themselves to a people who are trigger happy and believe that pointing weapons of mass destruction at each other is necessary and wise.

We have some growing up to do before any real disclosure can happen. And, “disclosure” is better thought of as an awakening than some kind of coordinated release of evidence from the top down. In other words, in the end it’s up to us to decide when we have seen or intuited enough.

Conclusion

I was elated to run into an acquaintance of mine, Rob Freeman, at “Contact in The Desert”. Rob and I met eight years ago in the desert in southern Arizona on a CE-5 protocol expedition with Dr. Steven Greer. Freeman is a film maker and entrepreneur who has devoted much time and resources traveling the world to document UAPs over the years. I had been following him on social media and took note of the fact that several years ago he began posting about a curious phenomenon called “Vision without Eyes”.

After learning the technique himself he has been training people to see without the use of their eyes. Read about his story here:

Vision Without Eyes—Our Story

He was at the conference to demonstrate. I was aware of his claims. Also, my wife has a close and trusted friend who has learned to do this. Her young children picked it up even more quickly than she did. This was the first time I was seeing this—with my own eyes…

Rob’s assistant, Pat Mielke, was very adept at the technique. Pat put on a mask which completely blocked all light (I made sure of that) and began reading playing cards which I picked out of a shuffled deck. She could not have been using her eyes to “see”. I shot this (admittedly poorly composed) video at their booth:

I asked her to do it again, this time not allowing her to touch the card:

I witnessed her do this a dozen times. She was 100% accurate and she did it effortlessly and without hesitation. How could this be possible? Is this a magic trick which fooled me? Am I in on the prank?

The situation you are faced with is not unlike the ET phenomenon. What good is a video that depicts something that you are unwilling to accept as possible to begin with? Is this something that drives you to investigate more or is it wiser and more practical to dismiss it out of hand until NPR or CNN reports on it?

I believe I saw proof of a miraculous, inexplicable and untapped ability which human beings have always had. Perhaps in order to have a peaceful relationship with highly advanced, non-human civilizations we have to reconsider the limitations we have placed on our own potential first.

ETs may not be as alien as we have been told.

Please leave your comments.

Subscribe now

Five years ago I began working for Children’s Health Defense as the Senior Science Editor for The Defender, the organization’s online newsletter. I hadn’t had any experience as an editor. Neither was I an epidemiologist or virologist.

I got the job because I was a doctor and was willing to say something about the obvious distortion of “the science” unfolding in front of our eyes. In other words, there weren’t a whole lot of candidates for the position.

It was the fall of 2021 and our corrupt public health agencies were pushing the public to take a third dose of modRNA to combat an RNA virus that had already mutated into strains that escaped immune systems that were trained to respond to the ultra specific antigen target of the shots several times. That’s what viruses do. Any meager benefit of a booster was dwarfed by side effects and adverse events. I couldn’t believe that doctors weren’t saying anything.

Then again, this was no different from what had been happening around the 9/11 event for years. Engineers and people with physical science backgrounds were lobotomized by a governmental “investigation” which ran counter to basic laws of motion. Those who should know better ignored their own sensibilities and training didn’t just stay quiet, they brandished their degrees to claim expert status to squelch the voices of those who were right all along.

Those who demand adequate vaccine safety and efficacy testing, transparency around adverse events and accountability of three letter health agencies have a lot in common with those in the 9/11 Truth movement. We are fighting a system that distorts the facts, uses scientific institutions and legacy media to create legitimacy around consensus opinion that is obviously wrong to usher in more control, censorship and ultimately, suffering among the population. Uniting these movements has been my mission for the last five years.

Last week Children’s Health Defense chose to air a segment which we recorded in the summer of 2024. Though veteran 9/11 truthers will not find anything new in this interview, it is a symbolic move and an effort to bring the tens of millions of people who are opening their eyes to the pandemic op up to speed around what really happened almost 25 years ago.

In my experience, commentary on CHD must meet very high standards. There is simply too much for them to lose. When attacking a Pharma Industrial complex with enormous influence over medical education, media, scientific publications and even its own regulatory bodies credibility is everything. The decision to air the interview grants the 9/11 Truth movement added legitimacy and exposure to a bigger audience. You can watch it here:

CHD TV: Drs. Meryl Nass and Madhava Setty discuss the 9/11 False Flag

We packed a lot into the 75 minutes for newcomers to the topic:

• Why should Children’s Health Defense cover 9/11?

• What can we see with our own eyes when we put aside what we were told we were watching?

• How does a gravitational collapse of the twin towers (the official story) defy laws of motion?

• How far away from Ground Zero were human remains found?

• How was the event covered before the narrative was established?

• The use of hypnotic techniques in the NYTimes (September 12, 2001 edition)

• Citations directly from NIST stating that explaining why the Twin Towers collapsed in the way they did was outside the scope of their own investigation

• WTC 7 (Building 7) was not hit by a plane yet fell to the ground in a matter of seconds. NIST claims that it was due to common office fires but their own simulation proves their hypothesis wrong

• The eerie similarities with Operation Northwoods

• The open agenda of 9/11 Commission Executive Director, Philip Zelikow, prior to 9/11

• Fmr Israeli PM, Ehud Barak at BBC an hour after the North Tower fell setting the narrative this country has maintained ever since

• 9/11 is just one of many false flag events in our nation’s history

Conclusion

I left CHD in the spring of 2023 when RFK Jr. announced his candidacy for POTUS and returned to my clinical practice. A few months later I launched this newsletter which I use to critique establishment narratives from vaccines to CO2 driven global warming.

However my focus has always been on the misdirection around the events of 9/11.

Why?

Because it is obvious. If it is still difficult to accept the fact that our agencies of public health would exaggerate the safety and efficacy of the Covid shots because crack science writers for the NYTimes would have exposed them, an open look at 9/11 will turn your head around.

The movement for 9/11 Truth is central to all movements which challenge scientific orthodoxy. However attacking the official story of those events has always been a calculated risk. That risk isn’t what it was a few years ago. These days backing the official 9/11 story comes with serious liability to your credibility.

Why is this happening? It’s because big influencers have gone rogue and are unafraid to call it like it is. If we lived in a world driven by facts the wars following 9/11 would have never happened and we wouldn’t have shut the world down for two years over a biological threat that had a vanishingly small risk of death for the vast majority of people. Neither would we have insisted that several billion people expose themselves to a dangerous injectable over and over.

Love him or hate him, it is impossible to ignore voices like Tucker Carlson’s who command the attention of more people than corporate funded propaganda machines. Here he is sitting down with comedian Jimmy Dore breaking down the biggest lies coming from our government and the “free press”:

At minute 17, Dore talks about Noam Chomsky, the rational voice of the intelligentsia and his absurd defense of the official 9/11 account. Dore, who is also Covid “vaccine” injured, later explains the danger of trusting the experts.

Why does an independent journalist and a comedian have the power to upend public opinion? It’s because of the seeds that have been planted by the relentless efforts of organizations like CHD and the International Center for 9/11 justice.

Please leave your comments.

Subscribe now

Earlier this year I published two articles (here and here) on Cancer and our meager results in treating it despite hundreds of billions of dollars spent each year on research and pharmaceuticals. In summary, the medical establishment continues to focus treatment on a genetic etiology of cancer, the Somatic Mutation Theory (SMT), despite obvious clues that cancer is more a metabolic phenomenon than anything else.

I became interested in this topic several years ago when I become aware of several simple, elegant and reproducible experiments conducted decades ago which clearly indicated that the primary driver of cancer was in the cytoplasm of the cell, not the nucleus.

When the nucleus of a cancerous animal cell line was transplanted into a healthy cell, the new hybrid cell remained healthy. When the nucleus of a cancerous cell was removed and replaced by the nucleus of a healthy cell, the cell remained cancerous. The obvious and logical conclusion was that the driver of cancer, what ever it is, resides in the cytoplasm of the cell, not the nucleus.

Why then was the medical establishment focused on agents that targeted the nucleus?

Yes, yes, I know, follow the money. But why aren’t more oncologists interested in these basic findings?

I know some readers will not be pleased when I assert that these doctors aren’t intentionally doing things that don’t work in order to make a living. I simply don’t believe that because some of my best friends from medical school are oncologists. They are great human beings and care deeply about their profession and their patients. I understand that they have been living and practicing in echo chambers, but these folks have always been curious about everything.

Only one of my three oncologist buddies had heard of the competing theory behind cancer: dysregulated cellular metabolism. In his own personal experience, one of his patients chose to treat his cancer with diet modification (not chemo) and succumbed quickly to his disease. Why look any further?

I can think of at least two reasons beyond the simple experiments which hint that the problem is not in the nucleus of the cell.

The first is in the graph above. That is the crude mortality rates of cancer over 22 of the last twenty six years. There are two important things to note from the graph:

• The number of people per 100k who die of cancer each year has barely budged downward despite the fact that smoking has declined and screening for cancer has been aggressive during this time frame. It is thus very likely that the modest improvement (about 8% over 22 years) is due largely to those reasons and not from any significant improvement in treatment effectiveness.

• The data in that graph has not been age adjusted. When we examine the number of people per 100K who die from cancer at a given age, there has been a 23% improvement. In other words, people with cancer are surviving longer. That is generally how the field self-assesses. What interests me was how challenging it was to find this data. I had to query the CDC’s cancer database to produce that graph. We are half way through 2026 and the CDC has not populated its database with numbers after 2021? How odd (more about this below).

The second is that advances in genetic tumor mapping, including deep sequencing of tumors from a single patient show a wide range of genetic mutations. This suggests that the gene mutations are either an incidental finding or the result of a different process that drives tumor growth.

The point is that progress in cancer treatment is demonstrably meager and that breakthroughs in genetic sequencing which were expected to lead to the identification of oncogenes hasn’t panned out.

Here are some opinions from people who know more about this than I do.

Thomas Seyfried, PhD

Last month I attended a Brownstone “Supper Club” talk by one of the most informed researchers of the metabolic theory of cancer, Thomas Seyfried. The audience were mostly laypersons and Seyfried offered no more than general comments about what he has discovered through his research:

• Cancer cells have defective mitochondria and must rely heavily on the fermentation of glucose to meet their large demands for energy to divide frequently. It is this markedly increased glucose demand which allows the use of PET scans to find “hot spots” in the body of patients suspected of having metastatic disease.

• This defect can be utilized by therapy regimens which use strict control of glucose intake through ketogenic diets. Seyfried claims that this approach is more effective in managing cancer than conventional methods. He is not a medical doctor and to my knowledge has not published large case series and results of his approach.

• Seyfried’s research has also identified a problem with cancer cells’ ability to use glutamine. This explains the recent interest in anti-parasitic drugs like mebendezole, which is thought to interfere with this pathway as well as glucose uptake.

• And of course, he continues his research solely on private donations. NIH does not want to fund work that seeks cancer treatment in the form of diet modification and cheap repurposed medicines.

Dr. Paul Marik

Paul Marik, MD is a doctor’s doctor. His clinical experience treating patients in medical crises is unsurpassed. He has published over 500 peer-reviewed articles. I was in my third year of residency doing rotations in the Surgical ICU at UPENN when his “Handbook of Evidence Based Critical Care”, a goldmine of information and insights for residents learning to manage ICU patients, was published. I consider him to be one of my teachers.

Briefly,

• From 2002 to 2006, Marik was on the Editorial Board of the reputable medical journal Chest.

• In 2005, Marik was named Director of Pulmonary and Critical Care at Jefferson Medical College (JMC) and Thomas Jefferson University Hospital.

• In 2009, Marik became a professor and Chief of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School.

• In 2012, an international committee updated guidelines for the management of severe sepsis and septic shock. In its section of supportive therapy recommendations, the committee based its concept on blood product administrations partly on research performed by Marik and W. Sibbald in 1993.

• In 2017, Marik won the American College of Physicians award for outstanding educator of residents and fellows.

• Marik is a co-founder of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC).

Marik held Board Certifications in four fields: Internal Medicine, Critical Care Medicine, Nutrition Science and Neurocritical Care. In 2024 the American Board of Internal Medicine revoked all of his Board Certifications because of his outspoken view that Covid-19 could be successfully treated with repurposed drugs.

A highly regarded physician scientist and clinical instructor with an impeccable record who pioneered breakthroughs gets defrocked for breaking ranks. His story is perhaps the best evidence that the system is BROKEN. It is not being led by science; it’s led by scientism. I invite you to read his story in his own words here:

Paul Marik

What COVID Taught Me About Medicine

This post steps away from my usual focus on cancer and metabolic disease and instead shares a deeply personal story: how I was pushed out of clinical medicine. COVID forced me to confront just how profoundly—and, at times, deliberately—dysfunctional our medical system has become. What began as unease at guidelines and hospital policies evolved into the …

Read more

3 months ago · 183 likes · 74 comments · Cancer & Metabolic Healing

Dr. Marik was recently interviewed by Dr. Meryl Nass on CHD TV where he explained the basics around the etiology and management of cancer using diet and habit modification, repurposed drugs, exercise, sunshine and nutraceuticals here:

Drs. Marik and Nass talk cancer

Marik agrees with Thomas Seyfried. Cancer is primarily a metabolic condition. Marik writes extensively on his approach on his substack newsletter, “Cancer and Metabolic Healing”.

Stan Burzinsky, MD

Dr. Stan Burzinsky was a physician and biochemist and stumbled upon a family of peptides that were present in healthy individuals and suspiciously absent in folks with cancer.

After ensuring he was not breaking any Texas laws at that time, he began treating patients in Houston in the 1980’s--patients who had exhausted all forms of treatment, typically for highly aggressive brain cancers. He had remarkable success using these peptides which he was able to synthesize and purify.

A documentary of his successes and tribulations can be found on YouTube here (thank you to the reader who alerted me to this story):

While the documentary does not delve into the biochemistry of these peptides which he called antineoplastons, the story is more about the ridiculous and irrational efforts the FDA and NCI (National Cancer Institute) made to discredit him.

The film does an excellent job of documenting the wide support this doctor had from his patients and ranking members of Congressional investigatory subcommittees while the USG (FDA) continued to convene multiple grand juries even though not a single indictment ever resulted. Burzynski even made it on to the national talk show circuit at the time.

There is very credible testimony given by NCI scientists and cancer researchers from different countries who validate the effectiveness and safety of his protocol. Eventually, the FDA decided to conduct Phase II trials with only a subset of his cocktail, under-dosed the participants and “proved” no benefit.

Coincidentally, the intense law fare waged against him was peaking in Houston, TX when and where I was a medical student at Baylor College of Medicine. I was unaware of it at the time.

I asked Thomas Seyfried about Burzynski and antineoplastons. Seyfried believes these peptides also exert their effect by interfering with glutamine synthesis.

Angus Dalgleish, MD

Dr. Dalgleish was elected a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences in 2001 and is also a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Pathologists and a Fellow of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians.

Though not opining on the metabolic theory of cancer, Dalgleish appeared in front of a Senate Subcommittee last week investigating the evidence tying Covid modRNA vaccines to cancer. He offered his observations in sworn testimony.

He first noted that his melanoma patients who had been in remission for years had a resurgence of their cancers following inoculation with the modRNA boosters. Knowing that melanoma is fought off by T-Cells, he hypothesized that the boosters were suppressing them.

Then a paper published in 2022, “Evidence of exhausted lymphocytes after the third anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose in cancer patients” confirmed his suspicions. Although T-Cell activity increased after the primary series, the boosters had the opposite effect. Moreover, it then became apparent that the “vaccine” resulted in immunoglobulin “switching” making the immune system “tolerant” of infection, rather than responsive to it.

Soon after he was notified by several medical colleagues, colorectal surgeons, that they were seeing young patients (in their 20’s and 30’s) with late stage colorectal cancer. The common finding: all had received modRNA boosters.

He has since discovered that there are multiple plausible mechanisms by which the modRNA products could be carcinogenic. Moreover, the spike protein is “80% homologous to human epitopes”. In other words, an immune response to the spike can result in an attack on our own tissues. He had predicted early on that the shots would result in an autoimmune response in some people. He believes that this technology is extremely dangerous and emphatically concluded:

“There is no way you can control this technology, and its use for further vaccines should be banned and the Covid ones stopped now.”

On the other hand…

The subcommittee also heard from Dr. Julie R. Gralow. Gralow is the Chief Medical Officer and Executive Vice President of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). She is also the founder of the Women's Empowerment Cancer Advocacy Network (WE CAN), and a co-founder of Team Survivor Northwest. She was formerly the Jill Bennett Endowed Professor of Breast Medical Oncology at the University of Washington.

Dr. Gralow referred to observational studies which showed oncology patients fared better after the modRNA shots. She further opined that the technology offers a promising platform for future cancer treatment by training the immune system to recognize tumor markers.

Gralow, despite her credentials, then demonstrated a stunning lack of understanding of the basics. Subcommittee Chair, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), asked her if she thought that the modRNA in the shots was the same as endogenous messenger RNA in our cells. Her response:

“That is my understanding.”

Johnson informed her that it wasn’t. A pseudouridine substitution in the Covid mRNA prevents its rapid degradation. This discovery was, in fact, the basis for awarding two researchers the 2023 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

This “breakthrough” is also the source of the technology’s inherent danger. Cells respond to their environment and needs by translating messenger RNA into proteins which in turn drive chemical reactions. The product of these reactions in turn shut down the reaction. It is a negative feedback loop. This ensures that a cellular response will be rapid and sensitive to a changing environment. This sensitivity is dependent on the rapid degradation of the mRNA. The modified RNA in the Covid shots which do not degrade immediately drive spike protein synthesis indefinitely. There is no “off switch”. This, as Senator Johnson made clear, was not widely known at the time that the public was urged to get them.

Was Dr. Gralow under the impression that the modRNA infused lipid nanoparticles remain at the injection site?

“I cannot reliably comment on that.”

Was she aware of the biodistribution studies which demonstrated that the LNPs migrated throughout the bodies of rats?

Says Gralow: “What happens in mice doesn’t necessarily happen in humans.” Quite the dispositive statement from a person who cannot reliably comment on the matter.

Who do you believe has it right?

I highly recommend watching the subcommittee hearing from last week here.

Please leave your comments.

Subscribe now

Somewhere there is a bit of evidence that could incontrovertibly debunk half of the “safe and effective” fantasy. The evidence is in the form of a few lines of code used by CDC statisticians to calculate vaccine effectiveness.

If that is the case, a couple of keystrokes is all it will take to correct the record.

Earlier this week I published an open letter to HHS Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. It predictably received a mixed response. I can understand why some believe he has an obligation to remain (ostensibly) in charge of public health while he can.

Others interpreted my missive as a condemnation of his tenure and a demand for his resignation. It wasn’t. It was an invitation for him to take a step back and consider what exactly it would take to have a true referendum on the topic of vaccines if doctors and their medical organizations have a Pavlovian response to any information that smells like it has passed through his or his appointees’ hands.

How can we expect that he can dismantle the Childhood Vaccine Injury act of 1986 if merely dropping recommendations for the Hepatitis B vaccine at birth draws immediate blowback from the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) and a rabid takedown from MSM sources like WaPo? Here were a few of their stories on the matter:

“The Biggest Shift in US Vaccine Policy”

“The CDC’s next anti-vaccine clown show is coming”

“The CDC’s change to hepatitis B vaccination is even worse than it seems”

“RFK Jr’s vaccine advisers plan biggest change yet to childhood schedule”

Apparently delaying the recommendation for a vaccine for just two months after birth is an “anti-vaccine clown show”.

I am certainly not aware of all of the landmines he is tiptoeing around while trying to make lasting policy changes, but I do know what is happening on the ground through my conversations with doctors, some of whom I have known for over 25 years.

Just the mention of “Kennedy” sets off a subroutine in their programming. Eyes roll. Ears go deaf. Knowing smiles are exchanged between anyone in earshot of a conversation about him. I can accept that this happens in many places, but in a physicians’ lounge? Where is the curiosity? Where are the good-faith conversations between people with medical training who are friends??

(If you would like to see such an exchange, I invite you to go to the comments on my Facebook post about the open letter—and feel free to send a friend request!)

In other words, whatever modest policy changes he can make will surely be overturned once the next figurehead takes his place. If he cannot make any major changes why not come back and lead the charge as a private citizen like he was doing before? Tens of millions gathered around him to form the MAHA coalition which, in my opinion, has lost its way now that its leader has had to watch his tongue and make concessions that were inconceivable one year ago.

Is there anything he could do to permanently change the narrative? I believe there is.

There IS something which he can do now that might change Everything

Yesterday I had a “friendly” exchange with Dr. Jerome Adams on X. Adams is a former Surgeon General of the United States and, coincidentally, an anesthesiologist like me. Adams “respectfully” told me on the X platform that I “demonstrate a lack of understanding about the virus’s biology and our tools at the time” because I pointed out the futility and danger of vaccinating a few billion people with a product, which for the overwhelming majority of people did at best, little more than mask symptoms of Covid-19.

What, I asked him, would be the result of creating a population of people who were not protected from infection but could spread it because they didn’t know they were sick?? Isn’t it obvious that we were creating a population of superspreaders?

He told me I was wrong because

“Real-world data showed a 70–97% reduction in infection for Pfizer/Moderna against original/Alpha”

This is where any meaningful discussion comes to an end. Dr. Adams and most medical professionals trust the data coming from health agencies around the world. Heterodox opinions around vaccines, especially the Covid shots, are considered flippant (and irresponsible) primarily because they contradict the best evidence we have. This is what Jerome means by “real-world data”. Why even bother to have a conversation with someone who denies reality?

“You are a doctor who doesn’t believe data? You must be delusional. Your license should be suspended…”

The problem is that our only window into how a large population is faring as a whole comes from agencies of public health. Few medical professionals challenge the integrity of CDC scientists. Even if they did, how could they prove them wrong? They have the data, not anyone else.

