If you’re not familiar with the Starbucks racism fiasco that has ballooned into an exploding boycott of Starbucks coffee shops, RaceWar.news describes it as follows:
…the [black] men were sitting and chatting at a table for less
than 15 minutes before employees of the store called the police. While
both of the men left the store peacefully and without incident, they
were nevertheless escorted out in handcuffs.
Starbucks’ own left-leaning employees, it seems, called the cops on two black guys for “being black.” Apparently,
Starbucks is such a “white thing” that the mere presence of two black
guys sitting in a Starbucks restaurant waiting for a friend terrorizes left-leaning white employees who freak out and call the cops.
Fifty years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “I have a dream.”
But today, Starbucks employees say, “Oh my god there’s two BLACK guys
sitting in our store! CALL THE COPS!”
What’s next? Do Starbucks’ left-wing employees think the stores
should offer a “blacks only” section in order to protect the fragile
psyches of the white crybullies and snowflakes who
have never actually seen two black dudes just sitting and talking
before? (It would have been even better if those black dudes had been
legally carrying concealed firearms, by the way, but that’s another
story altogether. Can you imagine the snowflake hysteria if they had
noticed “black dudes” who were also armed? The snowflakes’
heads would explode… they’re such racists, you see, that they actually
think armed black men are all criminals. I happen to call them
“citizens.”) P.S. I personally want to commend the two black
gentlemen who were put in handcuffs at Starbucks for keeping their cool
and calmly walking out in handcuffs. They avoided what could have become
an escalation, and they just earned themselves what will probably be a
million-dollar settlement by not resisting arrest or becoming verbally
abusive.
This is what happens when your corporation promotes irrational hysteria under the banner of “progress”
What’s especially notable in all this is that over the last several years, Starbucks has promoted a “progressive” left-wing culture that claims to be rooted in “tolerance” but actually, of course, preaches hatred and intolerance
(because that’s the core of Leftism these days). As with all such
belief systems rooted in political correctness, demands for conformity
and the complete lack of tolerance for anyone different from yourself,
the “Left Cult” is now eating its own.
Starbucks is being subjected to an exploding online boycott — #BoycottStarbucks
— and the intense hatred of left-wing Starbucks ex-customers is on full
display. Former Starbucks customers are deleting Starbucks apps and
tweeting angry tweets full of profanity at the Starbucks corporation even though the local store employee obviously acted in a reckless manner that violated company policy.
There’s no rationality in the attacks on the Starbucks corporation,
but that doesn’t seem to matter. A rational leftist — if there is such a
thing — would realize that this incident is the result of a single
misguided employee of a local Starbucks shop. The Starbucks corporation
obviously doesn’t train its employees to call the cops on black folks.
The actions of this employee were no doubt violations of
corporate policy. Yet because of the very same hysterical
“progressivism” Starbucks has been pushing over the last several years,
its own customers are now blaming the Starbucks corporation for the
actions of an individual employee.
Because rationality and logic have no place when hatred and rage are
being whipped up by angry Leftists. Suddenly, Starbucks is getting a
small taste of what the NRA deals with every single day, even as the NRA
is technically the oldest civil rights organization in America.
Hey Starbucks: You are now dealing with weaponized hatred stemming from the very same irrational cult you helped create
That’s the Left Cult on display for
you: Sooner or later, they always end up eating their own. And all the
pro-gay-marriage “love wins” coffee cups don’t actually count for much
when the unhinged Left targets you with their hatred. The Left, you see,
has become wholly incapable of responding to any such incident with
reason or rationality. Those portions of their brains simply no longer
function anymore. Whether it’s hatred for Trump, hatred for the NRA or
hatred for Starbucks, logic and reason are no longer even recognized
among “progressives.”
This isn’t a defense of Starbucks, by the way. The corporation has a
long history of despicable anti-fair-trade practices and the use of
animal products derived from GMO-fed ranch animals.
This also isn’t a defense of the libtard employee who called the cops
on the two black dudes. That employee should be immediately fired.
In summary, this is a defense of individual liberty for people of all colors, races and religions.
If two black dudes want to hang out in a Starbucks coffee shop, wait
for their friend, then purchase paper cups full of snooty, over-priced,
sugared-up “coffee” that’s actually closer to an ice cream shake, that’s
their own business. They shouldn’t be placed in handcuffs by police and
publicly shamed for merely being black, obviously.
But by the same token, when Trump supporters visit coffee shops, they
shouldn’t be screamed at by deranged coffee shop owners, either. Yet that’s exactly what happened to Fordham University College Republicans when they wore MAGA hats into a local coffee shop.
Studies have found alarming levels of arsenic in rice. Find out
which types of rice have the most arsenic and steps you can take to
protect yourself and your family from harm.
For many people, rice is a simple, comforting food. In Asia, rice is
an ancient symbol of wealth, success, fertility, and good health.
And for more than half the world’s population, rice is a staple food, making up a large portion of people’s diets.
Brown rice is often considered a healthy choice. It’s a whole grain
and a good source of fiber and important nutrients, such as magnesium,
selenium, and manganese.
And rice is also sometimes recommended to eat when you’re sick. (I used to love soup with rice when I wasn’t feeling well.)
But there’s a dark side to rice you may not know. Most of the rice today, whether white, brown, wild, organic, or conventional, is contaminated with arsenic — one of the world’s most toxic poisons.
How did this basic, wholesome food become contaminated? How should
you change your cooking and eating habits? Should you give up rice for
good?
First, What is Arsenic?
Arsenic is naturally present in the environment. This mineral occurs
in the Earth’s crust and is found in soil, water, plants, and animals.
So maybe you’re wondering: How can it be bad if it’s natural?
For one thing, humans have complicated this issue by adding more arsenic to the soil through pesticides and fertilizers.
And arsenic exists in two forms: organic and inorganic. In this
usage, organic does not refer to a type of farming. It’s a chemistry
term.
Arsenic combined with carbon is organic and mainly found in plant and
animal tissues. On the other hand, arsenic with no carbon (and combined
with other elements) is inorganic and mainly found in rocks, soil, or
water.
Here’s the main thing you need to know: While the toxicity of arsenic
varies widely — and both are considered public health concerns — inorganic arsenic is generally considered more toxic than organic arsenic.
Inorganic arsenic has been recognized as a human poison since ancient
times. It’s the type most often used in pesticides and fertilizers.
It’s also found in a variety of foods. Chickens are often fed arsenic-containing drugs to make them grow faster. But one of the most common food sources of inorganic arsenic is… you guessed it: rice.
More on why so much arsenic is in rice and what this means for you a little later.
So, How Harmful Is Arsenic?
You can’t tell if arsenic is in your food or drinks because both organic and inorganic arsenic have no smell or taste.
Most of the organic and inorganic arsenic you ingest will leave your body in a few days, according to a statement made by the CDC and information published by the World Health Organization.
But some of the inorganic arsenic (the kind of more concern) will remain in your body for months or even longer.
