EWNZ comment: do review our glyphosate pages at the main menu. I looked at this topic in the Rangitikei during 2013-2016, attempting to switch the council’s weed control to steam. At the end of the day, it appears that councils NZ wide prefer to use poison … surprised?Comfortably in bed with Agrichem.
“Millions of pounds of glyphosate were approved, defended, and sprayed worldwide on the basis of a paper we now know was fundamentally compromised and scientifically invalid.“
In a long-overdue move, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology has formally retracted the landmark 2000 glyphosate “safety” review by Williams, Kroes, and Munro — a paper Monsanto and global regulators have relied on for decades to assert that Roundup poses no carcinogenic risk to humans.
Crucially, the Editor-in-Chief confirms that Monsanto employees likely secretly wrote substantial portions of the paper, despite never being listed as authors or acknowledged — a revelation uncovered through U.S. litigation.
The retraction states that the article’s integrity has collapsed entirely, citing undisclosed corporate authorship, omitted carcinogenicity data, financial conflicts of interest, and a complete failure by the surviving author to respond to the journal’s investigation.
THE RETRACTION
1. Based almost entirely on Monsanto’s unpublished studies The review’s “no cancer risk” conclusion relied solely on Monsanto-generated data. Even worse, the authors ignored multiple long-term mouse and rat carcinogenicity studies that already existed at the time — including multi-year toxicity studies showing tumor signals. None were incorporated.
2. Evidence of ghostwriting by Monsanto Litigation records revealed that Monsanto employees secretly co-wrote portions of the paper, despite never being listed as authors or acknowledged. This alone violates the most basic principles of scientific integrity.
3. Undisclosed financial ties The authors appear to have received direct compensation from Monsanto for producing the paper — again undisclosed, again violating journal standards.
4. Misrepresentation of authorship and contributions By hiding Monsanto’s role, the paper created the illusion of independent scientific evaluation — even as corporate employees shaped the conclusions.
5. Regulatory capture revealed This paper heavily influenced global risk assessments — including U.S. EPA, WHO/FAO, and Health Canada evaluations — setting the tone for “glyphosate is safe” messaging for more than two decades.
While I am strongly opposed to politically motivated retractions and scientific censorship, this retraction was unquestionably warranted. The integrity failures were not ideological — they were structural, factual, and undeniable.
And the independent evidence that has emerged since 2000 only underscores how dangerous that original “all clear” truly was.
A recent controlled animal study demonstrated that glyphosate and Roundup can induce rare, aggressive, and fatal cancers across multiple organs — even at doses considered “safe” by U.S. and EU regulatory thresholds. These findings directly contradict the original review’s core conclusions.
Zhang et al found a statistically significant association between glyphosate exposure and increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in humans. Their 2019 meta-analysis pooled data from over 65,000 participants across six studies—including more than 7,000 NHL cases—and reported a 41% increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma among those with the highest glyphosate exposure:
In other words, independent science was pointing to serious cancer risks while Monsanto’s fraudulent ghostwritten review was actively minimizing them.
Millions of pounds of glyphosate were approved, defended, and sprayed across the world on the basis of a review that we now know was fundamentally compromised and scientifically invalid.
The collapse of this paper is not just a correction, it is an indictment of an entire regulatory era built on deception.
Part 18 from The Fall of the Cabal series. A must watch IMO. Especially if you’re still unconvinced of the real narrative. This particular episode unpacks the arm dart era.
Once you uncover one lie, the remaining info from that source becomes suspect. From my own research I see the lies are endless. I highly recommend you watch the whole series.
EWNZ comment: Don’t for one minute imagine that NZ is absent from the target list of the weather warfare mongers. Read more on that here.My inquiries of Government (Amy Adams) in 2014 revealed a firm no ..
” The Government does not allow aerosol geoengineering and although it is the subject of some discussion in the scientific community, it is not an accepted method to address climate change...I would like to assure you that there is no deliberate spraying of the nature you suggest and that the health and well-being of New Zealand citizens and our environment are a high priority for this Government.” Link to original letter here (pdf):letter from NZ Min For Environment
That’s a warm fuzzy statement isn’t it? And doesn’t it make you feel safe?Nick Smith, however, then current Min for the Environment, said in Parliament (amidst gales of laughter) that geoengineering was a hoax. ?? Who is right? (See the series on YT: What in the World are They Spraying? Who in the World etc and Why in the World etc).They are reading the globalist script! Relying on your ignorance &/or failure to look deeper than what they are telling you. Question everything!
(Click on the image or title above for the video at Rumble.com)
They have turned the entire sky into one giant death spraying gas chamber, showering your kids with aluminum, barium, and God only knows what while steering trillion dollar kill storms right into the heart of conservative America. Ariana Masters joins us with 75 years of bulletproof contracts, lab proven toxic rain, and satellite footage that nails the treasonous U.S. regime.
Western civilization has been infected by a parasitic invasion of foreign ideals and values that have been introduced into our culture by strange and morally degenerate people whose goal is world domination. We have been OCCUPIED. Watch the film
EPA Provides ‘Total Transparency On The Issues Of Geoengineering And Contrails’ After Deadly Texas Flooding, As Mainstream Media Admits Cloudseeding Occurred Before Floods
“Americans have legitimate questions about contrails and geoengineering, and they deserve straight answers,” says the EPA chief. But it’s more gaslighting as usual.
As of today, July 10th, 121 people have been confirmed dead and over 170 are still reportedly missing, after massive flooding swept through Texas last week. With flooding as horrific as it was, many have asked how such a travesty could happen, and there is some fairly solid evidence that directly points towards cloudseeding/geoengineering as the culprit. Even mainstream media is now being forced to admit it, even if they have to call those asking questions “conspiracy theorists.”
As more people become increasingly aware of the practice of weather modification and cloudseeding, as governments and companies become more overt in their ambitions to modulate the weather to supposedly fight climate change or enhance rainfall in dry areas, more people naturally are looking into this and questioning the practice.
12 U.S. states have introduced legislation to ban the practice, while Tennessee officially banned it last year.
Even though cloudseeding has been promoted on daytime television, mainstream media publications continue to label anyone questioning the practice or its existence as tin-hat wearing “conspiracy theorists.”
Nevertheless, as people began to question and post evidence that the recent floods were the cause of cloudseeding, mainstream media sprung into action to shame anyone who for thinking this… while still admitting that cloudseeding is going on.
The Washington Post cites Augustus Doricko who funded a cloudseeding startup in 2023 called Rainmaker, which prior to the storms that led to the mass flooding, dispersed metals into the atmosphere to induce more rain and that therefore was the cause of the disaster. The WaPo says, “That’s impossible, atmospheric scientists say. Cloud seeding, in which planes scatter dust particles through clouds to trigger rain and snow, remains a fledgling technology, the effects of which are too limited and localized to produce anything remotely like the 15 inches of rain that drowned swaths of South Central Texas over the Fourth of July weekend.”
The WaPo goes on to claim that “hasn’t stopped conspiracy theorists from latching onto cloud seeding as an incendiary explanation for natural disasters. The search for a scapegoat has turned a spotlight on a controversial technology that has drawn interest from drought-stricken Western states and dozens of countries looking to replenish water reservoirs, despite limited evidence that it works and broader social and environmental concerns about altering the weather.”
But the paper does still acknowledge the cloudseeding occurred and silver iodine was sprayed into the sky, per a “contract that Rainmaker had inked this spring with the South Texas Weather Modification Association,” the WaPo wrote. The paper then tries to argue these conspiracy theories are exacerbated because several dozen countries openly participate in weather modification. The outlet wrote:
Efforts to debunk conspiracy theories about geoengineering are further complicated by the fact that some governments really are trying to modify the weather.
At least 39 countries have cloud-seeding programs, according to a December report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office. China has invested at least $2 billion since 2014. Saudi Arabia spent more than $250 million on cloud seeding in 2022 alone, according to the report, and the United Arab Emirates and Indiahave invested millions of dollars more in recent years.
While 10 U.S. states have proposed or passed laws banning cloud seeding, nine in the West — amid the worst droughts some areas have seen in 1,200 years — spend millions of dollars a year to squeeze rain or snow out of clouds. Utah leads the pack, with a $5 million annual cloud-seeding budget.
Modern cloud seeding uses techniques the federal government first tried in the 1940s to boost rainfall and disrupt severe storms. Government scientists spent millions of dollars over decades tinkering with clouds.
In the 1960s, the Defense Department secretly tried to induce rainfall to wash out North Vietnamese supply routes — a campaign revealedby the New York Times in 1971 and acknowledgedby the U.S. government three years later.
