Special thanks to Maria Zeee (@zeee_media) for doing an incredible job hosting Media Blackout!
Merry Christmas! Please repost and follow (Vigilant Fox, Maria Zeee, and Vigilant News) to support our work — and stay tuned for episode 4 on January 7!
NYC anchor Kaity Tong (non-smoker) diagnosed with lung cancer; KC quarterback Mason Martin has “significant brain bleed”; Eagles quarterback Jalen Hurts reported injured “due to an illness”
Madonna was in a 48-hour induced coma while hospitalized for multiple days back in June for a bacterial infection.
She revealed new details about her medical emergency to a packed house at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn as part of her Celebration World Tour. This summer, the Grammy winner had to postpone the tour after she was admitted to an intensive care unit for treatment of the infection.
“I was in an induced coma for 48 hours,” Madonna could be heard saying in a video of her statement captured by a fan. That was before she thanked her Kabbalah teacher, who was at her side while she was in the hospital. “The only voice I heard was his. I heard him say, ‘Squeeze my hand.’”
Celine Dion’s Sister Claims Singer Has Lost Control of Muscles Due to Her Stiff-Person Syndrome
Celine Dion’s sister, Claudette Dion, claims her sister has lost control of her muscles due to her Stiff-Person Syndrome — a progressive neurological disorder that affects the brain and the spinal cord, according to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
Just when things appeared to be cooling off with COVID-19, New Zealand whistleblower Barry Young released a secret dataset containing information about vaccination status and death rates. In response the NZ government has cracked down once again as they scramble to hold together the “safe and effective” mantra.
However, will ignoring the upstream fraud while focussing so heavily on the COVID shots bring about any real change? In this video we examine the much wider issues and there will also be an update on the establishment’s war against Dr Sam!
Notably the NZ govt is keeping up a stunning silence on this (even continuing with the ‘safe & effective’ mantra) especially in light of the recent revelations from the Govt’s own data analyst whistleblower! For a list of links on topic go HERE
Medicare death data proves the COVID vaccines are killing people. No more doubts. The debate is over.
Medicare death data proves the COVID vaccines are killing people. No more doubts. The debate is over.
Executive summary
If you do a simple plot of the absolute number of deaths per day after a vaccine shot is given vs. the number of days that have elapsed since the shot, other than for a brief 21-day period after the shot, the number of deaths per day will always monotonically decline over time in a safe vaccine. But for the COVID vaccine, it monotonically increases over time for 365 days straight.
A positive slope for 1 year post vaccination is unprecedented. It means the COVID vaccine is killing people. There is no other explanation.
This is why the CDC never will show America the Medicare data. Never. The truth has to be hidden from everyone.
And this is why the medical community never asks to see the data.
If they saw the data, doctors would have to admit they were wrong.
The same effect has been observed in the four other countries I have this data on: New Zealand, UK, Israel, and the Maldives.
What more do you need to know?
Introduction
I’m going to show you below two charts from Medicare, all ages.
Note that Medicare is mostly older people and the average mortality rate is around 4% per year.
These are all people who got vaccinated in 2021 and it looks at the number of deaths per day since the first shot of the vaccine was given in that year (if more than one shot was given). The x-axis is the days since the shot was given. So it is relative to the day of the shot.
So the age distribution of the cohort is determined by the age mix of the people who got the shot in 2021.
Over a one year period, the age distribution will change by a small amount since people die. So the fixed size cohort (the number of people who got the shot in 2021) gets smaller over time.
But the bottom line is that for a safe vaccine, the line always slopes downward after a brief upward slope for the death rate to get to baseline caused by the temporal healthy vaccinee effect (tHVE). This effect lasts up to 21 days or so. So starting on Day 28, the slope should always be going downwards.
The downward slope of the charts is a fundamental property of death: deaths per day are simply proportional to the number of people who are alive. The mix doesn’t matter. It always slopes down.
So if you have an overall 4% death rate, the number of people dying per day should be 4% lower than at the start of the period. In summary, the slope of the line will be set by the average age of the cohort who got the shot.
There are secondary effects. The two biggest are:
The age mix of the remaining cohort changes over time as people die off,
People are a year older at the end of the observation period and thus die at a slightly higher rate than at the start. For example, if you have 100 year olds dying at 43% per year, by the end of the year they are dying at 50% per year, a 16% relative increase and a 7% absolute increase in death rate. There are simply a lot fewer people available to die and it isn’t overcome by the increase in the death rate which works in the opposite direction. So this effect results in the negative slope being slightly less than what is predicted from the primary effect, but it is still negative.
In practice, these secondary effects never change the direction of the slope: it is ALWAYS negative, i.e., on average, fewer people die every day.
This is fundamental because there are simply fewer people left to die and the change in the death rate caused by aging is always a fraction of the death rate itself.
This is why, when we look at all age stratified curves just to make sure, it always slopes down. In general, the older the cohort, the more the downward slope.
The effect of background extinction events
The only thing that can temporarily alter the negative slope is an external event that kills people such as a COVID wave. If the vaccine is given over a short time period, you’ll see this as a brief blip upward, but it will not be sustained.
Conversely, if the vaccine is given evenly over time, background effects will all be averaged out and just shift the line upward, but will not affect the downward slope.
Pneumococcal vaccine curve (Medicare 2021 all ages)
This is the pneumococcal vaccine curve from Medicare in 2021. All ages. It looks at people who were vaccinated sometime in 2021, and looks for 1 year after the shot to see if they died. The x-axis is the days relative to the shot day that they died.
COVID vaccine curve (Medicare 2021 all ages)
This is the exact same chart as above, but this time for the COVID vaccine and tracks the days till death from their first shot (if they had >1 shot in 2021). Do you see the problem? The slope is positive. It’s supposed to be negative.
Analysis
This isn’t rocket science.
The pneumococcal vaccine slopes downward exactly as expected from 308 average down to 288, a decrease of 6.5% over one year.
The COVID vaccine monotonically slopes upward from an average 3492 deaths per day after the shot to 4365 deaths per day, an increase of 25% over one year.
This is stunning. It is unprecedented.
The COVID vaccine is supposed to slope down like every safe vaccine as noted in the introduction. It’s a law of nature. Monotonically sloping upward over a one year period has never been seen before. It is inexplicable. There is no background event that could cause this to happen. Most of the COVID shots for the elderly were given over a concentrated period of time (in the first 3 months of the year).
Plot from UK ONS: mortality goes up after the shots delivered
From my MIT presentation. Note that the UK ONS obscures the effect by choice of bucket size. So we can see it on a temporal basis by looking at 21 days ago over time.
Is this proof that the COVID vaccine caused these deaths?
Here’s what we know:
This effect has never been seen before (monotonic increase over 365 days since the first COVID shot). So it has to be caused by something novel, not in existence before 2021.
It is not a background effect or we would have seen it in the pneumococcal vaccine
The medicare queries that we run for both graphs were identical except for the vaccine, so it isn’t a coding artifact.
The effect is ONLY seen for the COVID vaccine.
The effect is correlated to the administration of the COVID vaccine.
Increasing mortality by a 30% differential is huge. What it is causing this had to have been injected into people because nothing external kills people like this.
The effect is happening in every country I have COVID vax data on.
If it wasn’t the COVID vaccine causing the increase, then what was it that fits all the parameters listed above? Nothing. That’s the proof. There is simply no other explanation.
But of course, we have tons of data that the COVID vaccines kill people, so this really wasn’t a surprise.
Are there any safe vaccines?
Not that I’m aware of. A safe vaccine would kill fewer than 1 person per million.
The pneumococcal vaccine easily exceeds that threshold on Day 0.
But the remainder of the death curve appears as we would expect a safe vaccine to look (if there was such a thing).
Why doctors will ignore this
Doctors need to earn a living. If they speak out about the vaccine, they will be fired and/or have their board certifications revoked.
So they have to lie to their patients. It’s self-preservation. Dissent simply isn’t tolerated. If you don’t toe the line with consensus thinking, you’re out.
So the killing will continue indefinitely because doctors are muzzled. That’s just the way it goes.
Summary
The longer the mainstream media, Congress, health authorities, and the medical community ignores this data in plain sight, the more clear it is that they are corrupt.
That is raw data, unprocessed. No tricks. No Simpson’s paradox. Same year. Same query. Different vaccines and dramatically different outcomes. It is simply unexplainable if the vaccines are safe.
Please share this article with your doctor and ask them to explain the two death charts to you and tell you why they believe that both vaccines are safe. Then, ask them what an unsafe vaccine would look like. Please record the conversation and post it.
This week an interview with a Ministry of Health employee under the pseudonym Winston Smith, who leaked data to former journalist and recent political candidate Liz Gunn, caused an international sensation. A data set of four million vaccination records was briefly available for download and scrutiny from vaccine critic Steve Kirsch’s site. Many of you have no doubt watched the hour long interview by Liz Gunn by now. Kirsch independently promised his readers that international statistics experts would be publishing analysis of the data shortly.
The Wasabi site hosting the data for download acted rapidly to cancel Steve Kirsch’s account, and YouTube took down the video within minutes (it is still up on Rumble). The Ministry of Health issued a statement, widely reported in the New Zealand press, labelling the leak as misinformation. They announced that they had sacked the whistleblower and called in the police.
Dr. Shane Reti, our newly appointed Minister of Health, issued a statement:“There are many conspiracy theorists out there who unfortunately disseminate harmful disinformation, however, as Minister and as a physician, the public can and should continue to have confidence in vaccines. I am reassured by experts confirming that there is no evidence supporting the allegations that have been made.”
So the government feels that we should all be reassured by unnamed experts who say there is nothing to see here without discussing any specific points in the data leak. If you have been reading our reports here and here, you will know that there is a great deal of evidence published in reputable journals, including from New Zealand, indicating vaccine harm. As a result, we have consistently called for the release of data comparing health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated, but access was consistently denied by the previous government.
It now appears the incoming government is also going to tell us to look the other way.
If health data shows that there is no harm from Covid vaccines why would the government deny access to the relevant data?