And frequent exposure to inorganic arsenic, even in low doses, can cause health concerns. Small doses can cause stomach aches, headaches, drowsiness, abdominal pain and diarrhea, and confusion. And larger doses create more serious problems.
Inorganic arsenic can even be deadly. In fact, in ancient Greece, arsenic was often used as a poison for criminals. A dose the size of a pea was found to be fatal.
Long-term exposure to arsenic has been linked to numerous health issues, including:
Arsenic is linked with many types of cancer, including skin, lung, bladder, liver, and kidney, with evidence suggesting lung cancer is the most common cause of arsenic-related mortality.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified arsenic as a category 1 carcinogen, meaning it’s known to cause cancer in humans. The U.S. EPA has also determined that inorganic arsenic is carcinogenic to humans.
Arsenic Is A Concern for Pregnant Women and Children
For pregnant women, babies, and children, the situation may be even worse.
Pregnant women who are exposed to arsenic may put their unborn babies at risk of having compromised immune systems while in the womb and in early life.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration found
that high levels of inorganic arsenic during pregnancy are linked to
numerous adverse outcomes. For example, exposure to arsenic during
pregnancy and infancy can impair a child’s performance on developmental tests.
Arsenic In Rice: Should You Be Concerned?
Rice is an easy, enjoyable food that can bulk up a meal for pennies.
But should you stop eating it to avoid the health risks from arsenic?
Consumer Reports tested 223 samples of rice products and found significant levels of arsenic in almost all of them, including white, brown, parboiled, jasmine, basmati, and other types of rice.
Arsenic was found in rice whether it was grown organically or conventionally — and from all regions of the world.
What About Brown Rice and Wild Rice?
Brown rice is generally healthier than white rice (which is stripped of its outer layers, fiber, and beneficial nutrients).
But according to Consumer Reports, brown rice had 80% more arsenic than white rice. Arsenic, along with many valuable nutrients, tends to collect in rice’s brown outer hull.
Wild rice may contain less arsenic, but it depends on the water where it grows.
What About Organic Rice?
Organically-farmed rice may contain fewer pesticides, but all rice soaks up arsenic from the soil.
So organic rice will have fewer toxins overall. But it won’t likely
have lower levels of arsenic unless the soil it grew in was never
exposed to arsenic — not even 50 years ago.
Which Rice Has The Least Arsenic?
Basmati rice from California, India, or Pakistan is the best choice, according to Consumer Reports data. These types of rice have about one third of the inorganic arsenic compared to brown rice from other regions.
Rice grown in Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, and most other U.S. states
had the highest inorganic arsenic levels. So it’s best to minimize or
avoid rice grown in these areas.
You can also check company websites and contact rice companies to see
if they conduct independent testing for arsenic levels in their rice.
One brand in particular, Lundberg Farms, is transparent about the problems of arsenic in rice. Their CEO wrote a letter about the issue and how the company is addressing it.
How Does Arsenic Get In Rice?
When arsenic is in the soil, all plants will absorb some of it. But rice is different.
Because it’s grown under flooded conditions (where irrigation water is often contaminated with arsenic), rice absorbs more arsenic than other food crops.
Arsenic-based pesticides were heavily used on crops for decades. And inorganic arsenic can persist in the soil indefinitely.
Even if farmland has been growing organic food for decades, if it was ever exposed to arsenic-contaminated pesticides, these toxins may still persist in the soil today.
Inorganic arsenic compounds and most arsenic-based pesticides have now been banned in agriculture in the U.S. But some may still reach Americans by way of other countries.
Can Arsenic Be Removed from Rice?
To some extent, arsenic can be washed off. Arsenic is water soluble.
Published studies indicate that cooking rice in excess water (from
six to 10 parts water to one part rice), and draining the excess water,
can reduce 40 to 60% of the inorganic arsenic content, depending on the type of rice.
And a 2015 study published in PLOS ONE, found a cooking method that reduced arsenic by 85%. They used a filter coffee maker to pass the hot water through the rice as it cooks.
But rinsing rice does remove some of the valuable nutrients.
According to the FDA, rinsing rice may reduce the levels of some nutrients, including folate, iron, niacin and thiamin, by 50 to 70%.
And nutrients were lost during the the coffee filter experiment, too.
Approximately 50% of the potassium and 7% of the phosphorus were lost.
But the levels of calcium, copper, iron, manganese, sulphur, and zinc
did not change significantly.
How to Reduce Arsenic in Rice
If you decide to eat rice, you may want to take these steps:
Choose organic basmati rice from California (or India and Pakistan) if possible.
Rinse rice thoroughly or even better soak it for 48 hours before
cooking it, pouring off the water and rinsing it every 8 to 12 hours
(like soaking beans).
Cook rice in 6 to 10 parts water to one part rice.
When the rice is done, drain off the extra water after cooking.
Or if you want to try making rice in a coffee maker, Quartz has suggestions here.
Water is often contaminated with arsenic as well, so using filtered water is best. (Learn more about the importance of clean drinking water.)
And think about adding variety to your diet and trying more alternatives to rice.
Rice Recommendations for Parents
The FDA issued a statement discouraging parents to not use rice and rice cereals as a primary food due to arsenic contamination.
Instead, the agency advises parents to feed kids a variety grains and other foods.
Remember Rice Products, Too
High levels of inorganic arsenic have been found in many rice products, too.
For example:
Rice milk
Brown rice syrup
Rice-based pasta
Bread made with rice
Cereals made with rice
Crackers made with rice
Cereal bars with rice or brown rice syrup
So it’s important to consider reducing the amount of all rice products you’re eating.
According to tests by Consumer Reports, only one serving of rice cereal or rice pasta could put kids over the maximum amount of rice they recommend in a week.
And rice cakes give kids close to a weekly limit in only one serving!
Why Gluten-Free Eaters Should Be Concerned
If you eat a gluten-free or gluten-reduced diet, you probably know that many products marketed as “gluten-free” contain rice. People who eat a gluten-free diet or gluten-free products may be more likely to have higher arsenic exposure.
In fact, according to a 2017 study published in the journal Epidemiology people who reported eating a gluten-free diet had, on average, almost two times the amount of arsenicin their bodies compared to people who weren’t gluten-free.
When you buy packaged foods, you may want to check the ingredients for rice and eat less of these foods.
And remember, many healthy foods are naturally free of gluten, such as fresh, whole fruits and vegetables and other gluten-free grains.
Do Other Grains Contain Arsenic?
Consumer Reports also looked into whether grains other than rice have concerning levels of arsenic.
Amaranth, buckwheat, millet, and polenta (grits) had negligible levels of inorganic arsenic. Bulgur, barley, and farro also had very little arsenic.
Quinoa had much lower levels than any of the rice they tested, but the amount varied depending on the sample.
Alternatives to Rice You Should Try
There’s a whole world of grains and other foods worth trying. Why
consume mostly rice when you have so many exciting and delicious
options?
Here are seven healthy rice alternatives worth trying:
Oats: A Hearty and Affordable Breakfast
Oats and oatmeal are packed with protein and are great for digestion. Eating them can also help you feel full.