In another infamous instance, Air Force pilots sprinkled dry ice into a hurricane drifting over the Atlantic Ocean in 1947 to see if they could disrupt its formation; instead, the hurricane abruptly turned toward land, strengthened and caused one death and $2 million in damage, prompting public outcry. The deadly shift was a coincidence, Rauber said, but it taught scientists they should avoid any appearance of causing a disaster.
AUTHOR’S NOTE: Check out my cross-post by Yanasa TV which notes a number of the active cloudseeding projects in Texas, and scientific papers which demonstrate that minerals pumped into the atmosphere can still linger for days and potential greater precipitation than intended.
The Texas Department of Licensing & Regulation lists on its website the different active weather modification projects in the state. They include:
West Texas Weather Modification Association (WTWMA)
South Texas Weather Modification Association (STWMA)
Panhandle Groundwater Conservation District (PGWCD)
Trans Pecos Weather Modification Association (TPWMA)
Rolling Plains Water Enhancement Project
The government website explains who, how much of the state is directly cloud-seeded, and why and how they do it.
With more substantive evidence that cloud seeding could invigorate convective clouds—promoting their growth and capacity to produce rainwater—a coordinated, State-funded program began in earnest in the latter half of the 1990s. Today, with drought a pending, if not ever-present, threat to the economy and well-being of Texans, rain enhancement projects flourish within large areas of Northwest, West, and South Texas. In fact, the seven cloud seeding projects today cover about 31 million acres (or about one-sixth of the land area of the state). When a severe drought was a greater threat at the end of the previous century, as many as 51 million acres were included in cloud seeding “target” areas in the state.
Texas’ present-day cloud seeding efforts are much more than well-considered responses to drought, however. They are also concerted efforts, using the latest technological tools and understanding, to replenish fresh-water supplies in aquifers and reservoirs as well as to help meet the growing needs of agriculture, industry, and municipalities for fresh water. Political subdivisions like water conservation districts and county commissions have embraced the technology of rain enhancement as one element of a long-term, water-management strategy designed to ensure a growing population has enough water to meet its future needs.
Each of the cloud seeding projects uses specially-equipped aircraft designed to place seeding materials (in the form of pyrotechnic devices, or flares, containing silver iodide and other compounds) into convective towers (turrets of growing thunderstorms) to induce them to expand and process more atmospheric water. The seeding is achieved by burning flares either mounted on the wings of single and twin-engine aircraft or held in racks, and dropped (ejected), from the underside of the aircraft fuselage. Pilots in the aircraft are directed to convective clouds believed by the meteorologist to be treatable with the seeding agent. Timing and targeting are the two critical factors in successful seeding of young thunderstorms. The concerted efforts of both pilot(s) and meteorologist are designed to give the growing cloud a “nudge” to enable it to be more efficient in the way it uses available cloud droplets to grow raindrops.
Even though the Texas state government openly discloses its weather modification programs, some state officials continue to downplay the practice. Sid Miller, Commissioner of the Department of Texas Agriculture, claims the state is not contracting companies to spray the skies and makes an appeal to faith, claiming he prays for rain to come instead.
“There has been a lot of misinformation flying around lately, so let me clarify: the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) has absolutely no connection to cloud seeding or any form of weather modification.
“Since the passage of Senate Bill 1303 in 2011, TDA has had no legal authority, responsibilities, or involvement in any weather modification programs. That authority was transferred out of our hands more than a decade ago.
“As an eighth-generation farmer and rancher, I know what it’s like to watch the sky during a drought, hoping for rain. When Texas experiences a dry spell, I don’t depend on artificial weather manipulation; I turn to my faith. I kneel and pray, just as many farmers, ranchers, and rural communities do.
“Let’s put an end to the conspiracy theories and stop blaming others. Our priority should be the recovery efforts in the Texas Hill Country, as we stand in solidarity with our fellow Texans.”
But with many Texans and Americans unsatisfied, yesterday the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a statement promising “Americans Total Transparency on the Issues of Geoengineering and Contrails.” The EPA published two new online resources “to communicate everything the agency knows about the latest science, research and other information regarding contrails and geoengineering,” the press release explains. “EPA is committed to total transparency with the American public on these topics.”
The press release adds:
EPA’s new online resource on condensation trails, or “contrails,” explains the science behind the aerial phenomenon and addresses myths and misconceptions that have persisted for decades. The new webpage also addresses head-on various claims that these occurrences are actually an intentional release of dangerous chemicals or biological agents at high altitudes for a variety of nefarious purposes, including population control, mind control, or attempts to geoengineer Earth or modify the weather.
EPA also created a new online resource focused specifically on solar geoengineering activities, which involve cooling the Earth by reflecting sunlight back to space, usually through injecting gases, like sulfur dioxide, into the upper atmosphere where they form reflective particles.
The resource delves into the current state of science and research surrounding geoengineering, including the potentially negative impacts it could have on the environment and human health, including depleting the ozone layer, harming crops, altering weather patterns and creating acid rain.
EPA’s new resource also details what EPA has done to identify and track private actors potentially engaged in such activities. Additionally, the online resource discusses weather modification and cloud seeding, and related federal and state government actions.
Along with the release was a video statement from EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, who attempted to quell concerns Americans have over weather modification. Zeldin acknowledges Americans have been “vilified,” he said, for years for simply asking questions, but under the Trump administration seeks to provide total transparency.
“Americans have legitimate questions about contrails and geoengineering, and they deserve straight answers.
“EPA shares the significant reservations many Americans have when it comes to geoengineering activities.
“Everything we know about contrails to solar/geoengineering will be in there. That means anyone who reads through this information will know as much about these topics as I do as EPA Administrator.
“To anyone who has ever looked up to the streaks in the sky and asked, ‘What the heck is going on?’ Or seen headlines about private actors, and even governments looking to “blot out the sun” in the name of stopping global warming, we’ve endeavored to answer all of your questions […]. In fact, EPA shares many of the same concerns […].”
However, the two links provided by the EPA give the status quo answer and claims there is no connection to geoengineering. Salon reported.
“The EPA website on contrails states in no uncertain terms that “chemtrails” are a myth. The term is used among conspiracy theorists who believe that the contrails of vapor that can form behind an airplane’s engines are actually chemicals being distributed from high altitude. The EPA said those claims are inaccurate, but added that it was “reasonable to ask questions” about unfamiliar phenomena.”
Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz called the idea baseless. “To the best of my knowledge, there is zero evidence of anything related to anything like weather modification,” Cruz told reporters on Monday. “Look, the internet can be a strange place. People can come up with all sorts of crazy theories.”
The closest admission the EPA provides is a short blurb stating: “Persistent contrails can interact with wind and clouds to form cirrus clouds, which are thin, wispy clouds that are common at high altitudes.”
When it comes to the term “chemtrails,” the EPA essentially says that this is a false appropriation and conflation with contrails from jet engines. The EPA tries to pass the buck to crop-dusters flying at low levels to spray pesticides on farm fields.
“Chemtrails” is a shortening of the term “chemical trails”. It is a term some people use to inaccurately claim that contrails resulting from routine air traffic are actually an intentional release of dangerous chemicals or biological agents at high altitudes for a variety of nefarious purposes, including population control, mind control, or attempts to geoengineer Earth or modify the weather.
“Some members of the public have been concerned when they see low flying planes spraying fields known as crop dusting.”
In the end, the EPA pretends it has no knowledge of the U.S. ever intentionally participating in geoengineering.
“The federal government is not aware of there ever being a contrail intentionally formed over the United States for the purpose of geoengineering or weather modification. Geoengineering encompasses a broad range of activities that intentionally attempt to cool the Earth or remove gases from the atmosphere. A subset of these activities is intended to cool the Earth by modifying the amount of sunlight reaching Earth’s surface. This is a subject currently going through intense domestic and international public debate, research, and scrutiny for good reason.”
The WinePress News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Geoengineering Watch Global Alert News, November 15, 2025, #536
Tucker Carlson has now added his voice to the all important battle of exposing and halting the climate engineering assault. The discussion of climate engineering between myself and Tucker went live. Tens of millions of views on numerous posts have accumulated since, and are still growing. A number of international media sources also covered the exchange, just in time for the COP climate conference in Brazil. Will the climate engineering issue finally be forced into the full light of day? Are we finally nearing a critical mass of awareness? Will US mainstream media paid geoengineering deniers finally be forced to face the wrath of justifiably enraged populations? The awakening can’t come soon enough, we are rapidly running out of time. The latest breaking bad news headlines are featured in this installment of Global Alert News.