This is where Mr. Kennedy comes in.

The obfuscation around the “reduction in infection” offered by the shots comes from the calculation of vaccine effectiveness, which is effectively a comparison of infection rates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population at any given time.

I wouldn’t expect a former Surgeon General of the United States to question data coming from the CDC. In regard to Covid shot effectiveness, most people who consider themselves well informed confidently accepted the claims that they were protecting the public from the jump. Why? Because they trusted what they were told in the fall of 2020 when a miraculous “vaccine” developed at “warp speed” was proven “safe and effective” by a “massive” double blinded, randomized, placebo controlled trial.

95% efficacy in preventing symptomatic Covid-19 infection? A true medical miracle. Science saves. Trust it! (or else). Why would anyone who believed the trial results question the “real world data” when it became available?

“See? I’m glad I got the jab! You should too!”

Readers of this newsletter (and many others on this platform) are aware of the rampant issues with the Pfizer/BioNtech modRNA trial. Among the most glaring problems with that trial was that investigators only tested 1 in 20 people who came down with Covid-19 symptoms. And, of those who expressed Covid symptoms in the trial, the unvaccinated outnumbered the vaccinated by only 10% . The public thought they were buying a miracle measure but instead were sold a lemon (read more here).

Those who were already aware of the misdirection, on the other hand, did not hesitate to dismiss the “real world data” which purportedly proved stunning protection against a rapidly evolving corona virus. The question is, how does one prove the data wrong?

Three years ago I looked into how the CDC was determining who was included in the pool of vaccinated and who wasn’t. They were (and still are) dividing people into three groups, not two. The vaccinated, the unvaccinated and the partially vaccinated. The last group were the folks that received their primary series within the last 14 days.

How were the “partially vaccinated” doing (if there is really such a thing to begin with)? If the CDC made the effort to treat them separately, why not report on their Covid infection rates? Or better yet, report on their all cause mortality. Isn’t that the best way to know if there was a small but immediate risk of death soon after getting jabbed?

The CDC wasn’t interested in knowing (or letting us know) about such matters. But my question was, were they including Covid outcomes among the partially vaccinated in their derivation of week to week Vaccine Effectiveness?

They did not.

They were explicit in defining what constitutes a case among the vaccinated. From the CDC:

Vaccinated case with a primary series: SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen detected in a respiratory specimen collected ≥14 days after verifiably completing the primary series of an FDA-authorized or approved COVID-19 vaccine.

Any Covid outcomes (infections/deaths) among the partially vaccinated did not count against the vaccine. They must have therefore excluded the partially vaccinated from the pool of vaccinated, right?

When I scoured their website to confirm this, I noticed that they were being vague. Though they explicitly said that the population was divided into three groups and outcomes in the partially vaccinated were not included among the population of vaccinated, they weren’t so clear when telling us who was included in the vaccinated population.

Here is a screenshot from their website at the time:

“Weekly age-specific incidence rates by vaccination status were calculated as the number of cases or deaths divided by the number of people vaccinated with a primary series, overall…”

Did the “number of people vaccinated with a primary series, overall” include the partially vaccinated? Why didn’t they say “number of people vaccinated 14 days or more previously”? What do they mean by “overall”?

Is it possible that they were excluding cases in the partially vaccinated while including the partially vaccinated in the vaccinated population? The inclusion of the partially vaccinated among the pool of vaccinated while excluding any cases in that population artificially creates vaccine effectiveness where none exists.

There are three reasons why I became increasingly suspicious:

1. They explicitly define a “vaccinated case” but vaguely explain who is included in the pool of vaccinated people.

2. It is peculiar that they never reported the incidence of cases/deaths in the partially vaccinated. If they were dividing the population into three groups, why not tell us the week to week infection rate among the partially vaccinated too? It’s just simple division and interesting information could be gleaned from it. After all, in order to be considered “fully vaccinated” one must first be “partially vaccinated”.

3. I sent several written requests to the CDC asking for clarification. Several days later I received a response. They didn’t answer my simple question. Rather, in order to receive a response they insisted that I send a link to the page on their website where the vagary appeared. The page had been removed.

What’s the big deal? Would it really make a difference? It could.

For example, if this was what they were doing, this means that for the first two weeks of the vaccination campaign the vaccine effectiveness would be reported as 100% because the only cases counted would be those among the unvaccinated. Recall that Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) is defined as:

If vaccine uptake remained constant, two weeks later the infection rate among the vaccinated would be reported as half of what it really was. Distortion would persist until vaccine uptake approached zero. As long as people were still lining up to get the shot, the incidence of cases/deaths among the vaccinated would be artificially lower, making the effectiveness artificially higher. The exaggeration of vaccine effectiveness would be the greatest early on, when the “fully vaccinated” population was low and comparable to the “partially vaccinated”.

I offered a detailed explanation here:

How big a difference would it have made? The key finding is this:

Given the known week to week uptake of the primary series, this is what a vaccine with zero effectiveness (i.e. a placebo) would have looked like over time if the CDC was doing what I suspect. Notice how it matches what the public was told over the first nine months.

January 2021: “It’s 100% effective! Don’t hesitate!”

March 2021: “Effectiveness is waning but it is still highly effective! Get your shots now and have a Krispy Kreme donut on us!”

July 2021: “We always knew that boosters would be necessary…”

What if the shots weren’t as good as we were told?

At this point, we still don’t know if the CDC’s stats throughout the pandemic were accurate. The 14 day exclusion criteria was applied to those getting boosted as well. Was the CDC including them in the pool of boosted while excluding their outcomes? Is that why the “real world data” proved that the boosters were so effective too?

Then we have this paradox:

This is a graph from the UKHSA (UK Health Security Agency) showing us the unadjusted rates of Covid infection between vaccinated and unvaccinated people in September, 2021, the time where US health authorities urged the population to get their first booster. While Americans were told their primary series was “waning”, the UK data shows that the risk of infection was higher if vaccinated.

This data, though age stratified, does not adjust for any confounders. In other words, there could be several reasons why the vaccinated were faring worse. It is also possible that the vaccine was interfering with our immune systems making us more susceptible to acquiring Covid-19.

Which was it? We don’t know. That is the problem with trusting “Real World Data” like Dr. Jerome Adams does. However, something very suspicious happened over the next few months. If the effectiveness of the vaccine dwindled to zero in the UK and we are seeing the effect of confounders only, things should have stayed about the same. But by March of 2022, this is what the UKHSA was reporting:

Yes. It’s hard to see. They no longer put things into an easy to see graphic. Here’s the data in an equivalent format:

The results should be eye opening. In nearly every age group the infection rates among the unvaccinated are three to five times lower than in those who were vaccinated and boosted. It’s impossible that any confounding could account for this huge difference.

This was the last time the UKHSA ever reported infection rates between the two groups.

Here’s a question for you, Dr. Adams, how could the primary series and boosters be highly effective in preventing infection in the US but associated with skyrocketing infection rates in the UK?

Somebody’s “real world” data is corrupt.

I suspect the UKHSA got it right and we didn’t. Why else would they stop reporting on this metric while our CDC never broke stride touting the benefits of being up to date with Covid boosters?

Conclusion

Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) is measured in real-time as a vaccine is deployed across a population. When properly measured, it conveys the protective benefit of a vaccine by comparing the incidence of infection among the vaccinated to that among the unvaccinated.

There is ample reason to believe the CDC inflated the VE throughout the pandemic. It would have had three effects:

1. People were more compelled to get vaccinated because of the inflated benefit

2. If vaccine uptake remains high, this magnifies and perpetuates the distortion because the more people who are in the pipeline to get vaccinated the more VE is inflated (people in the pipeline are the “partially vaccinated”)

3. VE is a key metric used to model “lives saved”.

While Covid shot proponents insist they were safe by ignoring the hundreds of thousands of serious adverse event reports in VAERS, the discussion invariably turns to effectiveness:

“The adverse events in VAERS are not confirmed! We KNOW that they saved millions of lives!”

But do we really? “Lives saved” is not a measurable quantity; it is derived from modeling which relies on an accurate week to week VE.

Mr. Secretary, if you are reading this, I am asking for some transparency around the CDC’s methodology. Millions of record level data do not have to be uploaded for scrutiny. Safety studies do not have to be reworked and released so that they can be predictably and frivolously attacked by the medical establishment. Vaults do not have to be pried open so that secret documents can be distributed and subsequently lost.

Somewhere there is a bit of evidence that could incontrovertibly debunk half of the “safe and effective” fantasy. The evidence is in the form of a few lines of code used by CDC statisticians to calculate vaccine effectiveness.

If that is the case, a couple of keystrokes is all it will take to correct the record. “Lives saved” can easily be recalculated using an accurate VE for each group and time window. There will be no counter arguments, there will be no “expert opinion” that can defend such an error.

I urge you to bring this to the attention of your staff. It may result in only a small adjustment. Even so, a lot of people may begin to question their decision to trust the experts who apparently can’t get arithmetic right.

Please leave your comments.

Subscribe now

Dear Secretary Kennedy,

When the US Senate confirmed you as the 27th Secretary of the Department of Health and Human services last February, the newly formed “MAHA” coalition was energized. It was a testament to the political capital the President wielded at that time.

Those who have been following your work and leadership at the World Mercury Project and its evolution into Children’s Health Defense were perhaps more stunned than anything else. Few who were truly familiar with the formidable influence of Big-Pharma interests and depth of the agency capture at the HHS and its subdivisions could have expected such an abrupt upheaval around the authority governing public health in this country.

While many in our camp hoped for proper pre-licensure vaccine safety testing, the repeal of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, a major overhaul of the vaccine adverse event reporting systems, the repeal of the PREP act, etc., I had more modest expectations.

I am a physician and former senior science editor for the Defender, the online CHD newsletter. I have since returned to my practice and presently work with medical professionals on a daily basis. They are and always have been well-intending, highly educated and, tragically, deeply programmed individuals. Few, if any of them, would ever accept such reformations coming from a “Kennedy HHS”. I know because I interact with them every day.

I anticipated that our own medical organizations would rally to thwart any action that attacked the mystique of vaccines and their purported history of miraculously improving public health. The medical establishment is patiently waiting for the next administration to appoint another figurehead to do the bidding of the Pharma Industrial complex and restore the status quo.

A true referendum on vaccines, THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE for nearly everyone in the MAHA camp, will never be a top down initiative. It is and always will be a grass-roots, bottom up movement. This should be evident by now if it wasn’t already.

Preserving your Credibility is Essential

While some of your supporters are now questioning your motives and intentions, others who are familiar with and admire your long record of diligently examining and critiquing the evidence of vaccine harm, inadequate safety regulation and rampant agency capture believe that your hands have been tied by an administration that doesn’t really serve the health of the American people. I have never questioned your motives.

On the other hand, by issuing a PREP (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness) declaration last week for the antiviral drug, favipiravir in response to the recent outbreak of the Andes strain of Hantavirus, you are demonstrating an inexplicable lapse in sensibility. The extreme legal protection granted under the PREP declaration to anyone using this demonstrably dangerous drug is unjustified and arguably unconstitutional.

The Andes strain does not pose a biological threat to our national security. Moreover, physicians can already prescribe this medicine for off-label use if they wish. Through the power which you solely possess as HHS Secretary you have effectively increased risk to patients by eliminating any risk to prescribers. This is precisely what Alex Azar, one of your predecessors did on February 4, 2020, with regard to future countermeasures (i.e. modRNA shots) against SARS-COV2 before there was a single death from Covid-19 in this country. This is why the immense and yet to be fully appreciated damage to the health of potentially millions of people from the Covid shots will to continue to be ignored. If cases are never adjudicated, the system will not acknowledge them.

This declaration, though limited in scope, is medically and ethically indefensible in my opinion. Given the extremely limited number of potential cases and questionable effectiveness of the drug, the declaration offers benefit to no one and only jeopardizes your credibility amongst many.

Resigning is NOT Conceding Defeat. It’s a Path to Victory

We all have learned something through this year-long experiment. The experiment, for all practical purposes, has come to an end. It is time for you to resign and return to leading the movement which you brought into public discourse like no other has done before you.

How, you may ask, will a swath of passionate, well-informed citizens with no executive power or institutional authority upend a Pharma complex with staggering resources and tentacles which penetrate the media, editorial boards of the most venerated medical journals, medical organizations, politics and even their own regulatory bodies?

Answer: It must come through physicians themselves. Once they change their minds the CDC and their medical organizations will no longer hold sway over the way medicine is practiced in this country. This is a necessary step and an unavoidable reality.

At this moment this may seem impossible, but it isn’t. Even the most pro-vaccine doctor is trained and obligated to listen to their patients in the privacy of their office. As an anesthesiologist I interview dozens of patients daily. I regularly meet patients who express deep skepticism around the safety of the Covid shots they “chose” to take. They have been waiting for the medical establishment to validate what they have experienced: a decline, sometimes a precipitous one, in their own health or the health of someone they know following repeated exposure to modRNA technology. This unfortunate and tragic situation also offers people the space to seriously question the evidence (or lack thereof) which supports the CDC’s childhood immunization schedule.

Patients, through a sacred relationship with their doctors, will have to push them to defend their opinion on the topic. As we both know, the truth and the evidence is on our side, not theirs. Doctors need to be forced to look harder. Nobody else but their own patients can impel them to do that. It is the only way.

This means we need a well-informed public and body politic. This will take time. Your voice is necessary. At this moment your influence over public opinion is trammelled by your association with the current administration. This has been immediately apparent and painful to witness.

You fulfilled your end of your political agreement by endorsing President Trump. Your endorsement arguably granted him the majority of the popular vote in the last election. This was a major boon to the present administration. Your support effectively gave the President a mandate to enforce his entire political agenda. Your supporters, who likely number in the tens of millions, would like you to move on, cease with the calculated flattery of our Commander-in-Chief and return to saying it like it is. That is what we voted for.

I urge you to act strategically once again. Resigning as Secretary of Health and Human Services will send a clear message to the millions of American citizens whose eyes are open that the fight to preserve the health of our children has reached the next stage.

There is very little to be gained by remaining in the President’s cabinet for another day even if you’ve been promised more freedom “to go wild on health and medicines” in the future. Doctors don’t trust their own eyes—and they trust you even less. That will not change in two years, especially if you stay where you are. You can never reach doctors until you reach their patients.

There is, however, much to be gained from leaving the HHS, but only if it is on your own terms. Your resignation will energize the movement, a movement that was never political and always based solely in the pursuit of the truth for the greater good.

Public skepticism around vaccine science and safety is growing. A recent survey from the highly regarded Annenberg Public Policy Center demonstrates that the public is presently equally divided between vaccine proponents and skeptics (see graphic below). In terms of public opinion, the momentum is on our side. That’s what the numbers show. That’s what I see in my clinical practice.

Your term as a public servant is finite. Leave with your integrity intact. You are going to need it more than anything else if you are serious about fixing the pediatric chronic disease epidemic.

Sincerely,

Madhava Setty, MD

Subscribe now

Former cabal money man, Ronald Bernard, offers a coherent explanation of the essential mechanisms which are necessary to enslave a world secretly.

Bernard is a whistleblower. What is whistleblowing?

First, a person exposes a scheme from the inside. In order to do that, they break ranks, smuggle photocopies of documented “evidence” of the scheme to an intrepid journalist who, after some deliberation with their editor, pitches the story to the higher ups who give the go ahead to print it, and the public becomes aware of the scheme. This is a crucial step. The validity of the evidence and the integrity of the whistleblower is established by journalists first.

The authorities take action. Investigations are launched. Parties responsible are subpoenaed and brought to justice. The system is cleaned up. The journalist gets a Pulitzer. The newspaper that broke the story gains credibility and expands their readership and profits. The whistleblower is no longer employed but they can sleep with a clean conscience and can make their rounds on the daytime talkshow circuit where they are lauded for their integrity and encouraged to write a book. The public is reassured that the system is once again serving and protecting them.

If you think that is how the world works, I would suggest reading no further. Go back to the NY Times and let the Ochs-Sulzberger family dynasty tell you what is really going on and test your understanding of current events and history by playing “Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me” on NPR this weekend. It’s fun! I used to do it all the time.

*Note: Though NPR touts itself as largely listener supported, the biggest financial contributions actually come from corporate sponsors. Like Times readers, NPR listeners are highly educated and skewed to the political left. This is also true of its own editorial staff—an object of concern for once senior NPR editor Uri Berliner who publicly expressed his concerns in a refreshing essay published on The Free Press two years ago.

My point is that if there was a conspiracy to enslave the common person it would not be exposed through the channels smart people rely upon. Those channels are owned by, or are in the business of defending those who would necessarily be part of a top down system of control.

Here are two essential and undeniable points to consider before moving on:

1. Corporate media decides who is a whistleblower and who is a crank seeking attention by telling a false tale. Legacy media is owned by and/or serve powerful people and interests yet the public turns to them to tell them what is a conspiracy and what is a conspiracy theory.

2. Ultimately deciding what is true requires trust in a third party. How do you choose who to trust? One must trust oneself to decide. Trust in your gumption and sensibilities. Trust in your intuition.

I propose that the world is being run by a heretofore unidentified group of individuals outside of oversight and accountability. Dismissing this out of hand is an insult to my intuition. If there were a cabal that has been running the planet we can make some reasonable assumptions about them.

The group must be small because the bigger the group, the greater the chance of a defection or detection.

The group must be secret. There is little chance they could maintain their control for very long otherwise. Every disaster and its mismanagement would be blamed on those in charge and they would be ousted from power when these things inevitably happen. Notice that is exactly what happens every election cycle. This is the illusion of self-governance.

Running the world takes a lot of people in many different fields of expertise. This means that those who the public think is in charge are only figureheads doing the bidding of those in the shadows with the real power. This means that the Anthony Faucis, the Klaus Schwabs, the Jerome Powells, the António Guterres’, the Trumps, the Putins and yes, even the Netanyahus of the world are expendable to those on top—the real top. That is something worth considering for a moment.

But why wouldn’t such publicly known people at the heads of institutions and government wielding tremendous executive power and privilege expose those above them from time to time?

Yes, they are benefiting tremendously from the arrangement, especially if they are obsessed with amassing billions of dollars in wealth, leaving a permanent mark in history, seeing their name in print everyday or, in the case of Bibi and Sarah Netanyahu, crates of fine wine, diamond bracelets and boxes of Cubans (cigars, not people).

There are obviously sticks that go with the carrots. Blackmail. The threat of an assassination or even worse. But surely those with that kind of lust for power who sit in thrones, stand in pulpits and hold press conferences in oval shaped offices would only be content for so long before they would be driven mad knowing that they were taking orders from someone else, right?

Absolute security for those at the very top, those in the “Golden Triangle” in the image above, is only possible if they cannot be identified by any means available to the publicly elected, selected and appointed officials whom the public believe are in charge. There must be another layer, a veneer of operatives bound by a commitment to preserving and protecting the biggest secret on the planet. An omartà like none other. This group of go-betweens and those they represent, if they exist, must be quite unique indeed. They are content to remain anonymous and silent while being wholly committed to a system that exploits billions of human beings.

I have never met anyone like that before. If such people exist we would never know about them directly. We would have to deduce it.

Ronald Bernard’s Story

Bernard’s account is credible to me because it aligns with what can be deduced. He explains the basics in part 2 of a six part interview recorded in 2023:

Briefly, he was born in the Netherlands to two parents who suffered great emotional trauma when they were children. His father abused his mother and him. He became an extremely violent child and caught the attention of his teachers and higher ups. His mother agreed to place him in a Catholic “safe house”. That is where the real abuse began.

He emerged even more traumatized but committed to supporting his mother, by then divorced and destitute, by running street hustles. He was very street smart and opportunistic. He learned quickly how to manipulate, and how to detect manipulation. His street cred caught the eye of powerful people who regarded him as a potentially high value asset to the global operation. He was smart, ruthless, consumed with rapacious greed and most importantly as he explains, deeply psychologically traumatized.

He was recruited by a powerful “deep state” financier who took him under his wing and taught him about some of the ways to create substantial wealth for high value clients by circumventing a regulatory system that trammelled the average person.

As he rose through the ranks he was invited to “parties” involving debauchery, sexual abuse (of adults only) and access to “anything you wanted”. Apparently participants are exposed to increasing levels of depravity. His association with this dark world broke after he had a near death experience when forced to participate in a child sacrifice ritual.

During this mystical and transforming event he claims he was able to see the complete trajectory of his life and where he was headed. Afterwards he believed that the only sane and compassionate thing to do was to take his own life, to prevent any further harm to others. In his mind, it was an act of grace which gave him the power to self-forgive and begin a new life devoted to the liberation of humanity.

I think the six part interview, which you can access here, is worth watching.

Part 1: How my first life started to develop

Part 2: The deep insights gained from my first life

Part 3, We only see a part of the spectrum of life

Part 4, Approaching crossroads of history and future

Part 5: Liberation and benefits for the people

Part 6, The first steps towards true peace

Key Takeaways from his story

(1) Controlling “the world” must involve, at the very least, a rigged financial system.

As the graphic at the top of the article indicates, all life is widely distributed upon our planet. There is no reason to believe that life would not continue if there was no hierarchical system of authority in control. Nevertheless we have one which divides us through various forms of government and the laws which they ostensibly abide.

Most people have lived their lives under some form of government. For them, that is how it is and how it has always been. Government sits above the people. Many folks look no further and are content with the idea that a government for, of and by the people is as close to an idyllic situation as possible. They buy the idea that installing such governments around the world is a reasonable investment that liberates people and reduces “threats to democracy”.

However, it is quite obvious that in this country, the overwhelming majority of those we choose to represent us really don’t. They serve special interests and powerful corporations. They sit above government in the pyramid. This is proven to the public with each election cycle, but we continue to believe that things will change if we just get the right person into office. “Don’t forget to vote!”