In fact, more than two years ago the government granted unfettered access to New Zealand Covid vaccine health data to vaccinologist Dr. Petousis-Harris Co-Director of the Global Vaccine Data Network. She promised to publish data on vaccine safety within months but has published no results since, and has publicly stated that she will not be getting another Covid vaccine. So what do you make of that?
Last week the relative of a friend phoned them with some bad news from Australia. They had been diagnosed with pericarditis. “Don’t worry,” they said “I have seen a specialist and I should be able to come through it OK”. The specialist told them it was “due to a prior Covid infection”, “but I haven’t had Covid, I’ve had the vaccine” responded the patient. “Ah”, said the doctor, “you must have had Covid, it can’t be due to the vaccine.”
You get the picture don’t you? Pericarditis is a recognised adverse effect of mRNA Covid vaccination but medical experts are telling patients it can’t happen. I wonder what our experts are telling Dr. Shane Reti? It is ‘show and tell’ time at medical kindergarten. Can Dr Reti show us the full data or is he going to continue with the absurd and dictatorial ‘one podium of truth’ lie of the last administration?
More on the data leak
The whistleblower was reportedly a computer systems programmer at the Ministry of Health who designed the computer payment system for vaccine providers. In the video he appeared visibly distressed by the rate of deaths among those who had received vaccinations. There were a number of charts displayed showing for example that some South Island vaccination sites had been disproportionately affected by deaths subsequent to vaccination. It was immediately clear from the names of the providers that these sites serviced the elderly, an obvious and unfortunate data bias which has garnered some criticisms.
Clearly the collection of vaccination data by the Ministry of Health has been a little haphazard and contains inconsistencies. There have been indications of this in earlier data, but in general the records leaked stand as authentic if incomplete. Statistically speaking, the main problem is the lack of sufficient data to make exact assessments of safety. In other words, a comparison of health outcomes between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated will be necessary. Precisely the data the Ministry of Health has refused to release. Unfortunately, the whistleblower only had access to data from the vaccinated.
That doesn’t mean the data leak is invalid, a conspiracy theory, or irrelevant. There were some very real and concerning questions raised which need answers. The reaction of the Ministry of Health and the Minister actually points to a conspiracy of silence on their part, not to the whistleblower. We do have whistleblower protection legislation in New Zealand. It states that:“An employee can make a protected disclosure (sometimes called ‘whistle blowing’) when they report serious wrongdoing in the workplace that they reasonably believe is true or likely to be true.”
The whistleblower was in the position that many people holding positions of responsibility in New Zealand now find themselves. We believe he acted responsibly because he disclosed very concerning information that the Ministry of Health has been withholding from public view.
We have unprecedented record high rates of excess deaths and hospitalisation which are continuing long past the peaks of Covid infection yet virtually no one among the media, the medical profession, and the government wants to talk about it. Instead, they are conspiring (yes, I do mean to use the term and don’t do so lightly) to hide the figures that will demonstrate the exact extent of COVID-19 vaccine harm.
This is all the more concerning since a rapidly growing number of recently published scientific papers we have been regularly reporting are pointing to a wide range of long term mRNA Covid harms including heart disease and immune deficiency,cancers, strokes and mental illness.
The message that most resonated with me during the interview was the heartfelt plea from the whistleblower for others to speak up. I encourage all those with inside knowledge to speak up if you haven’t already done so. We can’t continue with the disastrous censorship of health information enforced by the previous government. The health and longevity of the whole population is at stake.
As my friend Robert “St. Augustine” Malone has wisely said, “Truth is like a lion: Let it loose and it will defend itself.” The truth has now been set free. Why aren’t you showing us your analysis?
Heath New Zealand’s attitude about public health data reminds me of this classic scene from the Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Click the image to watch the clip. It is hilarious.
When Health New Zealand’s (HNZ) Oracle DB administrator, Barry Young, sent the entire leadership team of HNZ an email to notify them of a huge safety signal in their own database, they didn’t ask any questions: they fired him immediately.
So Barry released the anonymized data which would expose the truth about what the New Zealand public health records contain without violating anyone’s privacy. 4M of the 12M records.
HNZ then decided to try to stop the truth from getting out. So they contacted Wasabi and MEGA and had them nuke my account and Kevin McKernan’s account even though neither of us had done anything wrong. Kevin lost years of work that cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars to create. This is work relied on by other researchers all over the world.
HNZ failed to stop the distribution of the truth. EPIC FAIL.
So now what?
The genie is now (finally) out of the bottle, thanks to HNZ employee Barry Young
Barry will likely spend 7 years in prison for the crime of exposing a crime.
HNZ: I have an important message for you.
The only way you can mitigate damages now is to show us your analysis of your own data showing the COVID vaccines are completely safe.
Why are you hiding this? Surely, you have the analysis. Show us all the analyses you did since the start of the vaccine rollout. You have to show us all documents with dates, showing us every safety analysis you did on your own data. If you don’t we’ll get it via FOIA request.
It would be a more efficient use of your time to simply publish all these analyses now, rather than have hundreds of New Zealanders request it.
The only thing you can be sure of is that not a single mainstream media organization in the world will ask you for these analyses. Like you, they want to keep it hidden. So the NZ press, the New York Times, Wall St. Journal, CNN, 60 Minutes… you’re safe from them. They are never going to ask questions. The vaccine will never be unsafe in their eyes. They are all paid to look the other way by their advertisers.
But the public will ask via FOIA and you’ll have to respond. Are you going to fabricate documents that never existed? That would be criminal.
Or are you going to admit you never did a proper analysis of the data just like the California Department of Public Health never bothered to do any analysis either. Admit the truth.
Bottom line: Show us your analysis now, or the people of New Zealand will require it be produced under FOIA.
HNZ: Where am I? Kirsch (not identified as yet): In New Zealand. HNZ: What do you want? Kirsch: Information. HNZ: Whose side are you on? Kirsch: We are on the side of truth and transparency. We want information…information… information!!! HNZ: You won’t get it! Kirsch: By hook or by crook, we will. HNZ: Who are you? Kirsch: I am the world’s most dangerous misinformation superspreader. Type that phrase into Google; I’m the top hit!! I am your worst enemy. The reason I am so dangerous is that I have been calling for data transparency of public health information (that, by the way, is owned by the public). The medical community, health authorities, and mainstream media all seem intent in hiding the truth. They will lose. The truth always wins. Did you know that the people who try to suppress the truth and achieve medical consensus by means of intimidation, censorship, and coercion are always on the wrong side of the issue? There are no counterexamples in history. Think about it.
Why can’t we talk about it? Let’s have a civil scientific dialog, shall we?
How about we have a publicly recorded video call with your epidemiologists vs. my epidemiologists so we can expose who is telling the truth and who is killing people? Since you can’t stop the distribution of the public health data, this is your only option if you want to reduce “vaccine hesitancy.”
Thank you for your attention.
And one more thing…
The first rule of holes: when you find yourself in one, stop digging.
Maybe you want to consider withdrawing your criminal charges against Barry Young? He did not commit a crime. He relied on the advice of experts including UK Professor Norman Fenton before releasing the data. Of course, you wouldn’t know that because you never asked him. You never even talked to him before having him arrested. Your actions are despicable.
Have a nice day. And thank you for allowing the data to be set free and drawing world attention to the importance of data transparency. And encouraging other health authorities to do the same!
The pharmaceutical industry is now turning its attention to children said this Big Pharma whistle blower, because the baby boomers are dying out. This is why the upsurge in children’s ‘diseases’ and ‘disorders’ he said. This is a must watch video featuring the late Dr. John Rengen Virapen who also wrote books on the pharmaceutical industry (link to free ebook dowload below). He quite frankly confesses his own corruption within a system that paid him well.
As I always recommend, watch the doco The Corporation – this was my big eye opener as to why all the corruption now. Their bottom line is profit… and lying is their acceptable norm. It is on our ‘corporations’ page. Find it on YT… they also have a website. Essential viewing IMO… EWNZ
Some critics assume that drug companies suddenly became “crooked” and “dishonest” with the production of the covid 19 “vaccines.” But that’s not true. Dr. Vernon Coleman first exposed the drug companies in a book published nearly half a century ago.
Drug company staff have been deceitful, misleading and dangerous for decades and the industry has been institutionally corrupt and devious for many, many years.
“After 22 years of studying 9/11 and looking at the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that there was no high jacked planes nor a boogeyman in a cave who set up these events but rather a very sinister plan” claims an X user who goes by the name of “The Punisher” He has made his enormous piece of collated research entitled “911 Revisited – What Really Happened on 911″ available to all on the X platform and has dedicated it to victims and families of 9/11 as well as emergency personnel, firemen, and law enforcement, and to William Cooper who warned us of everything that happened.”
In a world where contraception is often viewed as a fundamental aspect of women’s reproductive health, examining the impact of various birth control methods on physical and mental well-being is crucial. For example, startling statistics released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shed light on the widespread use of oral contraceptives and other implantable devices among women.
In fact, recent research has brought to the forefront a concerning revelation – a potential connection between oral contraceptives and the onset of depression. Delving into the details of this study, we uncover the important implications it holds for women’s mental health and contraceptive choices.
Could ‘the pill’ be contributing to depression?
If you’ve been experiencing persistent sadness and restlessness, it might be worth examining an unexpected culprit: your birth control pill. Depression, a prevalent mental health condition affecting countless individuals, can manifest with debilitating symptoms that may be influenced, in part, by oral contraceptives.
Recent research involving a substantial cohort of over a quarter-million women in the United Kingdom has shed light on a potential association between oral contraceptive use and an increased risk of depression, particularly during the first few years of usage. Published in the Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences journal, this study reveals a startling finding: women who take oral contraceptives face over a 120% higher risk of developing depression.
Why do oral contraceptives affect mood?
The study above focused on unraveling the impact of oral contraceptives on mood alterations. Birth control pills inherently carry risks as they manipulate hormonal levels, and hormones have long been recognized as influential factors in determining one’s vulnerability to depression. The study findings revealed a notable association between the initial few years of birth control pill usage and a higher incidence of depression versus non-users.
Interestingly, even women who discontinued the use of oral contraceptives after using them during their adolescence remained at a heightened risk of depression. Notably, among adult women, the researchers did not identify an increased risk of depression a couple of years after discontinuing birth control pill use.