“This New Zealand film has won 4 international environmental awards – but here in NZ, TV channels refuse to play it. Why? Because if they did, there would be outrage and riots over New Zealand’s use of aerially applied 1080 poison. See for yourself … ” From TheGrafBoys‘ Youtube Channel
Most people go through their entire lives never questioning where money comes from. They assume governments create it, that banks merely store and lend it, and that economic crises are natural phenomena like weather patterns. Stephen Mitford Goodson’s “A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind” demolishes these assumptions with documented evidence spanning three millennia: for over three centuries, private banks have created 97% of the world’s money supply from nothing, as interest-bearing debt. Banks don’t lend existing money – they create new money by typing numbers into computers, then charge compound interest on this fiction while seizing real assets when the mathematically impossible debts can’t be repaid.
Goodson’s authority comes from his position as a former Director of the South African Reserve Bank who witnessed firsthand how central banks operate. Unlike academic economists who theorize from ivory towers or journalists who speculate from outside, Goodson sat in the boardroom where monetary policy gets made. He saw the mechanisms of control, understood the deliberate creation of booms and busts, and recognized the same patterns of manipulation he would later trace through Roman copper coins, medieval tally sticks, colonial scrip, and modern electronic transfers. His sudden death in 2018, like so many monetary reformers before him, fits a familiar pattern.
The historical evidence reveals consistent outcomes: whenever governments issue their own money debt-free, civilizations flourish with full employment, stable prices, and cultural achievement. Medieval England’s workers labored just fourteen weeks yearly when tally sticks served as money. Tsarist Russia grew 10% annually with the world’s lowest taxes under state banking. Hitler’s Germany eliminated unemployment while doubling GDP in six years using state-issued currency. Modern North Dakota maintains budget surpluses while every other American state drowns in debt. Every one of these successful systems was destroyed through war, revolution, or assassination. The French Revolution, the American Civil War, both World Wars, the Bolshevik Revolution, the recent destruction of Libya – all were fundamentally about destroying state banking systems that threatened private usury.
The mechanism of enslavement works through mathematical impossibility. When banks create money as debt, every dollar in circulation requires more than a dollar to repay because of interest – but that extra money doesn’t exist unless more debt is created. Society must sink ever deeper into debt just to maintain the money supply, while compound interest transfers real wealth to parasites who produce nothing. When the Federal Reserve creates a trillion dollars with keystrokes, then collects interest on it forever, that’s counterfeiting with legal protection. Sir Josiah Stamp, former Bank of England director, stated it plainly: banks own the earth through their power to create deposits, and with a flick of the pen will create enough to buy it back again even if you took it away.
Today’s cascading crises are predictable outcomes of this system reaching its mathematical limits. The demographic collapse across developed nations – with fertility rates below replacement from Germany to Japan – stems directly from compound interest forcing both spouses to work ever-longer hours for diminishing purchasing power, making children unaffordable. The 2008 crisis that destroyed millions of lives while banks received trillion-dollar bailouts was the system working exactly as designed: create the bubble through easy credit, crash it through credit restriction, then seize real assets during the panic while taxpayers fund the rescue. Goodson documents how every leader who tried to reform this system – Lincoln, Garfield, Kennedy, Qathafi – was assassinated, while every nation that created sovereign money – Napoleonic France, Imperial Russia, National Socialist Germany, modern Libya – was destroyed through wars marketed to the public as ideological conflicts.
The implications of Goodson’s work challenge our entire understanding of modern history. Wars are fought to enforce banking monopolies, not ideologies. Democracy operates as theater while private banks hold true sovereignty through money creation. Our enslavement is mathematical rather than political. The current system’s end game is civilizational extinction, as usury makes human reproduction itself unaffordable. Yet the solution has been proven successful hundreds of times throughout history: governments must reclaim their sovereign right to create money debt-free for the public good, as the American colonies did with colonial scrip, as Lincoln did with greenbacks, as North Dakota does today. You’ve never heard these success stories. You don’t know banks create money from nothing. You believe wars are fought for freedom rather than to enforce debt slavery. This ignorance is carefully cultivated, because as Henry Ford warned, if people understood the banking system, there would be revolution before morning.
An exposé of the Irish famine (book review) … further illustration of how genocide is not new, and how the victors write our histories … a must read. I encourage you to sub to Unbecoming’s excellent substack. EWNZ
By Chris Fogarty – 30 Q&As – Unbekoming Book Summary
For over 170 years, the world has been told that Ireland suffered a natural famine between 1845 and 1850 – a tragic tale of potato blight and a foolish population’s over-dependence on a single crop. This story, taught in universities, memorialized in museums, and repeated in countless history books, has one fundamental problem: it’s a deliberate lie. Christopher Fogarty’s “Ireland 1845-1850: The Perfect Holocaust and Who Kept it ‘Perfect’” demolishes this narrative with military deployment records, shipping manifests, and Ordnance Survey maps that reveal what actually happened. While only the potato crop failed, Ireland continued producing massive quantities of grain, cattle, dairy, and other foods – all of which were removed at gunpoint by 67 British Army regiments, approximately half of Britain’s entire military force, and shipped to England while the producers starved. The death toll wasn’t the officially claimed 21,770 but approximately five million people, half of Ireland’s population.
The evidence Fogarty presents reads like a prosecutor’s case file. He names every British regiment involved, tracking their movements through Ireland’s 32 counties via National Archives records. He identifies General Sir Edward Blakeney as the Commander-in-Chief who orchestrated this operation from before 1845 through after 1851 – a man Queen Victoria honored with the Order of the Bath in 1849 as he neared completion of his genocidal mission….
For several decades, saturated fat was wrongly blamed for heart disease, while vegetable oils quietly caused a surge in obesity, inflammation, and chronic metabolic disorders
Newly appointed FDA commissioner Dr. Marty Makary is now leading efforts to revise outdated dietary guidelines that were built on cherry-picked data from Ancel Keys’ Seven Countries Study
A 2016 BMJ-published reanalysis found replacing saturated fat with linoleic acid-rich vegetable oils increased cardiovascular deaths, despite lowering cholesterol
Investigative journalist Dr. Maryanne Demasi faced vicious backlash after exposing the flawed science behind saturated fat demonization in her documentary “Heart of the Matter”
Industrial seed oils like canola and soybean are now linked to mitochondrial damage, inflammation, and chronic illness — while saturated fat is finally being recognized as metabolically supportive
For decades, the dominant narrative insisted that saturated fat was deadly — even though the actual data never proved it. As a result, the health advice shifted toward seed oils and processed margarine, which quietly ushered in new health problems, from metabolic disease to obesity and inflammatory disorders — all while the original hypothesis remained unchallenged by mainstream medicine.
Now, for the first time, high-ranking officials are openly criticizing these outdated guidelines. So, if you still believe that butter, beef, and full-fat cheese clog your arteries and are damaging your health, it’s time to relearn everything you know about these fat sources.
New FDA Commissioner Aims to End the 70-Year War on Saturated Fat
On July 14, 2025, Dr. Marty Makary, the newly appointed U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioner, along with Sec. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. of the Department of Health and Human Services and Sec. Brooke Rollins of the Department of Agriculture, held a press conference addressing their plans to significantly overhaul the U.S. dietary guidelines.1
•One of the primary areas that they will work on is revising the guidelines on saturated fat — During the press conference, Makary highlighted how the changes to the food guidelines will be made based on scientific findings. He mentions that the demonization of saturated fat began with a flawed study — the Seven Countries Study by Ancel Keys.
•Why the Seven Countries Study was significantly flawed — The study, which started in 1958 and continued until 1983, explored the heart health of different populations in several prominent Western countries. According to Keys’ hypothesis, there is a significant link between saturated fat and heart disease. When he published his data, it showed perfect correlations between cardiovascular disease and the dietary consumption of fat.2
However, there was just one problem with the research — Keys cherry-picked the data. He selectively chose the countries that fit his hypothesis while ignoring data from 16 other countries that went against his recommendations.3 Had he chosen a different set of countries, the data would have been the opposite — that increasing the percent of calories from fat actually reduces the number of deaths from coronary heart disease.
•Despite the methodological flaws in his data, the medical community accepted Keys’ study — This led to the promulgation of “low-fat, low-cholesterol” foods as healthy. Butter, coconut oil, red meat, dairy, and eggs were all shunned, while polyunsaturated fats (PUFs) like margarine, vegetable oils, and shortening were popularized.
•The medical establishment “locked arms and walked off a cliff together” — This was how Makary described the shift from saturated fat to polyunsaturated fat — basically, the health community back then took a look and decided that Keys’s study was gospel truth — despite many experts contesting his hypothesis and many studies4,5 showing the opposite.
“The medical establishment started with a robust debate in the New England Journal of Medicine among academics of the National Academy. But that debate ended in the 1970s because there was groupthink,” Makary said.