These multinational corporations in turn serve others, their shareholders which include the big banks which fund their enterprises. Large banking institutions thus sit above them.

These large banks play by the rules set forth by another form of institution, the central bank of the country in which they reside. Most people in this country (and those who ostensibly represent our interests) are completely unaware of the power these central banks wield over us. Through their unique authority to manage the supply of the money we use as the means of exchanging value, they indirectly control our lives.

Gone are the days when a regional despot sends his goons to extract taxes from peasants to fund his army or the construction of a bigger wall. Today control over the products of our blood, sweat and tears is maintained by our “agreement” to use a currency which has fluctuating value that is dependent upon how much of it is around. “Agreement” is a euphemism for “by decree”. You must use and honor the state’s currency if you want to participate in society. Hence the term “fiat currency”.

The system appears innocuous until one realizes that these central banks have the power to expand a country’s monetary supply to meet its government’s need to fund projects like wars and pandemic responses. Roughly one quarter of the $39 trillion dollar US debt is presently owned by central banks which are themselves private, quasi-non profit entities. The Federal Reserve and other central banks “purchased” $8 trillion dollars of US debt by creating these dollars on the fly.

The unavoidable consequence of expanding the monetary supply to pay for funding governmental deficits is currency devaluation which the public calls “inflation”. The central banks of the world make no secret of the fact that they seek to maintain a constant currency devaluation of about 2% per year. If you think you are working harder and harder every year, you are right. Virtually all of humanity presently lives in societies which use currency controlled by a central bank. Thus, they occupy the highest rungs on the ladder of control.

(2) The cabal seeks to recruit intelligent and manipulative people who are, at their core, deeply traumatized.

Trauma is what can irreparably destroy a person’s humanity, their acknowledgement and appreciation of others’ worth and suffering. While we commonly regard those who willingly participate in such schemes as evil, Ronald Bernard explains that their maniacal selfishness is the product of deep psychological wounds. This holds true for those at the very top as well. They aren’t just calculating psychopaths; they are deeply wounded, suffering from a “black hole” of desire for power that can never be satiated.

(3) Traumatizing others is their way of creating more potential assets. Participation in such rituals is a requirement for recruitment.

Bernard loosely describes such an initial gathering. No innocent children were present, but a restrained woman would be repeatedly assaulted sexually. Drugs and “anything you wanted” were available for enjoyment. The practice served several purposes:

• The victims would become possible assets for recruitment.

• The participants would be increasingly hardened by such callous acts making them more willing to participate in more depraved rituals (including children) in the future.

• Trauma gets perpetuated.

(4) Cabal operatives believe in a satanic religion. That religion is a ruse created by those at the very top.

Bernard explains that participants believe they are performing sacred rituals which unleash sexual energies that are offered to some form of higher force or dark deity which ultimately rewards them with more power to dominate while the masses upon whom they prey are actually believing in false prophets and figures of organized religion.

This is where his story gets interesting. I believe we have ample evidence, through the Epstein files and similar accounts of ritual abuse survivors, that such practices have been and are occurring throughout the world. But Bernard didn’t fall for it. He explains that he eventually saw that these rituals, framed as necessary sacrifices for some form of higher power, was an illusion fueled by pure hedonism. When he made his opinion known, rather than being ostracized he was introduced to higher ups who confirmed his observation.

Subscribing to an esoteric ideology is seductive and necessary to keep their operatives wholly committed to their way of life. Because he was able to see through the ruse, he was shown that these rituals were being secretly recorded for obvious reasons. Every once in a while someone may suffer a lapse in faith and would benefit from a little encouragement.

(5) Those at the very top may not be entirely human and are likely in possession of technology which could be construed as divine power.

Those at the top, the ones who are in control of the world (if you believe this theory), are secular and not subscribers to some version of satanism as is often thought. According to Bernard, they believe they are the products of the intermingling of ExtraTerrestrials and humans in the past and their blood lines are sacred and offer them dominion over the rest of us.

Though not offering any explicit examples, Bernard believes that these “hybrids” create a mystique of supernatural power by using advanced technology which they exclusively possess. Thus their traumatized, sociopathic human recruits believe they are serving a true, higher power.

(6) Ronald Bernard’s collaborators were far more trustworthy than those outside the “op”.

He explains that operatives are invited to participate in “assignments” which generally require teamwork involving people with a broad range of skills, e.g. doctors, lawyers, financiers, government insiders, etc. There is no coercion involved. He always had the opportunity to not only decline the assignment but to vet all those who are part of the team before deciding.

Emphasis was placed on success and absolute secrecy. If there was any hint that someone on the team had compromised the mission or the identity of one of the conspirators they would be tortured mercilessly. The result: a high success rate with zero chance of any compromise. Everyone involved could count on each other 100%. He contrasts this with life in the “normie” world where promises are broken, deception abounds and manipulation is par for the course, ironically.

(7) Bernard believes he has not suffered any retaliation from the network he abandoned because he has never exposed any identities.

Furthermore, since his defection he has created an alternative for those who wish to live outside their system of financial subjugation. His intention was not to destroy the shadow system but to offer another way, through a non-profit foundation called the United People Foundation.

The UPF has created a cooperative which uses an alternative currency called the URA (URen en Arbeid— Dutch for “Hours of Labor”). Participants can purchase URAs with fiat currency. The cooperative will immediately use the Euros or dollars to purchase natural resources, goods and services which are used in their ongoing projects. URAs serve as the currency in the cooperative and are backed by something of real value, like commodities or labor.

Bernard believes the strategy will succeed, often citing the success of a much older worker cooperative founded in 1956 in Spain called the Mondragan Corporation which has been widely reported (including here in The New Yorker) for their success in creating a system that is sustainable and fair to all participants. Per Wikipedia:

“Mondragon bases its culture on 10 basic co-operative principles: open admission, democratic organisation, the sovereignty of labour, instrumental and subordinate nature of capital, participatory management, payment solidarity, inter-cooperation, social transformation, universality, and education.”

Subscribe now

Conclusion

The system Ronald Bernard describes is self-perpetuating. Traumatized people traumatize people. The operatives achieve high success because of trust between those on the inside. This kind of trust emerges not from faith or love but from threat. The dedication to the cult emerges from a contrived pseudo religion that preys on carnal desires. Those at the very top are a unique breed indeed. How could people in possession of that kind of wealth and power not be interested in flaunting it but instead be completely dedicated to concealing it? That doesn’t seem completely human to me. Their true identities are deeply buried behind impenetrable walls of secrecy. Bernard goes so far as to hint that a busker playing his guitar on the street may actually be the person who is behind major geopolitical events.

While the mechanism of global control can be, for the most part, explained by the institution of fiat currency, the system can only be sustained by convincing the public that the system is fair, just and necessary. How else could this scheme persist in front of our eyes for centuries without being challenged? This means that there must be operatives deep within the media, educational systems and yes, organized religion, to keep everyone thinking along the same lines. In other words, the “op” requires more than just central banks.

I believe their scheme is finally coming to light because the public is being forced to open their eyes.

To all you thirty-something dual income professional families who still cannot afford to buy your first home, know that it was never this hard fifty years ago. With all of our advances in technology, manufacturing and extraction of natural resources, ask yourself why are things getting more expensive and not cheaper?

Five years ago 40% of Americans believed that we have been visited by ExtraTerrestrials. That number is no doubt higher today. This means, among other things, that nearly half of the public will have to acknowledge that our government has been flat out lying about perhaps the biggest story in our species’ history for at least 70 years. Why should we have trusted anything they have ever told us?

Our Department of Justice is still yet to comply with our own laws surrounding the release of the Epstein files which already clearly indicate that some of the most powerful people conducted some of the most heinous acts upon the most helpless and innocent. The FBI offered no executive summary of this massive trove of documents which they have had for decades. Not a single person has been indicted of anything. Our top law enforcement officer at the time, AG Pam Bondi, signaled that those in the files were above the law. It’s been an indictment of our legal system itself.

We are back destroying things and lives in the Middle East again, and once again for no good reason. Weren’t we told that Iran’s nuclear capabilities were permanently destroyed last summer? Do people really believe that even if the Iranian leadership was in possession of a nuclear weapon that they would use it? To what end? Obviously the response would be catastrophic to their country and civilization.

Ten years ago this poll indicated that half of the public believed in some form of “9/11 Conspiracy Theory”. Why haven’t there been any more recent surveys? My guess is that the results of any new poll will trigger a controlled demolition of the official story.

The jig is up. All the printed money in the world cannot hide the fact that this building is blowing up:

Please leave your comments.

Subscribe now

The University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center released results from a recent survey of the American public this week. They summarized their findings in this article titled, “Scientists Esteemed by Public, with Vaccine Scientists Seen as Similar to Scientists in General”. Their article begins:

“Vaccines and scientists who work on them have been embroiled in controversy and subject to unfounded attacks over the past half-dozen years. The litany of attacks has included both debunked claims and claims that lack evidence – for instance, that vaccines using mRNA technology such as Covid-19 vaccines alter people’s DNA (no evidence), that some vaccines contain tracking microchips (false), that vaccines cause autism (no evidence), and that scientists working on childhood vaccines are motivated by profit (no evidence)”

But be assured, everyone. Smart people know better. They continue.:

“Despite these repeated attacks, a nationally representative survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania finds that the American public continues to see scientists working on vaccines in fundamentally similar ways to medical scientists and scientists in general.

The Annenberg survey, conducted Feb. 3-17, 2026, among 1,650 U.S. adults, finds that nearly 7 in 10 people (69%) say they trust vaccine scientists a moderate or greater amount to act in the best interests of “people like you.” This finding is statistically no different than the percentage who have moderate or more trust in medical scientists (72%) and scientists in general (70%).”

My jaw dropped when I read their opening salvo against looney vaccine skeptics like me. 69% of people surveyed trust vaccine scientists a moderate or greater amount? That means that just over 3 out 10 people believe that vaccine scientists don’t act in the best interest of people. Is that supposed to be a vote of confidence for vaccine researchers? Does being considered “esteemed” require just a 69% approval rate these days?

Nevertheless, Scientific American picked up the article and ran their own with the subtitle, “Roughly seven in 10 people still trust vaccine researchers, a new poll finds. The number is in line with trust for other scientists.”

What do they mean, “still trust vaccine researchers”? How much were they trusted in the past?

To my knowledge (and according to chatGPT), this is the first survey which polled Americans’ trust in vaccine researchers specifically. They are alluding to the apparently failed “disinformation” campaign launched against vaccines since Secretary Kennedy has held the top spot in the Department of Health and Human Services. Their piece begins:

“Americans trust vaccines scientists as much as they do other scientists, a new U.S. survey finds, despite a decline in vaccination rates and a proliferation of attacks on vaccines in both the wake of the COVID pandemic and the rise of figures such as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a noted vaccine skeptic.”

A closer look at the survey conducted by the “esteemed” Annenberg Public Policy Center (which touts Factcheck.org as one of its major projects, btw) reveals something different. Here is the result they are quoting:

Responders were given five choices.

1. Not at all (14%)

2. A little (18%)

3. A moderate amount (31%)

4. A lot (21%)

5. A great deal (17%)

The most frequent response was right in the middle, “A moderate amount”. What does “A moderate amount” really mean to the person who responded that way? Some but not a lot? Or a tad more than a little?

I’d say that this group in the middle still trusts vaccine researchers but wouldn’t consider them to be infallible. They are the folks who are on the sidelines unwilling to take a stand against the “provax” or the “antivax” community. Though they are unlikely to participate in public exchanges around this contentious topic, they represent a large group of people who are open to changing their minds. In my experience working with medical professionals on a daily basis, there aren’t any who have growing confidence in the utility and safety of vaccines as time goes by. If there is any movement it’s in the opposite direction.

This is also true of the patients I see everyday before their surgery. While the topic of vaccines isn’t part of my pre-operative interview, at least once a month I meet someone whose health took a turn for the worse during the pandemic and blame it on the Covid shots.

Taking out the 31% who are on the fence, this leaves two groups who are diametrically opposed. They are roughly the same size (31 vs 38%). This means for every person who implicitly trusts vaccine researchers there is another who is deeply skeptical of them.

And how about the responses to this question about accountability when fraud in vaccine research is uncovered. How often do the researchers take action?

A whopping 1 out of 4 surveyed believe that action is taken infrequently when fraud in vaccine research is uncovered compared to less than half who believe that accountability happens more often than not. If we used Annenberg’s strategy to distort findings, we might say that 60% of people think that vaccine scientists ignore fraud in their own field.

And this question about vaccines themselves. Do vaccine scientists create unintended consequences which replace old problems with new ones?

The population is split down the middle!

So to all those who have been smugly attacking vaccine safety advocates for our cautionary stand, I suggest taking caution yourselves. You may very well find yourself in the minority very soon. You may have to resort to what we have been trying to do: have an honest and open discussion about what is and what can be known. It may not turn out the way you have anticipated.

I see this as a death knell for the vaccine industry and the status quo around vaccine research. Dr. Paul Offit, who is quoted in the Scientific American article, disagrees with me:

“‘I don’t think the results of the survey are surprising; [Kennedy] does not represent the views of most people,’ says vaccine expert Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. ‘Most people get their children vaccinated because they want them to be safe, despite the loud voices.’”

The survey results should be surprising to Offit, who of course, has never accurately conveyed what Kennedy’s views actually are. He has spent the last two years grotesquely misrepresenting Kennedy to the public. Offit even declined to accept an invitation to appear at a CDC ACIP meeting in December 2025 to argue for the continuation of the Hepatitis B vaccine recommendation for newborns. He doesn’t want to be questioned by highly informed and qualified scientists who disagree with him. He knows that relentlessly smearing vaccine skeptics holds the least risk. Unfortunately for him and the pharma-complex juggernaut which he fronts, it’s no longer working. That’s what the polling results actually demonstrate.

Perhaps big pharma’s go-to guy will finally be compelled to stoop to having a public conversation with the HHS Secretary of the United States of America in the interest of public health…

Public Opinion is Everything

While the MAHA movement and vaccine safety advocates are understandably aggrieved at the heretofore anemic actions taken by the Kennedy HHS, I was very skeptical that anything could be done from the top down. Doctors and medical organizations won’t change their opinion overnight, especially if change is driven from this administration in particular.

In order for real reform to occur, individual medical professionals will have to signal their disapproval around the present recommendations and vaccine safety testing. There is simply no way around it. This means they have to wake up from their slumber and confront the reality that they have been misled for decades. This means that they will have to actually look beyond headlines, conclusions published in their trusted medical journals and summary statements coming from their medical organizations.

In my opinion this can only happen one way: their own patients have to challenge them to defend their sanguine attitude around the mounting evidence for vaccine harm and their opinion that the small and short vaccine pre-licensure safety testing studies are sufficient to declare them “rigorously tested”. In other words, the public must wake up first. The Annenberg poll is clear evidence that this is happening.

How long is the medical establishment going to be able to impose a childhood vaccination schedule upon a public in which 31% of people feel that “Science by scientists working on vaccines creates unintended consequences and replaces older problems with new ones”?

How long is the orthodoxy going to insist that the explosion of childhood chronic diseases has nothing to do with the spectacular increase in vaccine load without a single study which supports their opinion?

How long before the American public realizes that they have payed over $5,000,000,000 to families of vaccine injured children over the 40 years since the inception of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund while vaccine manufacturers generate over 20 billion dollars in revenue from vaccine sales per year yet remain immune from any liability their products cause? If revenue far exceeds liability costs, why is the public still paying for their protection?

The pharma industry has been able to secure their stranglehold on public opinion regarding vaccines not only through their influence over legacy media, medical journal editorial boards and public messaging coming from mouthpieces like Paul Offit. They have worked very hard to create the illusion that advocates for vaccine safety are an inconsequentially small group of uninformed people who are seduced by a handful of people like RFK Jr. They have sought to marginalize those of us who have legitimate questions that cannot be answered.

It’s not working anymore. They are getting desperate, and it is becoming more and more obvious. This is apparent when you notice that they include, for no good reason, people in the middle on their side.

Amusingly, the Annenberg poll also asked about trust in other institutions, like the military, police officers and politicians. Journalists were among the least trusted. 51% of responders had little or no trust in them. The other 49%, once again included those in the middle. Only a scant 16% expressed “a lot” or a “great deal” of trust.

If it isn’t immediately obvious, the Scientific American article was written and edited by people who have no medical training. Dan Vergano and Claire Cameron are journalists, telling their scientifically minded readership what to think. As the public has finally come to realize, they are spin doctors. Their article is evidence of it.

Today, Katy Talento, MPH, former special assistant to President Donald Trump and the lead health advisor on the White House Domestic Policy Council from 2017 to 2019, published this tell-all confession of her decades-long evolution from staunch vaccine advocate to critic. Talento is contrite for wrongly sidelining Secretary Kennedy when he pushed for a Vaccine Safety Commission at the start of the first Trump administration .

AllBetter

Confessions of a White House Public Health Priestess

It was 2017. We had hauled the CEOs of a bunch of pharmaceutical companies into the Oval Office so that President Trump could berate them about their drug prices. (Always a good time…

Read more

4 months ago · 183 likes · 81 comments · Katy Talento ND ScM

The overwhelming majority of “anti-vaxxers” weren’t born anti-vaxxers. They are like me and Katy Talento. They are like parents who wanted to protect their children like Dr. Offit says but then witnessed a precipitous and permanent decline in the health of their perfect infants or toddlers immediately following a series of vaccinations. We are people who changed our minds at some point. You don’t have to agree with us. However, when someone radically shifts their opinion about something, anything, I suggest listening in. You may come to realize that you too have been missing something very big for a very long time.

Please leave your comments.

Subscribe now

Some time ago I had an open conversation with one of my favorite surgeons at my facility. We were part of the same book club, one that I haven’t attended for a couple of years. I hadn’t been satisfied with the books that were being discussed. Every member of the club was a physician. Why aren’t we using our time together to discuss the massive issues in health care and the distortion of science? How about we all take the time to read the explosive book by Secretary Kennedy, “The Real Anthony Fauci”?

The one-on-one conversation in the locker room quickly turned to conspiracies, a common occurrence if you are unfortunate to find yourself alone in a room with me. I explained that my interest in vaccines and the Covid pandemic and its mismanagement stemmed from what I learned about what really happened on 9/11 and how the public was sold a fantasy about what transpired on that day.

I stepped through the basics. The implausibility of three direct strikes on iconic buildings by multi-engine commercial jets flown by poor single-engine pilots, the impossibility of the explanation given for the destruction of the twin towers and WTC 7, the physical evidence of explosive residues found by independent researchers as well as the ubiquitous presence of iron microspheres confirmed by the United States Geological Survey in the dust at ground zero (iron-rich microspheres are the product of a thermitic reaction, i.e. explosives).

Steve listened attentively and to his credit, responded the way which an intelligent, open-minded person would.

“I haven’t looked into it like you have. So I don’t know what to believe.”

We never spoke about it again, but later I received a text from him:

“Hi Madhava. What do you think of the moon landing and pyramid construction? Quick opinion-haha!”

I have looked deeply into the Pyramid of Giza and its remarkable architecture and design. Like many people who can appreciate the sheer precision and scale of this structure, it is obvious that we cannot replicate the feat today, making establishment archeologists with their dismissal of basic facts sound like propagandists.

The moon landing was something very different. We might have put men on the moon. We might have faked it too. It is much more difficult for an Earth-bound human being like me to know for sure. While Steve may have been asking my opinion in earnest, he may also have been looking for a way to discount my matter-of-fact dismembering of the official 9/11 story. Why bother listening to a person who tells you your government and the NY Times is lying about 9/11 if he believes we never went to the moon?

However in the realm of conspiracies 9/11 is special. One doesn’t need confirmation from anyone else to see that this building is being blown up from the top down.

It’s always disquieting to anyone who truly sees it for the first time because it leads to bigger questions: if “they” are lying about this, what else have they lied about? If the public accepted their version of this story, how many other stories are they planning to tell us?

This isn’t the first time I have been asked about the moon landing after I speak openly about 9/11. Usually, however, I am asked if I think the Earth is round. That’s much easier to address. Of course it’s round. Anyone can prove it to themselves. When on the ocean looking at distant ships, the tallest part of the ship is visible while the bottom isn’t. This can be observed in every direction. This means that there is always a “higher” point in between you and the ship. The only topological solution is that the ocean is not flat, it is curved.

I believe that so-called “Flat Earth” theorists have been duped by a counter-intelligence operation which seeks to undermine serious consideration of all legitimate conspiracies. Those who group “9/11 Truthers”, “Antivaxxers” and “Moon Landing Deniers” with “Flat Earthers” are being duped as well.

That said, given the recent claim by NASA that four human beings left the Earth, orbited the moon and returned this month, I took a closer look at the evidence we have that we put men on the moon 57 years ago.

So Steve, if you are reading this, this article is for you…

Validation of Evidence

This is always the hardest problem for us “conspiracy theorists”. Ultimately we have to rely on third parties to validate nearly all the evidence. This directly leads to unresolvable differences of opinion. The only evidence acceptable to the conventionalists is offered by the very institution we conspiracy theorists allege is the principal conspirator. Why (on Earth) would you believe your anesthesiologist friend about his doubts about the Apollo program when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration assures us we have been there nearly six decades ago and we just got back earlier this month after a long sojourn in low-Earth orbit?

This makes drawing conclusions about the Artemis 2 mission impossible. What is the proof that the four astronauts aboard the spacecraft “Integrity” which launched on April 1 (also commonly known as “April Fool’s day in America) actually did what NASA claims? Pictures from the cabin? Pictures from space? Obviously all of that can be faked these days.

So too, can images used by “Artemis 2 deniers”. For example, posts on X like this one claim that NASA used the same “Earthrise” shot from Apollo 8 in a series of images from Artemis 2:

Ha! NASA didn’t think we would notice that the cloud patterns are exactly the same! They think we’re idiots!