Delving deeper into the study’s data uncovers intriguing insights, particularly in relation to sibling pairs. Sisters who used birth control pills exhibited a higher likelihood of experiencing depression, suggesting a genuine causal relationship between birth control usage and depressive symptoms.
These findings emphasize the significance of understanding the potential impact of birth control pills on women’s mental well-being, urging further exploration and consideration of individual differences and susceptibility to depression.
Consider natural family planning methods
For women who are currently taking the birth control pill and experiencing feelings of depression, it is important to be aware of how this medication can impact hormonal levels and potentially contribute to mood changes. If you have not yet started using birth control and are in your teenage years or early 20s, it is worth noting that beginning hormonal contraception at a young age may increase the risk of depression. On the other hand, adult women who have been using birth control for more than two years may be less likely to experience depression as they have surpassed the critical two-year mark of usage.
If you are seeking alternatives to the pill, there are various options. Switching to barrier methods, such as condoms, can provide contraception without the hormonal effects that may contribute to mood changes. Additionally, exploring natural family planning methods can be an option for those who prefer hormone-free contraception.
Natural family planning methods involve tracking and monitoring your menstrual cycle to identify fertile and non-fertile days. This can be done through methods such as tracking basal body temperature, cervical mucus observation, and calendar-based tracking. While natural family planning requires commitment, consistency, and education, it can be an effective method when followed correctly.
As always, consulting with a healthcare professional or a certified natural family planning instructor is highly recommended when considering natural family planning methods. They can provide guidance and support and help you determine the most suitable contraceptive option based on your individual needs, preferences, and circumstances.
Ultimately, the safest way to avoid an unwanted pregnancy would be to abstain from having sexual intercourse, until you are ready to start a family. No doubt, starting a family is a big decision and should not be taken lightly.
Note: Due to heavy censorship Dr Mercola’s articles are archived to paid sub within 48 hours so the link below may no longer lead to the actual article
Story at-a-glance
Paraquat is an herbicide and registered desiccant that has been used on American farms since 1964. A desiccant is a chemical that speeds up the ripening of the crop and dries it out, which facilitates harvesting and allows it to be harvested sooner than were the crop left to dry naturally
Fifty countries have banned paraquat due to its extreme toxicity and adverse effects on health. A single sip is lethal to a human. A considerable body of evidence also links paraquat to Parkinson’s disease
As of mid-March 2023, 2,998 lawsuits filed by farmers with Parkinson’s disease had been consolidated in Illinois federal court. The first bellwether trial is scheduled to begin in October 2023. Class actions have also been filed with state courts in California, Florida, Pennsylvania and Washington. The first state court trial is scheduled to begin in September 2023 in California
The discovery process has unearthed a trove of documents showing Syngenta knew as early as the 1960s that paraquat posed neurological risks and kept the evidence from regulators
Research shows paraquat becomes exponentially more hazardous in combination with plant lectins, as the lectins help shuttle paraquat into your brain, where it induces the neuronal degeneration seen in Parkinson’s disease. Many of the foods treated with paraquat are high-lectin foods, such as peas, beans and potatoes, so strive to buy organic whenever possible
Paraquat is an herbicide and registered desiccant that has been used on American farms since 1964. A desiccant is a chemical that speeds up the ripening of the crop and dries it out, which facilitates harvesting and allows it to be harvested sooner than were the crop left to dry naturally.
Desiccation is also used to improve profits, as farmers are penalized when the grain contains moisture. The greater the moisture content of the grain at sale, the lower the price they get.
While 50 countries have banned paraquat due to its extreme toxicity and adverse effects on health (a single sip is lethal to a human1), the chemical remains legal in the U.S., provided farmers receive training on its application. Proper application doesn’t ensure its safety, however, as recent lawsuits by thousands of farmers make clear.
Paraquat Linked to Parkinson’s Disease
A considerable body of evidence2 links paraquat to Parkinson’s disease and, as of mid-March 2023, 2,998 lawsuits filed by farmers with Parkinson’s disease had been consolidated in Illinois federal court. The first bellwether trial is scheduled to begin in October 2023.3
The farmers are suing Syngenta, the lead manufacturer, and Chevron, a key distributor, arguing the herbicide caused their disease, and that the manufacturer was aware of this risk and concealed it from the public.
The discovery process has unearthed a trove of documents4 showing Syngenta has indeed known that paraquat poses neurological risks and feared the possibility of lawsuits for decades.
Most of the paraquat lawsuits are taking place in Illinois federal court, but class actions have also been filed with state courts in California, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Washington. The first state court trial is scheduled to begin in September 2023 in California.5 As reported by the Miller & Zois law firm, which is handling paraquat cases in all 50 U.S. states:6
“Parkinson’s disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder of the brain that affects primarily the motor system, the part of the central nervous system that controls movement.
The characteristic symptoms of Parkinson’s disease are its ‘primary’ motor symptoms: resting tremor; bradykinesia (slowness in voluntary movement and reflexes); rigidity; and postural instability. There is currently no cure for Parkinson’s disease.
Existing treatments do not slow or stop their progression; such treatments are capable only of temporarily and partially relieving motor symptoms. These treatments also have unwelcome side effects the longer they are used.
Paraquat is a toxic chemical that is a highly effective plant killer. Unfortunately, the same properties that make paraquat toxic to plant cells also make it highly damaging to human nerve cells and create a substantial risk to anyone who uses it.
Oxidative stress is a major factor in — if not the precipitating cause of — the degeneration and death of dopaminergic neurons which is the primary pathophysiological cause of Parkinson’s disease.
Paraquat is designed to injure and kill plants by creating oxidative stress, which causes or contributes to causing the degeneration and death of plant cells. Similarly, Paraquat injures and kills animals by creating oxidative stress, which causes the degeneration and death of animal cells.
The causal link between Paraquat and Parkinson’s disease is well established. Hundreds of animal studies involving various routes of exposure have found that paraquat creates oxidative stress that results in pathophysiology consistent with that seen in human Parkinson’s disease.
Many epidemiological studies have also found an association between Paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease, including multiple studies finding a two- to five-fold or greater increase in the risk of Parkinson’s disease in populations with occupational exposure to paraquat compared to populations without such exposure.”
Attorneys working on these cases have also highlighted recent research7 linking paraquat exposure to end stage renal disease,8 so it’s possible that the litigation effort against Syngenta might expand even further.
Syngenta Obfuscated the Evidence
In a June 2, 2023, article9 in The Guardian, journalist and author Carey Gillam reviews evidence from the paraquat lawsuits showing Syngenta has known about the chemical’s risk to human health for decades, and went out of its way to bury that evidence.
Some of the research10 out there suggests lifetime exposure to paraquat raises your risk of Parkinson’s by as much as 250% (odds ratio 2.5), primarily through oxidative stress. In the 2020 book, “Ending Parkinson’s Disease: A Prescription for Action,” four leading neurologists also cite paraquat as a causative factor for the condition.11
Not surprisingly, Syngenta relied on the same strategies developed and perfected by the tobacco industry in years past. While independent researchers kept linking paraquat to Parkinson’s disease, Syngenta sowed doubt by maintaining the evidence was “fragmentary” and “inconclusive,” even though it wasn’t.
Indeed, internal documents obtained during the discovery process reveals Syngenta knew that paraquat accumulated in the human brain and could permanently impair the central nervous system.12,13,14 As reported by Gillam:15
“Though it worked to publicize research that supported paraquat safety, Syngenta kept quiet about a series of in-house animal experiments that analyzed paraquat impacts in the brains of mice, according to company records and deposition testimony.
Scientists who study Parkinson’s disease have established that symptoms develop when dopamine-producing neurons in a specific area of the brain called the substantia nigra pars compacta (SNpc) are lost or otherwise degenerate. Without sufficient dopamine production, the brain is not capable of transmitting signals between cells to control movement and balance.
The Syngenta scientist Louise Marks did a series of mouse studies between 2003 and 2007 that confirmed the same type of brain impacts from paraquat exposure that outside researchers had found. She concluded that paraquat injections in the laboratory mice resulted in a ‘statistically significant’ loss of dopamine levels in the substantia nigra pars compacta.”
The company withheld these and other internal research results from regulators and denounced the validity of independent science showing neurological effects.
Worse, when Syngenta met with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials in 2013 to update the agency on its internal research, the company claimed studies showed paraquat, even at high doses, did NOT reduce dopamine-producing neurons, directly contradicting Marks’ findings.16
Similarly, in a follow-up presentation to the EPA in 2017,17 Syngenta claimed that paraquat had “no effect” in the brain and that a “causal relationship between paraquat and Parkinson’s was not supported.”
During a recent deposition, Dana Dixon, lead for product safety operations at Syngenta, was asked point blank if the information presented to the EPA was a lie. Dixon claimed they were “not hiding” Marks’ results, but rather chose to “focus on other studies” that refuted it.18
Syngenta ‘Swat Team’ Beat Down Negative Reports
At one point, Syngenta also worked behind the scenes to keep a highly regarded scientist involved in the study of Parkinson’s off the EPA’s advisory panel, and internal documents show company officials wanted to make sure the effort could not be traced back to them.19
As reported by Gillam, Syngenta also had a special “swat team” tasked with the immediate rebuttal of any new reports of adverse effects:20
“… files reveal an array of tactics, including enlisting a prominent UK scientist and other outside researchers who authored scientific literature that did not disclose any involvement with Syngenta …
[M]isleading regulators about the existence of unfavorable research conducted by its own scientists; and engaging lawyers to review and suggest edits for scientific reports in ways that downplayed worrisome findings.
The files also show that Syngenta created what officials called a ‘Swat team’ to be ready to respond to new independent scientific reports that could interfere with Syngenta’s ‘freedom to sell’ paraquat.
The group, also referred to as ‘Paraquat Communications Management Team,’ was to convene ‘immediately on notification’ of the publication of a new study, ‘triage the situation’ and plan a response, including commissioning a ‘scientific critique.’
A key goal was to ‘create an international scientific consensus against the hypothesis that paraquat is a risk factor for Parkinson’s disease,’ the documents state.”