“Well, that dogma still lives large and you see remnants of it in the food guidelines that we are now revising. So, we’re going to ensure that the new guidelines are based on science and not medical dogma.”6
To see the tide finally turning and the government health agencies taking the lead on these monumental changes is something I applaud. Over the past couple of decades, I’ve published countless articles about the flaws in Keys’ study — and why saturated fats are not to be feared, as they are actually integral to your health.
Documentary Exposed the Flaws and Received Fierce Backlash
Just like me, Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., has been speaking out about the erroneous demonization of saturated fat for a long time. Several years ago, I wrote about a two-part documentary she produced called “Heart of the Matter,” which aired on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s show (ABC) Catalyst in 2014. I was extremely impressed by the film, as it did an excellent job of exposing the cholesterol/saturated fat myths and its financially links to cholesterol-lowering drugs called statins.
In her recent Substack post, Demasi detailed the severe backlash she received after she released the documentary, and her thoughts on these recent developments from the U.S. government agencies. “It was a stunning moment — not because the criticism was new, but because it was coming from someone in an official position to do something,” she said.7
•“Heart of the Matter” focused on two primary points — The first part examined the demonization of saturated fat, while the second part dwelled on the widespread use of statins.
“The medical dogma was firmly entrenched: saturated fat raised cholesterol, and cholesterol caused heart disease. But the science behind it was shaky — built on cherry-picked data and upheld more by consensus than by critical evaluation,” she said.
•The findings were supported by some of the top experts in the field of cardiovascular health — Among the interviewees featured were Dr. Michael Eades, an early advocate for low-carb, high-fat diets, cardiologists Dr. Stephen Sinatra and Dr. Ernest Curtis, nutritionist Dr. Jonny Bowden, and science journalist Gary Taubes. All of these experts voiced their concerns regarding the warnings against saturated fat. Demasi said:
“Eades, for instance, highlighted the absurdity of the prevailing narrative: ‘You very seldom see the words ‘saturated fat’ in the public press when they’re not associated with artery clogging. So it’s like it’s all one term — ‘artery clogging saturated fats.’’
And Taubes, author of Good Calories Bad Calories, known for his meticulous dismantling of diet dogma, cut to the core: ‘There’s no compelling evidence that saturated fat is involved in heart disease.’”
To present both sides equally, the documentary also featured experts who vigorously defended the warnings against saturated fat. Robert Grenfell, the director of the National Heart Foundation, and Professor David Sullivan, a cardiologist, shared their thoughts in the film.
•Still, the backlash was overwhelming — Demasi describes it as “immediate, vicious, and unrelenting.” The media not only turned against her, but they also went against the experts who challenged the saturated fat dogma. And even though no factual inaccuracies were found, ABC still pulled both episodes from its website.
Numerous Experts Have Sounded the Alarm on Keys’ Flawed Research
The fact that Ancel Keys’ hypothesis was purely observational and could not establish causation has long been raised by many health experts — even during the first years when the Seven Countries study came out. According to Demasi, John Yudkin, a British physiologist and nutritionist warned that sugar, not fat, was the real cause of heart disease. However, he was mocked and marginalized by Keys, who considered Yudkin his fiercest opponent.8
Yudkin was the first, but he wasn’t the only one — numerous researchers like Uffe Ravnskov and Malcolm Kendrick, also publicly challenged Keys’ hypothesis, co-authoring publications that exposed the flaws of this study. Many others soon followed, which Demasi outlined in her blog post.
•“Saturated fat is not the major issue” — In 2013, cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra published a commentary on the BMJ, saying that the flawed advice from Keys caused people to aggressively lower cholesterol — which may have led to higher rates of heart disease.
“The mantra that saturated fat must be removed to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease has dominated dietary advice and guidelines for almost four decades. Yet scientific evidence shows that this advice has, paradoxically, increased our cardiovascular risks,” Malhotra wrote.9
•”The Big Fat Surprise” — Nina Teicholz wrote her best-selling exposè in 2014,10 which helped bring the issue to public attention. Her deeply researched book challenged the conventional wisdom on dietary fats, especially saturated fat. “Teicholz documented how weak science, political pressure, and food industry lobbying created a false consensus that demonised fat and distorted public health policy,” Demasi remarked.11
•“Re-evaluation of the traditional diet-heart hypothesis” — In 2016, a group of researchers published a landmark re-analysis of the Minnesota Coronary Experiment in the BMJ, to evaluate the accuracy of Keys hypothesis. They found that when saturated fat was replaced with linoleic acid (LA) from vegetable oils, cholesterol levels were lowered — but paradoxically led to an increase in deaths, particularly from cardiovascular disease.
“Findings from the Minnesota Coronary Experiment add to growing evidence that incomplete publication has contributed to overestimation of the benefits of replacing saturated fat with vegetable oils rich in linoleic acid,” the researchers concluded.12
The Cholesterol Hypothesis Is a ‘Professional Litmus Test’
The plans to overhaul the U.S. dietary guidelines give hope to many researchers like Demasi, who have long raised their concerns about this flawed science — but were ostracized as a result.
“For the first time, real change may be coming — not from the margins, but from the very top of the U.S. health establishment…
It’s taken decades. The cholesterol hypothesis wasn’t just a scientific claim — it became a professional litmus test. To challenge it was to risk your funding, your career, your credibility. Many of us paid that price. Even now, entrenched interests remain,” she wrote.
•But why was the myth allowed to persist in the first place? Apparently, it’s all because of the food and drug industry. In a video podcast, Dr. Paul Saladino and Teicholz discussed how the low-fat, low-cholesterol myth rapidly led to dramatic changes in the food and drug industries — changes that have proven to be highly lucrative, financially speaking.13
•Acknowledging that saturated fat is healthy means to relinquish big industry profits — The Big Food industry is raking in millions of dollars from the low-fat and low-cholesterol (yet highly processed) foods, including industrial vegetable oils. To admit that these “healthier options” are actually decimating public health would lead to great financial losses. The healthy alternative is real food — however, there’s no big industry profits to be made from that.
•Moreover, statin sales and other Big Pharma profit areas would suffer — The whole point of prescribing statins was to lower cholesterol, but if the notion that cholesterol is bad would be overturned, then what would be the point of taking these drugs?
Personally, I believe that statins are among the most overprescribed — and unnecessary — medications on the market today. Not only do the harms far outweigh the benefits, but they’re also ineffective. In fact, in “Heart of the Matter,” the experts repeatedly say that statins only lengthen a life by a few days and, despite their hype and popularity, are shockingly ineffective for all but a few people. Learn more about these drugs in my article, “Statins Do More Harm Than Good.”
Vegetable Oils Undermine Your Health
Perhaps the worst effect of the demonization of saturated fats — including butter, tallow, lard, and coconut oil — is that it paved the way for vegetable oils like soybean, canola, and corn oil, which are loaded with linoleic acid, a polyunsaturated fat (PUF), to become a standard part of the modern diet.
Today, Americans consume LA at levels that would have been unimaginable a century ago. In the 1860s, we only consumed 2 grams of LA per day; that number has now increased to close to 30 grams per day for most people. It now makes up 15% to 25% of a typical American’s caloric intake. And the cost of this overload? Your cells become more vulnerable to oxidative stress.
•Excessive LA causes your mitochondria to break down — The mitochondria, which are the powerhouse of your cells, responsible for creating energy, are significantly damaged because of this fat. LA transforms into oxidized linoleic acid metabolites (OXLAMs), dangerous byproducts that damage DNA, disrupt energy production, and drive chronic inflammation throughout your body.
OXLAMs have been linked to not just heart disease, but nearly every chronic disease now plaguing the developed world, such as obesity, Type 2 diabetes, and even neurodegeneration.
•LA stays in your body for years — You don’t simply eliminate it; instead, it LA embeds in your body fat, where it continues to inflict damage even after you clean up your diet. I recommend reading my paper published in Nutrients to understand how this happens — and how you can reverse it. My paper also expounds on the long-term biological effects of this metabolic disruptor.
•Unfortunately, LA is rampant in the food supply — Even if you stop using seed oils, or don’t eat fried foods and fast food, you could still end up eating large amounts of LA mainly because it’s cleverly hidden in so many packaged products where you’d least expect it.
Lowering your intake of industrial seed oils starts with knowing where they hide. I recommend downloading my Health Coach app, which will be out soon. It has a unique feature called Seed Oil Sleuth™, which will help identify every hidden source of seed oils in your meals. It also calculates your daily LA intake to the nearest tenth of a gram.