The problem is that I couldn’t find that image on NASA’s Artemis 2 site. This was a false claim about a potentially false claim. For these reasons, I will restrict this article to the Apollo program.

I will begin at the end: my conclusion. NASA has done next to nothing to address legitimate questions about the footage from the moon, their physical evidence of a moon landing and the strange behavior of the original Apollo 11 astronauts in the years since their epic voyage.

Of the three, it is the last which is the most disturbing.

Some Photos from the Lunar Surface appear to be shot in a Studio

Professional photographers assure us that some pictures taken from the moon clearly demonstrate two or more sources of light (e.g. shadows which are not parallel, light “fall-off” and other technical observations incompatible with the single and distant source of light on the moon: the sun). The best and only explanation for this was that the footage in question was shot in a studio.

Moreover the experts who were familiar with the modified Hasselblad 500EL Data Cameras which were used to take the still photographs from the lunar surface assure us that film would have been significantly affected from hours of radiation exposure.

If you are old enough to have accidentally allowed film from a 35mm camera get exposed to radiation from a metal detector at the airport you will know that the photographs from the moon could not have been from the moon. They are simply too crisp.

I highly recommend this long and comprehensive Italian documentary called “American Moon” which offers in-depth interviews with experts in lighting and photography with ample examples which support their questions.

But this doesn’t prove that we didn’t go to the moon. It proves that not everything the public was shown was legit. This is important to accept if you wish to validate evidence solely on the integrity of the authority who offers it as proof.

Were the “Moon Rocks” actually from the Moon?

The highly-prized rocks purportedly taken from the surface from our moon and gifted to the Netherlands were discovered to be nothing more than petrified wood according to NBC in 2009.

Well that’s embarrassing, NASA…

Three years after the counterfeit rocks were discovered, the BBC reported that more than half the samples given to nations around the world have gone mysteriously missing. How odd that such precious stones were not kept more secure and available for analysis…

But what about the authentic moon rocks which haven’t been pilfered or lost? It turns out you don’t have to go to the moon to find moon rocks. There are a lot of them here on Earth which have been found, especially in Antarctica after meteorites strike the moon’s surface and send them hurtling outwards.

Two and a half years before Apollo 11 Commander Neil Armstrong made his giant leap for mankind, Werner von Braun, ex-Nazi rocket expert and chief architect of the massive Saturn V rocket, made a trip to Antarctica to learn about extreme environments in preparation for the moonshot. Perfectly reasonable. It’s also plausible a few lunar rocks were collected while they were down there to keep as souvenirs, or perhaps to offer as gifts to our friends around the world.

Why does Buzz Aldrin say we never went to the Moon?

And finally, the bizarre responses made by the astronauts to simple questions. It’s this evidence which is not only the most compelling, it doesn’t require third party validation.

Aldrin has given evasive answers when asked about the moon over the years, but this was his most direct response. An eight year old girl asks him why we have never been back. His answer: we never went there to begin with:

You don’t need to be a geologist or a professional photographer to validate this kind of evidence. Is he stoking fake moon landing conspiracies for some ulterior motive when he confirms “we didn’t go there” and “if it didn’t happen, it’s nice to know why it didn’t happen”? Or is he unable to look this little girl in the eyes and lie to her?

Here he is on late night TV clearly asserting that the footage of the moon landing was actually animation.

Maybe he’s not thinking straight after all the years.

Let’s see what the young Buzz had to say a few days after he and his two crew mates returned from the most famous journey in human history when asked to put the significance of this accomplishment into context. Here is the most telling segment from a longer interview:

They were asked to field a question that they were not just expecting to be asked, but a question they should have been excited to answer:

“Many of us and many other people in many places have speculated on the meaning of this first landing on another body in space would each of you give us your estimate of what is the meaning of this to all of us?”

Astonishingly all three were reluctant to say anything. Our buddy Buzz took a cut at it after an awkward silence. In addition to the body language of all three astronauts pay attention to Aldrin’s choice of words (emphasis mine):

“I believe that what this country set out to do was something that was going to be done sooner or later whether we set a specific goal or not.

I believe that from the early space flights we demonstrated a potential to carry out this type of mission and again it was the question of time until this would be accomplished.

I think the relative ease with which we were able to carry out our mission which of course came after a very efficient and a logical sequence of flights, I think that this demonstrated that we were certainly on the right track when we took this commitment to go to the Moon.

I think that what this means is that many other problems perhaps can be solved in the same way by taking a commitment to solve them in a long term fashion. I think that we were timely in accepting this mission of going to the Moon.

It might be timely at this point to think of many other areas of other missions that could be accomplished.

Did you hear what I heard? Did we all not hear the same thing? He never said that they landed on the moon. Instead he tiptoed around it. He never said what we would have expected. He never said that he was proud to represent our country and humanity on this mission. He never thanked all of the people involved in the program. Instead:

It was going to be done sooner or later whether we set a specific goal or not?

It was a question of time until this would be accomplished?

We were certainly on the right track?

It might be timely to think of many other missions that could be accomplished?

Many other problems perhaps can be solved in the same way by taking a commitment to solve them in a long-term fashion?

It sounds to me like an explanation of what was learned through a failure and not a proud and honest review of the culmination of a decade long pursuit of mankind’s greatest technological achievement.

These men don’t seem proud. They look ashamed. It’s one thing to attempt a dangerous mission and fail. There’s no shame in that. It’s another to grossly misrepresent oneself to the entire world after risking one’s life in pursuit of something extraordinary. These three expected to not only be received as heroes, they expected to be heroes—if they were lucky enough to make it back in one piece. Instead, they were forced into being phonies. This couldn’t have been easy for a person who was willing to die for a purpose. It’s written all over their faces.

Michael Collins, captain of the command module which remained in lunar orbit while Buzz and Neil were on the moon’s surface left NASA within five months. Buzz and Neil followed less than two years later. If NASA had proven that the seemingly impossible could be attained through ingenuity and courage why would these ground-breakers abandon the program at the height of its potential and credibility?

So what really happened during the eight days between launch and splashdown? We cannot know for sure. Tens of thousands watched the launch from Cape Canaveral. Much fewer were witness to the capsule descending into the Pacific Ocean. We rely entirely on NASA for what happened in between.

How can we reconcile the problems with photos from the lunar surface, the disappearing moon rocks and the peculiar behavior and responses of the Apollo 11 astronauts?

Here is a speculation:

The three left the surface of the Earth on July 16, 1969, obtained low Earth orbit, awaiting the go-ahead for the Translunar injection from Johnson Space Center. This re-firing of the third stage of the Saturn V rocket would have committed the three on a trajectory to the moon. The go-ahead never came. They were told that they would remain in Earth orbit until a technical problem could be fixed and then eventually were informed that the mission was scrubbed due to one reason or another. This happens.

The real shock came when they were debriefed privately back on terra firma. Maybe they were told something like this:

“Great job gentlemen. I know this was a disappointment for you, but rest assured given what we have learned from your mission, Apollo 12 will surely succeed. But here’s the thing…

The entire world believes you went to the moon and back. It was a matter of national pride and security that this mission succeeded so it was decided to release some of the footage from your training to the public. Yes, it’s a lie but not as big a lie as you might think. We have a logical sequence of flights planned that will get us there. It is only a question of when this will be accomplished. Many of the problems we faced on Apollo 11 will be solved in the months to come. You did an amazing job putting on us the right track.

In the end it won’t matter if it was you or one of your teammates that ends up walking on the moon. You are patriots. Your country needs you now more than ever.”

What do you think?

Significant Safety Concerns were Dismissed or Downplayed

Just two years earlier, while von Braun was at the South Pole, a tragic fire inside the cabin during a systems check of Apollo 1 took the life of three astronauts including Virgil “Gus” Grissom, a vocal critic of the entire program.

Grissom said and did several things in defiance of NASA’s public facing image. Just before his death he infamously hung a lemon on the spacecraft simulator to indicate to all he thought it was poorly designed.

He earned the nickname “Gruff Gus” from his occasionally direct criticisms of the program, telling reporters that issues with the program came in “bushelfuls”, and moments before the conflagration that took his life was disgusted at the communications failure between the capsule and the control center stating “How are we going to get to the Moon if we can’t talk between two or three buildings?”.

Grissom and his two crew mates had little chance of surviving. The cabin was pumped with 100% pure oxygen and faulty wiring set the whole thing off.

Thomas Ronald Baron was a quality control inspector for North American Aviation (NAA), the primary contractor for the Apollo Command Module. Baron was a whistleblower and released this 55-page document which cited his safety concerns to the public late in 1966. He was fired from NAA days before the Apollo 1 tragedy.

Others have claimed that Baron authored a much longer document which included more of the safety issues he had identified and condemnation of the program’s leadership for silencing him. He presented it to the Congressional Subcommittee, but like many of the rocks from the moon, it has since been lost or gone missing. He died in a car-train collision on April 27, 1967, just six days after testifying before a House subcommittee investigating the Apollo 1 tragedy.

Conclusion

I didn’t know what I wanted to do with my life when I finished college. My degree was in Electrical Engineering, but I was seduced by popular culture at the time. Being in tech wasn’t as cool as it is now. Back then we had movies like “Wall Street” and TV shows like “LA Law”. I sought and received offers to work for an investment firm in New York and a patent Law firm in Boston which needed help understanding the technology they were hired to defend.

But I had had a fascination with space flight since I was a kid. I was only two when the world watched breathlessly as the three men above rode that enormous rocket into outer space. The exploration of space was a big part of our culture in the 1970’s and 80’s. I grew up with The Jetsons, Star Trek and Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos” series on PBS. I still vividly remember watching the first test flight of the Enterprise, a prototype of the Space Shuttle Columbia, which piggy-backed on a Boeing 747 and glided back to Andrews AFB.

In the end I accepted a position with McDonnell-Douglas Space Systems Co. to contribute in a tiny way to the design of the International Space Station. I was 21 and the Apollo missions less than two decades before were still fresh in the minds of the older engineers with whom I worked.

Today I have a lot of uncertainty around the veracity of the claim the Apollo 11 mission successfully put two human beings on the lunar surface and brought them back to Earth safely as JFK challenged our country to do.

To reiterate, there are valid questions, some technical, which have never been adequately addressed by the governing authority in the matter, NASA. That is very suspicious to say the least. Moreover, one of the astronauts has been out there candidly stating that we never went to the moon.

There is a lot more to consider which I have not mentioned here. There is a video of Neil Armstrong getting very agitated and even violent when asked to place his hand on a Bible and swear he went to the moon.

Others claim to have been present at large hangers in the Nevada desert which were filled with sand and mock-ups of the Lunar Module. They swear that footage was shot by professional film crews in the months prior to the Apollo 11 mission.

There’s a candid video of Stanley Kubrick, the brilliant director of “2001: A Space Odyssey”, who gave the public its first impression of what the surface of the moon might look like, admitting late in his life that NASA enlisted him to shoot simulated moon landing footage. He claims he was sworn to secrecy his whole life. Some say that he tried to let the public in on the secret through certain scenes from another one of his blockbuster movies, “The Shining”.

NASA hasn’t made any effort to dispel these insinuations. In fact, they openly admit that they have “accidentally” destroyed all of the original video from the Apollo 11 mission. How inconvenient for us.

However, the most interesting question is why would NASA take such steps to create this illusion in the first place? Why was it so important that the public believe that we succeeded? It seemed impossible to begin with. Why would everyone be so downtrodden if we failed? The Soviet Union had already given up so what difference would it make if we took a few more years to get it right? What was their motive?

The most plausible explanation is that it was about, per usual, money. Two years after the historic lunar mission, President Richard Nixon ended the US dollar’s convertibility to gold. The reason behind this was clear. We had been printing too many dollars and we didn’t have the gold in our reserves to back it up. No doubt economists predicted that few would wish to keep their wealth in US dollars if there was nothing behind it. Our nation had to maintain the mystique of invincibility to prevent the collapse of our currency and our economy.

The Apollo program also served to restore Americans’ faith in their country which at the time was fighting (and losing) a terribly unpopular war and was grieving a series of assassinations of heroic figures who spoke truth to the power and corruption in the highest offices in the land before they were slaughtered. Many felt justice was not served. Especially with regard to the murder of the person who attempted to put the nation on a road to enduring peace and challenged the country to place a man on the moon and return him safely earlier that decade. Why sully the legacy of President Kennedy by second guessing the Apollo program?

And so it seems, the symbolism runs deep as history repeats itself. We are again in a global conflict brought on by our own nation’s aggression under the leadership of arguably the most corrupt administration in our history. The US Dollar, buoyed by GCC oil sales exclusively using our fiat currency, is again in a perilous state. Potential crimes against the most innocent are being ignored and the slaughter continues. (Warning: The video below is graphic)

This time it is Artemis, twin sister of Apollo, Greek goddess of the moon and protector of childbirth and, ironically, young children who directs our attention to the skies and away from the tragedies and scandals unfolding on the Earthly plane.

Did we just watch NASA successfully complete the second in a series of “logical and efficient” missions to return our species to the moon? Or was Artemis 2 actually the sequel to the Artemis project depicted in the 2024 movie, “Fly me to the Moon”, a top-secret government operation to film a fake moon landing as a backup in case the actual Apollo 11 mission failed, coincidentally?

By buying another story as it is being sold are we once again tacitly consenting to accepting false versions of reality whenever necessary?

Please leave your comments.

Subscribe now

Last year I was invited to participate in a most interesting symposium which brought together experts in fields ranging from CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currencies) to “Free Energy”, Geology to Pharmaceutical regulatory processes, anti-aging to astrophysics.

Our resumes read like some of the folks Jeffrey Epstein brought together over the years. We, on the other hand, gathered to brainstorm about how to expose and thwart a planetary coup, not plan and execute one. Some once held high positions in the Federal Government and private industry. Some were academics. We were wordsmiths, physicians and filmmakers. We were whistleblowers.

Some were survivors of satanic ritual abuse.

The organizers convened us to share our answer to this question:

What is the most important information that you believe is being hidden from the public?

Time allowed for about a dozen of us to formally explain and defend our opinion. The presentations were informal but thought-provoking and some, profoundly disturbing. In the end it became clear to me that we were divided into two groups, those who considered the esoteric and those who didn’t.

By “esoteric” I am referring to things which cannot be measured or verified with presently available methods. Spirits. Souls. Demons and Angels. Supernatural and/or paranormal phenomena.

I could understand why some would want to exclude such ideas from any serious conversation. Such things are not necessary to expose the mechanisms which keep humanity distracted, sick, disempowered and ignorant of basic things. There are receipts if one is willing to look and accept what is found. Why venture off into the unprovable when there are so many problems that are readily apparent, measurable and fixable if we would get our heads out of the clouds?

The reality is that there is proof of the esoteric. It all depends on one’s standards of proof. Though I have never had a personal experience that offered undeniable evidence of such things, I do have very close and trusted people in my life who have.

A rational and trusted friend told me about being in a room with a half dozen people and hearing a thunderous scream emanating from nowhere after experimenting with a “Ouija” board for a while. All who were present were freaked out and described the voice as “non-human”.

Recently another highly educated and close friend of mine recounted a story from his college days when an “odd” dorm resident told a group of friends that since he had been abducted by a “aliens” as a child he was bestowed with supernatural powers. When asked to demonstrate to the amused and skeptical group he stood with eyes closed and levitated 18 inches off the ground for several seconds before falling to the floor and became violently ill for the better part of an hour.

The only grounds upon which to not accept such accounts is if it points to something that I consider unacceptable to begin with. I happen to trust these friends more than my ability to know that something I cannot explain cannot exist.

Subscribe now

Anesthesia: The Boundary between the Physical and Metaphysical

Accepting the esoteric is easy for me because I deal with it daily. Modern anesthesia is undoubtedly Western medicine’s greatest contribution to humanity. Without it, none of the marvelous surgical interventions could be performed. From kidney transplants to hip replacements, heart bypasses to C-sections, all require anesthesia.

What would life today be like with our smartphones, GPS systems, transcontinental flights and access to humanity’s breadth of knowledge at our finger tips if a bout with appendicitis or a complicated childbirth carried with it a significant chance of death? Or that a fall on a skateboard or slipping on ice may result in a permanent deformity of your ankle?

We’ve come to take for granted that if we need an operation we won’t have to experience it. However awareness and how anesthetic drugs affect it remains mysterious.

Anesthetists have a good understanding of dose/response relationships; we understand how the drugs we use are distributed and eventually metabolized; we know what the untoward effects are and how to treat them. Nevertheless anesthesiology is much like alchemy because it deals with the transformation of consciousness, something we know next to nothing about.

Though the western medical paradigm believes that anesthetics render our physiology incapable of being conscious, I view it differently. Our interventions render our physiology incapable of allowing consciousness to exist within the body.

I believe that consciousness does not terminate under anesthesia and resume sometime later; it is continuous. Anesthetics are amnestic, so we cannot access memories of being anesthetized. Moreover if *properly anesthetized patients underwent hypnotic regression to somehow access their memories, I don’t believe they would recall being unable to move or scream while the fibers of their bodies are being dissected. I think they would recount being free of their physical form, in some other kind of space that I cannot begin to describe.

*Note: There are instances of awareness while it is presumed that the patient is properly anesthetized. These are real, rare and incredibly traumatic.

So, with that said, what follows is a summary of my presentation. It is admittedly speculative and may sound preposterous or even heretical to those of certain persuasions.

What is the most important information being hidden from the public? Here’s my answer:

We are reincarnating. Once we come to truly and collectively accept this it will eventually change everything.

An Inexplicable Event in the Operating Room 22 years ago

I had been out of my training only a couple of years when one of the nurses in the OR asked me if I would take care of one of her dear friends who was scheduled to have a relatively minor gynecological operation in a few days. I agreed. And, I was puzzled. My partners had decades more experience than I. Why did she choose me? She explained that she knew I had “an open mind”.

I didn’t understand until the day of the procedure. Her friend was a respected member of an indigenous tribe which had been living in the area for hundreds of years. She was accompanied by three elderly women dressed in their traditional garb. After conducting my examination and answering her questions the patient made a request.

“If at any time during the operation you notice smoke leaving my body I would like you to notify my sisters immediately”

I shrugged my shoulders and readily agreed. I asked her what this signified.

“It’s a sign that my spirit has left my body. My sisters will offer me the proper guidance to return.”

Toward the end of the procedure, the OR suddenly and inexplicably became extremely humid. Calls were made to have the problem addressed immediately. Meanwhile condensation accumulated on my glasses, the monitors and, the surgical instruments. It was a major safety concern. The surgeon hastened to finish.

It wasn’t smoke. It was humidity. Nevertheless, I made another call to the control desk to have someone let the patient’s “sisters” know what was going on.

The operation concluded. The humidity was relenting. The patient emerged from anesthesia uneventfully. I left her in the recovery room and went to speak to her contingent.

“Thank you doctor. Her spirit left her body, but we were able to connect to her and guide her back.”

Later I went back to see the patient. She had no recall of the events. We never figured out what happened. I thought about it from time to time over the next fifteen or so years. It was obviously just a coincidence. After all, thousands of operations take place in the USA every day and nobody reports leaving their bodies and floating around in other dimensions.

Then again, if patients have no recall under anesthesia there’s no reason to expect them to report anything. Two decades and twenty thousand operations later I have been witness to only a handful of situations where the air quality in the OR was somehow deregulated but never to such a degree. What are the chances that such a rare event would occur immediately after such a premonition?

Why hasn’t Western Medicine Discovered the Mechanism of Anesthesia?

We have identified some of the molecular effects of anesthetics on our physiology, but we don’t know which are responsible for their remarkable ability to render people “unconscious”.

We seem to be plunging forward in our search for a mechanism while being unaware of a major blindspot: We have to understand the mechanism of consciousness before we can even hypothesize how anesthesia works.

Unlike the heart’s ability to pump blood, the kidney’s ability to regulate pH and serum osmolality, the ability of nerve cells to transmit electrical signals, the ability of our intestinal tract to absorb water and glucose or even the ability of our mitochondria to use simple sugars and oxygen to provide the energy to drive countless chemical reactions in our bodies, consciousness is not a material thing.

This becomes more apparent by imagining where our deconstructive approach to define things must ultimately lead. We will ultimately arrive at molecules interacting with other molecules. How could molecules and their interaction with each other be aware?

Seeing the obvious futility of this approach is difficult for some to grasp, especially for people who are otherwise very intelligent. I have often pondered why that might be. Perhaps it is because it forces us to reconsider who we think we are. A sincere effort to define awareness and ponder its source eventually leads to ourselves, to our true nature. Not everyone is comfortable accepting what appears in a mirror.

Neuroscientists and those invested in the pursuit to define the mechanism of anesthesia have identified structures in our brain which are inert in “unconscious” persons and are active in those who are aware. Deconstructing those structures will lead us to molecules and a dead end.

Hence it is more reasonable to regard these areas of the brain as structures which allow consciousness to imbue the body rather than the source of it. This is what I mean by physiology allowing consciousness to exist within our bodies.

A good analogy would be a radio. What would happen if we brought a team of scientists from the 17th century into our world and asked them to figure out how a radio worked?

They would quickly realize that the mysterious voice coming through the speaker will terminate if any one of a number of the radio’s components are disconnected, but there would be no way for them to deduce that the source of the voice resides at the transmitter, far away from them.

The experts of yesteryear would begin by examining the antenna, the speaker, the batteries or even the knobs on the tuner. That’s what happens when you discount the existence of things you are unaware of, like radio waves. Why believe in invisible, “esoteric” energy fields moving through the “ether” when we can suppress and resurrect the voice by manipulating the antenna? Why look anywhere else?