In internal company documents from 2003, Syngenta officials discussed the need for a “coherent strategy across all disciplines focusing on external influencing, that proactively diffuses the potential threats that we face,” including influencing the future work by external researchers.
They also hired external scientists to write papers in support of paraquat without disclosing their relationship with the company. Ghostwriting scientific studies was also a tactic employed by Monsanto, to hide known dangers associated with its Roundup herbicide.
Lawyers Played Central Role in Obfuscation of Evidence
As detailed by Gillam, corporate defense lawyer Jeffrey Wolff also appears to have played a central role in the obfuscation of evidence. He instructed Syngenta scientists on how to take notes and manage communications to ensure the company would be able to claim attorney-client privilege in the case of litigation.
For example, action notes taken were to be labeled “Work Product Doctrine Material Confidential” and carry an attorney-client privilege statement.21 Wolff also had an active role in editing various scientific statements, reports and presentations to hide or downplay negative internal findings.
For example, a 2009 internal presentation by a company scientist on paraquat and Parkinson’s disease was reviewed by Wolff, who objected to a statement that said a majority of cases were related to environmental causes. Instead, Wolff suggested the presentation state that the “great majority of PD cases are idiopathic or of unknown cause.”
In another case, Wolff recommended removing the written admission that paraquat caused loss of neurons in the substantia nigra pars compacta from a scientific slide show, and instead only mention it verbally during the presentation. As reported by Gillam, the heavy involvement of lawyers is also straight out of the tobacco industry’s dirty playbook:22
“The involvement of lawyers with the scientists at Syngenta appears similar to highly criticized practices by the tobacco industry in the 1970s and ’80s that downplayed the dangers of smoking, said Thomas McGarity, former EPA legal adviser and co-author of the 2008 book titled ‘Bending Science: How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health Research.’
‘It looks like the paraquat maker has adopted nearly every strategy we outlined in our book about bending science,’ McGarity said. ‘Science matters. We have to be able to depend on science,’ he said.
‘When it is perverted, when it is manipulated, then we get bad results. And one result is that pesticides that cause terrible things like Parkinson’s remain on the market.’”
Lectins in Food Shuttle Paraquat Into the Brain
Disturbingly, animal research shows paraquat becomes exponentially more hazardous in combination with plant lectins. The cruel irony here is that paraquat is widely used as an herbicide and desiccant on lectin-rich crops in particular, including wheat, soybeans, potatoes, cereal grains and beans.
“Plant lectins help shuttle paraquat into your brain, where it induces the neuronal degeneration seen in Parkinson’s disease.“
According to the study23 in question, published in the journal NPJ Parkinson’s Disease in 2018, plant lectins help shuttle paraquat into your brain, where it does the most damage. As reported by the authors:
“Increasing evidence suggests that environmental neurotoxicants or misfolded α-synuclein generated by such neurotoxicants are transported from the gastrointestinal tract to the central nervous system via the vagus nerve, triggering degeneration of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra pars compacta (SNpc) and causing Parkinson’s disease (PD).
We tested the hypothesis that gastric co-administration of subthreshold doses of lectins and paraquat can recreate the pathology and behavioral manifestations of PD in rats …
These data demonstrate that co-administration of subthreshold doses of paraquat and lectin induces progressive, L-dopa-responsive parkinsonism that is preceded by gastric dysmotility. This novel preclinical model of environmentally triggered PD provides functional support for Braak’s staging hypothesis of idiopathic PD.”
Here again, we see the central role of the substantia nigra pars compacta, the very area of the brain that Syngenta scientist Marks found to be adversely impacted by paraquat. What’s more, the combination of paraquat and lectins could well be the underlying mechanism behind “idiopathic” Parkinson’s, which Wolff wanted listed as the primary “cause.”
Paraquat in Food Supply Puts Your Health at Risk
This also means that farmers aren’t the only ones at risk. Direct exposure is only one way by which paraquat can cause harm. Ingestion through food is the other, and oftentimes, that food is also high in lectins, which multiplies the danger. Reporting on the 2018 findings, Medical News Today wrote:24
“[P]araquat, once in the stomach, causes alpha-synuclein to be misfolded and then helps it travel to the brain. Scientists believe that alpha-synuclein runs along the vagus nerve, which itself runs between the stomach and the brain.
In fact, recent studies have shown that the vagus nerve has a direct connection with the substantia nigra, making it a prime suspect in Parkinson’s disease. This direct link also helps explain why digestive problems often precede the motor symptoms of Parkinson’s by several years.
To investigate, the researchers fed rats small doses of paraquat for 7 days. They also fed them lectins … As expected, they identified Parkinson’s-related changes … As study co-author Prof. Thyagarajan Subramanian explains:
‘We were able to demonstrate that if you have oral paraquat exposure, even at very low levels, and you also consume lectins … then it could potentially trigger the formation of this protein — alpha-synuclein — in the gut. Once it’s formed, it can travel up the vagus nerve and to the part of the brain that triggers the onset of Parkinson’s disease.’
This series of experiments demonstrates how the interplay between two ingested compounds can conspire to create and then transport toxic protein structures from the gut to the brain.”
Take-Home Message
The take-home message here is that foods treated with paraquat may be just as hazardous as direct exposure on a farm. Paraquat is considered one of the “best” drying options for legumes in particular, which are also particularly high in lectins.
As a result, many foods that vegetarians and vegans rely on may pose significant health hazards — and in more ways than one, as lectins are also problematic in and of themselves. In February 2022, I posted an interview with Dr. Steven Gundry, author of “The Plant Paradox,” in which we reviewed the health hazards of lectins.
As explained by Gundry, plant lectins can wreak havoc on your health by attaching to your cell membranes, causing inflammation, damage to your nerves and cell death. Some can also interfere with gene expression and disrupt endocrine function.
So, while lectins can cause severe health problems in and of themselves, by spraying paraquat on lectin-rich crops, those crops are made exponentially more hazardous, as the lectins act as transport vehicles for the toxic herbicide.
You can reduce lectin concentration by pressure cooking, for example, but if you’re starting out with contaminated food, you’re dealing with extra-toxic kinds of lectins. To avoid or at least minimize these hazards, it’s important to buy organic beans, peas, potatoes and other high-lectin foods from a reputable source, ideally a local farmer you can trust.
The other take-home message from all this is that chemical companies are among the least trustworthy sources out there. Like Monsanto before them, Syngenta officials have spent decades hiding the dangers of paraquat, while untold numbers of people got sick, suffered and died.
As noted by Bruce Blumberg, professor of developmental and cell biology at the University of California, Irvine, in response to the revelations about Syngenta’s obfuscation of evidence:25
“It is highly unethical for a company not to reveal data they have that could indicate that their product is more toxic than had been believed. [These companies are] trying to maximize profits and they jeopardize public health, and it shouldn’t be allowed. That is the scandal.”
Biden Deputy Secretary of Energy David Turk highlighted the absurdity of the climate grift this week during a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee hearing, when Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) couldn’t get a straight answer out of him over the cost of going ‘carbon neutral.’
In a tense exchange, Kennedy repeatedly attempted to get Turk to give a straightforward answer to just how much American taxpayers will have to pay to achieve the Biden administration’s goal of reaching US carbon neutrality by 2050.
When Kennedy asked whether some of the “experts” Turk referred to earlier were correct in a $50 trillion estimate, Turk nodded his head, and said “It’s gonna cost trillions of dollars, there’s no doubt about it.”
“f we spend $50 trillion to become carbon neutral by 2050 in the United States of America, how much is that going to reduce world temperatures?” Kennedy replied. The conversation continued (transcription via the Daily Caller)
Turk: “So, every country around the world needs to get its act together. Our emissions are about 13% of global emissions right now…”
Kennedy: “Yeah, but if you could answer my question. If we spend $50 trillion to become carbon neutral in the U.S. by 2050, you’re the Deputy Secretary of Energy, give me your estimate of how much that is going to reduce world temperatures.”
Turk: “So, first of all, it’s a net cost. It’s what, um, benefits we’re having from getting our act together and reducing all of those costs and climate benefits…”
Kennedy: “Let me ask you. Maybe I’m not being clear. If we spend $50 trillion to become carbon neutral by 2050 in the United States of America, how much is that going to reduce world temperatures?”
Turk: “This is a global problem, so we need to reduce our emissions and we need to do everything to, uh…”
Kennedy: “How much of we do our part is it going to reduce global temperatures?”
Turk: “So, we’re 13% of global emissions…”
Kennedy: “You don’t know, do you? You don’t know, do you?”
A fully flabbergasted Turk then says “In my heart of hearts, there is no way the world gets its act together on climate change unless the U.S. leads.”
Asenergy expert David Blackmon writes in the Daily Caller;
And there we have it. Americans are being asked to accept the force-feeding of an incredibly radical set of policies with a price tag that is unprecedented in global history to achieve a “carbon neutrality” goal, whose benefits are so nebulous, negligible and wholly reliant on the cooperative actions of other countries beyond U.S. control that they cannot be measured in any reliable way.
Instead, we are being told by senior political appointees forcing those policies into being that we should simply trust them because they think it is the right thing to do in their “heart of hearts.”
This is madness. For some context, $50 trillion is an amount that exceeds the gross domestic product of the U.S., China, India, Germany and Japan, combined. It is a number that drastically exceeds total U.S. national debt. It is more than 135 times the $369 billion in green energy subsidies contained in last year’s Orwellian-named Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).
That is five new IRAs each year for the next 27 years. Madness.
You have likely heard that 97% of scientists agree on human-driven climate change. The overwhelming majority of scientists take no view on the question of whether climate change is man-made, for it is beyond our present knowledge to answer.
Only 0.3% of science papers state humans are the cause of climate change. And when surveyed, only 18% of scientists believed that a large amount – or all – of additional climate change could be averted.
There is no scientific evidence or method that can determine how much of the temperature change since 1900 was caused by humans. We know that temperature has varied greatly over the millennia. We also know that for virtually all of that time, global warming and cooling were driven entirely by natural forces.
“97% Consensus” — What Consensus?
By Gregory Wrightstone, Executive Director CO2 Coalition
You have likely heard that 97% of scientists agree on human-driven climate change. You may also have heard that those who don’t buy into the climate-apocalypse mantra are “science deniers.” The truth is that a whole lot more than 3% of scientists are sceptical of the party line on climate. A whole lot more.