Saturated Fat Is Not the Enemy — Misinformation Is
So how do you undo the damage of 70 years of misguided health policy? The good news is there are ways to help revert the damage, and it starts by focusing on the root cause — removing industrial seed oils loaded with linoleic acid (LA). Carefully read labels, even in so-called “healthy” snacks; remember, these harmful fats are lurking everywhere.
Once you’ve cleaned up all the unhealthy fats in your diet, start rebuilding your health with saturated fats from clean animal sources, which are stable and nourishing. Choose healthy options like grass fed butter, ghee, beef tallow, and coconut oil, which support your mitochondria, don’t oxidize easily, and provide steady energy. For more healthy lifestyle strategies to eliminate LA from your diet, I recommend reading “Linoleic Acid, Mitochondria, Gut Microbiome, and Metabolic Health — A Mechanistic Review.”
These new developments in the U.S. food supply are certainly a breath of fresh air, and if Makary and others who are part of the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) campaign follow through, we may finally get dietary guidelines that reflect biological truth, not industry agendas. As Demasi concludes:
“[W]e may finally be seeing the collapse of one of the most destructive public health myths in modern history … For those of us who’ve waited decades, it’s not vindication we want (although that would be nice) — it’s change.”14
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About the War on Saturated Fat
Q: Why is the war on saturated fat finally ending?
A: For decades, saturated fat was wrongly blamed for heart disease due to flawed research like Ancel Keys’ Seven Countries Study. Now, top U.S. health officials, including FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, are acknowledging these mistakes and working to revise the dietary guidelines based on current science, not outdated dogma.
Q: What was wrong with the original research that demonized saturated fat?
A: Keys’ study selectively included countries that supported his hypothesis and ignored those that didn’t. This cherry-picking created a false link between fat and heart disease, leading to widespread promotion of low-fat, high-seed oil diets that have been harmful to public health.
Q: How have vegetable oils impacted health since replacing saturated fats?
A: Vegetable oils like soybean, corn, and canola are loaded with linoleic acid (LA), which damages mitochondria, promotes inflammation, and contributes to chronic diseases like obesity, diabetes, and neurodegeneration. These oils now make up 15% to 25% of caloric intake in the average American diet.
Q: What role did media and government play in spreading misinformation?
A: Mainstream media and government agencies endorsed and enforced the cholesterol hypothesis without fully examining the evidence. Whistleblowers like Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., were attacked for speaking out, and even accurate documentaries were censored to protect the status quo.
Q: What changes are being proposed for the U.S. dietary guidelines?
A: Upcoming revisions may eliminate the cap on saturated fat and elevate full-fat foods like butter and dairy. Officials aim to base the guidelines on actual science, not outdated industry-driven dogma.
Sugar Industry Falsified Science to Sell America on Fluoride
A new study reveals the sugar industry has manipulated fluoride science since the 1930s — exaggerating benefits, concealing risks and steering attention away from sugar’s role in tooth decay. The findings show that industry influence shaped fluoridation policies, raising urgent questions about the public health guidance that persists today.
The sugar industry has manipulated scientific research on fluoride since the 1930s — exaggerating its benefits, suppressing concerns about serious side effects and shifting attention away from sugar’s role in tooth decay, according to a study published Monday in the journal Environmental Health.
Internal sugar industry and dental organization documents, analyzed by the study’s author Christopher Neurath, detail how the sugar industry helped shape the public health policies that, for decades, touted fluoride as a “magic bullet” against tooth decay.
The documents also show how the tobacco and chemical industries later adopted those tactics.
Neurath, research director for the American Environmental Health Studies Project, told The Defender that his research builds on work by Dr. Cristin Kearns. Kearns revealed how the sugar industry paid scientists to downplay links between sugar and heart disease and promote saturated fat as a risk factor.
The sugar industry — and the industrial food industry as a whole — “have played a huge role in manipulating not just the science, but the policy,” Neurath said of his findings. “I think this helps to show they are likely culprit No. 1 in the chronic disease epidemic.”
Controversy over water fluoridation exploded after plaintiffs won a landmark lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in September 2024. The ruling — now on appeal — compels the agency to set new rules for regulating fluoride in water because fluoride poses an “unreasonable risk” to children’s neurodevelopment.
Since then, numerous communities — and two states — have decided to stop fluoridating their water.
The “Make Our Children Healthy Again” strategy report, published earlier this month under the direction of U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., called on the EPA to review new science on fluoride’s potential health risks. The report also instructed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to update its water fluoridation recommendations.
Neurath’s study traces the sugar industry’s influence on fluoride policy back nearly 100 years, through major research institutions, the ADA and U.S. government programs.
“Chris Neurath’s new article shows how the sugar industry used fluoridation as a smoke screen — a tactic that raises troubling questions about the science that supported it,” Dr. Bruce Lanphear, an expert on the neurotoxic effects of environmental chemicals at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada, told The Defender.
“These findings make it imperative for dentists, physicians and public health authorities to urgently re-examine the risks and benefits of fluoridation,” he said.
Lanphear is the principal investigator in one of the seminal cohort studies linking maternal exposure to fluoridated water to cognitive deficits in their children.
Industry established ‘Sugar Fellowship’ to investigate fluoride in 1930s
“The Sugar Fellowship was intended to produce evidence that would exonerate sugar from causing tooth decay (dental caries) or failing that, find ways to reduce caries without restricting sugar consumption,” Neurath wrote.
Cox studied the impact of sugar consumption on cavities in rats. In 1939, his flawed experiments — sometimes showing more decay in fluoride groups — led him to propose adding fluoride to drinking water.
Cox wrote major portions of a 1952 National Research Council report on the prevention of cavities that emphasized fluoride’s role. He never disclosed his links to the sugar industry.
That work gave the industry its “magic bullet” against tooth decay, Neurath said.
ADA agrees to ‘cooperate’ with sugar industry
In the decades that followed, the sugar industry quietly worked behind the scenes to use Cox’s flawed science to drive public health policy.
In 1944, Fice Mork, son of the president of the New York State Dental Society, left his position as public relations counsel for the ADA to become SRF’s public relations consultant.
That year, Mork and Robert Hockett, who directed SRF from its founding until 1953 — when he left to work for the tobacco industry — met with ADA executives who agreed to “cooperate” with SRF.
According to Neurath, Mork and Hockett persuaded the ADA to reverse its position on cavities. Instead of blaming cavities on nutritional deficiencies like excessive sugar consumption and vitamin D deficiency, the ADA began to promote fluoride as a solution for cavities.
Mork and Hockett organized a 1944 symposium for thousands of dentists, without disclosing that SRF was funding the event.
“The symposium was an opening salvo in a public campaign to promote fluoride and fluoridation as the solution to prevent tooth decay,” Neurath wrote. The “founding fathers of fluoridation” gave presentations on its benefits, according to Neurath.
SRF paid to print and mail 100,000 copies of the symposium proceedings to every dentist in the U.S., and also to pediatricians, public health officials and dental schools.
Mork and Hockett also met with the new editor of the Journal of the American Dental Association, Harold Hillenbrand, who agreed to “unofficially” inform Hockett about the positions of various people inside the ADA regarding the policy shift toward fluoride.
Hillenbrand later became the executive director of the ADA and held the position until 1970.
Kellogg’s teams up with dental industry to promote fluoride
During that same period, an executive from Kellogg’s — maker of sugary cereals — became chair of the ADA committee that set its dental health policy. The organization stopped pushing to reduce sugar consumption and started pushing fluoride.
Philippe Hujoel, DDS, Ph.D., a professor at the University of Washington whose own research exposed conflicts of interest regarding fluoride at the ADA, said Neurath’s revelations “add a substantial number of details on how organizations hide/obscure/protect their internal deliberations, their internal conflicts of interest.”
He added:
“Maybe more importantly, his report documents in detail the long, difficult, and arduous process of trying to uncover what happens behind the walls of confidentiality of organizations. The amount of work done by Chris is astounding.
“Reading Chris’s article, I was reminded of a quote by Alberto Brandolini, a Programmer: ‘The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.’ Chris’s work suggests it may be several orders of magnitude bigger.”
Hillenbrand was one of the first dentists to be elected to the Institute of Medicine (IOM), which raises questions about other IOM appointments, according to Hujoel.
“One wonders about all the other appointments at this Institute of Medicine and to what extent these appointments are partly responsible for the current diabetes epidemic,” he said.
Dentists ‘largely unaware’ of how sugar industry manipulated science
Neurath told The Defender that the sugar industry’s deceptive tactics have been going on for so long that many dentists and public health officials who embrace the use of fluoride are “largely unaware of any industry manipulation of the science.”
“The sugar industry very consciously targeted dentists,” he said. “They went to the top of the dentistry profession and got the ADA on board,” and the leaders of the ADA “hid the fact that they were essentially cooperating with the sugar industry from practicing dentists.”