Consciousness is not always local to the Physical Body

While the medical orthodoxy continues to ignore the futility of searching for the source of consciousness in our brains, it is also willfully ignorant of the well documented phenomenon of Near Death and Out of Body Experiences (NDEs and OBEs) that occur during cardiac arrests. Published research by Dr. Bruce Grayson and others demonstrate that NDEs are not so uncommon during times when a patient heart stops.

While it is possible that these experiences are due to brain activity which sometimes continues while the person is being resuscitated, it is worthwhile to note that these experiences are commonly recounted the same way. The person remembers having a sense of separation from their physical form, expansiveness and peace. Why would so many people surviving this kind of unique event be imagining the same sorts of things? Survivors of these events often remember choosing to reanimate their bodies before “coming back”.

More interesting are the much rarer times where the patient remembers being outside of their body with specific recollection of events that were corroborated by people in the room (1, 2, 3). Consciousness is not always local to our physical bodies.

Consciousness does not Terminate after Death

This shouldn’t be a controversial suggestion to the billions of people who believe in a spirit or soul that transcends this bodily experience. If we have a soul it must be conscious and indestructible. That is, after all, what primarily distinguishes it from the corpse that decomposes in a casket or burns on a funeral pyre after death. (Interestingly we continue to incorrectly describe the situation. If “we” have a soul, who are “we”? Why don’t we say “I have a body” instead?)

The question is, what happens to our soul after our bodies die? Heaven behind the Pearly Gates? Interminable suffering in hell? Does it remain in a disembodied limbo for eternity? Though we may cling to a belief by way of faith, we simply cannot know from a scientific perspective which relies on objective and reproducible measurements.

That said, there is an increasing body of subjective accounts which all point to the fact that our soul will return to this realm in a different body. At least that is what has seemed to have happened to thousands of people who can recall specific details of a life previously lived.

These people are all children who began recounting their tales from the moment they learned how to speak. Their parents encouraged them to tell their stories which captured broader attention, eventually that of someone who is familiar with a family who had lost a member with a life story that shares some commonalities with the child’s account. The child and surviving members of the unrelated family are united, and the child’s recall of specific details is enough to convince the family members that this precocious child was in fact once their parent or a spouse who died some time in the past.

Dr. Ian Stevenson (former chair of the Dept. of Psychiatry, University of VA) researched and documented thousands of such accounts. Other researchers have also independently reported on this phenomenon (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

Accounts of reincarnation exist in multiple cultures (Hindu, Buddhist, esoteric interpretations of Judaism, Indigenous North American) and continents. We are left, as we are so often, with uncertainty. It could be that reincarnation is

• An elaborate hoax conducted by researchers

• Real but only happens to a tiny fraction of human beings

• Universally true. We’ve all lived previous lives but most cannot remember them

Reincarnation is Fundamental

Given the fact that we do not know how a remarkably simple molecule like diethyl ether works, how consciousness can emerge from molecular interactions, how vivid and accurate recollection can take place when our physical bodies are technically dead and the remarkable stories of reincarnation from children from all over the world, I put my money on the last option. And thus, my perspective:

• We are, at our essence, indestructible.

• We either choose to or are forced into returning to this physical realm repeatedly for reasons that are unclear.

• Uncertainty is an essential part of this realm. Without it there would be no mystery, and life would be less interesting.

• Accepting that we are and have been reincarnating will lead to truly transformative changes. Our cultural identification, skin color, religion will be relegated to the superficial. Warfare will be seen as a perpetual state founded on the misconception that taking the lives of other people is justified because of the past deeds of that same group of people. The problem is, if we have been reincarnating we cannot know who is responsible for the tragedies and misdeeds of the past. The only sane thing to do would be to stop shooting our guns in the dark hoping to exact justice on the most culpable.

• Coming to this realization collectively is the most crucial step a civilization must take before it will either use its technology to take to the stars or blow itself up.

The understanding that every person on the planet is not a just a physical body but a spirit temporarily inhabiting a body is the crucial element in either liberating or enslaving the world. If there were a secret cabal seeking to control humanity from behind “elected” authorities, public institutions and media it would behoove them to ridicule the idea that we each are limitless beings. A population that is unafraid to die is ultimately very difficult to control.

It is difficult for a person to consider that they are indestructible if they have experienced terror. And thus, terrorizing us is part of the playbook too. But “they” don’t have to do the terrorizing. We are doing a pretty good job of it ourselves.

The Most Secret of Secrets

What might secret societies discuss behind closed doors? What is in the vast library of the Vatican to which the public has little or no access to? What is kept in the catacombs below it? What would be too dangerous to share yet too valuable to destroy? What would be the most highly guarded knowledge held by tiny groups of people who seek to control the rest of us? I propose it would be an understanding of how to arrange the circumstances of rebirth in human form.

Why?

First, in order to actualize a secret plot to keep people afraid, weak, reactive, distracted and constantly in conflict with each other intelligent people would have to be secretly recruited into the mission. There are no doubt intelligent people who are psychopaths who consider the lives of other sentient beings worthless and expendable. But those who retain some of their humanity would demand convincing evidence that engaging in maniacally evil and utterly selfish pursuits will not result in karmic retribution.

What kind of evidence would suffice? I don’t know. I am deducing that such evidence must exist in order to induce key operatives into pursuing such treacherous missions over multiple lifetimes.

The proposal would be intriguing to those with the right proclivities.

There’s no need to worry about such things like interminable hell! Commit to this ruthless endeavor and you will not only experience this life as an apex predator, you will live your next life in a higher echelon of the enterprise with more knowledge and power!

Second, the systems required to control a planetary population (central banking, organized religion, military industrial complexes and governments of all flavors, etc.) take more than a few lifetimes to organize, deploy and consolidate their influence. In order to conscript an army of evil-doers that operate on both the physical and metaphysical planes they would have to be shown that reincarnation is not only real but that it can be steered by those who possess a deeper understanding of how it really works.

What if it was possible to arrange the circumstances of your next birth, who your parents will be and thus their standing in the operation? Maintaining secrecy and adhering to ruthless rules of engagement would not only result in amassing fortunes for your offspring, it would potentiate the growth of systems and institutions which accumulate power and control over generations. The fruits of a lifetime of dedicated work wouldn’t just be handed down to your kids, you would come back at some time in the future to take the reins and be given more power and responsibility in the scheme.

Even more important, you wouldn’t be thrown back into the pool of “normies” who get indoctrinated by a standard education which stresses empiricism or organized religion which may offer some feel-good concepts and sensible rules of behavior but ultimately demands that you surrender your true potential to a divine power outside of yourself. Supplicate to be saved. Instead you pick up where you left off by joining the operation early in life.

I proposed that this was not only happening, it offered the most logical explanation of how a tiny few could secretly be running the world.

Imagine the power a small group of people with this kind of knowledge would have over the masses who have been programmed to think and fiercely defend the idea

• that we are defined by our skin color, religion and cultural stories

• that this is the only life we have been given and we must extend it and maximize our enjoyment at all costs

• that the only way to have peace is to have more weaponry

• that the only way to have security is to have more surveillance

• that because some ideas are seditious and destabilizing censorship is a necessary compromise

• that we are frail and need to be protected from the dangers of our natural environment with technology and synthetic molecules

• that we take birth already guilty of committing “original sin” which can only be absolved by a higher power which exacts merciless punishments upon the unfaithful

In my view we are species that has been deeply programmed to not only accept a limited version of who we are but to shame and attack anyone who suggests otherwise.

It’s like Playing a Video Game

I believe each of us is a limitless spirit/soul that has access to a much deeper understanding of ourselves, the spark of the divine within us and our role in this sacred creation. But this understanding is largely hidden from us during our incarnation in these physical bodies. We have forgotten who we really are and have been shamed into accepting a much smaller version of ourselves.

In this sense, taking birth is akin to putting another quarter in an arcade game. But unlike the games we have created to distract us, the human experience is very real. It is reified by emotional and physical suffering and pleasure. Otherwise life would be nothing more than a vivid dream or a movie that lasts about eighty years on average.

Another key difference is that we have forgotten that we are playing a game and have completely identified with the avatar which we are temporarily animating on this plane.

Finally, although we may have a thorough understanding of the game between incarnations, we take birth knowing we will have no recollection of what the rules are. That’s part of the game we are all playing and what makes it more interesting than we realize.

If a secret “cabal” has been slowly consolidating power over the systems that run the world, they are playing by rules that are different than the ones they have tricked us into accepting. Though the vast majority of us are able to enjoy the satisfaction of helping another and our conscience and innate empathy prevent us from conducting horrid acts, we are forced to assume a competitive posture with each other because of how the world works at the moment.

We believe we have to accumulate points in the form of wealth, time, security and power. There are only so many points to go around so we have to outmaneuver others to have more for ourselves and our families. Don’t you care about your children? Eat or be eaten. There’s simply not enough for everyone. You only live once so security trumps freedom. Peace through preemptive strikes.

Adopting a different way of playing the game may seem naive, but let us not forget that the wealth and time which we fight so hard to accumulate and defend is ultimately surrendered upon the death of our bodies. If there were any “points” that would count towards the next iteration of the “game” it wouldn’t be the material we amass during our lives, yet that is what our society regards as the most important. Naiveté may not be what we think it is.

If enough people choose to play by a set of rules they will dictate how everyone plays the game. We are undoubtedly playing the game using rules that pit nation-states, cultures and people against each other.

There are obviously innumerable individuals who have refused to accept the rules who live and die in anonymity. They aren’t a threat to the status quo. But those who possess enough talent, courage and popularity to influence others are very dangerous to those who wield the real power.

We know who some of them are and what happened to them. They weren’t saints; they were imperfect people who attempted to point out the insanity in front of their eyes. They were induced to play the game by the established rules and eventually feel compelled to spill the beans. Then they get threatened. If that fails their reputations are sullied by an immensely powerful media machine which drives them to take their own life or are slaughtered in front of us by the operatives of the system they sought to expose. The murder is blamed on innocent patsies and these whistleblowers who were existential threats to the controllers in life are lionized posthumously. Elaborate funerals are arranged, monuments are erected, the public grieves, skeptics of the official story are dismissed as conspiracy theorists and the system grinds on.

JFK

RFK

MLK

John Lennon

Michael Jackson

Prince

Nicola Tesla

Charlie Kirk

There are three points which are important to consider:

1. We may never have the proof we are looking for. This in fact makes the “game” even more spiritually significant. If we were absolutely certain that being generous would lead to an eternity in heaven or “good karma” we enter a transactional relationship with our fate. That is much different than sacrificing for others without any assurances that it will serve us later.

2. If we were reincarnating we would be more likely to make policy decisions that would benefit us all in the long run and not just some of us in the short run. We would also be less inclined to take up arms against each other to avenge past acts. Sensibility would lead us to less bellicosity and more towards responsible decisions about our future. Why would we want to endlessly circle the sun tormenting each other?

3. We don’t have to know we are reincarnating. We don’t even have to believe or hope that we are. We only have to act as if we are to enjoy the benefits of this view.

If we were to accept that somewhere out there in the cosmos there are other civilizations similar to ours which have identical challenges and technologies, with clever and powerful forces that use manipulation to deceive, control and distract the masses, some of them would eventually see the sensibility in this approach to their condition.

What do you think happened to them compared to those who remained attached to existential fear, unresolvable cultural and ideological differences and competitive behavior? I’d wager that they created a more bountiful future for themselves. They would gradually redirect resources away from technologies that destroy, “sacrificing” for the disadvantaged would be regarded as an investment, more and more people would experience prosperity and in turn be more generous with each other.

Adopting this perspective would herald a distinct shift in the civilization’s collective consciousness that would permit truly transformative technologies to take root. This would be necessary for a planetary-bound society to take to the stars. If there are ETs that are flying craft across trillions of miles of interstellar space and in impossible patterns overhead they may be more spiritually advanced than us than they are technologically. Such technology can only be perfected and wielded by a species that despite all temptations, is incapable of blowing themselves up.

Making that kind of leap requires global cooperation. Global cooperation is only possible if divides of all forms can be regarded as superficial differences. This requires reframing of history which will have been riddled with atrocities that were endured and committed by everyone at one time or another.

Reframing history, ultimately requires forgiveness. Forgiveness is the hard reset; it’s what reboots the whole system so that a new understanding of how to play the game can take root.

This brings us to the most important name not listed above.

Whether you believe that Jesus Christ was Gd in the flesh, a nice guy who walked the Earth like the rest of us or a purely mythological figure concocted by an elite class to consolidate power over a vast empire that spread over varying climes and cultures, the message attributed to him, in its essence, is a threat to those who can only maintain control if we remain divided and believe we are justified in taking up arms to respond to previous and present aggressions. Without forgiveness conflict will always lead to more conflict, ad infinitum. There’s simply no way around it. If we want a different world we will have to do the forgiving ourselves. That’s not so easy for an individual who is convinced that this their only body, their only life and their only identity. Or that absolution can only be left to a divine power outside of themselves.

Conclusion

I yielded the floor to the moderator.

While a few of the attendees were intrigued or nodded in agreement, some had been visibly impatient to move on. Most were politely silent.

I can understand why my presentation was met with a tepid response. While topics like life-after-death, consciousness and forgiveness can be entertaining after-dinner conversation, it becomes a distraction from solving the real-world problems humanity is facing. Digital IDs, implementation of a CBDC, the distortion of climate science in order to fuel a multi-trillion dollar “green” energy industry, mandating modified RNA products on our children and animals, the attack on small, independent farms, the consolidation of power in transnational organizations like the UN and the WEF, etc. etc.

It was time to move on to ideas that could be backed by evidence which could lead to actionable strategies and measurable successes.

And then we heard from two courageous women, both survivors of satanic, ritual abuse from the time they were children. Their own personal accounts confirmed everything that I have since read or heard intimated in the Epstein files and worse.

Rape. Torture of children. Infanticide. Cannibalism. They were the victims. Sometimes they had been forced to participate in the rituals too. Powerful and/or easily recognizable people were the perpetrators. This wasn’t just happening on Epstein Island. This was happening all over the world. The women were from two different continents and their stories corroborated each other.

What was the point of such horrific acts on the most innocent of the innocent?

I have been in direct correspondence with one of them. Here was her response:

“It’s not just to bring the individual’s frequency to a negative state, & to adrenalise their blood. The rituals where victims are tortured are most often perpetrated in the portal spaces comprised of the crossing of multiple earth energy/ley lines. These are multi-dimensional spaces where demons can be accessed.

The victim is tortured to bring those demons to inter-dimensional doorways in the portal locations. They are attracted by the screams & energy of misery.

When the victim is murdered, their death opens a doorway to the dimension that the victim’s soul is a match to. Most victims are good souls who would normally go to one of the heavenly realms.

Through spell casting of those perpetrating the ritual, the doorway is inverted to open a doorway to the hellish realms. This is facilitated by the victim begging for death during the torture. It is taken as consent.

Once that doorway to the hellish realms is open, the incarnate humans presiding over the ritual will call a demon into the physical realm ‘to do their bidding’. The humans think the demon will come in to do their bidding, but generally the opposite is true.

This explains why these idiot satanists perform these rituals out in the open where they can be discovered or filmed, when it would make more sense to do so in a secure, hidden environment. They need to do the rituals in a portal space. The most powerful of which are in nature where they are not corrupted.

This also explains why most of these unaliving rituals are performed in these portal spaces on the solstices & equinoxes - this is when the earth energy/ley lines and portals would normally come into ‘harmony’. The ritual causes disharmony, further disrupting the ley energies.

For millennia the natural earth energy lines of our planet have been corrupted by satanists. They have been turned into straight alignments, using piezo-electric materials formed into structures like masonic halls, basilicas, cathedrals, monuments, arenas, parliaments, court buildings, abattoirs, schools, universities & of course churches. These buildings are found dotted along these straight alignments.

Through spell casting during the building of these piezo-electric structures on the natural earth energy lines, the normal clockwise spiraling magnetic frequencies of the earth energy lines are inverted into anti-clockwise frequencies, turning them into the controlled version of an earth energy line - a ley line.

Catholic churches are all oriented into a ley line by a freemason using a sighting rod (ref ‘The Old Straight Track’, by Alfred Watkins, first published 1926.) This is obvious when you look at a church in the street-scape. Most often they are at a weird angle in relation to the rest of the buildings & roads. Because they are lined up with a ley/earth energy line. Proving the Catholic church is aligned with Freemasonry.”

Piezo-electric materials? Magnetic frequencies of Earth energy lines? Adrenalizing blood? Spell-casting? Freemasons? Demons??

Is this science or voodoo? Ultimately it is up to you to decide for yourself. Nevertheless, if we are to accept just some of what has been revealed in the Epstein files as valid, we are forced to ask deeper questions, like why?

I cannot accept that even a tiny group of psychopathic and deranged people would conduct such acts just because they find them titillating. Such depravity comes with risks to themselves, even if they control bodies like the FBI and the Department of Justice.

There must be some perceived gain that is worth the risk. The Epstein files may be evidence of something more sinister than a world-wide human trafficking ring used to blackmail those in power. These two women agreed that such rituals do, in fact, open portals to other dimensions through which non-human entities may be exerting their influence over humanity.

Both confirmed occasionally hearing blood-curdling screams from non-human voices during the height of these rituals, much like my friend heard while experimenting with a Ouija board.

And both, by the way, have had near death experiences while being tortured which align with other documented accounts. They were outside of their physical bodies, surrounded by love and light and released from the torment they were enduring at the time. Yet they chose to come back to expose their tormenters and forever end these rituals and sacrifices.

Are we going to believe them? Or do we need more evidence? What would such evidence look like?

If we are dealing with forces that are trans-dimensional we will have to first embody our true nature which is also transcendent. It’s a truth that isn’t just preached from pulpits, it’s coming from the mouths of babes, from the time they first were able to speak.

Is it time to start really listening?

Please leave your comments.

Subscribe now

This essay is about my personal experience as an anesthesiologist caring for mothers in the perinatal period as well as my research into the body of evidence that guide perinatal care in this country.

I had been planning to write this piece for several years. Then last week one my favorite authors on this platform, A Midwestern Doctor, published this piece, “The Hidden Dangers of Hospital Births & How to Protect Your Family” on their newsletter, “The Forgotten Side of Medicine”:

The author touched on many of the concerns I have had regarding medical interventions in the perinatal period thought to be necessary and beneficial but are, in fact, based in conflicting bodies of evidence. Some of them are thus plausibly responsible, in part, for poor outcomes and the increasing incidence of C-sections.

CDC data indicate that in 1970 the annual rate of primary C-sections in the United States was just over 4% and nearly quadrupled by 1993. By 2024, the primary C-section rate, per CDC provisional data hovers just under 23%.

Even more stunning is that C-Section rate for the lowest risk pregnancies (Nulliparous, Term, Singleton, Vertex) in 2024 is 25.3%. In other words, more than 1 in 4 first-time moms who carry their pregnancy to term and have a confirmed fetal position optimal for a vaginal birth deliver their baby through a major abdominal operation.

Beyond acute risks to the mother (infection, prolonged recovery) and baby (a 1.5-1.9% risk of lacerations and a three times greater risk of developing respiratory distress syndrome), babies delivered through a C-Section have an associated increased risk of

• asthma

• gastrointestinal afflictions like irritable bowel syndrome and Crohn’s disease

• Type II diabetes and obesity

• Lower standardized test scores

• ADHD

Obstetrical Anesthesia

Obstetrical anesthesia can often be rewarding and can also, in extremely urgent and emergent situations, be exceedingly challenging.

Anesthetists are in the business of minimizing the risk to our patients. This involves medically optimizing the health of our patients undergoing elective procedures. In situations that are exigent, where an operation is required to prevent the loss of life or limb, we try to prepare for every contingency as best we can.

One of the most challenging situations we encounter is an obstetrical emergency, when an unplanned Cesarean section needs to be performed within minutes to save the life of a baby. There is no time for preoperative laboratory testing or even standard cleansing of the intended incision site which requires several minutes of drying time for maximum effectiveness.

There is no time to perform a spinal anesthetic, the safest form of rendering the mother adequately anesthetized for a large incision in her lower abdomen, the dissection of deeper layers of muscle and eventually a hysterotomy, the opening of the highly vascular gravid uterus so that the infant can be extracted.

In those situations the often panicked and bewildered mother must receive a general anesthetic, where she is given rapidly acting medications intravenously which render her unconscious and paralyze her vocal chords so that a tube can be inserted into her trachea which protects her from aspirating stomach contents and allows us to institute mechanical ventilation of her lungs with oxygen and a standard concentration of anesthetic gases.

The obstetric patient offers more challenges. The physiology of pregnancy results in limited pulmonary reserve. In other words, the mother’s relatively greater demand for oxygen combined with the compression of lower lung fields from a gravid uterus results in a far more rapid decrease in blood oxygenation during the period after she is rendered unconscious and before ventilation can be initiated mechanically. In other words, we are afforded significantly less time to place the breathing tube.

To make matters even worse, large studies have established that pregnancy is associated with a 2 to 3 times greater risk of a “difficult intubation”. Anesthetists must act swiftly and successfully under circumstances where there is not one but two lives in the balance. It is always an extremely risky and chaotic situation—something we train to avoid whenever possible.

On the other hand, obstetrical anesthesia can also be very rewarding. Over the years I have received a handful marriage proposals after placing an epidural to mitigate a laboring mother’s pains of contraction. Far more often we receive unspoken gratitude from the expectant mother’s family who are astonished to see her snooze through contractions after helplessly witnessing her scream and plea for some form of relief for hours.

The placement of an epidural during labor is by far the most common anesthetic intervention in pregnancy. Approximately 2.5 million epidural anesthetics are administered every year in the U.S. and over three quarters of nulliparous women receive them. However epidurals come with risks too.