Oatmeal makes a popular breakfast option, but try having a bowl
anytime when you’re hungry. Or add some oats to your smoothie or
smoothie bowl to make it more satisfying.
For a new idea, try these Gluten-Free Oat Waffles.
Quinoa: A Nutty and Wholesome Seed with A Slight Crunch
Quinoa, a pseudograin, has even more fiber and protein than rice. You
can serve it like you would rice — plain, seasoned, in casseroles, or
with a stir-fry.
And it cooks in about half the time as brown rice (about the same
time as white rice). But remember this: When you cook quinoa, try
rinsing it first. Rinsing will remove a bit of bitter taste, yielding a
sweeter and tastier grain.
You might enjoy this Crustless Quinoa Quiche for breakfast.
Barley: One of The Oldest Consumed Grains in The World
If you’ve had barley, you’ve probably had it in a soup. But this high-fiber grain can do more.
It can work like rice in a number of dishes. Eat it plain as a side
or turn it into a pilaf. (Barley does contain gluten, so if you’re
gluten-free, you’ll want to avoid it.)
Millet: A Nutritional Powerhouse
Hailing from China, this tiny seed is prized in Africa and South America for its nutrient profile and its culinary flexibility.
The definition of fluffy, millet lends itself well to porridges,
sides, and even as a gluten-free base for bread and baked goods.
It also grows in areas with poor soil, making it an excellent tool in the fight against world hunger.
Teff: Said to Be The Tiniest Grain on Earth
A staple in Ethiopian cuisine, teff is a tiny brown grain that packs a hearty nutritious punch.
It cooks more like a porridge than a fluffy side of rice. But its
nutty flavor and versatility make it a welcome reprieve from dinner
routines.
Amaranth: You May Not Know It, But Can Find It In Most Grocery Stores
Amaranth, also a pseudograin, looks similar to teff and has a
slightly sweet and nutty flavor. Plus, it’s higher in minerals than many
vegetables.
From savory to sweet, you can use this seed in a variety of dishes or as a thickener for sauces, soups, and stews.
Buckwheat: A Grain Not Related to Wheat
Despite its name, buckwheat is gluten-free because it’s a pseudograin. It’s similar to quinoa, yet it’s larger and softer.
Buckwheat is loaded with protein — more than any other grain except
quinoa. It’s also an excellent source of vitamin B6, magnesium, and
potassium.
Looking for a good idea? Try this Harvest Buckwheat Salad.
Cauliflower Rice: Easy to Make and Light and Fluffy
Minced or “riced” cauliflower looks like rice, but it’s totally veggie-powered.
Eating cauliflower rice can be a healthy way to enjoy the outstanding
nutrient density of cauliflower while also avoiding arsenic and having
your “rice,” too.
But how do you make it? Try this Cauliflower Rice recipe.
Healthy Eating Can Protect You From Arsenic (And Other Contaminants, Too!)
Eating healthy foods and keeping your gut happy and healthy will help your body eliminate toxins and protect you from harm.
Specifically, cruciferous veggies like broccoli, cabbage, kale, and
arugula can help. They contain a compound called sulforaphane, which
studies have shown can assist with protection from and elimination of arsenic, other heavy metals, and pesticides.
And a 2014 study published in Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Biomedicine found that moringa (often consumed as a powder) may be useful in reducing the risks of arsenic.
Should You Give Up Rice for Good?
Professor Andy Meharg of Queen’s University Belfast (who has been studying arsenic for decades) equated arsenic to smoking. He told the BBC:
“It’s dose-dependent — the more you eat, the higher your risk is.”
Overall, your best bet is to reduce your rice consumption to about
one time per week, rotate in other grains, and aim for a healthy,
balanced diet to help your body defend itself from harm.
Most likely, you don’t need to cut out rice completely in order to reduce your exposure significantly.
New research revealed that increasing the use of medical marijuana brings down the number of violent crime in states bordering Mexico, reported The Guardian.
A study published in The Economic Journal investigated the effects exerted by medical marijuana laws on crime
in the U.S. states that border Mexico. The researchers discovered that
violent crimes dropped by an average of 13 percent after a state
legalized the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.
According to economist Evelina Gavrilova, medical marijuana laws
encourage local farmers to grow legal cannabis. It so happens that the
majority of marijuana in the US comes from Mexico, where big drug
cartels squabble for control of the illegal drug trade.
“These growers are in direct competition with Mexican drug cartels
that are smuggling the marijuana into the US,” she reported. “As a
result, the cartels get much less business.”
In addition to cutting into the profits of drug cartels, legal
sources of marijuana reduced the need to acquire it through violence.
(Related: Jeff Sessions re-criminalizes cannabis nationwide… the full TYRANNY of Washington D.C. lunatics is now on display.)
Gavrilova explained that the drug cartels are locked in a power
struggle. In addition to muscling for control of lucrative territory,
the cartels often try to steal products from their rivals and kill any
witnesses to their activities.
“Whenever there is a medical marijuana law we observe that crime at
the border decreases because suddenly there is a lot less smuggling and a
lot less violence associated with that,” she said.
Marijuana is not the only drug smuggled by Mexican cartels across the
border. They also deal in cocaine, heroin, and metamphetamine.
But the market for cannabis is the biggest in the U.S. It is also the most profitable one for drug cartels.
A pound of marijuana can be produced in Mexico for $75. That same
pound is worth thousands of dollars to buyers in the United States,
reported The Guardian.
Robbery, murder
Gavrilova’s research team approached the FBI for their data on
uniform crime reports and supplementary homicide records for states
bordering Mexico. The time period of their study spanned from 1994 to
2012.
According to the results of their research, California enjoyed the
biggest drop in crime. Violent crime in the state decreased 15 percent
as a result of legalizing marijuana. The effect proved weakest in Arizona, which recorded a seven percent drop in the level of violent crime.
Robbery and murder were the most affected crimes. The former fell by
19 percent, murder dropped by 10 percent, and drug-related homicides
plunged by 41 percent.
“When the effect on crime is so significant, it’s obviously better to
regulate marijuana and allow people to pay taxes on it rather than make
it illegal,” Gavrilova said.
She advocated legalization and regulation of medical marijuana, with tax proceeds going to the national treasury.
Nearly 30 U.S. states have already permitted medical marijuana. Those
states have one cannabis dispensary for every six regular pharmacies.
If the findings of the study hold out, full legalization of marijuana
in Colorado and Washington will hit the drug trade especially hard.
Those two states do not share borders with Mexico.
Setting up large-scale facilities in Colorado and Washington that
produce legal marijuana will further reduce the market for smuggled
drugs and cost drug lords even more money. The Guardian reported anecdotal evidence that drug cartels
are already setting up their own legal marijuana farms in California to
make up for their losses in the illicit drug trade. Other drug lords are
reportedly adopting heroin as their new main product, with poppy farms
being grown in Mexico to reduce reliance upon supplies from Afghanistan.