The sugar industry also targeted dental schools and universities, Neurath said.
At Harvard School of Public Health, Fredrick Stare championed the idea that water fluoridation would prevent cavities. He founded Harvard’s Department of Nutrition largely with donations from the sugar industry and Big Food, according to Neurath.
Extracted from one of Fredrick Stare’s hundreds of weekly syndicated newspaper column articles. Credit: Christopher Neurath.
Neurath also reveals evidence that the industry influenced the National Institutes of Health National Caries Program, funded by Congress and launched in 1971 to fight tooth decay. He said the policy agenda for the program used language written by the International Sugar Research Foundation, the SRF’s successor organization.
Sugar industry, Big Food suppress facts on fluoride’s dangers
Today, the influence of the sugar industry is embodied in the giant food and beverage corporations, including Coca-Cola, the largest purveyor of sugar globally. Neurath said it is “almost the equivalent of the sugar industry today.”
In 2003, Coca-Cola donated $1 million to the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, which has a “long-standing policy of promoting water fluoridation.”
More recently, as evidence emerged linking water fluoridation to reduced IQ in children, industry-backed scientists have gone on the attack.
Sugary food and beverage corporations, including Coca-Cola and Kellogg’s, contributed tens of millions of dollars to the National Academies of Science, Engineering & Medicine, which interfered with the publication of the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) seminal report linking fluoride to neurotoxicity in children.
The review found “no cause for concern,” according to the press release that accompanied its publication, and has been touted by fluoridation promoters in their claims that water fluoridation is safe.
ILSI was founded by a vice president of Coca-Cola and has been funded by the beverage maker “along with a long list of major companies in the sugary foods, processed foods, infant formula, chemical, pesticide, oil and pharmaceutical industries,” Neurath said.
Documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests by plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the EPA revealed that the Oral Health Division of the CDC — the agency largely responsible for promoting fluoridation at the governmental level — privately met with some authors of the German review for help in counteracting the NTP’s findings.
This article was funded by critical thinkers like you.
The Defender is 100% reader-supported. No corporate sponsors. No paywalls. Our writers and editors rely on you to fund stories like this that mainstream media won’t write.
The ADA, together with organizations like the American Fluoridation Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics, continues a national campaign to push water fluoridation as safe and effective.
Government records requests show that these activities include coordinating behind the scenes with government officials — in ways that violate rules of federal grants — and bullying local officials who raise concerns.
The evidence on fluoride’s benefits has changed, and proof of its harms to children’s health is substantial, Neurath told The Defender.
In October 2024, an updated Cochrane Review concluded that adding fluoride to drinking water provides very limited, if any, dental benefits, especially compared with 50 years ago.
Numerous recent studies have shown fluoride’s links to reduced IQ and other neurodevelopmental issues in children.
Many major professional medical organizations have quietly dropped their previous long-term support for water fluoridation. These include the American Cancer Society, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Physicians, and the American College of Preventive Medicine.
The ADA did not respond to The Defender’s request for comment on the study.Related articles in The Defender
Brenda Baletti, Ph.D., is a senior reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
Our last two articles ‘It’s not unusual‘ and ‘We need a real open national debate on healthcare and biotechnology‘ discuss the unfolding health crisis in New Zealand which is straining our health service to its limits and beyond. Accompanying this, excess death rates remain 5% above the long term pre-pandemic rate. This article examines results of multiple recently published studies which indicate that COVID-19 vaccination is increasing sickness incidence across multiple disease types and driving the health crisis.
In my interview with Dr. Patrick Gentempo, we discussed how true health care involves developing self-trust and personal judgment rather than blindly following medical authorities. Understanding your body’s natural healing abilities helps make informed decisions about treatments and interventions
While emergency medical care is vital for acute conditions, the current health care system often emphasizes crisis management and quick fixes rather than promoting everyday wellness and prevention
Fear disrupts self-trust and decision-making in health care choices. Developing a personal health philosophy helps you evaluate treatments based on evidence and individual experience rather than external pressure
Your body’s cellular energy production, particularly through mitochondrial health, plays a key role in overall wellness. Avoiding toxins and making lifestyle changes significantly improves natural healing capacity
Making health decisions should combine logical analysis of scientific evidence with intuitive understanding of your body. Small, consistent changes in daily habits often lead to significant health improvements
In my recent interview with Dr. Patrick Gentempo, a longtime friend and respected chiropractor, we discussed the importance of knowing your own health philosophy. We explored topics such as self-trust, fear and the role of curiosity in guiding you toward good decisions. Our conversation highlighted how easy it is to get swept up in a system that emphasizes quick fixes instead of true healing.
You might think a prescribed drug or an invasive procedure is the only answer because that is the message coming from some powerful voices. Yet, genuine “health care” is not just a set of steps or pills. It involves your choices, your beliefs and your willingness to understand what your body truly needs. Gentempo described his early days in chiropractic care, where he frequently encountered patients who assumed that a doctor always knew best.
Those same individuals often had no real sense of their own ability to heal. In many cases, they simply replaced their inner wisdom with a blind trust in practitioners wearing white coats. Gentempo’s point is one I have voiced time and again — each of you should take a more active role in your own health. Part of that means understanding that most so-called “health care” is actually designed to handle crises and emergencies, rather than promote day-to-day well-being.
There is certainly a place for emergency interventions. If you experience a broken bone or life-threatening infection, going to a hospital is clearly the right move. But as you will see, making wise decisions in everyday life often prevents these problems or at least lessens their severity.
Throughout my professional journey, I have found that the best outcomes happen when you trust your own judgment enough to consider alternative approaches. Gentempo agrees. He shared a story of being nearly pushed into knee surgery, only to pause and remember his core belief that the body is self-healing and self-regulating. This pause gave him room to explore a natural path — one that ultimately led to a full recovery without surgery.
Embracing Self-Trust and Personal Choice
During our conversation, we also focused on how fear disrupts your ability to trust yourself. I have often seen people become so caught up in what they are told by experts that they lose sight of their own experiences and gut feelings. Gentempo explained that, without a personal philosophy, you naturally adopt someone else’s. That point deserves your attention. It means your choices come not from a place of conviction but from pressure or habit.
When you decide to live by your own philosophy, you begin to ask questions. You might wonder: Does a proposed treatment align with how you view health, or does it only address a symptom? Have you looked for credible data and then checked how it resonates with your experiences?
This shift might involve saying “no” to a recommendation or stepping away from a risky drug. It often feels unusual, especially if you are used to following directions without challenging them. Yet, in the long run, this approach could save you from unneeded therapies and help you find better solutions.
During our discussion, Gentempo recalled times in his practice when he saw the direct power of self-healing. He watched patients who tried conservative, noninvasive options before resorting to surgery. Many of them improved. This reminded me of a key study in the New England Journal of Medicine showing that certain knee surgeries were no better than sham procedures.1
It underscores how assumptions about standard care don’t always hold up. You deserve to know such information to avoid getting swept into fear-based decisions. The moment you break free from that cycle of dread, you become much better equipped to evaluate the merits of any treatment. You move from being told what to do to deciding what to do. That is the essence of real self-trust.
Questioning the ‘Health Care’ Label
A large part of my conversation with Gentempo centered on the way our society approaches health. We both find it troubling that so much money and energy goes into a system better described as “sick care.” Despite massive health care spending, many people remain unwell or become sicker as they age.
You look around and see countless advertisements for drugs, along with stories from neighbors and friends who juggle multiple prescriptions. That seems perfectly normal in our current age, but it does not reflect what true health looks like. In a genuine health care system, the priority would be to help you stay healthy in the first place. Rather than constantly placing you in a reactive stance, it would center on prevention and healthy lifestyle habits.
Gentempo pointed out that medication-based care does not automatically become “bad.” If you encounter an acute crisis, pharmaceutical or surgical interventions are often lifesaving. The issue arises when prescriptions and procedures are used for mild or chronic conditions without considering simpler, safer solutions. This over-reliance on medicine leads to a cycle where people keep adding more drugs to handle side effects, and no one ever addresses the root cause.
I have spent many years showing readers how to handle common health concerns through smart, natural methods. Whether it is taking steps to optimize your vitamin D levels or learning how to manage stress before it spirals, you have options beyond the standard sick-care path. I urge you to remain curious and look for ways to maintain vitality. Do not wait for permission to try something as basic as healthy eating, proper sleep or a thoughtful supplement routine.
As Gentempo explains, forming a personal health philosophy means taking the time to decide what you believe about the nature of your body and how it heals. Some of you likely feel quite certain that the human body, given proper support, is incredibly resilient. You believe your energy and overall function improves with simple steps like removing toxins, eating real foods and staying active.