The many scientists, engineers and energy experts that comprise the CO2 Coalition are often asked something along the lines of: “So you believe in climate change, then?” Our answer? “Yes, of course we do: it has been happening for hundreds of millions of years.” It is important to ask the right questions. The question is not, “Is climate change happening?” The real question of serious importance is, “Is climate change now driven primarily by human actions? That question should be followed up by “is our changing climate beneficial or harmful to ecosystems and humanity?”
They aren’t telling you because they are bought and paid for. If you would really like to know what you aren’t hearing, then listen to the following interview (link below). Also read here and here. Like me you may find it really difficult to dismiss as conspiracy. The interviewer Liz Gunn by the way, was recently arrested (and allegedly assaulted) by Police (hear about the latter here).
We’ve been told not to believe one bar of evidence against the medical treatment foisted on us for the past three years, evidence, even from medical professionals. Now we are not supposed to believe what folk from ground zero of cyclone gabrielle tell us. As enormous cracks appear in lamestream’s narrative they are scrambling to dispel the horrific truths disclosed by eyewitnesses on the ground, after what certainly resembles a manmade disaster.
So Robert Deutsch who told us what was coming via his analysis of the meteorological maps, they’ve tried to debunk by dissecting his presentation on flood predictions and the cause (weather modification/geoengineering) by telling us the radar was switched off during the storm … Robert responds in the following video at seemorerocks.is (Remember, his predictions were on the nail). FACTCHECKING THE FACTCHECKERS
Hipkins has refuted claims made by Hawke’s Bay locals about the levels of crime they are dealing with there … FLOOD VICTIMS FURIOUS WITH HIPKINS
And National Geographic, right on cue, remind us these storms are a not such an unusual occurrence with their article titled… INUNDATED
Wairoa locals are are starting to question whether the flood that inundated hundreds of homes and businesses was caused by Genesis Energy, not Cyclone Gabrielle. That is of course debunked by lamestream as another conspiracy and of course Genesis have been quick to rise to their own defense. However, listen to the locals describe what happened. Looks a bit fishy in my humble opinion. As one local asks… “If Genesis knew there was going to be 200 to 400 millilitres of rain, it should have been releasing water ahead of [the cyclone]… if the dam had been at capacity and if there had been a need to let water out…?” GENESIS ENERGY OPENED THE FLOODGATES IN THE RIVER NEAR WAIROA
On a brighter note, Jacinda has been helping out (bless her) at the Waitapu Marae in Hastings.
(Apologies, link broken, won’t repair properly, have added below).
Cyclone Gabrielle: Jacinda Ardern lends a helping hand at Hastings’ Waipatu Marae
Note: Lamestream media is now in damage control mode warning about ‘conspiracy’ theories… as truth comes out. This article cites many links to eye witness evidence. Particularly listen to the young man on TikTok who speaks about the dam release causing a tsunami in Wairoa, not before the storm which they knew was coming, but during it. Pays to save all of this info before it gets wiped of the net by the censors. EWR
From seemorerocks.is
The following gut-wrenching report came to me in a voice message.
I believe strongly that the information should be made available to everyone while the identity of the person kept private.
I have therefore made a transcript and edited out bits that are at all personal
The reality on the ground in Hawkes Bay
Hey, how are you? Sorry, I haven’t really been in content. I’ve been trying to lay low.
From what I know there’s hundreds, hundreds dead the morgue – the morgue at the hospitals full.
There’s a morgue at the port that is reported to have about 100 bodies and I have spoken to someone I know that works at the port and he confirmed that.
But he also said it’s under army control and it’s classified.
So then I got a hold of a friend who’s in the army.
He’s actually been up in Gisborne. He’s due back here in Hawke’s Bay tonight, so I’m going to go and see him because he’s really cagey about what he says.
He said, ” I’ve been up in Gisborne and what I’ve seen there is worse than Afghanistan”.
So he’s been in the army 20 years, and he’s been to war and he said, this is worse.
My daughter’s boyfriend’s brother was working clearing a bridge yesterday. They were getting the slash up in he found a body. He recognized the hand, but the rest of the body is unrecognizable.
So I think that issue – and this is through talking with people I trust in Hawke’s Bay, not hearsay.
The issue was these bodies have been smashed by the slash. They have had downpours of water gushing past them. They’ve been beaten up and they’ve also been decomposing for six days in water and heat.
You can’t get a dental appointment in Hawke’s Bay because all the dentists are trying to use dental records to identify the bodies.
There is a group of 50 RSE workers (Recognised Seasonal Employer Limited Visa – ed) that were working in the Esk valley that have all been taken out.
The forestry boys on recovery mission – so the forestry boys, the navy, obviously the police, Search and Rescue – everyone are picking up bodies off the beaches and off the forestry blocks because I can get to more remote areas.
Apparently, the 50 RSE workers, no one can identify them.
On a brighter note (well kind of) with impending storms and things on the horizon … latest from Wally Richards … EWR
Recently a reader sent me an article which I found very interesting so I will share this with you……..
Iron gardening tools versus copper gardening tools: What we were never taught.
Iron or Copper Equipment in Farming In the 1930s
A Walter Schauberger was invited by King Boris of Bulgaria to examine the reasons for the great decline in that country’s farming production.
During his trip through the countryside he noticed that in the areas populated by the Turks, the harvests were more plentiful than elsewhere. It was here that the old wooden plough was still used.
The rest of the country had replaced these with modern iron ploughs imported from Germany as part of a general modernizing of Bulgarian agriculture.
The first steam ploughs had also been introduced. Schauberger drew the logical conclusion that the reduced cropping was a consequence of the introduction of iron ploughs,
but it was not until later that he developed his theory of the detrimental effect of iron machinery on agriculture. His work with water jets gave him a new perspective on the problem.
It was shown that if a small amount of rust was added to the water in these experiments, no charge developed; the water became ’empty.
He abstracted this finding to the use of iron ploughs and thought their effect on harvest yields must relate to this.
When the iron plough moves through the soil, it becomes warm, and the disturbed soil is covered with a fine dust of iron particles that quickly rust. He had previously noticed that iron-rich ground was dry, and that the turbines in power stations ‘discharged’ water.
The conclusion of all these observations was that iron had a detrimental effect on the water characteristics within the soil; it expelled the water and ‘drained’ it of its power.
When the steam plough, and later the tractor plough, were introduced, the situation worsened as a result of the increased speed with which the blades moved through the soil.
Walter Schauberger has said that water disappears from fields that have been ploughed in this way, for straightforward physical reasons; the iron plough’s rapid passage through the soil cuts through the fields magnetic lines of energy,
causing an electrical current to occur in the same way that a coil in an electric generator rotates in a magnetic field.
This, in turn, leads to an electrolysis in the soil which separates the water into oxygen and hydrogen.
The electrolysis also damages the microscopic life in the soil and this leads to an even higher temperature occurring in addition to the iron blades’ friction with the soil. It is especially with iron that these phenomena occur.
With ploughs of wood, copper and other so-called ‘biologically magnetic’ materials, the soil’s magnetic field is not disturbed.
The conclusion that Schauberger drew from these observations, was that another material other than iron should be used for farming equipment.
His attention focused on copper. Copper rich soils retained their ground moisture well, and so he began to experiment with copper ploughs as well as other equipment made from copper.
To begin with he merely covered an iron plough’s cutting surface with copper sheeting and made tests with this.
The tests took place under controlled conditions, dividing the field up into segments, some of which were ploughed with the prevailing iron machinery and some with the adapted copper machinery.
The results proved very favorable to the copper, which showed a 17-35 per cent increase in harvest.
A large firm, Farmleiten – Gut Heuberg, near Salzburg, showed an increase of 50 per cent.
On a hill farm outside Kitzbuhl tests showed an increase in the potato crop of 12.5 times the quantity sown.
Throughout there was an increase in quantity, but also a marked increase in quality.
The baking potential of corn was increased, and potatoes were not attacked by the Colorado beetle, though neighboring potato fields ploughed in the more usual way were still attacked, and the nitrogen requirements of the soil were reduced.
During 1951-52 controlled tests with the copper plough were made by the Farming Chemical Test Station in Linz. The tests concerned the cultivation of oats, wheat, kohlrabi and onions.
Certain sections were worked only with iron machinery, others with iron machinery and added copper sulphate, and a third area with only copper machinery.
In certain tests the copper sulphate was exchanged with pure copper dust. A significant increase was observed in these tests also.
Rumors of these successes spread to farmers around Salzburg where many of the tests had taken place, and they started to call the copper-wonder ‘the golden plough’.
It was manufactured in large quantities but soon considerable opposition arose from an unexpected quarter.
In 1948 Viktor Schauberger had signed a contract with a company in Salzburg for the production of a large number of ploughs.
Then suddenly one day he was visited by a high official from Salzburg’s treasury office. The latter arrived in an elegant car, and the following ensued: the treasury director:
‘There has been a rumor that the Salzburg town corporation has carried out successful tests with your ploughs, and, naturally, this is of interest.
But now I must ask you face to face – what is is worth to me, if I support you?’ Schauberger said: I don’t understand what you mean.
You are from the treasury, you have nothing to do with support I have paid my fees for the test and everything is complete.’ The Treasury director went on: I must make myself clear.
The fact is, I have an agreement with the nitrogen industry whereby if I can stimulate the farmers to use more nitrogen than usual I receive a royalty for each sack being sold.
If now the farmers were to change to the copper plough the demand would permanently diminish, and thus I need royalties from your ploughs as compensation.
Can’t we come to an understanding as old friends and make a good deal for us both?
‘ Schauberger replied furiously: ‘I have only one thing to say to you – you are a greedy rascal – a thing I should have understood at once – when as a representative of the people you drive around in a luxury car.’
It was after this exchange that there was a surprise termination of the contract from the company that was to have provided the ploughs.
Representatives from the local agricultural society also started to warn farmers against using the copper plough as it could cause over-production which would give lower prices.
Thereby their production and use were totally halted. In 1950, Schauberger, together with engineer Rosenberger, however, obtained a patent on a method of coating the active surfaces of farm machinery with copper. End
Interesting how iron can effect the soil and crop production.