Find out more direct ways medical marijuana can benefit people at CannabisCures.news. Sources include: TheGuardian.com OnlineLibrary.Wiley.com
If you’re been reading this site for very long, you’re already well
aware that the so-called “mainstream media” functions as pawns of the
deep state, catapulting propaganda on command, blacking out news stories
they don’t want you to see, and fabricating false “sources” to justify
fictitious stories that achieve a political agenda.
Some of the media organizations that have knowingly and deliberately published deep state propaganda, as you’ll see below, include Mother Jones, Slate, Yahoo News, the Washington Post, the New York Times, The Atlantic and of course fake news CNN.
Author Lee Smith at The Federalist has authored a detailed tour of the journalistic malpractice
pursued by these organizations over the last two years. It’s an
extremely important article that every informed American should read
because it exposes the utter fakery and maliciousness of the left-wing media.
Because of the importance of this piece, I’m reprinting the full article here, with credit to The Federalist. I also encourage you to read some of the other stories authored by Lee Smith.
The Media Stopped Reporting The Russia Collusion Story Because They Helped Create It
The press has played an active role in the Trump-Russia collusion story since its inception. It helped birth it.
Story by Lee Smith, The Federalist
Half the country wants to know why the press won’t cover the growing
scandal now implicating the Federal Bureau of Investigation and
Department of Justice, and threatening to reach the State Department,
Central Intelligence Agency, and perhaps even the Obama White House.
After all, the release last week of a less-redacted version of Sens. Charles Grassley and Lindsey Graham’s January 4 letter showed
that the FBI secured a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant to
search the communications of a Trump campaign adviser based on a piece
of opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign and the
Democratic National Committee. The Fourth Amendment rights of an
American citizen were violated to allow one political party to spy on
another.
If the press did its job and reported the facts, the argument goes,
then it wouldn’t just be Republicans and Trump supporters demanding
accountability and justice. Americans across the political spectrum
would understand the nature and extent of the abuses and crimes touching
not just on one political party and its presidential candidate but the
rights of every American.
That’s all true, but irrelevant. The reasons the press won’t cover the story are suggested in the Graham-Grassley letter itself.
Steele Was a Media Informant
The letter details how Christopher Steele, the former British spy who
allegedly authored the documents claiming ties between the Trump
campaign and Russia, told the FBI he wasn’t talking to the press about
his investigation. In a British court, however, Steele acknowledged briefing several media organizations on the material in his dossier.
According to the British court documents, Steele briefed the New York Times, Washington Post, Yahoo! News, TheNew Yorker, and CNN. In October, he talked to Mother Jones reporter
David Corn by Skype. It was Corn’s October 31 article anonymously
sourced to Steele that alerted the FBI their informant was speaking to
the press. Grassley and Graham referred Steele to the Department of
Justice for a criminal investigation because he lied to the FBI.
The list of media outfits and journalists made aware of Steele’s investigations is extensive. Reuters reported that it, too, was briefed on
the dossier, and while it refrained from reporting on it before the
election, its national security reporter Mark Hosenball became an
advocate of the dossier’s findings after November 2016.
BBC’s Paul Wood wrote in January 2017 that he was briefed on the dossier a week before the election. Newsweek’s Kurt Eichenwald likely saw Steele’s work around the same time, because he published an article days
before the election based on a “Western intelligence” source (i.e.,
Steele) who cited names and data points that could only come from the
DNC- and Clinton-funded opposition research.
A line from the Grassley-Graham letter points to an even larger
circle of media outfits that appear to have been in contact with either
Steele or Fusion GPS, the Washington DC firm that contracted him for the
opposition research the Clinton campaign and Democratic National
Committee commissioned. “During the summer of 2016,” the Grassley-Graham
letter reads, “reports of some of the dossier allegations began
circulating among reporters and people involved in Russian issues.”
Planting the Carter Page Story
Indeed, it looks like Steele and Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson may
have persuaded a number of major foreign policy and national security
writers in Washington and New York that Trump and his team were in
league with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Those journalists include New Yorker editor David Remnick, Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg, former New Republic editor Franklin Foer, and Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum.
A Foer story appears to be central. Titled “Putin’s Puppet,” Foer’s
piece argues the Trump campaign was overly Russia-friendly. Foer
discusses Trump’s team, including campaign convention manager Paul
Manafort, who worked with former Ukrainian president Victor Yanukovich, a
Putin ally; and Carter Page, who, Foer wrote, “advised the
state-controlled natural gas giant Gazprom and helped it attract Western
investors.”
That’s how Page described himself in a March 2016 Bloomberg interview. But as Julia Ioffe reported in a September 23, 2016 Politico article,
Page was a mid-level executive at Merrill Lynch in Moscow who played no
role in any of the big deals he boasted about. As Ioffe shows, almost
no one in Moscow remembered Page. Until Trump read his name off a piece
of paper handed to him during a March interview with the Washington Post, almost no one in the Washington foreign policy world had heard of Page either.
So what got Foer interested in Page? Were Steele and Simpson already
briefing reporters on their opposition research into the Trump campaign?
(Another Foer story for Slate, an October 31, 2016 article about the Trump organization’s computer servers “pinging” a Russian bank, was reportedly “pushed” to him by Fusion GPS.)
Page and Manafort are the protagonists of the Steele dossier, the
former one of the latter’s intermediaries with Russian officials and
associates of Putin. Page’s July 7 speech in Moscow attracted wide U.S.
media coverage, but Foer’s article published several days earlier.
The Slate article, then, looks like the predicate for allegations
against Page made in the dossier after his July Russia trip. For
instance, according to Steele’s investigations, Page was offered a 19
percent stake in Rosneft, one of the world’s energy giants, in exchange
for help repealing sanctions related to Russia’s 2014 incursion into
Ukraine.
Building an Echo Chamber of Opposition Research
Many have noted the absurdity that the FISA warrant on Page was
chiefly based, according to a House intelligence committee memo, on the
dossier and Michael Isikoff’s September 23, 2016 news story also based
on the dossier. But much of the Russiagate campaign was conducted in
this circular manner. Steele and Simpson built an echo chamber with
their opposition research, parts of the law enforcement and intelligence
communities, and the press all reinforcing one another. Plant an item
in the open air and watch it grow—like Page’s role in the Trump
campaign.
Why else was Foer or anyone so interested in Page? Why was Page’s
Moscow speech so closely watched and widely covered? According to the Washington Post,
Page “chided” American policymakers for an “often-hypocritical focus on
democratization, inequality, corruption and regime change” in its
dealings with Russia, China, and Central Asia.
As peculiar as it may have sounded for a graduate of the Naval
Academy to cast a skeptical eye on American exceptionalism, Page’s
speech could hardly have struck the policy establishment as shocking, or
even novel. They’d been hearing versions of it for the last eight years
from the president of the United States.