Others still cling to the assumption that a doctor’s prescription or a scalpel is always required to correct any health issue. Gentempo and I suggest you consider how your current beliefs were formed. Did you develop them through your own experience and valid research, or have you absorbed them from the environment around you? If you learn to “audit” your beliefs, you keep the good ones and discard those that do not serve you anymore.
In our interview, we also discussed how people feel lost when they have no guiding philosophy at all. That leaves you vulnerable to picking up any passing idea or commercial message that seems official.
When you have a clear sense of what health means to you — when you know how you think your body should be cared for — other people’s claims become easier to evaluate. You may say, “That lines up with my philosophy,” or “This goes against how I understand health,” and proceed from there.
Deciding on your own philosophy does not mean you go it alone and never accept outside help. Rather, you become the ultimate judge. You gather insights from various sources, verify the evidence, then see if it resonates with your view of reality. If it does, you might adopt it. If not, you discard it without feeling guilty. A personal philosophy is not a set of unchanging rules; it shifts as new knowledge emerges.
Old Assumptions and New Insights
We talked about how easy it is to repeat old assumptions without checking if they are still correct. Maybe you have believed something like “saturated fats are harmful” or “any government-approved drug must be 100% safe.” As Gentempo and I noted, you then look back and find that many modern ideas turned out to be mistaken. Studies challenging long-held beliefs pop up regularly, yet people keep following the same paths out of habit or fear.
An example is the use of seed oils, which contain linoleic acid. You’ve likely seen repeated claims that these are “heart-healthy” alternatives, when in reality they’re mitochondrial poisons. You might have grown up with the notion that vegetable oils in processed foods were better for you, only to learn now that butter, ghee and coconut oil are healthier options.
In my conversation with Gentempo, I pointed out that changing your perspective does not make you weak or indecisive. It means you are growing and staying open to the idea that new information should replace outdated ideas. Science itself evolves, and so do you. The important thing is to stay active in the process, so you are not letting others make choices for you while you remain on the sidelines.
Mitochondria and the Role of Energy
One of the standout parts of our interview was discussing how health is tied to energy production within your cells. I have written extensively about mitochondria, the tiny power plants that convert nutrients into usable fuel, including in my book “Your Guide to Cellular Health: Unlocking the Science of Longevity and Joy.” As Gentempo and I both noted, many everyday toxins weaken this energy process, leaving you feeling drained or vulnerable to illness.
We also discussed the importance of removing known mitochondrial toxins. It is not enough to merely add good things, such as better foods and more movement, if you are still bombarding your cells with harmful substances.
That is like trying to sail a boat with an anchor dragging along the ocean floor. By freeing yourself from that anchor — say, by cutting out seed oils and reducing your exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals — you allow your body to generate energy more efficiently.
Gentempo’s philosophy rests on the idea that your body has an innate capacity for self-healing. I share that view. Through the years, many of the successes I have witnessed happened when patients embraced their responsibility to nurture their body’s innate wisdom. That meant exercising, eating foods free of damaging additives and learning how to lower stress. It also meant staying curious instead of simply following the loudest or most “official” voice.
We recognize that tension often arises when you decide to break from the crowd. For example, during COVID-19 mandates, many people were torn between what made sense to them and what was required by policy. It was not our role in that discussion to dictate what is right for you. Rather, we suggest making decisions that are consistent with your core beliefs and the data you have gathered. That way, you avoid letting outside pressures force you into unwise or harmful choices.
Carrying the Lessons Forward
For me, interviewing Gentempo served as a reminder that the pursuit of health is not just about strict rules or scientific papers. It is about learning how to align what you know logically with what you feel intuitively. Studies and data hold great value, and I often cite them to support various points. Yet, you are the only one living in your body, experiencing your daily routine and coping with your unique challenges.
Gentempo explained that your mindset, emotions and choices build your energetic field. And that, in turn, influences your physical reality. I support this view, especially after working with tens of thousands of individuals over the years who drastically improved their health by shifting daily habits — often starting with small, seemingly simple changes. They began by choosing to think differently about what health really means.
Our conversation finished on a hopeful note. Both of us see a massive need for a more authentic view of health, one driven by self-trust and curiosity rather than fear. This is your opportunity to make decisions that line up with what works for your body and your circumstances. As you do, you might spark curiosity in friends, family or even strangers who see you living with more freedom and vitality.
Expanding Your Creative, Joyful Self
At the heart of everything we discussed is the idea that your life is meant to be creative, joyful and free from unnecessary fear. I shared how your energy levels affect not only your physical strength but also your spirit. When you connect to that source of energy — whether you call it your spirit, soul or simply your vital spark — you find that making the right health choices becomes easier.
Gentempo and I agree that real joy comes from living in alignment with your deepest truths. If you ever doubt whether your life can improve, I encourage you to consider the rapid transformations I have seen. Some people overcame serious health problems simply by questioning old assumptions and trusting themselves enough to try a different path. They created a ripple effect — changing not just their own health story, but also influencing others who noticed their results.
My hope is that you recognize how important it is to keep learning and growing. Stay curious about new findings in health, but always run them through your personal filter. Rely on your philosophy of wellness, continue refining your choices and remain open to future discoveries. Let that process fill you with the energy and clarity needed to embrace a life of true health and joy.
Moving Forward with Confidence and Vitality
As we wrapped up our interview, Gentempo shared the importance of embracing your own judgment and not being afraid to refine it as you learn. You are not stuck with a single belief system forever; you are free to change it when new evidence or personal experiences point you toward a better route.
You have a chance, right now, to take your health into your own hands by reflecting on the discussion I had with Gentempo. We covered everything from the power of your personal philosophy to the practical considerations of living in a system that often treats medicine as a universal cure-all. The message is not that you should reject every medical intervention, but that you need to see yourself as the central figure in your health journey.
I am thankful for the time I got to spend with Gentempo, as it reinforced the core principles I have championed for decades: Focus on prevention, respect your body’s natural intelligence and do not let fear drive you. Instead, examine studies, seek expert opinions and, if you come to a different conclusion than the mainstream, realize that might be the best choice you ever make.
Elevating Your Health with Purpose
As my conversation with Gentempo explains, your health is best served by your own wisdom, guided by solid facts and a willingness to adapt. Neither of us suggests living in a bubble or ignoring doctors. Instead, we want to encourage you to become a partner in your own care — one who weighs information carefully and doesn’t forget the power you hold over your daily habits.
Through this collaboration between your knowledge and your intuition, you tap into a higher level of healing and growth. Recognize that “health care” should not be limited to an endless series of prescriptions. Rather, it is a dynamic, ongoing practice of fueling your body well, giving it enough rest and choosing safe, evidence-based interventions when necessary.
I invite you to read more about the ideas we touched on. Explore Gentempo’s website, gentempo.com.2 Look up peer-reviewed studies on subjects that interest you. Pay attention to experts you trust, but always match their advice to your own situation. If something feels off or leads to negative outcomes for people you care about, dig deeper. Ask questions. Adjust your approach. That is how true learning happens.
I hope you use these insights to push past fear or confusion and step boldly into a life driven by your own inner compass. Like Gentempo, I believe you will find that once you tune in to your body’s capabilities — you unlock not just a healthier version of yourself but also a more joyful and meaningful life overall.
Why ever would they refuse? It would prove to the nay sayers the needles were safe & effective. (On the SE topic check out Jon Rappoport’s latest comment, hint, it’s about the FDA). They won’t ever of course (even though some have already done smaller studies, never reported on) because well, they know who will lose hands down… (See also here, here, here & here). One of those links I had to retrieve from archives in Way Back Machine. See how this info is diligently scrubbed from everywhere? … EWNZ
The symptoms of what was labelled “Polio” exist today under various other names, the only difference is the assumed cause. What is clear, however, is that an “infectious” cause has not ever been proven, there is no scientific evidence to support the mainstream narrative that Polio is contagious. This idea that Polio is highly infectious is a myth used to push a toxic vaccine campaign and to cover up the crimes of agrochemical poisoning, according to biomedical scientist Simon Lee.
They warn Disease X “could result in 20 times more fatalities than the coronavirus pandemic.”
Klaus Schwab, the WEF, and the so-called global elites are gathering together for a 5-day annual meeting in Davos from January 15-19. One of the topics on the agenda has raised some eyeballs, “Preparing for Disease X” on January 17.
COVID has been reported to have claimed approximately 7 million lives worldwide, but “Disease X,” on the other hand, they warn, “could result in 20 times more fatalities than the coronavirus pandemic.”