Moral of the story; Corruption is always in the higher places and we see the same today all over the world.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Part II of the Act covers a broad range of Civil and Political Rights. As part of the right to life and the security of the person, the Act guarantees everyone:
1The right not to be deprived of life except in accordance with fundamental justice (Section 8)
2The right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment (Section 9)
3The right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without consent (Section 10)
4The right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment (Section 11)
Furthermore, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 guarantees everyone: Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion. This includes the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO ADOPT AND HOLD OPINIONS WITHOUT INTERFERENCE (Section 1)
Science and opinion have become increasingly conflated, in large part because of corporate influence. As we explain in “Science for Sale,” an investigative series by the Center for Public Integrity and co-published with Vice.com, industry-backed research has exploded — often with the aim of obscuring the truth — as government-funded science dwindles. Read more.
The lawyer, Darrell Grams, explained that Ford had been losing lawsuits filed by former auto mechanics alleging asbestos in brakes had given them mesothelioma, an aggressive cancer virtually always tied to asbestos exposure. Grams asked Paustenbach, then a vice president with the consulting firm Exponent, if he had any interest in studying the disease’s possible association with brake work. A meeting cemented the deal.
Paustenbach, a prolific author of scientific papers who’d worked with Grams on Dow Corning’s defense against silicone breast-implant illness claims, had barely looked at asbestos to that point. “I really started to get serious about studying asbestos after I met Mr. Grams, that’s for sure,” Paustenbach testified in a sworn deposition in June 2015. Before that, he said, the topic “wasn’t that interesting to me.”
Thus began a relationship that, according to recent depositions, has enriched Exponent by $18.2 million and brought another $21 million to Cardno ChemRisk, a similar firm Paustenbach founded in 1985, left and restarted in 2003. All told, testimony shows, Ford has spent nearly $40 million funding journal articles and expert testimony concluding there is no evidence brake mechanics are at increased risk of developing mesothelioma. This finding, repeated countless times in courtrooms and law offices over the past 15 years, is an attempt at scientific misdirection aimed at extricating Ford from lawsuits, critics say.
“They’ve published a lot, but they’ve really produced no new science,” said John Dement, a professor in Duke University’s Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine and an asbestos researcher for more than four decades. “Fifteen years ago, I thought the issue of asbestos risk assessment was pretty much defined. All they’ve accomplished is to try to generate doubt where, really, little doubt existed.”
The glut of corporate-financed science has yielded mixed results. Exponent had a role in jury trials won by Ford in St. Louis and Pittsburgh last year, for example, and in a trial Ford lost in Tennessee. Judges have noted the infusion of controversy into a subject that for many years was not controversial in the least. A veteran asbestos judge in Wayne County, Michigan, wrote in an opinion that he’d never encountered the argument that “the science was not there” on mesothelioma and brakes until he heard a case involving an Exponent witness.
The discord over brakes bankrolled by Ford “has, in certain cases, tipped the scales for the defendants with juries,” said plaintiffs’ lawyer Jon Ruckdeschel. “More frequently, it has been used by industry lawyers to increase the costs and burdens on the courts and sick mechanics by creating a tidal wave of pre-trial litigation regarding the ‘science.’ ”
A troubling history
Over the past decade 109 physicians, scientists and academics from 17 countries have signed legal briefs affirming that asbestos in brakes can cause mesothelioma. The World Health Organization and other research and regulatory bodies maintain that there is no safe exposure level for asbestos and that all forms of the mineral — including the most common one, chrysotile, found in brakes — can produce mesothelioma.
Worries about brakes as a source of disease go back decades. A 1971 Ford memo shows that while the company didn’t believe brake dust unleashed by mechanics contained significant amounts of asbestos, it already was exploring alternatives to asbestos brake linings. One of them, made of metal and carbon, performed well, the memo says, “but the cost penalty is severe ($1.25/car just for front-end brakes).”
A Ford spokeswoman declined to comment for this article. In its 2014 annual report, the company said, “Most of the asbestos litigation we face involves individuals who claim to have worked on the brakes of our vehicles over the years. We are prepared to defend these cases, and believe that the scientific evidence confirms our long-standing position that there is no increased risk of asbestos-related disease as a result of exposure to the type of asbestos formerly used in the brakes on our vehicles.” Ford announced recently that it earned a record pretax profit of $10.5 billion in 2015.
Dennis Paustenbach (ICIJ.org)
A written statement to the Center for Public Integrity delivered on behalf of Paustenbach by a public-relations firm says, “Dennis was viewed as one of the leading risk assessment experts in the country, and was contacted by Ford because of his experience and expertise in this field. … As Dennis and others learned more about brake dust, it was clear that while there was considerable data on the subject, the scientific information had never been synthesized and analyzed.”
His conclusion after reviewing the scientific literature, according to the statement: “There is no credible study that has shown an increased risk of disease in auto mechanics.”
An Exponent vice president declined to comment. On its website, the 49-year-old firm, originally known as Failure Analysis Associates, says, “We evaluate complex human health and environmental issues to find cost-effective solutions. … By introducing a new way of thinking about an existing situation, we assist clients to overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles.”
A Center review of abstracts on the National Institutes of Health’s PubMed website turned up 10 articles on asbestos brakes co-authored by scientists affiliated with Exponent or Cardno ChemRisk since 2003. (The latter was known simply as ChemRisk until it was acquired by Brisbane, Australia-based Cardno in 2012). None of the articles reported an elevated risk of mesothelioma among vehicle mechanics.
Many physicians and scientists say, however, that these papers muddy the waters by drawing overly broad conclusions from earlier studies of workers who might have had no contact with asbestos brakes. “In the asbestos area the whole literature has been so warped by publications just supporting litigation,” said Dement, of Duke. “It has a real negative impact on pushing the science forward.” Dement said he has, on rare occasions, consulted for plaintiffs in the past 10 or 15 years, earmarking nearly all fees for the university.
In a 2007 article, two researchers at George Washington University — one of whom, David Michaels, now heads the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration — reported finding six “litigation-generated” papers on asbestos and auto mechanics published from 1997 through 2001. In the ensuing five years, 20 such papers were published. All told, 18 of the 26 papers published from 1997 through 2006 were “written by experts primarily associated with defendants, while eight were written by experts who work primarily for plaintiffs … Sponsorship by parties involved in litigation leads to an imbalance in the literature … whoever is willing to fund more studies will have more studies published.”
Craig Biegel, a retired corporate defense lawyer in Oregon who represented plaintiffs later in his career, did an update of the Michaels paper as part of his doctoral dissertation. Biegel searched the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed website using the words “asbestos” and “brake.” He found 27 articles written from 1998 to 2015 by experts known to work for industry; all, he said, showed either no elevated risk of mesothelioma among mechanics or minimal asbestos exposures.
He found 10 articles written by plaintiffs’ experts; all showed an association between the disease and brake work. And he found 11 articles written by foreign scientists, who, as far as he knew, were not involved in litigation. All but one showed an association or documented high asbestos exposures.
“As far as I’m concerned, both sides in a lawsuit do the same thing: They both fund research to obtain evidence for trial, not to advance science,” said Biegel, who once defended asbestos property-damage claims for a Fortune 500 company he declined to identify. “The only difference is that defense counsel have almost unlimited industry money and plaintiffs’ counsel do not want to spend their own money.”
Ford’s knowledge of asbestos
There are several ways microscopic asbestos fibers can be sent airborne and enter the human body during brake work. Over time, friction wears down brake linings and pads — many of which contained asbestos prior to the mid-1990s and some of which still do — and they need to be replaced. A mechanic who opened a brake drum would find it filled with fine dust from the decayed lining. The easiest and most common way to clean it out was to use compressed air, a technique that generates grayish, fiber-bearing clouds that can trigger disease years later if the worker is not properly protected. Many weren’t.
Other opportunities for exposure: filing, grinding or sanding brakes, or cleaning up work areas.
Ford wasn’t the only U.S. automaker to use asbestos brakes. General Motors and Chrysler did as well and found themselves in court as a result. Of the so-called Big Three, however, only Ford continues to get hit with mesothelioma lawsuits; GM and Chrysler are immune by virtue of their 2009 bankruptcies. “The extent of our financial exposure to asbestos litigation remains very difficult to estimate,” Ford said in its 2014 annual report. “Annual payout and defense costs may become significant in the future.”
Documents show Ford was mindful of concerns about asbestos brakes by the late 1960s. An unpublished report by an industrial hygienist with Ford of Britain in 1968 said that while brake linings at the time contained between 40 and 60 percent asbestos, field tests indicated dust that collected in brake drums had a low asbestos content because much of the material decomposed after repeated braking. Consequently, he wrote, there was no evidence that blowing out the drums presented a “significant hazard to health.”
The hygienist added, “It would be helpful, however, for clinical examinations to be made of some repair mechanics with long experience of brake cleaning to confirm this view. It would also be desirable to include in Service manuals a general instruction that inhalation of dust during brake cleaning should be minimised.”
A 1970 Ford memo titled “Asbestos Emissions from Brake Lining Wear” included a bibliography of 40 articles on the cancer-causing effects of asbestos, dating to 1954. And the same 1971 memo bemoaning the $1.25 cost of asbestos-free brakes noted that the state of Illinois was considering banning the use of asbestos in brake linings, beginning with the 1975 model year.
Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole holds up a photo during a news conference in Washington, Thursday, July 27, 1989, showing alleged asbestos violations at the Friction Division Products Inc. plant in Trenton, New Jersey. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration had proposed fining the brake-shoe manufacturing company $2.7 million for exposing workers to potentially deadly levels of asbestos. Bob Daugherty/AP
In 1973, Ford began telling its own employees to use “an industrial type vacuum cleaner” to remove dust from brake drums. “Under no circumstances shall compressed air blowoff be used to clean brakes and brake drums,” the company said. It first told its dealers about what it called “a potential health hazard” in 1975.