In President Obama’s first speech before the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA),
on September 23, 2009, he insisted that no country, least of all
America, has the right to tell other countries how to organize their
political lives. “Democracy cannot be imposed on any nation from the
outside,” said Obama. “Each society must search for its own path, and no
path is perfect. Each country will pursue a path rooted in the culture
of its people and in its past traditions.”
Obama sounded even more wary of American leadership on his way out of office eight years later. In his 2016 UNGA speech,
the 2009 Nobel laureate said: “I do not think that America can — or
should — impose our system of government on other countries.” Obama was
addressing not just foreign nations but perhaps more pointedly his
domestic political rivals.
In 2008 Obama campaigned against the Iraq War and the Republican
policymakers who toppled Saddam Hussein to remake Iraq as a democracy.
All during his presidency, Obama rebuffed critics who petitioned the
administration to send arms or troops to advance U.S. interests and
values abroad, most notably in Ukraine and Syria.
In 2016, it was Trump who ran against the Republican foreign policy
establishment—which is why hundreds of GOP policymakers and foreign
policy intellectuals signed two letters distancing themselves from the
party’s candidate. The thin Republican bench of foreign policy experts
available to Trump is a big reason why he named the virtually unknown
Page to his team. So why was it any surprise that Page sounded like the
Republican candidate, who sounded like the Democratic president?
Why Didn’t the Left Like Obama’s Ideas from a Republican?
On the Right, many national security and foreign policy writers like
me heard and were worried by the clear echoes of Obama’s policies in the
Trump campaign’s proposals. Did those writing from the left side of the
political spectrum not see the continuities?
Writing in the Washington Post July 21, 2016, Applebaum explained how
a “Trump presidency could destabilize Europe.” The issue, she
explained, was Trump’s positive attitude toward Putin. “The extent of
the Trump-Russia business connection has already been laid out, by Franklin Foer at Slate,” wrote Applebaum. She named Page and his “long-standing connections to Russian companies.”
Even more suggestive to Applebaum is that just a few days before her
article was published, “Trump’s campaign team helped alter the
Republican party platform to remove support for Ukraine” from the
Republican National Committee’s platform. Maybe, she hinted, that was
because of Trump aide Manafort’s ties to Yanukovich.
Did those talking points come from Steele’s opposition research?
Manafort’s relationship with Yanukovich had been widely reported in the
U.S. press long before he signed on with the Trump campaign. In fact, in
2007 Glenn Simpson was one of the first to write about their shady dealings while he was still working at the Wall Street Journal.
The corrupt nature of the Manafort-Yanukovich relationship is an
important part of the dossier. So is the claim that in exchange for
Russia releasing the DNC emails, “the TRUMP team had agreed to sideline
Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue.”
The reality, however, is that the Trump campaign team never removed support for Ukraine from the party platform. In a March 18, 2017 Washington Examiner article, Byron York interviewed the convention delegate who pushed for tougher language on Russia, and got it.
“In the end, the platform, already fairly strong on the
Russia-Ukraine issue,” wrote York, “was strengthened, not weakened.”
Maybe Applebaum just picked it up from her own paper’s mis-reporting.
For Applebaum, it was hard to understand why Trump would express
skepticism about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, except to
appease Putin. She referred to a recent interview in which Trump “cast
doubt on the fundamental basis of transatlantic stability, NATO’s
Article 5 guarantee: If Russia invades, he said, he’d have to think
first before defending U.S. allies.”
The Echoes Pick Up
In an article published the very same day in the Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg made many of the very same observations. Titled “It’s Official: Hillary Clinton is Running Against Vladimir Putin,”
the article opens: “The Republican nominee for president, Donald J.
Trump, has chosen this week to unmask himself as a de facto agent of
Russian President Vladimir Putin.” What was the evidence? Well, for one,
Page’s business interests.
Trump’s expressed admiration for Putin and other “equivocating,
mercenary statements,” wrote Goldberg, are “unprecedented in the history
of Republican foreign policymaking.” However, insofar as Trump’s
fundamental aim was to find some common ground with Putin, it’s a goal
that, for better or worse, has been a 25-year U.S. policy constant,
across party lines. Starting with George W.H. Bush, every American commander-in-chief since the end of the Cold War sought to “reset” relations with Russia.
But Trump, according to Goldberg, was different. “Trump’s
understanding of America’s role in the world aligns with Russia’s
geostrategic interests.” Here Goldberg rang the same bells as
Applebaum—the Trump campaign “watered down” the RNC’s platform on
Ukraine; the GOP nominee “questioned whether the U.S., under his
leadership, would keep its [NATO] commitments,” including Article 5.
Thus, Goldberg concluded: “Donald Trump, should he be elected president,
would bring an end to the postwar international order.”
That last bit sounds very bad. Coincidentally, it’s similar to a claim made in
the very first paragraph of the Steele dossier — the “Russian regime,”
claims one of Steele’s unnamed sources, has been cultivating Trump to
“encourage splits and divisions in the western alliance.”
The West won the Cold War because the United States kept it unified. David Remnick saw it up close. Assigned to the Washington Post’s
Moscow bureau in 1988, Remnick witnessed the end of the Soviet Union,
which he documented in his award-winning book, “Lenin’s Tomb.” So it’s
hardly surprising that in his August 3, 2016 New Yorker article,
“Trump and Putin: A Love Story,” Remnick sounded alarms concerning the
Republican presidential candidate’s manifest affection for the Russian
president.
Citing the “original reporting” of Foer’s seminal Slate article, the New Yorker editor
contended “that one reason for Trump’s attitude has to do with his
business ambitions.” As Remnick elaborated, “one of Trump’s
foreign-policy advisers, has longstanding ties to Gazprom, a pillar of
Russia’s energy industry.” Who could that be? Right—Carter Page. With
Applebaum and Goldberg, Remnick was worried about Trump’s lack of
support for Ukraine and the fact that Trump “has declared NATO ‘obsolete’ and has suggested that he might do away with Article 5.”
Where Did All These Echoes Come From?
This brings us to the fundamental question: Is it possible that these
top national security and foreign policy journalists were focused on
something else during Obama’s two terms in office, something that had
nothing to do with foreign policy or national security? It seems we must
even entertain the possibility they slept for eight years because
nearly everything that frightened them about the prospects of a Trump
presidency had already transpired under Obama.
The Trump team wanted to stop short of having the RNC platform
promise lethal support to Ukraine—which was in keeping with official
U.S. policy. Obama didn’t want to arm the Ukrainians. He ignored numerous congressional efforts to
get him to change his mind. “There has been a strong bipartisan well of
support for quite some time for providing lethal support,” said
California Rep. Adam Schiff. But Obama refused.
As for the western alliance or international order or however you
want to put it, it was under the Obama administration that Russia set up
shop on NATO’s southern border. With the Syrian conflict, Moscow
re-established its foothold in the Middle East after 40 years of
American policy designed to keep it from meddling in U.S. spheres of
influence. Under Obama, Russia’s enhanced regional position threatened
three U.S. allies: Israel, Jordan, and NATO member Turkey.