“Epidural” refers to a potential space between the ligamentum flavum and the dura mater (the outer protective membrane of the spinal cord). The space is accessed through a fairly large needle which is carefully advanced into the epidural space so that a tiny catheter can be threaded into it. The procedure can be done in under five minutes in the best of circumstances. Sometimes it takes much longer depending on maternal obesity, scoliosis or the inability of the patient to assume the optimal position for placement. Hence, the anesthetist must contend with screams and unavoidable, unintentional movement during contractions.

Once placed and tested, a mixture of local anesthetic and narcotic can be continuously infused through the epidural catheter so that the nerves which convey sensation of labor pain can be blocked thus providing unmatched relief of the pain of labor.

Epidural anesthesia comes with unavoidable risks. If the epidural needle is inadvertently advanced too far, the protective sheath surrounding the spinal cord will be punctured and that often results in a devastating headache and occasionally other neurological symptoms. Even in the best of hands the incidence of a dural puncture headache is approximately 1:200. The symptoms usually resolve gradually after a few days or weeks, but the negative impact of this complication upon the new mother’s experience cannot be overstated.

While mothers are assured that epidural anesthesia is safe during pregnancy, the evidence supporting this claim is questionable. Local anesthesia in the epidural space can lower mom’s blood pressure which can lead to fetal distress. Nearly 42% of women in this study involving over 400 parturients had significant adverse reactions to epidural anesthesia including a severe drop in blood pressure. Epidural placement in this cohort was associated with an increased rate of an unplanned C-section.

Rapid and profound drops in blood pressure during epidural anesthesia is so common that Labor and Delivery Nurses usually have a standing order to administer a powerful and rapidly acting medicine called ephedrine intravenously. Maternal blood pressure directly affects the fetus. Though we may be able to rapidly intervene if necessary, the idea that epidural anesthesia is “completely safe in pregnancy” is a myth.

Yet a Cochrane study from 2000, considered to be the gold standard for medical evidence, found that there was no significant increased risk of C-section for mothers receiving epidural anesthesia for labor. It is this finding which serves as the basis of our commonly held belief that epidural anesthesia for labor harbors no increased risk for an unplanned delivery through C-section.

However other studies, like this one have shown the opposite. The author of this study notes that the Cochrane meta-analysis found no evidence of an increased risk of C-section because of a single, large study which skewed the results toward an “absence of risk” conclusion. That study by Sharma et al was conducted at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, TX when at the time their C-section rate was very low (12%) compared to national averages. The author further notes:

“Most importantly, the subjects in the trial were randomized at more than 4-cm cervical dilation—the active phase of labour.”

And

“According to the Cochrane data, the rate of CS for both groups in the study by Sharma and colleagues was only 5%”

In other words, it is entirely likely that the risk of C-section after epidural anesthesia has been ignored or hidden by a single very large study which has little relevance to how obstetrical anesthesia is actually practiced in most of the country.

As noted above, epidural anesthesia in the study by Sharma et al was offered only after the patient achieved a cervical dilation of 4 cm and was considered to be in active labor. This is by no means achieved in my own facility (and others where I have worked) where obstetricians routinely give the okay for epidural anesthesia before their patients are in active labor.

Labor and Delivery nurses who seek to offer their patients relief as early as possible thus advocate for epidural placement if the obstetric service has approved it. More than once a mom at our facility who was expected to enter the active phase and received an epidural never progressed and was sent home, still pregnant. The patient exposed themselves to the risk of a catheter placement only to have it pulled.

At least several times a month our department is asked to place an epidural in a patient in active labor who ends up delivering upon our arrival, or worse, ends up delivering shortly after epidural placement having received no benefit and only risk from the intervention.

Beyond that, patients having received an epidural are often surprised to discover that they will be restricted to their beds until they deliver because their legs are too weak to allow them to get out of bed safely and that their bladder will have to be continually drained through an indwelling catheter. These are more reasons to withhold epidural anesthesia until the active phase of labor.

HYPNOBIRTHING

Like most doctors in other fields, I never questioned the culture and evidence which supported our approach for some time. And then, eighteen years ago when my wife was pregnant with our son she informed me that she had reservations around standard perinatal care in this country.

She had given birth five years earlier to my step-daughter at Beth Israel Hospital in Boston, MA after her obstetrician had warned her in her second trimester that there was a significant chance that she would not carry the pregnancy to term due to various clinical markers. She ignored the assessment and trusted her intuition that everything would turn out fine.

Everything did turn out fine, despite the treatment she received when she arrived at the Labor & Delivery unit a few weeks before her expected delivery date. Her “water”, the fluid inside the amniotic sac, had “broken” hours before, but she hadn’t rushed to the hospital to be evaluated. Her nonchalance wasn’t viewed kindly by the staff when she arrived and announced that she was ready to give birth.

Though she was having frequent and painful contractions, they quickly assessed her and coldly informed her that she was still early in labor and needed to put on a hospital gown and expect a visit from the anesthetist who would place an epidural when the contraction pains became intolerable. Jill wasn’t interested in wearing a gown. She wanted to be in her birthday suit when her daughter arrived in her own.

And neither was she interested in an epidural.

The nurses rolled their eyes. “You think it hurts now? Just wait!”, they told her.

I wasn’t there, but I knew exactly what the staff was thinking: another naive, first-time mother who thinks she knows about the realities of childbirth.

The anesthetist was summoned anyway. Racked with the pain of a powerful contraction and unable to think clearly, she allowed herself to be placed in a sitting position for the epidural while a nurse tried to insert an IV into her arm and place a gown over her shoulders. She pushed everyone aside and much to their shock and dismay, gave birth to my step daughter then and there, completely naked twenty minutes after arriving at the world-renowned medical center.

This time around things would be different. Jill was training her body and her psyche to expect a smooth and tolerable labor using a method called Hypnobirthing, a technique developed by Marie “Mickey” Mongan who used it herself after researching the conditions many mothers endure during childbirth in this country.

I had never heard of this approach and was completely open to it as long as the delivery would take place in a hospital with an obstetrician in attendance. Though I am of the opinion that childbirth is over medicalized I am well aware that the need for urgent, life saving intervention can never be predicted.

Halfway into her second trimester we would fall asleep listening to hypnotic scripts which encouraged her to visualize herself in a birthing position, relaxed and confident of the process and the innate intelligence of her own body which would know exactly what to do when the time came. We never spoke about the risk of complications and avoided talking about our “birth plan” to our friends. Four months later (on September 11, 2008) my wife peacefully gave birth to our son in a birthing tub with no continuous Fetal Heart Monitoring or epidural while I strummed a guitar and sang while the hospital doula harmonized.

I was impressed. A few years later I attended a four day seminar given by Ms. Mongan offered to people who were interested in becoming “certified” Hypnobirthing coaches. I arrived at the small conference room at a modest hotel in greater Boston to find about 15 women seated in a circle casually chatting. Mongan started by asking us each to share our name, what we did and why we were there.

Everyone was either a birthing doula or a mother who had an amazing birthing experience using the Hypnobirthing approach and wanted to help other mothers to experience what they did.

I let them know that I was an anesthesiologist and was questioning the establishment’s approach to childbirth even before witnessing the peaceful birth of my son. Having regularly been in situations where immediate interventions were required to save the life of a mother, her baby or both I knew that modern medicine offered essential care that could never be replaced by visualizations or hypnotic suggestions. But were we robbing mothers of the full depth and beauty of perhaps the most magical experience our human condition offers?

Mickey Mongan’s eyes welled up. She quietly said that in her decades of spreading her perspective I was the first physician who was seriously interested in what she was offering.

Mongan gave birth to her first two children in the 1950’s when it was common to give a mother in labor a brain-scrambling drug called scopolamine and/or ether and physically restraining them until the baby was delivered. She was traumatized. Surely there must be a better way to approach the most natural part of being alive? Do other mammals have the kinds of problems we have?

She recalls contemplating the birthing process of a cat, living on a farm. The pregnant feline will find a quiet, dark, warm and safe place when the time came and would simply let her body take over. However, if the pregnant cat hears someone approaching or becomes aware of any potential threat, her labor immediately arrests and she will scurry away to find a different secure place and labor naturally resumes.

She hypothesized that the fear humans have about childbirth may be the source of our difficulties. In order to push a pregnant woman’s body into birthing against its natural response to fear powerful drugs are required.

She was right. Often, mothers who are due but not in labor need to have their cervix mechanically opened with a balloon catheter and “ripened” with the direct application of Prostaglandins to substitute for a natural hormonal response. Though effective they can also lead to uterine hyper-stimulation where contractions are unnaturally strong or long.

Mongan speculated that the contraction pain was exaggerated by chemical stimulation, especially if the cervix wasn’t ripe or “favorable”. If that wasn’t enough, modern obstetric practice routinely “augments” contractions with pitocin, a synthetic version of oxytocin, the hormone which stimulates uterine contractions. All of this, she believed, would be unnecessary if a mother’s body and mind were ready to have a baby and was allowed to progress at her own pace.

She noted that women in child bearing years at the time understandably regarded childbirth as dangerous and painful, a situation where they would have to surrender control of their own bodies to a medical machine that insisted their approach was better and safer. Horror stories abounded. No one had heard of a painfree childbirth let alone a pleasant labor. She was determined to undo her own programming. She refused to listen to the rampant accounts of harsh treatment. She noticed the negative connotation of the terms used by convention around childbirth: “contractions”, “rupture of membranes”, “delivery”, “complication”, “failure to progress”, “pushing” and yes, even “pain of labor”. Why were we doing this?

Hypnobirthing isn’t about hypnotizing mothers into pretending that a horrible, painful experience was pleasant; she was arguing that we were a population which has already been hypnotized to believe that giving birth must always be agonizing. Using her own revised mentality she fiercely advocated for the birth experience of her third child devoid of the practices that were in vogue at the time and gave birth happily, calmly and with little discomfort.

Armed with her own experience as proof she spent the rest of her life promoting this radical approach called “Hypnobirthing: The Mongan Method” which is now practiced around the world. As I mentioned above, the method involves visualization and imagination. She introduced different terms to describe the process. She insisted that we refer to “Contractions” as “Surges”, “Rupture of Membranes” as “Releases”, “Pushing” as “Breathing Down”, “Pain” as “Sensation”, “Dilation” as “Opening” and “Labor” as “Birthing".

Perhaps, most importantly, Mickey taught her clients how to advocate for themselves when their obstetrician began to insist that things weren’t going exactly as planned. She saw that the obvious consequence of more monitoring and interventions was more monitoring and interventions.

For example, if progress is deemed “inadequate” frequent manual exams of the cervix will be deemed necessary. This is known to increase the risk of an infection, chorioamnionitis, an indication for a C-Section.

If “contractions” were judged to be “inadequate” augmentation with pitocin would be suggested. The sensation of a uterus contracting under the influence of exogenous oxytocin against a cervix that isn’t open is significantly more painful. This often leads to the request of an anesthetic, i.e. epidural anesthesia, which requires, at the very least, continuous fetal heart monitoring and bed restriction as well as rare risks of serious adverse effects.

Another extremely common intervention used to “speed things along” is the intentional rupture of the amniotic sac, the bag of fluid surrounding the fetus which is extremely vital in protecting the developing baby from mechanical stressors, allowing space for limb mobility, providing thermoregulation and protection from infection. Why, you may ask, would an obstetrician wish to rupture such a structure with a long hook like instrument during a vaginal exam? The answer is that it is thought to increase the strength of uterine contractions and speed the whole process along.

Once again a Cochrane meta-analysis of 15 studies, the best evidence we have, tells us the opposite:

“Evidence does not support routinely breaking the waters for women in normally progressing spontaneous labour or where labours have become prolonged.

“The evidence showed no shortening of the length of first stage of labour and a possible increase in caesarean section. Routine amniotomy is not recommended as part of standard labour management and care.”

So why is it a part of standard labor management and care, especially when labors have become prolonged? I don’t know. This is another reason why I am writing about it. If there are any obstetricians, mid-level providers or Labor & Delivery nurses reading this and have an answer please share it in the comments.

Despite having no proven benefit, once the amniotic sac has been ruptured, the stop watch has started. In this country, guidelines indicate that if a baby hasn’t been delivered within 24 hours of membrane rupture, it is at risk for other complications. This guideline is often used as an indication for an unplanned C-Section.

Elective Inductions

Two years ago I became aware that some of the obstetricians at my facility were electively inducing their nulliparous, low-risk patients when several Labor & Delivery nurses came to me privately and asked me to look into the data that supported this practice. It seemed to them that these patients were ending up in the operating room more often than they should.

In layman’s terms induction of labor is a pharmacologic and mechanical means of getting a woman’s body that is not ready to go into labor to go into labor. There are legitimate indications for the induction of labor:

• Pre-eclampsia (a non-physiologic response to pregnancy which can put Mom in serious danger)

• Gestational Diabetes

• Chorioamnionitis (infection of the sac surrounding the fetus)

• Chronic, pre-existing maternal conditions which are exacerbated by pregnancy

• Fetal Growth Restriction (Fetus isn’t thriving)

• Oligohydramnios (insufficient fluid in the amniotic sac)

• Premature Rupture of Membranes (as stated above, the membrane sac is crucial for the fetus’ survival)

• Post-term Pregnancy

In these situations, continuing the pregnancy is either dangerous to the mother, the baby or both. The induction of labor offers a way to deliver without the risks of a C-Section.

An Elective Induction is, like the term indicates, stimulating labor and delivery for no medical reason. It is elective, i.e. by choice. This flies in the face of the Mongan approach which advocates for the innate intelligence of Mom’s body, which will automatically know when the time is right.

The evidence for offering an elective induction to nulliparous women stems from a 2018 trial (the “ARRIVE” trial) which compared two matched cohorts of low risk nulliparous pregnant women in their 39th week of pregnancy to elective induction vs “expectant management” with regard to a primary endpoint of perinatal death or severe complications. A secondary endpoint was the incidence of delivery via C-section.

There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups with respect to the primary endpoint. Interestingly the incidence of C-sections was 3.6% lower in the elective induction cohort (18.6%) vs (22.2%).

Note that the “expectant management” C-section rate, unlike the Sharma et al study, was in alignment with national C-section rates. Why would the artificial induction of labor involving all the interventions listed above result in a lower rate of C-sections?

The answer is that the higher rate of C-sections in the “expectant” group is largely due to the fact that a subgroup of them (17%) did not deliver spontaneously by 41+ weeks and received a medically indicated induction for either post-dates or another condition (no patient was allowed to continue their pregnancy beyond 42wks and 2 days). Induction late in pregnancy is well established to be associated with a significantly higher rate of failed induction, i.e., need for a C-section. Indeed, 37.5% of this subgroup received one.

In other words, electively inducing labor at 39 weeks eliminates any pregnancy which could have extended into the period when the C-section rate increases dramatically. The trade off is that there was a higher percentage of C-sections in the first week in those induced (18.6%) compared to those that weren’t (17.3%). Though the overall risk of a C-section was 3.6% lower in the elective induction cohort, it is entirely possible that a number of elective inductees could have avoided a section if their pregnancies were expectantly managed. We simply do not know.

However, labor induction usually requires the artificial rupture of membranes (AROM), administration of pitocin and continuous fetal heart monitoring. Uterine contractions with escalating doses of pitocin are excruciatingly painful and epidural anesthesia becomes necessary most of the time.

The “laboring” mother will have probes attached to her abdomen which record the heart rate of her baby and detects uterine contractions, a machine which pumps local anesthetic into a catheter in her spine, a pump infusing fluids and pitocin into an IV in her arm and a catheter in her bladder to drain her urine. She will also be subjected to regular vaginal exams to monitor the state of her cervix. Mothers getting epidural anesthesia will be confined to their bed and in most facilities will not be allowed to eat solid food until the baby arrives.

I can say with reasonable confidence that those who consent to an elective induction are not adequately informed about the nuances of the data or how their birthing experience will be affected by an induction of labor, which will be much different than my wife’s. It’s the difference between “labor” and “birthing”.

On the other hand, AROM (artificial rupture of membranes) and labor augmentation with pitocin is very common in my facility, so for all intents and purposes their experience would be similar to “expectant management”.

“Traditional” births have now become distinctly “Non-Traditional”.

While I do not find any issues with ARRIVE trial’s methodology or the interpretation of the data, I do think that its results cannot be replicated at most facilities, including mine. This concern has been expressed by others too. The induction protocol in the study was very strict. Lack of adherence will undoubtedly result in different outcomes. I trust the observation of the nurses on our Labor & Delivery unit who are strong advocates for their patients. If they brought it to my attention they must have well-founded concerns.

So, what is the C-section rate among elective inductions at my hospital? I brought the question to the administration. Astonishingly I was told that they have no idea. They’ve never run the numbers.

Subscribe now

Take 55 seconds to watch this video which appeared on media platforms this week. Yes, it has been created by AI by the IRGC and distributed by an American media company. But what is the message it conveys?

I think it is obvious: Dear Americans, reflect upon what your country has become. Are you certain that you are on the side of good?

I have recently come to accept that most people have an attention span of less than thirty seconds, if that. Several months ago I was approached by a media company that wanted to take the dozens of published interviews I have had with podcast hosts over the last six years and create a series of reels. Unless you’re a big time influencer, they said, audiences have no patience for a long-form interview.

I gave them a chance. It went nowhere for the first two months. The reels were short and sweet but few garnered more than a few thousand views and very little engagement (e.g. likes and shares). The problem was that the content was no longer relevant. The public has moved on from Covid and the vaccine mandates. Few people still cared that the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine trial was fraudulent or that vaccine efficacy isn’t what you think it is.

And then, the Epstein files. I recorded a five minute summary of the connection between the files and 9/11. The media company threw in some captions and a few images. It was posted to FB three weeks ago. It got 250 thousand views in 48 hours:

As of today, it’s been seen 356,000 times. FaceBook just informed me that the page will be permanently deleted because one person reported my page was spreading “Hate Speech”. I am not surprised. The truth is too dangerous to be taken seriously. Cancel culture is necessary to protect us from discomfort.

I’m not motivated to appeal FB’s judgement. Most of the topics I am interested in deserve more than sixty seconds to properly explore. I am a physician. I love taking care of my patients. I’m content to share my thoughts here for anyone who is interested.

One Vengeance for All

The 55 second clip released by MEMRI TV fascinates me. Wikipedia:

Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), officially the Middle East Media and Research Institute, is an American non-profit press monitoring organization. MEMRI tracks and translates Arabic and Muslim media, including extremist comments by Arab and Iranian leaders and communications from terrorist groups.

The clip is titled “ONE VENGEANCE FOR ALL”. In less than a minute the viewer is invited to reconsider what the United States really represents. The current war against Iran is already wildly unpopular in this country, but the video goes deeper and further back into this country’s violent past.

A sequence of different people from different times look towards the heavens anticipating a long awaited justice for injustices committed against them. Who are they and what role did our country play in their fate?

A chief of an indigenous tribe of North America adorned in full headdress standing somewhere in the Great Plains with a scream of an eagle in the background. A young Japanese boy, standing in the rubble of Hiroshima after the first of two atomic bombs were dropped. A Vietnamese peasant standing in a rice field. A Yemeni bedouin surrounded by destroyed clay hovels. A smiling Palestinian girl in a Gaza refugee camp. An even younger blonde haired girl in a sundress standing on an expansive patio on Epstein island. A young Iranian girl, dressed in a school uniform on a playground. General Qasem Soleimani, an IRGC officer considered to be the right-hand man to Ali Khameini before being assassinated by the US in 2020. And finally the Ayatollah himself.

They are watching the flight of an Iranian missile, launched from Tehran flying through the atmosphere and descending through the clouds and destroying a massive statue standing in the harbor of New York City. But it wasn’t lady liberty. It was Baal, a mythological figure which has come to symbolize evil, the false Gd of the Isrealites, representing corruption in modern interpretations.

And here is how some folks interpret it:

No Eylon Levy, Iran is not threatening to strike the Statue of Liberty. Even a seventh grade English class understands the obvious symbolism.

It’s an allusion to 2 Corinthians 11:14:

“And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.”

And the question the IRGC posed is powerful: Are we, the Iranians who are responding to your aggression, really the evil ones? Or are we exposing the truth that America and the modern state of Israel have been duped into doing the bidding of a false Gd?

ONE VENGEANCE FOR ALL

Even if you believe we are fighting a just “war” against Iran and believe this is just more war propaganda you must give credit where credit is due. The video is brilliant.

Have we as Americans forgotten the 19th century belief in “Manifest Destiny”, that the U.S. was divinely ordained to expand across North America, which justified the displacement of countless Indigenous populations from their homeland?

Yes, the Empire of Japan attacked Pearl Harbor but whether it was unprovoked and was not foreseeable is a matter of debate. Nevertheless America is the only country to have ever deployed an atomic weapon on people, mainly civilians, not once but twice.

The military action in Vietnam which resulted in at least a half dozen massacres of innocent civilians and hundreds of documented atrocities was in fact initiated by an admitted false-flag event (The Gulf of Tonkin Incident).

More recently the International Court of Justice has been a hair-breadth from declaring the IDF actions in Gaza a genocide.

The public may never become aware of how many capital crimes have been committed against minors over the decades by those who sit in our halls of power today. Our own DOJ seems to have little interest in complying with the law, let alone doing their job.

While the public continues to believe that General Soleimani was an agent of terror, let us not forget what former Congressman Curt Weldon (R-PA), who was nearly appointed Chair of the Armed Services Committee in the Cheney/Rumsfeld administration before he started to ask questions, revealed to us last year. According to his sources, Soleimani agreed to keep Osama bin Laden in Ladiz, Iran while our special forces combed the mountains of Afghanistan in search of him. This arrangement was made at the request of our own CIA to the IRGC.