In a court filing, Ford said it began putting “caution” labels on packages of asbestos-containing brakes and clutches in 1980; many mesothelioma victims who have sued the company say they never saw such labels. In the same document Ford said it began a “complete phase-out of asbestos-containing brake products” in the 1983 model year, starting with its Ranger pickup truck. A decade later, only Ford Mustangs and certain limousines were equipped with asbestos brakes; some asbestos-containing parts for older model-year vehicles were available until 2001through dealerships and authorized distributors.
That was the year lawyer Grams reached out to toxicologist Paustenbach to gauge his interest in studying mesothelioma in ex-mechanics. “I contacted Dr. Paustenbach because he is one of the leading professional experts in the world,” Grams, who no longer represents Ford, said in a brief phone interview. Grams said he had read none of the recent deposition testimony about the relationship between Ford and its two brake consultants, Cardno ChemRisk and Exponent.
In his curriculum vitae, Paustenbach, president of Cardno ChemRisk, says he is “a board-certified toxicologist and industrial hygienist with nearly 30 years of experience in risk assessment, environmental engineering, ecotoxicology and occupational health.” The 181-page CV shows he has worked on topics ranging from arsenic in wine to heavy metals in hip implants; authored or co-authored 271 peer-reviewed articles; and given 440 presentations at conferences. He is regularly retained as a defense expert in asbestos litigation and other toxic-tort cases.
Paustenbach offered a window into his thinking in a 2009 article written by a University of Virginia business professor.
“Without a doubt, a large percentage of environmental and occupational claims are simply bogus, intended only to extract money from those who society believes can afford to ‘share the wealth,’” Paustenbach told his interviewer. He said, “The vast majority of cases that I’ve seen were fraudulent with respect to the scientific merit and billions upon billions of dollars are redistributed annually inappropriately — at least from a scientific standpoint.
“… Nonetheless,” Paustenbach said, “I am a firm believer in the wisdom of juries and support giving generous awards to those that have been truly harmed by bad corporate behavior.”
In a 2010 letter to Dolores Nuñez Studier, a lawyer in the Ford general counsel’s office, Paustenbach claimed his firm’s papers had “changed the scientific playing field in the courtroom. You know this better than anyone as you have seen the number of plaintiff verdicts [in asbestos cases] decrease and the cost of settlement go down over time.”
In the letter, which surfaced in the discovery phase of a lawsuit, Paustenbach complained that the fee structure in place between Ford and Chemrisk was “out of date” and too low.
“Dolores, currently, you are among our largest clients,” he wrote. “And, Ford has certainly been a loyal supporter. The Big 3 [automakers] were the foundation of the firm during our formative years, and for this reason, I have tried to go the extra mile to satisfy your needs.”
Asked to explain the letter during a 2014 deposition, Paustenbach said he was merely emphasizing to Studier that “we invested in scientific research to answer questions that remained unanswered in the courtroom for many, many years …. And I was pretty proud of that.” He said he didn’t feel it was fair for his firm to lose money “when, in fact, I was so committed to getting the science straight.”
Creating doubt
The World Health Organization estimates that 107,000 people die each year from asbestos-related diseases. “Exposure to asbestos, including chrysotile, causes cancer of the lung, larynx and ovaries, and also mesothelioma (a cancer of the pleural and peritoneal linings) [and] asbestosis (fibrosis of the lungs),” the WHO says. “No threshold has been identified for the carcinogenic risk of asbestos, including chrysotile.”
OSHA says, “There is no ‘safe’ level of asbestos exposure for any type of asbestos fiber. Asbestos exposures as short in duration as a few days have caused mesothelioma in humans.”
Taking the WHO and OSHA statements at face value, the case against asbestos would seem to be closed: Even someone with very low exposure to the mineral should worry.
In papers published over the past 15 years, however, scientists with Exponent, Cardno ChemRisk and other consulting firms have questioned whether brake mechanics truly are at heightened risk of developing mesothelioma, the disease that has fueled litigation against Ford and others.
A 2004 Exponent paper funded by Ford, GM and Chrysler, for example, concluded that “employment as a motor vehicle mechanic does not increase the risk of developing mesothelioma.” An update of that paper in 2015 found the same result. Each paper was a meta-analysis — an agglomeration of the results of multiple studies that, taken individually, may be too weak to indicate an effect.
In a deposition last October, Exponent’s Mary Jane Teta, a co-author of both meta-analyses, defended her firm’s findings. “I disagree when they say there is no safe level [of asbestos],” she testified. “I know the level of chrysotile … experienced by vehicle mechanics is safe.”
In his statement to the Center, Paustenbach wrote, “It is implausible that nearly 20 epidemiology studies” – on which he bases his legal opinions – “would conclude that there is no increased risk of mesothelioma for the time period during which brakes contained chrysotile asbestos if that were not the appropriate conclusion.”
The studies Paustenbach cites, however, are fraught with limitations, such as small sample sizes, vague job classifications and lack of exposure data. And not all of them found, as he put it, “no increased risk of mesothelioma” among mechanics. In a 1989 paper, for example, a Danish researcher who studied causes of death among auto mechanics reported finding a single case of mesothelioma among her subjects, where none would have been expected in the general population. As with other cancers, she wrote, this number was “too small to state or rule out a potentially increased risk.”
A co-author of another paper, Kay Teschke of the University of British Columbia, testified in a 2012 deposition that her research was being mischaracterized.
“Vehicle mechanics do many different things in their day; some might work on engines, some might only work on wheel alignment,” Teschke testified. “And when you dilute the [asbestos] exposure in that way, you can’t find the relationship with the job … It doesn’t mean that people in that job are somehow immune to the effects of the exposure … “
Christian Hartley, a lawyer in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, who has represented about 100 mesothelioma victims in brake cases, said the papers used in the defense of such lawsuits “push all this data together that’s totally incomparable. That’s what gets reported in the literature and is used to persuade judges and some experts. It’s very misleading to think we have any kind of real handle on what a typical mechanic has for exposure.”
Dr. David Egilman, a clinical professor of family medicine at Brown University and editor of the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, argues that the papers are deceptive by design. Many reanalyze previously published studies of workers described as mechanics who may have had no contact with asbestos brakes, he said. The effect, Egilman said, is to dilute the cancer data so the overall risk appears low.
Egilman, who consults for asbestos plaintiffs, spends much of his time rebutting Paustenbach and other industry-funded researchers. “They can throw a lot of things at the wall and hope something sticks with the jury,” he said. “It forces people like me or other scientists to try to clean up each thing that was thrown at the wall, one at a time. And by the end of the day, that could be confusing to a jury or judge.”
Egilman said the body of work underwritten by Ford and other asbestos defendants is being used to try to deprive sick workers, or their families, of compensation. “Some courts have adopted it as a standard,” he said.
More broadly, the industry-funded papers can confuse the public – and even government experts.
In 2009, the National Cancer Institute published a fact sheet on its website stating there was no evidence brake work was associated with an increased risk of mesothelioma or lung cancer. The 2004 meta-analysis funded by the automakers was cited as a reference.
Dr. Arthur Frank, chair of the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health at Drexel University, was incredulous.
“What is truly ironic about such a statement is that it is incontrovertible that asbestos, including chrysotile, the type of asbestos found in brakes, does, in fact, cause lung cancer and mesothelioma,” Frank wrote in a letter to the institute’s director obtained by the Center for Public Integrity through a Freedom of Information Act request. “Since we have not banned asbestos in this country, those who might read this statement could well think asbestos brakes are safe, putting at risk both professional and ‘shade tree’ mechanics, and their family members.”
Frank said the meta-analysis cited by the institute was “unreliable and should not serve as the basis for any statement by the NCI.”
Then-NCI Director Dr. John Neiderhuber replied that he had discussed Frank’s critique with an in-house expert who agreed that the language on the website should be amended. The new statement, posted less than two weeks after Frank sent his letter, read that while studies of cancer risks among auto mechanics were limited, “the overall evidence suggests that there is no safe level for asbestos exposure.” The citation of the 2004 paper was deleted.
The brake studies have had global reach. The “chrysotile-is-safe” argument has been used to stave off asbestos bans and preserve markets in developing nations such as India and China, where building materials and other products containing asbestos are widely used.
“The real nefarious part of this research … is that a lot of people who live in those countries are continuing to be exposed under uncontrolled conditions to asbestos,” Egilman said. “That’s the real horror story here.”
Ronnie Stockton’s auto repair shop in Jackson, Tenn. (Courtesy of the Stockton family)
Ronnie and Joyce Stockton. Courtesy of the Stockton family
A Ford loss in Tennessee
While the brake papers and the experts who write them have contributed to defense verdicts in mesothelioma cases, things occasionally go the other way.
Ronnie Stockton operated an auto repair shop 100 feet from his home in Jackson, Tennessee, for 30 years and specialized in brake jobs, often on Ford vehicles. He’d attended training classes in which instructors recommended that paper masks be worn around brake dust but never heard a “full description of what asbestos did,” he said in a recent interview. “We wasn’t warned it could kill you when you swept it up and didn’t wear the mask.”
As it turned out, Stockton’s wife, Joyce, was the one who got sick. She used to help her husband sweep out the shop. She kept the books and washed Ronnie’s dusty clothes. One night in December 2010 she lay down in bed and felt her chest tighten. “I thought I was having a heart attack,” she said. A biopsy confirmed that she had mesothelioma, to that point merely a strange word she’d heard in lawyers’ TV commercials. “I would sit in front of the television trying to learn how to pronounce it, not ever knowing I had the disease,” she said.
The Stocktons sued Ford and went to trial in August. Two Exponent scientists were among the defense experts.
In his closing argument after nearly two weeks of testimony, Ruckdeschel, the Stocktons’ lawyer, said Ford’s experts had “spun the literature” on asbestos. “They’re not taking what the studies say; they’re putting a spin on it.”
If independent research had shown no connection between brake work and mesothelioma, Ruckdeschel said, “they wouldn’t have had to go and pay Exponent to write all the papers to say, ‘Well, we’ve reanalyzed the data, and there really isn’t any evidence.’ ”
Defense lawyer Samuel Tarry urged jurors not to be swayed by the millions of dollars Ford had invested in the papers. It “shouldn’t come as any surprise that over time it costs a lot of money to defend these cases and to publish research where it can be critiqued and criticized and start discussions,” he said. Tarry recounted the testimony of Exponent’s Mark Roberts, who “told you that the majority of mesotheliomas in women are unrelated to asbestos. … He explained that all of us have a background risk, not just for mesothelioma but for any type of cancer …. They can happen naturally. They can happen with an environmental insult.”