In 2012, Moscow’s Syrian client brought down a Turkish air force reconnaissance plane. According to a 2013 Wall Street Journal article,
“Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan raised alarms in the U.S.
by suggesting that Turkey might invoke NATO’s Article V.” However,
according to the Journal, “neither the U.S. nor NATO was
interested in rushing to Article V… NATO was so wary of getting pulled
into Syria that top alliance officials balked at even contingency
planning for an intervention force to protect Syrian civilians. ‘For
better or worse, [Syrian president Bashar al- Assad] feels he can count
on NATO not to intervene right now,’ a senior Western official said.”
Whatever one thinks of Obama’s foreign policy, it is hardly arguable
that he—wisely, cautiously, in the most educated and creative ways, or
unwisely, stupidly, cravenly, the choice of adjectives is yours—ceded
American interests and those of key allies in Europe and the Middle East
in an effort to avoid conflict with Russia.
When Russia occupied Crimea and the eastern portion of Ukraine, there
was little pushback from the White House. The Obama administration
blinked even when Putin’s escalation of forces in Syria sent millions
more refugees fleeing abroad, including Europe.
Was Anyone Paying Attention When This Happened?
Surely it couldn’t have escaped Applebaum’s notice that Obama’s
posture toward Russia made Europe vulnerable. She’s a specialist in
Europe and Russia—she’s written books on both. Her husband is the former
foreign minister of Poland. So how, after eight years of Obama’s
appeasement of a Russia that threatened to withhold natural gas supplies from the continent, did the Trump team pose a unique threat to European stability?
What about Goldberg? Is it possible that he’d never bothered to
research the foreign policy priorities of a president he interviewed
five times between 2008 and 2016? In the last interview,
from March 2016, Obama told him he was “very proud” of the moment in
2013 when he declined to attack Assad for deploying chemical weapons. As
Obama put it, that’s when he broke with the “Washington playbook.” He
chose diplomacy instead. He made a deal with Russia over Assad’s
conventional arsenal—which Syria continued to use against civilians
throughout Obama’s term.
Again, regardless of how you feel about Obama’s decisions, the fact
is that he struck an agreement with Moscow that ensured the continued
reign of its Syrian ally, who gassed little children. Yet only four
months later, Goldberg worried that a Trump presidency would “liberate
dictators, first and foremost his ally Vladimir Putin, to advance their
own interests.”
Remnick wrote a 2010 biography of Obama, but did he, too, pay no
attention to the policies of the man he interviewed frequently over
nearly a decade? How is this possible? Did some of America’s top
journalists really sleepwalk through Obama’s two terms in office, only
to wake in 2016 and find Donald Trump and his campaign becoming
dangerously cozy with a historical American adversary?
All’s Fair in War and Politics
Of course not. They enlisted their bylines in a political campaign on
behalf of the Democratic candidate for president and rehearsed the
talking points Steele later documented. But weren’t the authors of these
articles, big-name journalists, embarrassed to be seen reading from a
single script and publishing the same article with similar titles within
the space of two weeks? Weren’t they worried it would look like they
were taking opposition research, from the same source?
No, not really. In a sense, these stories weren’t actually meant to
be read. They existed for the purpose of validating the ensuing social
media messaging. The stories were written around the headlines, which
were written for Twitter: “Putin’s Puppet”; “It’s Official: Hillary
Clinton is Running Against Vladimir Putin”; “Trump and Putin: A Love
Story”; “The Kremlin’s Candidate.” The stories were vessels built only to launch thousands of 140-character salvos to then sink into the memory hole.
Since everyone took Clinton’s victory for granted, journalists
assumed extravagant claims alleging an American presidential candidate’s
illicit ties to an adversarial power would fade just as the fireworks
punctuating Hillary’s acceptance speech would vanish in the cool
November evening. And the sooner the stories were forgotten the better,
since they frankly sounded kooky, conspiratorial, as if the heirs to the
Algonquin round table sported tin-foil hats while tossing back martinis
and trading saucy limericks.
Yes, the Trump-Russia collusion media campaign really was delusional and deranged; it really was a conspiracy theory.
So after the unexpected happened, after Trump won the election, the
Russiagate campaign morphed into something more urgent, something
twisted and delirious.
Quick, Pin Our Garbage Story on Someone
When CNN broke the story—co-written by Evan Perez, a former colleague and friend of
Fusion GPS principals—that the Obama administration’s intelligence
chiefs had briefed Trump on the existence of the dossier, it not only
cleared the way for , it also signaled the press that the intelligence
community was on side. This completed the echo chamber, binding one
American institution chartered to steal and keep secrets to another
embodying our right to free speech. We know which ethic prevailed.
Now Russiagate was no longer part of a political campaign directed at
Trump, it was a disinformation operation pointed at the American
public, as the pre-election media offensive resonated more fully with
the dossier now in the open. You see, said the press: everything we
published about Trump and Putin is really true—there’s a
document proving it. What the press corps neglected to add is that
they’d been reporting talking points from the same opposition research
since before the election, and were now showcasing “evidence” to prove it was all true.
The reason the media will not report on the scandal now unfolding
before the country, how the Obama administration and Clinton campaign
used the resources of the federal government to spy on the party out of
power, is not because the press is partisan. No, it is because the press
has played an active role in the Trump-Russia collusion story since its
inception. It helped birth it.
To report how the dossier was made and marketed, and how it was used
to violate the privacy rights of an American citizen—Page—would require
admitting complicity in manufacturing Russiagate. Against conventional
Washington wisdom, the cover-up in this case is not worse than the
crime: Both weigh equally in a scandal signaling that the institution
where American citizens are supposed to discuss and debate the choices
about how we live with each other has been turned against a large part
of the public to delegitimize their political choices.
This Isn’t the 27-Year-Olds’ Fault
I’ve argued over the last year that
the phony collusion narrative is a symptom of the structural problems
with the press. The rise of the Internet, then social media, and gross
corporate mismanagement damaged traditional media institutions. As
newspapers and magazines around the country went bankrupt when ownership
couldn’t figure out how to make money off the new digital advertising
model, an entire generation of journalistic experience, expertise, and
ethics was lost. It was replaced, as one Obama White House official
famously explained, by 27-year-olds who “literally know nothing.”
But the first vehicles of the Russiagate campaign were not bloggers
or recent J-school grads lacking wisdom or guidance to wave off a piece
of patent nonsense. They were journalists at the top of their
profession—editors-in-chief, columnists, specialists in precisely the
subjects that the dossier alleges to treat: foreign policy and national
security. They didn’t get fooled. They volunteered their reputations to
perpetrate a hoax on the American public.
That’s why, after a year of thousands of furious allegations, all of
which concerning Trump are unsubstantiated, the press will not report
the real scandal, in which it plays a leading role. When the reckoning
comes, Russiagate is likely to be seen not as a symptom of the collapse
of the American press, but as one of the causes for it. Original story by Lee Smith, The Federalist.