The last thing our war mongers wanted was a quick resolution to a military action that could be drawn out indefinitely. Soleimani agreed to keep bin Laden out of sight. Unfortunately he was unable to contain his birds. Bin Laden, like many wealthy Saudis was a falconer. His birds of prey were spotted in Ladiz. The first of several clues Weldon’s insiders stumbled upon. Read more here:

An Insult to Intuition

Former Congressman Curt Weldon exposes the Real Barrier to Peace on Tucker Carlson: The 9/11 Deception

Carlson introduces the conversation…

Read more

a year ago · 81 likes · 62 comments · Madhava Setty, MD

Yes, it’s hard to accept. Here’s something else that’s hard to accept. This is what we are told happens to a two hundred thousand ton steel framed skyscraper after being hit by an aluminum plane and catches fire for 45 minutes:

Please leave your thoughts in the comments.

Subscribe now

This week Joseph Kent, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center resigned from his position, citing the irrationality of the recent war we started in Iran. He explained his position in a respectful but hard hitting open letter to the President of the United States, which as of today has been viewed nearly 100 million times on X. This is a big deal.

https://x.com/joekent16jan19/status/2033897242986209689?s=20

Kent lauds the President for realizing, in the past, that Middle East wars depleted the wealth and prosperity of our nation, and he cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran now.

Why?

Because, “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”

He goes further (emphasis mine):

“Early in this administration, high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media deployed a misinformation campaign that wholly undermined your America First platform and sowed pro-war sentiments to encourage a war with Iran. This echo chamber was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States, and that should you strike now, there was a clear path to a swift victory. This was a lie and is the same tactic the Israelis used to draw us into the disastrous war with Iraq that cost our nation the lives of thousands of our best men and women.”

Joe Kent served 11 combat missions for this country.

His direct boss, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, on the other hand, appeared in front of a Senate Intelligence Committee this week, defending her boss’s decision to attack Iran, a country which, according to her own agency (and Joe Kent), did not pose any imminent threat to this country. Gabbard predictably evaded a simple, direct question in order to deflect any criticism around the President:

In this exchange with Senator Jon Ossoff (D-GA) Gabbard testifies that

1. Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was obliterated last year, and that was the assessment of the IC (Intelligence Community)

2. There has been no effort of Iran to rebuild that program since

And then she acknowledges, based on a statement issued from the White House, that the President ordered the attack because Iran posed an imminent nuclear threat.

And that’s where she gets stuck.

Senator Ossoff: “Was it the Intelligence Community’s assessment that there was an imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime?”

Gabbard: “The only person that can determine what is and what isn’t an imminent nuclear threat is the President”

Ossoff wouldn’t have any of that, and neither should we.

Really? He is the only person who can make that determination? What special powers of deduction and foresight does he have that no one else does?

What is the point of National Intelligence if not to assess threat, imminent or not? How does the President make that determination if our Intelligence Community cannot? Gabbard is really saying that he is the only person who is allowed, given the chain of command, to commit our troops to combat. This is true, but is it sensible and justified?

Despite her efforts to deflect, she is saying that the Iranian war isn’t based on intelligence, it’s based on the President’s judgement. Who then is informing the President’s decision if it isn’t our Intelligence Community? This is, of course, why Joe Kent’s opinion is so damning.

“Allegiance”

I am a fan of the Star Trek Next Generation series which aired in 1989 and ran for seven seasons. Many of the episodes are mediocre, however Next Generation writers were able to deliver timeless gems upon occasion.

The recent upheaval in the Intelligence Community reminds me of an episode which first aired in 1992 (Season 3, Ep 15) titled “Allegiance”.

If you aren’t familiar with The Next Generation or its predecessor, the iconic “Star Trek” series created by Gene Roddenberry in the 1960’s, the concept is that our species, sometime in the future, solves its problems of war and poverty and embarks on a mission of exploration and peace.

What would we do if we had access to replicators that bring into being anything we want and warp engines that can propel us to all corners of our galaxy? Nothing good, sadly, at least in our present state. Technology like that can only be wielded by a species that has evolved spiritually first. Maybe someday. But unlike most movies and series, Star Trek gives us an idea of what our potential might be if we simply stopped tormenting each other and started to help instead.

The stories take place around the adventures of the Starship Enterprise, outfitted with the best technology and crew available. In The Next Generation series, the character of Captain Jean-Luc Picard, played by British actor Patrick Stewart, embodies the ideal qualities of a leader: courage, morality, sensibility, intelligence, temperance, tenacity, curiosity and compassion.

In “Allegiance” Captain Picard is kidnapped by an advanced ET civilization and teleported off his ship and placed in confinement with three other individuals from other advanced civilizations. None know where they are or why they were abducted. No demands are made of them. They are simply trapped in a secure room together.

Meanwhile, aboard The Enterprise, the captain has been replaced by an imposter, indistinguishable from Picard himself. His crew is unaware of the switch but slowly notices that the replicant captain begins to behave more and more erratically.

It is a fascinating story, beautifully told in less than an hour with two interrelated storylines unfolding at the same time.

Back in the cell, all four abductees recognize the senselessness of their situation. There is no communication with their captors. There seems to be no commonality between any of them which might explain why they, specifically, were abducted in the first place. One comes from a civilization of pacifists who engage exclusively in “cerebral” pursuits. Another comes from a much more violent species who adopt a “kill or be killed” approach. The third is a cadet, training to eventually become a crew member of an exploratory vessel like the one Picard commands.

Food is provided but it is inedible to the vicious appearing fellow prone to angry outbursts, especially when hungry. He is an obligatory carnivore who needs fresh meat in order to survive. Escape is the only way to avoid starvation or being eaten. There is a single door in the room, which is locked of course. Each attempt to open the door results in a painful shock to whoever was touching it. Meanwhile one of the four is getting hungrier and more impatient.

While working on finding a way through the door, Picard realizes that in order to free himself and his fellow prisoners they needed to understand why they were brought there in the first place. He wants to learn more about the other three.

Picard has a moment of insight when he inquires more about the cadet, who, in her studies at the academy recounted how she and her classmates learned about diplomacy from classes based on Picard’s long and stellar record as a premier captain. In her response to a clever and leading question she reveals that she was aware of information which Picard knew was deeply classified. It would have been impossible for her to know of it. He realizes that the young cadet had been deceiving all of them.

And then, an epiphany. They each had a different attitude toward authority. The pacifist and his willingness to oblige to whomever is in control in order to survive. The anarchist who is unwilling to bend to the will of anyone else. The “cadet” in training, dedicated to learning how to serve in a hierarchal system. Picard himself rounds out the quartet as a person trained in command.

He announces that he will no longer participate in the charade. The captors appear and confirm what Picard deduced. He was indeed part of a behavioral experiment devised by them to learn how intelligent species respond to authority, a concept not present in their civilization which is comprised of individuals who operate in harmony using telepathy. Deception is impossible for them and hierarchy is not needed. They evolved as a species which thinks and acts together.

Now that the experiment has been exposed, Picard is brought back to The Enterprise where first officer William T. Riker, with support of the other officers, has assumed command of The Enterprise. It turns out that their behavior was also being observed during an another arm of the experiment.

In turns out that the stand-in captain had been ordering his crew to bring the ship close enough to a pulsar that the integrity of The Enterprise and the lives of thousands of our best men and women on board would be endangered. What would it take before the senior officers refused to comply with orders that were seemingly whimsical and given with no explanation? With whom or what did their true allegiance lie?

An interesting parallel to where we are today.

I invite you to watch the final scene where the crew of The Enterprise finally decides that allegiance to the ship and crew “Trumps” allegiance to their captain. As a teaser, Picard, finally back in command of his ship, teaches his curious captors something they weren’t expecting:

What happened to you Tulsi?

I met Tulsi Gabbard several times in early 2019 when she was campaigning for POTUS on a platform of “no more regime change wars”.

She gave an engaging speech to about 40 people at a restaurant in Portsmouth, NH. She was warm. She listened. She looked you in the eye when you met her. She gave everyone who wanted to talk to her one-on-one a big hug.

I wanted her to win though knowing it was a huge long-shot. While we hugged I whispered in her ear that she was going to be President one day. I thought that if enough people believed it, especially her, we could manifest it.

And then I handed her “Beyond Misnformation”, a comprehensive, fifty page document which summarized the most salient of the preponderance of evidence that the twin towers did not fall from plane collisions and jet fuel fires but explosives. It was written by my friend and colleague, Ted Walter, now the Executive Director of the International Center for 9/11 Justice.

She looked me in the eye and thanked me for the information. We met at small gatherings in NH a few more times. She never brought up the 9/11 topic.

Tulsi attended to herself well in the DNC primary debates in which she was allowed to participate. She became aware of the sordid means her party used to exclude her from the conversation. She briefly served as a political commentator for Fox News, a harbinger of her eventual decision to abandon the Democratic party all together.

Her allegiance was to our country, not her party. Her alignment with Donald Trump 2.0 was not so surprising. He professed to everything she wanted to do as President. The top spot in the Intelligence Community was an appropriate appointment for the two tour veteran who once served on the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Intelligence, which oversaw military intelligence and counterterrorism. Though she continued to support the conventional 9/11 explanation I was still a fan. She may come around in the future. Everyone eventually will, in my opinion.

Today Tulsi Gabbard appears like she is in an unenviable situation. As DNI she is in a unique position to know exactly what our massive intelligence gathering apparatus has concluded. She, of all people, knows that her boss decided to start a war on a whim. She cannot defer to a higher authority.

For all intents and purposes, whoever is sitting in the Oval Office right now is acting like a foreign agent, a replicant if you will, with little resemblance to the man for whom she campaigned. If she joined ranks with Joe Kent it might be the push needed to finally swing public opinion far enough away from the Trump agenda that the military would refuse to follow his orders.

The succession of power goes from President to VP to the Speaker of the House and into Trump’s cabinet, but what good would that do if whoever is Commander-in-Chief cannot compel this country’s fighting force to comply with specific orders?

Yes, Tulsi, it seems that you are in an uncomfortable spot. However it is only uncomfortable because you believe your job is to do the President’s bidding. That’s your job description, but what are your convictions as a soldier who vowed to protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic?

Surely you realize that your boss is holding on to his job by a thread and you will soon be a private citizen again and will be remembered as another crony in perhaps the most obviously compromised administration in modern times.

On the other hand, stepping down now would secure you a place in history, earn you a reputation for standing up to authority when the situation demanded it. In other words, if you still have political ambitions now would be the time to “jump ship”.

You have been given a rare opportunity of being in the right place at the right time. Your compunction is written on your face. You can’t hide it from the camera or the President. Resign now, when it will have the most impact and before you are frivolously dismissed for not showing enough conviction to your boss’s agenda.

Subscribe now

If a group of ExtraTerrestrials beamed down and requested that they be taken to “our leader” with whom would we arrange a friendly sit-down? I suppose it would depend upon who one asks. Russians would lead them to the Kremlin to meet Putin. Americans would bring them to the White House. We can be sure what would happen in North Korea.

But if an ET civilization was smart enough to find a way to traverse interstellar space, they probably would have been familiar with these kinds of encounters. They would have observed us for a time, they would have researched human history, the present state of the world with regard to the distribution of power, resources and influence.

The United States is the center of military and financial might on the planet. I think they would want to meet with someone who steered the foreign policy of this country. They would know that elected officials have little sway over the most important matters. The real power doesn’t rest with publicly chosen representatives who remain barely relevant for more than a handful of years and then get replaced with somebody else. The power exists in the special interests who exert massive influence over the government for a mere pittance.

But who was really in charge? For the moment, I believe it is this man:

When BiBi Netanyahu visits the President he is treated like royalty. When he addresses our Congress he receives dozens of standing-Os from both sides of the aisle. He’s been in and out of the top spot in Israel for the last thirty years and has likely influenced American interests for longer.

I watched a short clip of his motorcade headed to the White House after he landed at Joint Base Andrews last month. Our authorities closed down the Interstate 495 beltway for his fleet of limos with their hazards flashing in broad view of the public when he could have easily taken a helicopter and saved himself and DC commuters a ton of time. Intended or not, it was a show of power and influence.

I got the feeling that he wasn’t a guest of the POTUS, he was flying in to be briefed by his top lieutenant. Three weeks later America attacked Iran basically because this man got tired of waiting.

And here he is in a more recent candid photo:

That’s him being pulled from a pile of rubble after the IRGC struck his residence. Or to be more accurate, that is an array of pixels of varying colors and intensities on your computer or smartphone which, taken as a whole, depict that story.

This Sunday morning I woke up motivated to write an essay about the apparent disappearance of Israeli PM, our Commander-in-chief, BiBi Netanyahu given the picture above.

On March 2, foreign news agencies first began reporting that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) believed that an attack on the Israeli PM’s residence may have killed him, stating that his fate is “in a cloud of uncertainty”. That is when the disquieting image above began surfacing.

Reuters reported that Netanyahu’s official aircraft, a highly modified Boeing 767-338ER designed for secure, long-range transport of the Prime Minister and President was reported to have left Tel Aviv and landed in Germany on March 1. Sources assured us that his plane landed in Berlin with the flight crew on board with no BiBi.

I queried AI for more information about his specialized airplane:

It’s designed to transport the PM securely, has advanced defensive systems and serves as a secure “flying command post”, but is often moved to secure foreign locations during regional tensions? Why? Shouldn’t that be a vital asset for Israel especially during conflict?

The overview cites Wikipedia for a reference. Wikipedia does not mention any such precautions. It reports, on the other hand, that the Wing of Zion has only been in service to the PM for less than two years. How often could it have been moved in that time?

It’s odd to me that the AI Overview would include such a detail when I never asked about it. It smelled like an AI glitch to me. By “glitch” I mean that somebody somewhere was using AI to sell us another story. Or perhaps it was an AI algorithm itself that activated because of a large number of queries regarding the relocation of the Israeli equivalent of Air Force 1. But who programmed the algorithm?

Does Air Force 1 abandon the President when things get a bit dicey around these parts? The last time that happened was the morning of September 11, 2001. It was reported that President GW Bush spent nine hours on board the outfitted 747 specifically because it was thought that he would be safer in the air. But of course, that is another story…

If that weren’t enough, the PM hadn’t made any public appearances for over a week, and then a synthetic version of him appeared on many media outlets. For an instant he appeared to have six fingers. His lower molars appeared and disappeared as he spoke. It looked like a fake to many people, including me.

Why did this glitchy video surface when his fate was in a cloud of uncertainty?

But it wasn’t the odd departure of his getaway plane without him, nor his extra finger or missing teeth in a video released by the Israeli Government Press Office which motivated me to seriously doubt the well-being of the most powerful person on the planet; it was his son, Yair Netanyahu, a prolific user of X, often posting a dozen times a day. He didn’t post anything on 2/28 or 3/1—the period of time the supposed attacks occurred on his father’s residence. And then he returned to his pattern for a week, yet never mentioned the fate of his father. If that wasn’t strange enough he went back into radio silence on March 8 for a full week.

So, on Sunday morning, March 15th, I confirmed that Yair was still mum on X. He was.

And then, out of nowhere a short clip of the PM exploded on social media:

Netanyahu was not only alive. He was well. Rather than releasing a video of him rallying his generals in a defiant tone, he sent an even stronger message to the IRGC by brushing off any suspicions with a relaxed and carefree attitude. The camera recorded him ordering and drinking a latte, casually speaking to the staff and barely mentioning the rumors of his death while lightheartedly dismissing the questions around the appearance of a sixth finger on a glitchy video by showing his hands to the camera so that we could all verify that he still has only five:

If it is Netanyahu in the video, it must have been recorded after the purported assault on his Tel Aviv compound. The image of him being pulled from the rubble must have been a fake, right? Right?

On the other hand, how do we know that the cameo appearance at this cafe wasn’t a fake too? I for one, would have put more faith in a video which depicted him speaking to a group of prominent and identifiable members of the IDF rather than with a barista in an unknown location.

Conclusion

We are living in a world where we are ever more lost in streaming videos and thirty second long reels. Many people have only a handful of brief periods throughout a day to experience reality as it exists before plunging back into a synthetic one.

A dozen years ago I distinctly remembered playing soccer with my five year old son and his friends in our backyard. When one kid needed to tie his shoe he yelled “Can we pause?”

“PAUSE??”, I laughed, “don’t you mean ‘TIME OUT!’?”

They had no idea what I was talking about. The synthetic world our children had been interfacing with had already bled into their real one.

In the video Bibi is speaking in Hebrew. Of course I had to ask AI to translate what he was saying. It tells me that while showing us his hands he assures the viewers, “See? It’s me.”

Yes. I see. But that doesn’t mean anything anymore. The purveyors of fake stories have opened a Pandora’s box through the use of AI. They have unleashed unmitigated skepticism toward everything. There’s no going back. However there may be way through.

Before we surrender to being perpetually vulnerable because we cannot distinguish what is real from synthetic, I think we do have an internal sense of knowing which we have forgotten how to access.

I started this newsletter three years ago and called it “An Insult to Intuition” because I wanted to explore establishment narratives that I believed were wrong, so wrong in fact that they insulted not just my intelligence but something deeper, my intuition.

Most people would define intuition as an inexplicable sense of knowing which arises from outside your cognitive mind. I cannot be sure such a thing exists for everyone, or even me for that matter. But if intuition does exist, I concluded for myself, it can only be accessed if one first acknowledges the uncertainty in one’s belief system. The goal is to rid oneself of all biases and prejudgements (prejudices), the distortions that drive our cognitive mind to arrive at conclusions prematurely.

At that point one may be lucky enough to get a better sense of what is true. This is where intuition, if it exists at all, may emerge. I went so far as to hypothesize that if my intuition was insulted, so would everyone else’s. Could intuition be universal? It’s just a speculation, but it is a bold one.

Intuition, or something akin to it, is needed more now than it was just six years ago nearly to the day, when the world hunkered down for what was supposed to be a two week shut down to “flatten the curve”. Covid-19 death counts grew by the minute on all TV news media. The country was glued to the clips of overworked health care providers in their chaotic wards pleading the public to take every precaution. Those folks did exist. And they did get swamped, working eighty hours a week or more. I know some of them personally.

But then again, if all hospitals were being overrun why were we, while huddled in our homes and apartments, entertained by nurses and medical professionals doing choreographed dance routines in hospital parking lots and ICUs?

https://x.com/FightWithMemes/status/2011007562322268186?s=20

While I am willing to acknowledge that some centers were slammed with very sick patients, in my 28 years as a physician in a hospital-based practice, I have never seen an evening so slow that everyone on a hospital ward can drop what they are doing for a few hours and learn some coordinated dance moves and then film it. These folks in scrubs with masks on YouTube must have had very little to do for more than a few days.

Something was off. I didn’t know it at first. I intuited it. Perhaps you did too.

Now there is AI created imagery and deep-fake and various other previously unimaginable means of creating alternative realities. If we didn’t have access to something akin to an internal compass we would be completely vulnerable to being shanghaied on just about everything. My point being, if we cannot agree that intuition exists, can we at least come together and hope that it does so that our fate will remain in our own hands and not someone else’s?

So, how can we access our intuition around the health of the Israeli PM at this moment? Here are some suggestions:

• Question your certainty if it exists. One way to identify certainty is to reflect on how you engage with people who disagree with you. Do you feel justified in attacking their character and not just their argument? If so, you may have succumbed to an unjustified level of certainty. It’s one thing to admit you were wrong; it’s much harder to admit you were a jerk. In this case, either the image of him being pulled from the rubble or the video of him sipping a coffee is fake. Which one is it? Or is it both? How can you be sure?

• Don’t obsess over a subset of the evidence while ignoring the rest. If BiBi is actually sipping a latte in a video released on March 15th, how would you explain the lapse in tweets from his son during the most crucial periods in the two weeks prior? Does it make sense that the “Wing of Zion” left without the Prime Minister aboard when his country was under attack? Is it possible that BiBi was on board, perhaps for his own safety or to seek critical medical care without public knowledge? Which story best reconciles all the evidence, not just some of it?

• Nobody likes to be fooled. Ask yourself if you are more worried about being fooled by the conventional narrative or that of the heterodoxy? Why is one worse than the other for you? There are probably many people who refuse to consider the evidence of a conspiracy because they fear being labeled a “conspiracy theorist”.

• Remember that folks who are in the business of deception are not going to lie about everything. In order to deceive, they first have to be trusted.

• Acknowledge the uncertainty in this situation. We are being fed information from third parties. Even if they are well intending, they too can be fooled. I am constantly amazed by the sophistication of AI tools that are at my fingertips for free. I readily admit that I have no idea what other tools are out there, outside of public access. Ask yourself, What would you need to see or experience in order to assure yourself that he is alive and well or that he is dead or injured?

• There is no shame in deferring a conclusion until more can be known, especially when very little can be trusted. It is better to be late to the game than it is to expend energy defending a conclusion that is based on incorrect assumptions from the start.

• Notice if you are attached to a certain story being true. This insidiously leads to confirmation bias, a cognitive weakness that is exploited by misinformation spreaders throughout our history. We want to believe that we are better than them. That justice will prevail at this moment in time. That smart people trust the science and dumb people challenge it. That our government would never intentionally harm its own people. These statements are not necessarily false, but can be seductive because they confirm what we want to be true. And yes, this includes (especially) religious doctrines of all flavors and colors. It’s possible to coerce people into committing heinous acts while losing their own life in the process if they believe in a glorious martyrdom. And it is very comforting to believe in a savior, especially if you are certain that your are irredeemable to begin with.

At this moment I don’t know if BiBi is dead or alive. Until I see him address Congress I am comfortable with my uncertainty. What about you? Please leave your thoughts in the comments.

Subscribe now

I am reposting an excellent historical summary from my colleague at The International Center for 9/11 Justice, Piers Robinson, PhD which, through appropriately cited context, exposes the second attack upon Iran in less than a year for what it really is: another outcome of carefully crafted war propaganda that has steered this country’s foreign policy in the Middle East for the last thirty years.