After deliberating about two days, the jury returned a $4.65 million verdict in the Stocktons’ favor. It assigned 71 percent of the liability to Ford and 29 percent to brake manufacturer Honeywell, which had been brought into the case on Ford’s motion. Ford has asked for a new trial.
Latisha Strickland was the jury foreman. She’d wanted to assign 100 percent of the blame to Ford but agreed to the 71-29 split to avoid a hung jury.
“I felt ashamed — I had compromised what I thought it should be,” Strickland, a home-school teacher, said in a telephone interview. “You couldn’t give me the Powerball lottery to go through the amount of surgeries this woman [Joyce Stockton] has gone through.”
Strickland said she was especially put off by the 1971 memo showing Ford decided not to spend $1.25 per vehicle to replace front-end asbestos brakes.
For decades, Swiss chemical giant Syngenta has manufactured and marketed a widely used weed killing chemical called paraquat, and for much of that time the company has been dealing with external concerns that long-term exposure to the chemical may cause the dreaded, incurable brain ailment known as Parkinson’s disease.
Syngenta has repeatedly told customers and regulators that scientific research does not prove a connection between its weed killer and the disease, insisting that the chemical does not readily cross the blood-brain barrier, and does not affect brain cells in ways that cause Parkinson’s.
But a cache of internal corporate documents dating back to the 1950s obtained by The New Lede in a reporting collaboration with the Guardian suggests that the public narrative put forward by Syngenta and the corporate entities that preceded it has at times contradicted the company’s own research and knowledge.
And though the documents reviewed do not show that Syngenta’s scientists and executives believed that paraquat can cause Parkinson’s, they do show a corporate focus on strategies to protect product sales, refute external scientific research and influence regulators.
In one defensive tactic, the documents lay out how the company worked behind the scenes to try to keep a highly regarded scientist from sitting on an advisory panel for the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The agency is the chief US regulator for paraquat and other pesticides. Company officials wanted to make sure the efforts could not be traced back to Syngenta, the documents show.
And the documents show that insiders feared they could face legal liability for long-term, chronic effects of paraquat as long ago as 1975. One company scientist called the situation “a quite terrible problem,” for which “some plan could be made….”
That prediction of legal consequences has come to pass. Thousands of people who allege they developed Parkinson’s because of long-term chronic effects of paraquat exposure are now suing Syngenta. Along with Syngenta, they are also suing Chevron USA, the successor to a company that distributed paraquat in the US from 1966 to 1986. Both companies deny any liability and continue to maintain that scientific evidence does not support a causal link between paraquat and Parkinson’s disease.
“Recent thorough reviews performed by the most advanced and science-based regulatory authorities, including the United States and Australia, continue to support the view that paraquat is safe,” Syngenta said in a statement.
Chevron issued a statement saying that the company and predecessors had no role in causing the plaintiffs’ illnesses, and it “will vigorously defend against the allegations in the lawsuits.”
As part of a court-ordered disclosure in the litigation, the companies provided plaintiffs’ lawyers with decades of internal records, including hand-written and typed memos, internal presentations, and emails to and from scientists, lawyers and company officials around the world. And though the files have not yet been made public through the court system, The New Lede and the Guardian reviewed hundreds of pages of these documents.
Among the revelations from the documents: Scientists with Syngenta predecessor Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. (ICI) and Chevron Chemical were aware in the 1960s and 70s of mounting evidence showing paraquat could accumulate in the human brain.
Everything is fake in our society today – or at least a great many things are. Our world is filled with an extraordinary amount of lies, deception, disinformation, misinformation, fakery, fraud, facades, mirages, propaganda and brainwashing.
The good thing though is that once you awaken to the deception, you can use it as a tool for raising your consciousness. The idea that virtually everything is fake can be empowering rather than depressing.
Sure, we’ve all felt overwhelmed, sad, angry and impotent at times when we’ve seen just how easily our (mis)leaders can fool the masses with sophistry and empty rhetoric, but they’ve all been placed there to challenge us to wake up more quickly and fully, and reclaim our world.
Here’s my list of the top 40 pieces of fakery in our world today:
1. Fake News
Let’s begin with the MSM (Mainstream Media), better called the lamestream media, and their “news”, which is essentially corporate infotainment. The MSM waters down the news and makes it entertaining to further distract people from things of real significance.
There is nothing balanced, impartial or fair about MSM news. In the US, Australia and many other Western nations, the news is dominated by a handful of for-profit corporations who are legally bound to provide a return on investment to their shareholders.
Bayer has been in the news recently (rightfully so) for – you guessed it – poisoning the planet. We have stood against Bayer/Monsanto for twenty years and it’s high time they stand accountable for their planetary injustice.
This week you may have seen that the CDC released a report which stated 80% of urine samples taken from Americans contained glyphosate, “Roundup”.
What you likely didn’t hear is that Bayer/Monsanto has been systematically undercutting science and making large investments to build propaganda that attacks organizations like IRT, GM Watch, NonGMO Project, and other non-GMO activists.
In a 2019 Huff Post article, Bayer stated they, “no longer provided support for the Genetic Literacy Project” – a misinformation website designed to produce content devaluing other scientific studies which are not pro-GMO.
The article (again dated in 2019) points out how Bayer leveraged its many resources to suppress evidence of the health and environmental damage caused by glyphosate and challenged the World Health Organization’s determination that it’s probably “cancer-causing.”
During the Monsanto trials, a secret company email targeted our founder Jeffrey Smith. The subject line was “Whack-a-Mole,” an internal Monsanto joke about how they attack those who expose the true dangers of their products. They even had a large budget-item called “Let Nothing Go,” funding used to suppress all evidence that GMOs, glyphosate, and Gene Editing cause dangerous side effects. Jeffrey’s extensive reporting over two decades was one of their familiar targets.
Their lies and attacks continue. The latest is pretending that gene edited GMOs are safe. And they’ve paid all sorts of organizations and scientists to repeat the lie. Tragically, numerous governments have been tricked, and now allow gene edited GMOs to be introduced into our food supply and environment without any safety checks or even notifying regulators This poses an unprecedented threat to each of us, and future generations. The time to act is now.
New research shows the theory justifying antidepressants is just a myth
The research confirms what some medical professionals have suspected
Depression being a chemical imbalance has been proven to be unfounded
Like millions of patients who seek help from their GPs for depression, Emma Ward was repeatedly told she was suffering from ‘an imbalance of chemicals in the brain’.
If Emma wanted to get better, her doctors said the 26-year-old should keep taking the antidepressants she had been prescribed since she was 15 — even though the drugs did not seem to improve her mood, and left her feeling perpetually numb emotionally.
Now, shocking new research published yesterday shows that the theory justifying the millions of prescriptions for antidepressants handed out every month to patients such as Emma, is simply not true.
Could this have anything—or everything—to do with the ongoing plague of “sudden deaths” now ravaging humanity worldwide?
Mark Crispin Miller
It’s (seemingly) a lucky thing for Pfizer—and all of its accomplices, including Bill Gates, Dr. Fauci (remember him?), nearly every state and national leader, and almost every journalist, both corporate and “alternative”—that Putin picked this moment to invade Ukraine.
A judge forced the FDA to release Pfizer’s clinical data and it’s worse than you can possibly imagine
The FDA was forced by a judge to release clinical data on the COVID vaccines back in January and so 55,000 pages of documents were just released. The FDA had originally wanted to hide the data for 75 years and release it in 2096 because, of course, the FDA is basically engaged in a criminal conspiracy. The COVID vaccines should never have been approved. This was obvious from the very beginning when animal trials were skipped in the Trump Administration’s ill-fated “Operation War Speed.” And now it’s undeniably true. We have the clinical data, and it’s horrific.
Hiding out in one appendix is the clinical data for Pfizer’s vaccine — which lists 1,291 adverse side effects in alphabetical order. Let’s give you just the bad things that can happen to people who took the Pfizer vaccine that start with the letter “a” to enjoy:
(Natural News) We now know the FDA “approval” of the Pfizer covid vaccine is a bold, treacherous gaslighting campaign involving media lies, fake science and criminal conduct at the FDA itself. Issuing two letters on Monday, the FDA actually extended the EUA for the Pfizer vaccine while granting approval to a different vaccine called “Comirnaty” which does not exist in the marketplace and isn’t even in production.
Through carefully crafted weasel words, the FDA has attempted to conflate the two vaccines to try to gaslight America into thinking the Pfizer covid vaccine now has full approval, all while making sure Pfizer still has legal immunity under the EUA for all the injuries and deaths caused by its vaccine.
On Thursday, an internal CDC slide deck was “leaked”. On Friday, an “official” document was presented. The first is more interesting, because it contains things that are ostensibly not meant for public consumption (how to present…). The second is made up of a lot of official looking terminology. What else? But both largely say the same thing: there is no difference between the infection rates of vaccinated and non-vaccinated people. Of course that is then dressed up again in calls to get vaccinated, they can’t help themselves…
In colorful language such as “the war has changed” and “Delta spreads as easily as chickenpox”, the CDC tries very hard to undermine -even deny- it own findings. The slide deck is here:
“The document – a slide presentation – outlines unpublished data that shows fully vaccinated people might spread the Delta variant at the same rate as unvaccinated people..”
The New York Times said:
“The Delta variant is as contagious as chickenpox and may be spread by vaccinated people as easily as the unvaccinated, an internal C.D.C. report said.”
![WHEN EXPOSING A CRIME IS TREATED AS COMMITTING A CRIME, YOU ARE BEING RULED BY CRIMINALS. - Edward Snowden [783 x 391] : r/QuotesPorn](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fe23a0c4a-09db-42d3-97f6-70cd6df9fd17_783x391.jpeg "WHEN EXPOSING A CRIME IS TREATED AS COMMITTING A CRIME, YOU ARE BEING RULED BY CRIMINALS. - Edward Snowden [783 x 391] : r/QuotesPorn")
1. Fake News
You must be logged in to post a comment.