A bombshell new scientific study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) finds that people who receive flu shots emit 630% more flu virus particles into the air, compared to non-vaccinated individuals. In effect, this finding documents evidence that flu vaccines spread the flu,
and that so-called “herd immunity” is a medical hoax because “the herd”
is actually transformed into carriers and spreaders of influenza.
The bombshell finding is documented in a study entitled Infectious virus in exhaled breath of symptomatic seasonal influenza cases from a college community.
The study authors are Jing Yan, Michael Grantham, Jovan Pantelic, P.
Jacob Bueno de Mesquita, Barbara Albert, Fengjie Liu, Sheryl Ehrman,
Donald K. Milton and EMIT Consortium.
Details of this bombshell study have been revealed by Sayer Ji at Green Med Info,
a site that’s rapidly becoming one of the world’s most authoritative
sources on intelligent analysis of real science. Green Med Info has
published 500 studies that document the adverse effects (and injury) of vaccines. Find that extensive list at this link.
630% more aerosolized flu virus particles shed by vaccinated individuals
The study, which examined 355 volunteers who were sick with flu-like
symptoms, found that people who previously received flu shots emitted
sharply higher quantities of flu virus particles that can infect other
people. From the study: Fine-aerosol viral RNA was also positively associated with having
influenza vaccination for both the current and prior season… We provide
overwhelming evidence that humans generate infectious aerosols and
quantitative data to improve mathematical models of transmission and
public health interventions… Our observation of an association between
repeated vaccination and increased viral aerosol generation demonstrated
the power of our method, but needs confirmation.
Shockingly, people who received prior flu shot vaccinations were
found to emit 6.3 times (or 630%) the number of flu virus particles
emitted by non-vaccinated individuals.
This means — prepare yourself for this realization — that the most responsible way to avoid infecting other people is to AVOID being vaccinated with flu shots.
People are receive flu shots, in other words, are irresponsible spreaders of the flu. They’re the ones making other people sick, just as we’ve observed for years. Fig. 2 from the study: Viral shedding: (A) infectious influenza
virus (fluorescent focus counts) in NP swabs and fine aerosols and (B)
RNA copies in NP swabs, coarse, and fine aerosols. (C and D) Scatter
plots and Spearman correlation coefficients of infectious virus plotted
against RNA copies for (C) NP swabs and for (D) fine-aerosol samples.
(E) The effect of day after symptom onset on RNA copies observed in NP
swabs, coarse, and fine aerosols plotted as GM adjusted for missing data
using Tobit analysis with error bars denoting 95% CIs. (F–H) The effect
of cough frequency on RNA copies observed in (F) NP swabs, (G) coarse
aerosols, and (H) in fine aerosols. Coarse: aerosol droplets >5 µm;
Fine: aerosol droplets ≤5 µm in aerodynamic diameter.
“Anti-vaxxers” are responsible citizens because they don’t shed viruses and spread disease
Also from the study: Self-reported vaccination for the current season was associated
with a trend (P < 0.10) toward higher viral shedding in fine-aerosol
samples; vaccination with both the current and previous year’s seasonal
vaccines, however, was significantly associated with greater
fine-aerosol shedding in unadjusted and adjusted models (P < 0.01).
In adjusted models, we observed 6.3 (95% CI 1.9–21.5) times more aerosol
shedding among cases with vaccination in the current and previous
season compared with having no vaccination in those two seasons.
In other words — just to repeat this — people who avoided
vaccines spread less than 1/6th the number of flu virus particles
compared to those who received flu shots. Thus, non-vaccinated people
are the ones who don’t spread the flu. The “anti-vaxxers,” it turns out,
are the ones protecting the children after all.
Yet to hear vaccine propagandists like Jimmy Kimmel
say it, people who don’t get vaccines are very nearly “child
murderers.” That’s the false narrative of the corrupt, pseudoscience vaccine industry.
Scientific evidence that the flu vaccine SPREADS the flu
These results reveal the shocking truth about flu vaccines that few have dared utter, for fear of being branded “anti-vaxxers:” Flu vaccines spread the flu. (Is it by design? We’ll cover that in a later article…)
“Clearly, if this finding is accurate and reproducible, flu
vaccination may actually make you more likely to infect others,”
explains Sayer Ji in his Green Med Info article.
“We have been reporting on the conspicuous lack of evidence for flu
vaccine effectiveness (and safety) for over a decade, based largely on
the underreported failure of the Cochrane Database Review to show them
effective (and safe), despite hundreds of industry-funded studies that
have attempted to do so. Learn more: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/shocking-lack-evidence-supporting-flu-vacc…”
Far from the current tactic of the vaccine industry blaming
non-vaccinated people for spreading disease, this study reveals why it’s
actually vaccinated children and adults who keep spreading
infectious disease. They are the ones “shedding” the flu virus particles
that infect others! (This also explains why flu outbreaks frequently
occur among children who were already vaccinated with flu shots.)
Flu vaccine BOMBSHELL:
630% more “aerosolized flu virus particles” emitted by people who
received flu shots… flu vaccines actually SPREAD the flu
(Natural News)
A bombshell new scientific study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) finds that people who receive flu shots emit 630% more flu virus particles into the air, compared to non-vaccinated individuals. In effect, this finding documents evidence that flu vaccines spread the flu,
and that so-called “herd immunity” is a medical hoax because “the herd”
is actually transformed into carriers and spreaders of influenza.
The bombshell finding is documented in a study entitled Infectious virus in exhaled breath of symptomatic seasonal influenza cases from a college community.
The study authors are Jing Yan, Michael Grantham, Jovan Pantelic, P.
Jacob Bueno de Mesquita, Barbara Albert, Fengjie Liu, Sheryl Ehrman,
Donald K. Milton and EMIT Consortium.
Details of this bombshell study have been revealed by Sayer Ji at Green Med Info,
a site that’s rapidly becoming one of the world’s most authoritative
sources on intelligent analysis of real science. Green Med Info has
published 500 studies that document the adverse effects (and injury) of vaccines. Find that extensive list at this link.
630% more aerosolized flu virus particles shed by vaccinated individuals
The study, which examined 355 volunteers who were sick with flu-like
symptoms, found that people who previously received flu shots emitted
sharply higher quantities of flu virus particles that can infect other
people. From the study: Fine-aerosol viral RNA was also positively associated with having
influenza vaccination for both the current and prior season… We provide
overwhelming evidence that humans generate infectious aerosols and
quantitative data to improve mathematical models of transmission and
public health interventions… Our observation of an association between
repeated vaccination and increased viral aerosol generation demonstrated
the power of our method, but needs confirmation.
Shockingly, people who received prior flu shot vaccinations were
found to emit 6.3 times (or 630%) the number of flu virus particles
emitted by non-vaccinated individuals.
This means — prepare yourself for this realization — that the most responsible way to avoid infecting other people is to AVOID being vaccinated with flu shots.