This piece was originally posted days into last year’s attack on Iran, ostensibly to halt their nuclear weapons program (which our own National Intelligence declared was defunct prior to the bombing campaign that began in June, 2025). As Piers prefaces, the article is just as relevant today as it was nine months ago.

Piers Robinson's Substack

The War Against Iran: Decades in the Making

Note: This article was originally published on June 14, 2025, two days into the Twelve-Day War. It remains as accurate and relevant today as it was then, situating the current conflict within the broader context of US and Israeli efforts to assert global and regional hegemony and showing how the events of September 11, 2001, were manufactured to enable …

Read more

6 months ago · 20 likes · 4 comments · Dr Piers Robinson

Note: This article was originally published on June 14, 2025, two days into the Twelve-Day War. It remains as accurate and relevant today as it was then, situating the current conflict within the broader context of US and Israeli efforts to assert global and regional hegemony and showing how the events of September 11, 2001, were manufactured to enable the pursuit of that agenda.

Co-published with the International Center for 9/11 Justice and Propaganda In Focus

There is a grim inevitability about the developing war aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government. It might not seem this way for the millions of Westerners who have become indoctrinated through propaganda to believe that all events in the world have nothing to do with “us.” I suspect that our legacy media (formerly known as the mainstream or corporate media) will naively present current events as some kind of reasonable military action aimed at deterring Iranian nuclear capability. It was always, of course, about much more than that and, most importantly, the ongoing conflagrations are the direct result of “our” geo-political machinations.

What follows is an antidote to the propaganda, and one that might fall on more open minds now that the harsh geopolitical realities of Western imperial belligerence are once again in the spotlight.

During the 1990s, flushed with the perceived victory over the Soviet Union, power blocs within the West sought to exploit its military advantage to shore up Western hegemony. The former Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO, Wesley Clark, recalled a conversation with Paul Wolfowitz from 1991 - just after US forces had defeated Iraq in the first Gulf War:

And he said, but one thing we did learn, he said, we learned that we can use our military in the region in the Middle East and the Soviets won’t stop us. He said, and we have got about five or ten years to clean up those all Soviet client regimes; Syria, Iran, Iraq, – before the next great super power comes along to challenge us . . . (quoted in Mondoweiss)

The planning and organisation for a fresh round of imperial belligerence manifested itself in the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), a cohort of ideological extremists determined to exploit US military capabilities in order to secure strategic dominance in the 21st century (see for example Scott’s The Road to 9/11 and Griffin’s The New Pearl Harbour).

In 1996, the strategy paper titled “A Clean Break: A Strategy for Securing the Realm,” written by several eventual PNAC members and published by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies for the incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, recommended an aggressive posture toward Syria and Iran and aligning US and Israeli security policies more tightly, particularly around pre-emptive action.

In 1998, Philip Zelikow, who later served on President George W. Bush’s transition team and Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB) and then as his hand-picked executive director of the 9/11 Commission, co-authored the suspiciously prescient 1998 Foreign Affairs paper describing a possible “catastrophic” act of terrorism that would create a “watershed event in American History.” Was Zelikow’s paper a conceptual roadmap for neoconservatives planning the next paradigm shift away from a strategy of containment? In 2000, the PNAC report Rebuilding America’s Defenses warned (one year before the 2001 event) that the necessary transformations in US capabilities would likely be slow “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.”

As if on cue, 9/11 provided precisely that, with what was presented as a staggeringly brazen terror attack carried out by Islamic fundamentalists. Publics were urged to accept the narrative that a group of young Muslim men (inexperienced pilots) from a terror group called Al Qaeda had taken over four US airliners and used them to conduct kamikaze attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings in New York and the Pentagon, bringing down both WTC towers (designed to withstand such impacts) and a third tower, Building 7, which was not hit by a plane.

Among rational scientists, scholars and other concerned citizens who demand empirical evidence for claims of truth, there is no doubt that 9/11 was a false flag event orchestrated by elements within the US so-called “deep state,” in co-operation with a range of allies that likely includes Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Britain and Israel. An exhaustive body of work over the last 20-plus years has clarified the patent falsity of the official narrative and highlighted, in particular, overwhelming evidence that confirms the buildings in New York could not have collapsed due to the impacts of two airliners and were, in fact, deliberately demolished. Beyond the impossibility that three skyscrapers in New York City could have each defied the laws of physical motion described by Isaac Newton, citizens cite the mountains of testimonial evidence that contradict the official report as well as various other unacceptable absurdities.

Taking advantage of the shock and awe created by the 9/11 event, the US and its allies implemented their “regime-change” war policy immediately. Even before the day had ended, the US government was declaring a “war on terror” and noted countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan and Iran as being culpable for what had transpired in New York and at the Pentagon (see Ryan and Robinson, 2024). Wesley Clark famously revealed in 2007 having been informed during a visit to the Pentagon days after 9/11 that a plan was being implemented to attack seven countries in five years. He identified Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran as the countries targeted for “regime change.” Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson (former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell) states unequivocally that these plans to attack multiple countries were in place prior to 9/11. Documents published as part of the UK Chilcot Inquiry revealed communications between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George W. Bush shortly after 9/11 in which they discussed phases one and two of a “war on terror,” including when to “hit” Iran, Syria and Iraq (see Robinson, 2017).

Started by the big lie about what happened on 9/11, the ensuing wars were to be accompanied by a familiar pattern of propaganda campaigns and strategic deceptions. A bogus intelligence assessment, the Taylor Report, was delivered to NATO countries weeks after 9/11 in order to legitimate the attack on Afghanistan. The attack swiftly followed and, in the coming months, led to the overthrow of the Taliban and the start of the 20-year war in Afghanistan. Brown University’s Costs of War project estimates the death toll, conservatively, at around 176,000.

By 2002/3, sights were set on attacking Iraq, and the now notorious lies regarding alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were used to sell that invasion to Western publics. No such weapons ever existed and the ensuing conflict in Iraq is estimated to have killed at least 300,000 people.

In 2011, the opportunity to attack two further competitor nations, Libya and Syria, emerged. In the former case, NATO attacked Libyan forces under the deceptive auspices of a “humanitarian intervention,” based in part on deceptive propaganda claiming that Libyan forces were attacking civilians. The government of Muammar Gaddafi was overthrown and the country descended into a long period of conflict and chaos. The war against Syria took longer. The 14-year destruction of that country, involving the largest ever covert CIA operation, Timber Sycamore, working alongside an alliance of belligerents — UK, France, Israel, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia — ultimately led to the overthrow of the Assad government in 2024 and the installation of an al Qaeda-linked force led by Abu Mohammed al-Julani. Throughout, Western publics were propagandised by lies about Syrian chemical weapons use and, during the years of conflict, at least 269,000 people were killed. The West and its allies enabled the rise of brutal and extremist groups such as Al-Nusra Front and ISIS. During this period the war against Yemen, prosecuted largely by the West’s regional ally Saudi Arabia, killed more than 100,000 people.

It should not be forgotten that whilst the power projection by way of war impacted the lives and fate of the peoples of West Asia, the US’s parallel strategy of increasing pressure on its former Cold War adversary, largely through the unjustified eastward expansion of NATO and the proxy war in Ukraine, has brought the West to the brink of war with the Russian Federation.

And now, this belligerent policy of creative destruction, designed to keep at bay the reality of a changing world in which the West no longer dominates, has possibly arrived at its end point, the destruction of the existing Iranian government. Talk of preventing Iranian nuclear capability is simply another variation of the deceptions used over Iraq (WMDs) and Syria (chemical weapons). The concern is not with whether Iran has the bomb, the concern is with removing a government that opposes the regional hegemonic ambitions of Israel and the global hegemonic objectives of the West.

Where this all goes from here is unknown. Will the Iranian government stand or fall? How will the major global players, especially Russia and China, respond? Will Israel stand or fall? Are we faced with a regional war or World War III? Will Israel’s genocidal assault on the Palestinian people continue?

Whatever happens, Western publics should be under no illusion as to how this situation has come to be. The conflicts are the direct consequence of our governments and their associated military industrial complexes pursuing policies of war and, to do so, engaging in covert actions and major deceptions, which include the 9/11 false flag as well as the utilisation of brutal extremist groups in countries such as Syria. The death toll from these conflicts runs well into the millions while the misery is incalculable.

Propaganda, deception and lies, all in the name of war, are becoming firmly established as the parting legacy of the Western empire.

Subscribe to Piers’ substack here:

Subscribe to Piers' Substack

Follow our work at the International Center for 9/11 Justice, including Piers’ work on the flight simulator studies which conclusively prove that even veteran multi-engine pilots could not duplicate the flight patterns attributed to the “hijackers” on September 11, 2001.

Follow IC911

Professor Jiang Xueqin (Professor Jiang) is the host of the popular youtube channel “Predictive History” which boasts 1.3 million followers. According to Wikipedia:

“The channel investigates whether a real-world version of psychohistory—the fictional mathematical science of mass human behavior described in Isaac Asimov's Foundation series—is feasible through the study of recurring historical structures, game theory, and long-term pattern recognition.”

He was a recent guest on the independent media platform “Breaking Points”. As the title suggests, Jiang believes the US will lose the war with Iran. In this candid 15 minute interview Jiang fearlessly explains what is really behind this Israeli/American assault on Iran. It’s not just about the oil or the liberation of Iranians from a decades long theocracy. I will summarize in the second half of this post.

Before dissecting his rationale and overarching perspective (which left Breaking Points hosts Saagar and Krystal at a loss for words), lets take a step back and examine why we ought to be confused about this assault on Iran last week…

The Trump/Vance ticket scored a convincing political victory 15 months ago by securing the electoral AND popular vote, in part by embracing the MAHA movement led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and promises to dissociate the US from the unpopular Russia/Ukraine and Israel/Gaza conflicts. Here is a montage of #47 stumping for peace during the campaign:

https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/2029136147457163383?s=20

@wideawake_media introduces the clip:

During his second presidential campaign, Donald Trump vowed to dismantle "the entire globalist neocon establishment that is perpetually dragging us into endless wars, pretending to fight for freedom and democracy abroad".

"We should have never gone into the Middle East. Under my leadership, we will turn the page forever on those foolish, stupid days of never-ending wars."

"We're rebuilding our military stronger than ever before, and we are not going to deplete it again on stupid, senseless, endless wars."

and asks, “What happened? Why do so many people have such short memories?”

Why indeed.

Less than six months into his second term as POTUS, Trump committed to supporting a surprise attack on Iranian nuclear and military facilities by the state of Israel with our own bombing campaign, claiming a decisive end to the regime’s nuclear program—a program which our own intelligence assured was nowhere near having any nuclear weapon capacity.

Recall that on June 19, 2025, Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, definitively reassured the public that there was no evidence that Iran had restarted its nuclear weapons program.

A day later, Gabbard, after careful consideration, came to the opposite conclusion. How quickly things change in the “intelligence” sphere.

Nonetheless, after a 12 day missile and bombing campaign President Trump claimed that the mission was accomplished. Iran’s (purported) nuclear weapons program had been decimated and no longer posed any threat to American interests.

So why are preemptive strikes against Iran necessary now, just nine months later?

Secretary of State Marco Rubio explained that an attack was necessary because Iran would probably launch attacks against America in response to an imminent Israeli attack upon them.

The rationale was appropriately questioned. This country was now committing to preemptive strikes against a country of 90 million in anticipation of a response to a planned first strike by Israel? Achieving peace is very tricky these days. You have to act before your enemy AND your friend.

I am not a military strategist but why would we expect Iran not to respond even if the US struck first? And the more obvious question, wouldn’t it be easier to keep us safe by convincing Israel to not start a fight to begin with? Is our President getting pushed around by the whims of “America’s strongest ally in the Middle East”?

Not a good look for our image conscious POTUS. Rubio, like DNI Gabbard, tried to backtrack a day following his inconvenient statements. But he tried a slightly different approach—he pretended he didn’t say what he said. Surely he doesn’t believe that people have memories that short? Oh but he does:

https://x.com/DD_Geopolitics/status/2028950000865005607?s=20

In his press conference on March 2, Pete Hegseth, Secretary of the aptly named Department of War, described the mission of the U.S. campaign, dubbed Operation Epic Fury, as “laser-focused” on destroying Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities.

“We’re hitting them surgically, overwhelmingly and unapologetically…”

He’s two out of three. Hegseth did not mention (or apologize for) the widely reported bombing of a girl’s school in Minab, Iran which left at least 153 dead, mainly children, according to BBC reporting.

That same day The Aramco Oil Refinery in Dahran, Saudi Arabia was struck by a drone attack, but from whom? An Iranian military source reported that

“The attack on Aramco was an Israeli false flag operation, adding that Israel’s goal is to distract the minds of regional countries from its crimes in attacking civilian sites in Iran.”

The Iranian source went further:

“According to data provided to us by intelligence sources, the port of Fujairah in the UAE is also one of the next targets of the Israelis in the false flag operation, and this regime intends to attack it.”

Israel denied the preposterous accusations. Certainly Israel would never independently strike targets that the US is attempting to protect in order to escalate a war in the Middle East.

However, one must ask, why would Iran choose to not claim responsibility for a successful strike on a strategic target?

Readers of this newsletter will know that I rarely miss an opportunity to remind us of how the events of 9/11 reframe how we interpret conflicting sources of information. This is World Trade Center 2, the South Tower blowing up:

And here are the only five people on the planet whom the public knows had foreknowledge of the event:

They were just employees of Urban Moving Systems who caught the attention of a woman in Union City, New Jersey when she observed them videotaping the South Tower exploding. They turned out to be Israeli citizens. twenty-four years ago ABC reported:

The driver of the van, Sivan Kurzberg, told the officers, "We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem."

No, their camera and tripod weren’t coincidentally pointing across the Hudson river at the WTC complex when the towers exploded. They admitted they were there to document the event for historical purposes. But it wasn’t their camera that “Maria”, the woman who reported them, found suspicious. It was their behavior. They were jubilant when the tower blew up.

2,753 civilians died in NYC that morning.

On September 17, 2001, Osama bin Laden issued a statement through Al Jazeera denying his involvement in the attacks on NYC and Washington D.C. less than a week earlier. CNN reported (emphasis mine):

In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, “The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

“I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons,” bin Laden’s statement said.

Once again, it is curious that the most infamous terrorist in history didn’t take credit for the most audacious act of terrorism against the most powerful country in the world.

Who do you suppose bin Laden believes America’s real enemies are?

Subscribe now

Professor Jiang Predicts: US WILL LOSE Iran War

And now to the interview with Professor Jiang. Krystal Ball reminded their audience that Jiang made three predictions in 2024:

1. Trump would be reelected to another term

2. Trump would attack Iran

3. America would lose that war

So why does he believe Iran will emerge victorious?

• Iran has been preparing for this for 20 years, and they have learned a lot about the American attack threats from the twelve day war last year.

• Iran can shut down the Strait of Hormuz, making it much more difficult for the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council, six Arab states bordering the Persian Gulf: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) to sell their oil and obtain dollars which they invest heavily in the US Stock market. This waterway is also necessary for these countries to import necessities.

• Iran will go after desalination plants in Saudi Arabia which will put that country into a crisis in two weeks.

• Iran has a plethora of inexpensive drones which the US will be compelled to defend against with million dollar Patriot missiles. In this asymmetric war of attrition there is little chance that the US will be able to prevail.

In summary, Iran’s strategy is not to achieve a decisive military victory but instead to cause a financial collapse.

So why did Trump commit to this war? Three reasons, all valid in his opinion:

Hubris. With the quick success in toppling the Maduro government in Venezuela, Trump believes he can achieve quick results against Iran too.

Personal gain. The Saudi’s have invested $2 billion in the private equity firm (Affinity Partners) run by his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Trump is also heavily financed by Israeli donor, Miriam Adelson who gave $250 million to his campaign and offered another quarter billion if he ran for a third term. While a third term is a remote possibility at this time, a state of emergency from a prolonged war with combat troops on the ground puts options on the table for the President.

Jiang omits another one of Trump’s personal motivations: to stay out of jail. Unless the entire trove of documents known as the Epstein files is a hoax, the President may have to answer some difficult questions regarding anything between his questionable choice of business associates to how many times he committed a capital crime.

For what it’s worth, Israeli PM Netanyahu also finds a prolonged war a convenient distraction from the very serious corruption charges he faces in his own country as well:

Finally and most interesting to me is eschatology, the part of theology concerned with death, judgment, and the final destiny of the soul and of humankind. Jiang matter-of-factly states that the world is run by secret societies, the illuminati, which has three major factions. The Freemasons who control the military apparatus in the US, the Sabbatean Frankists who control modern day Israel and the Jesuits who wield influence over the Vatican.

Generally speaking, all three believe that Israel’s emergence as the uncontested power in the Middle East is key to bringing about an “end of times” which will herald a heaven on Earth.

Saagar and Krystal blinked once and thanked the professor for appearing on their show. Not a single follow up question. I can understand. There was simply too much for them to unpack for their viewers.

The Jesuits, Freemasons and the Frankists are absolutely real, with documented histories going back centuries. Their existence is not secret, it is their true motivations which Jiang (and many others) believe are shrouded in secrecy.

We are entering territory which I enjoy exploring the most: the stuff we cannot be sure about. There are no undisputed facts. We have to use our intuition.

What do 33rd degree Freemasons talk about behind closed doors? What if their most secret meetings are taking place in bunkers deep below military bases or in the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

The Jesuits, known for their intellectual and spiritual discipline as well as their irreverence towards secular power hold significant influence over the Papacy. The Library of the Vatican is one of the oldest and largest in the world. The public cannot access it. Why? What kind of information would be too important to destroy yet too dangerous for dissemination?

Followers of Frankism were primarily Jewish but completely reject Jewish norms.

From Wikipedia:

“Jacob Frank completely rejected Jewish norms, preaching to his followers that they were obligated to transgress moral boundaries, embracing antinomianism. The Frankists engaged in incest, orgies and sex rituals…”

and

“Antinomianism is a term used to describe any view which rejects laws or legalism and argues against moral, religious or social norms...”

Could the present Israeli state be run by Frankists pretending to be Jewish?

Who knows? But as Jiang concluded, the Epstein files are hinting at the fact that there is a deeper, darker layer behind the systems which control what the public is allowed to think and how it is allowed to behave while the controllers themselves transgress the moral boundaries we all attempt to abide by.

A Deeper Layer?

I think Jiang’s assessment is not just possible but highly plausible. An open and honest assessment of 9/11, the mysterious emergence of SARS-COV2 and the world-wide deployment of the modRNA shots as well as the JFK-like assassination of Charlie Kirk point to a reality far different than what corporate media insist we believe. More sinister still is how the public has been programmed to regard skeptics of these absurd, spoon-fed narratives first as kooky “conspiracy theorists” and then eventually as threats to society.

But with regard to the recent outbreak of war in the Middle East, the idea that factions with enormous influence over the world would be goading us into an Apocalyptic final act of the human story is terrifying—so terrifying that it is easier for most to not think about it, let alone take any action to prevent it from happening.

Personally I do not subscribe to an end-of-times event that brings heaven to those who survive it. I view the human condition as a dynamic and unfathomably diverse series of experiences that result from a dance between dark and light. There are forces which seek to control and others which seek to liberate. We see this interplay within ourselves, within those around us and in the information we are exposed to.

The forces organize and consolidate over time, exerting their influence over more and more individuals, in the form of nation-states, ideologies, religions and public policy.

Unfortunately, the light and dark often appear together. The “vaccine” freed us to travel while keeping us tethered to a tyrannical system of medical control. Wearing headgear allowed us to enter public places while restricting our breathing and signifying compliance to an arbitrary mandate. TSA checkpoints permit us to board, so long as we agree to be scanned and searched for explosives in our shoes or menacingly big tubes of toothpaste in our carry on bags.

The dance will never end. It’s what makes this, whatever this is, so interesting.

The major events of this millennium are indicative of a few wins for the bad guys. 9/11 and the passage of the Patriot Act signaled that we were willing to sacrifice the privacy of our communications for greater security if faced with an event of sufficient psychological impact.

The staggering level of government sponsored censorship of dissenting voices during the pandemic was an encouraging sign to the controllers that we would accept the idea that certain opinions should never be expressed if they threatened herd immunity and mentality.

If there are powerful factions who possess ancient and secret knowledge, what would they use it for, if not to control the rest of us? Wouldn’t that be the most obvious intention given that they aren’t willing to share what they know?

Total planetary control is where this must ultimately lead. If this is even possible it could not be accomplished openly from a castle or a citadel. That would be an inherently unstable situation as history has proven more than once on much smaller scales. Individuals, communities and nations would have to willingly surrender their fundamental nature, freedom, without knowing to whom they supplicate.

If there were a tiny group ruling the world they would have to be anonymous. And if those being ruled outnumber their rulers by a billion to one, they couldn’t be allowed to know that there were a tiny few who really in charge. They would have to be lulled into thinking that restrictions, scarcities, mandates, surveillance and censorship were no more than necessary inconveniences to manage their own tendency to hurt themselves and each other.

If a global authoritarian state was achievable, the United States, at least in a form defined in its own Constitution, would have to fall first. We have already seen the degradation of the individual rights codified in this document over the last twenty-five years. But the final blow will not be a military one, it will be financial.

So while there maybe eschatological interests pushing for a final showdown between the modern state of Israel and what has been its most powerful adversary in the Middle East, Iran, it might be a distraction from the bigger play: a step towards global authoritarianism.

According to professor Jiang’s assessment, Trump’s impetuous decision to launch attacks on Iran, whether from hubris, personal interests or the fulfillment of a Biblical prophecy will probably not result in the win he and his supporters expected. Instead it may very well result in the sinking of our financial markets which are largely buoyed by GCC investments with Petro-dollars.

If these so-called secret societies are the useful idiots in a different plot, who is pulling their strings?

Please leave your thoughts in the comments.

Subscribe now