People are receive flu shots, in other words, are irresponsible spreaders of the flu. They’re the ones making other people sick, just as we’ve observed for years. Fig. 2 from the study: Viral shedding: (A) infectious influenza
virus (fluorescent focus counts) in NP swabs and fine aerosols and (B)
RNA copies in NP swabs, coarse, and fine aerosols. (C and D) Scatter
plots and Spearman correlation coefficients of infectious virus plotted
against RNA copies for (C) NP swabs and for (D) fine-aerosol samples.
(E) The effect of day after symptom onset on RNA copies observed in NP
swabs, coarse, and fine aerosols plotted as GM adjusted for missing data
using Tobit analysis with error bars denoting 95% CIs. (F–H) The effect
of cough frequency on RNA copies observed in (F) NP swabs, (G) coarse
aerosols, and (H) in fine aerosols. Coarse: aerosol droplets >5 µm;
Fine: aerosol droplets ≤5 µm in aerodynamic diameter.
“Anti-vaxxers” are responsible citizens because they don’t shed viruses and spread disease
Also from the study: Self-reported vaccination for the current season was associated
with a trend (P < 0.10) toward higher viral shedding in fine-aerosol
samples; vaccination with both the current and previous year’s seasonal
vaccines, however, was significantly associated with greater
fine-aerosol shedding in unadjusted and adjusted models (P < 0.01).
In adjusted models, we observed 6.3 (95% CI 1.9–21.5) times more aerosol
shedding among cases with vaccination in the current and previous
season compared with having no vaccination in those two seasons.
In other words — just to repeat this — people who avoided
vaccines spread less than 1/6th the number of flu virus particles
compared to those who received flu shots. Thus, non-vaccinated people
are the ones who don’t spread the flu. The “anti-vaxxers,” it turns out,
are the ones protecting the children after all.
Yet to hear vaccine propagandists like Jimmy Kimmel
say it, people who don’t get vaccines are very nearly “child
murderers.” That’s the false narrative of the corrupt, pseudoscience vaccine industry.
Scientific evidence that the flu vaccine SPREADS the flu
These results reveal the shocking truth about flu vaccines that few have dared utter, for fear of being branded “anti-vaxxers:” Flu vaccines spread the flu. (Is it by design? We’ll cover that in a later article…)
“Clearly, if this finding is accurate and reproducible, flu
vaccination may actually make you more likely to infect others,”
explains Sayer Ji in his Green Med Info article.
“We have been reporting on the conspicuous lack of evidence for flu
vaccine effectiveness (and safety) for over a decade, based largely on
the underreported failure of the Cochrane Database Review to show them
effective (and safe), despite hundreds of industry-funded studies that
have attempted to do so. Learn more: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/shocking-lack-evidence-supporting-flu-vacc…”
Far from the current tactic of the vaccine industry blaming
non-vaccinated people for spreading disease, this study reveals why it’s
actually vaccinated children and adults who keep spreading
infectious disease. They are the ones “shedding” the flu virus particles
that infect others! (This also explains why flu outbreaks frequently
occur among children who were already vaccinated with flu shots.)
“Herd immunity” hoax collapses in the face of real science
Furthermore, the so-called “herd immunity” effect that’s often touted
to push more vaccines on everyone has been exposed as a complete hoax
by this study. If vaccinated people are the very ones spreading flu
virus particles into the air, then the herd is spreading the flu, not preventing it.
“Herd immunity,” it turns out, actually becomes “herd multiplication”
of the viral strain, since the herd is “weaponized” into flu virus
spreaders. This finally explains why so many children who get infected
with the flu (or measles, mumps and other infectious diseases) tend to
be the very same children who were vaccinated against those diseases.
The vaccines transform children into carriers of the disease,
infecting others and contributing to the epidemic. This, in turn,
results in panic among the news media, which urges everyone to rush out
and get vaccinated as quickly as possible. Within a few days, a second
wave of infectious begins to spread, caused by the vaccine itself.
Vaccines, in other words, are self-perpetuating infectious disease
spreaders. Their role in society, as currently structured, is to cause infectious disease outbreaks that create a surge in demand for vaccine sales.
The media’s role is crucial in all this, as it’s the job of the media
to create fear and panic among parents, then urge them to have their
children vaccinated. This perpetuates the spread of the disease and sets
up the entire scam for another round of outbreaks, panic and vaccine
sales.
The US government may have misspent $21 trillion, a professor at
Michigan State University has found. Papers supporting the study
briefly went missing just as an audit was announced.
Two departments of the US
federal government may have spent as much as $21 trillion on things they
can’t account for between 1998 and 2015. At least that’s what Mark
Skidmore, a Professor of Economics at MSU specializing in public
finance, and his team have found.
They came up with the figure after digging the
websites of departments of Defense (DoD) and Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) as well as repots of the Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) over summer.
The research was triggered by Skidmore
hearing Catherine Austin Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary in the HUD
in the first Bush administration, saying the Inspector General found
$6.5 trillion worth of military spending that the DoD couldn’t account
for. She was referring to a July 2016 report by the OIG, but Skidmore
thought she must be mistaking billion for trillion. Based on his
previous experience with public finances, he thought the figure was too
big even for an organization as large as the US military. “Sometimes
you have an adjustment just because you don’t have adequate
transactions… so an auditor would just recede. Usually it’s just a small
portion of authorized spending, maybe one percent at most. So for the
Army one percent would be $1.2 billion of transactions that you just
can’t account for,” he explained in an interview with USAWatchdog.com earlier this month.
After discovering that the figure was accurate, he and Fitts
collaborated with a pair of graduate students to comb through thousands
of reports of the OIG dating back to 1998, when new rules of public
accountability for the federal government were set and all the way to
2015, the time of the latest reports available at the time. The research
was only for the DoD and the HUD. “This is incomplete, but we
have found $21 trillion in adjustments over that period. The biggest
chunk is for the Army. We were able to find 13 of the 17 years and we
found about $11.5 trillion just for the Army,” Skidmore said.
The professor would not suggest whether the missing trillions
went to some legitimate undisclosed projects, wasted or misappropriated,
but believes his find indicates that there is something profoundly
wrong with the budgeting process in the US federal government. Such lack
of transparency goes against the due process of authorizing federal
spending through the US Congress, he said.
Skidmore also co-authored a column on Forbes, explaining his research.
The same week the interview took place the DoD announced that it will conduct its first-ever audit. “It is important that the Congress and the American people have confidence in DoD’s management of every taxpayer dollar,”
Comptroller David Norquist told reporters as he explained that the OIG
has hired independent auditors to dig through the military finances. “While
we can’t know for sure what role our efforts to compile original
government documents and share them with the public has played, we
believe it may have made a difference,” Skidmore commented.
Interestingly,
in early December the authors of the research discovered that the links
to key document they used, including the 2016 report, had been
disabled. Days later the documents were reposted under different
addresses, they say.
(Natural News)
A bombshell new scientific study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) finds that people who receive flu shots emit 630% more flu virus particles into the air, compared to non-vaccinated individuals. In effect, this finding documents evidence that flu vaccines spread the flu,
and that so-called “herd immunity” is a medical hoax because “the herd”
is actually transformed into carriers and spreaders of influenza.