There is a potential for a trillion new viruses to emerge, and mutate! Ask youR friendly CDC rep for directions to the nearest quarantine camp, ahem … wellness facility. Sasha Latypova
Dr. Ben Tapper, one of the famous Disinformation Dozen, joins Paul Harrell to talk about the WEF’s “Disease X” and how we must not let them create another PLANDEMIC. Watch this new segment NOW at https://StewPeters.com
Video above (from Coronavirus Plushie) with clips of Ardern speaking on the covid experimental injection claiming prevention of transmission and complete safety and effectiveness.
“Not only does adult vaccination not protect other adults, it can harm children. In the first 18 weeks after of vaccination, adults were likely to increase the risk of death to their children.”
NITROGEN 2000 is a 45-minute documentary on the Dutch Farmer struggle of 2019-23. 70% of Holland is owned by small cattle farmers and since 2019, the Dutch government has been advocating a 50% forced buyout of their land. This amounts to a nationalisation of a third of the territory of Holland.
Is this really about lowering nitrogen levels to help orchids over nettles? What other darker designs lie behind the nitrogen policy of Holland? Surely if it were truly about nitrogen other solutions could be found than disenfranchising the most efficient farmers on the planet. In NITROGEN 2000 Big Picture gets to the bottom of the story.
Big Picture’s James Patrick initially went to the Netherlands to shoot two interviews for another film which was under production. While he was there, he got in touch with some leaders of the Dutch farmers’ groups fighting the government’s policy to forcibly buy out their farms.
When he arrived in the Netherlands, Patrick realised that a third of the farms had signs displaying “HELP!.” Upside-down flags were hanging everywhere. It quickly became evident to him that this was a much bigger event than most understood. “I jumped onto the story and aggressively shot an entire film in 6 days,” he said.
What is happening in Holland is a warning to the world of what is to come if we don’t put a stop to this expropriation of the Dutch farmer’s land.
This is a big story. The government of Holland – with European Union blessings – is seeking to forcefully purchase one-third of their territory, disenfranchising half of their cattle farmers.
As everyone knows, corporate media constantly demonises cows: they make methane; their burps are evil; they cause nitrogen to run off into waterways. But the insane argument the Dutch government is using is that the nitrogen in cow dung is settling on protected areas, called Natura 2000 and causing plants less than 1 ft tall to suffer because other plants that grow higher block the sun for the smaller ones. That the government would declare war on half of their farmers in the name of short plants. “It’s a joke, and they have no credibility,” Patrick said.
This appears to be a story of seizing land under questionable “environmental” pretences and removing the bulk of the Dutch farmers from the market, effectively taking them offline. In terms of production per hectare, Dutch farmers are the most efficient farmers in the world. If a large restructuring of the food system is being engineered, sandbagging Dutch farmers is a crucial step towards achieving that goal.
The documentary ‘NITROGEN 2000’ gets to the bottom of the story. Partick interviewed the top players in the story to help people understand this complex phenomenon in a world in transition. To fight for our rights and well-being, we must understand what is happening to us. “This is the mission of my work: to help people see the Big Picture,” he said.
The documentary is free to view, in several languages, but if you would like to make a donation to support the Big Picture’s work, you can do so HERE.
“’You’ll own nothing and be happy’? David Webb has gone through the 50-year history of all the legal constructs that have been put in place to technically enable that to happen.” [Oct 2 interview titled “The Great Taking: Who Really Owns Your Assets?”]
The derivatives bubble has been estimated to exceed one quadrillion dollars (a quadrillion is 1,000 trillion). The entire GDP of the world is estimated at $105 trillion, or 10% of one quadrillion; and the collective wealth of the world is an estimated $360 trillion. Clearly, there is not enough collateral anywhere to satisfy all the derivative claims. The majority of derivatives now involve interest rate swaps, and interest rates have shot up. The bubble looks ready to pop.
Who were the intrepid counterparties signing up to take the other side of these risky derivative bets? Initially, it seems, they were banks –led by four mega-banks, JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America. But according to a 2023 book called The Great Taking by veteran hedge fund manager David Rogers Webb, counterparty risk on all of these bets is ultimately assumed by an entity called the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC), through its nominee Cede & Co. (See also Greg Morse, “Who Owns America? Cede & DTCC,” and A. Freed, “Who Really Owns Your Money? Part I, The DTCC”). Cede & Co. is now the owner of record of all of our stocks, bonds, digitized securities, mortgages, and more; and it is seriously under-capitalized, holding capital of only $3.5 billion, clearly not enough to satisfy all the potential derivative claims. Webb thinks this is intentional.
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.”
The Corbett Report explore the world of politics, history, science and economics from a radically alternative perspective. From geopolitical conspiracies to monetary manipulation, repressed history and social engineering, The Corbett Report goes where other podcasts fear to tread.
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: You will own nothing. They already own private jets, travel at leisure & really don’t care about their carbon footprint because they know of course it is a scam … EWR
This is a recent video from Jan Markell @ Olive Tree Ministries. If you want a sweeping coverage of the WEF intentions for you & yours going forwards, this narrative from a Biblical perspective fits the bill. It covers transhumanism, the guidestones, digital currency, climate lockdowns, Schwab’s offsider, Harari, including Schwab himself, the climate scam and more. Worth a watch/listen. EWR
Hammering the eggs again. I heard the other day also that tying your shoelaces can have a detrimental effect on your heart. Seriously. It was in mainstream news. Here is one article, if you search for yourself plenty more can be found. I’m wondering why they didn’t warn us of this long ago? Mysterious isn’t it? Anyway, according to the davos boys eggs (& keeping chickensparticularly roosters) should be off the menu. EWR
A former lobbyist at Coca-Cola has come forward with bombshell information about the junk food corporation’s deceptive, racist, and potentially criminal behavior.
Calley Means, who worked on behalf of The Coca-Cola Company in years past, says the multinational purveyor of poison “food” paid the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) to slander as “racist” any and all scientists, researchers, or other “opponents” whose work exposed Coke products as toxic.
Coke also paid off willing parties to produce pseudoscience “debunking” the link between soft drink consumption and diseases like obesity and diabetes. (Related: Ten years ago, Coca-Cola tried to boost sales by marketing its high-fructose corn syrup [HFCS]-laden junk food soft drinks as healthy for breakfast.)
“Early in my career, I consulted for Coke to ensure sugar taxes failed and soda was included in food stamp funding,” Means recently revealed. “I say Coke’s policies are evil because I saw inside the room.”
“The first step in playbook was paying the NAACP and other civil rights groups to call opponents racist. Coke gave millions to the NAACP and the Hispanic Federation – both directly and through front groups like the American Beverage Association (ABA).”
In 2011 when the idea of soda taxes really started to gain legislative traction, Coke amped up the slander and bribery agenda. Means says the conversations he heard within the walls of Coca-Cola corporate were “depressingly transactional.”
“We (Coke) will give you money,” Means recalls about the typical conversations that would take place internally between Coke and its target allies. “You need to paint opponents of us as racist.”
As silly as it all sounds, these tactics worked. As the Farm Bill for 2011-2013 was being negotiated and finalized, thousands of articles flooded the news cycle that helped Coke avert soda taxes and possible removal from the food stamp program.
Aggressive lobbying and slander allowed Coke to lie to the public that soda pop is “one of the cheapest ways to get calories”
Means says Coca-Cola also partnered with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to funnel money into “academia,” which used it to produce “research” claiming that soda taxes would harm low-income populations.
“I watched as the FDA funneled money to professors at leading universities – as well as think tanks on the left and right – to create studies showing soda taxes hurt the poor,” Means says.
“They also paid for studies that say drinking soda didn’t cause obesity.”
Coke was also able to get away with making the false and ludicrous claim that its soft drink products are “one of the cheapest ways to get calories,” which Means describes as “a flagrantly inaccurate statement when factoring in the health consequences.”
It was none other than the ABA that aided Coke in purveying the lie that taxing soda pop would hurt not just poor people but also “local businesses” while “unfairly targeting one product.”
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is also complicit in this racket, having put forth more lies claiming that “there are no bad foods, only bad diets.”
The entire regulatory structure of the United States has clearly been co-opted by Big Industry, which is steering all the “science” in its own favor. Coca-Cola is just one example among many of what an absolute joke this entire system has become – and that some would argue always was.
“The word ‘racist’ has lost all its meaning,” wrote a commenter about Coke’s flagrant abuse of the English language. “The word has been so overused that it lost its meaning.”
More news stories like this one can be found at RaceWar.news.
via The Activation Podcast: On this episode of The Activation podcast Derrick Broze interviews returning guest James Corbett regarding his work on climate change. James has been researching the claims about climate change since 2007 and has produced dozens of reports and podcast dissecting the various claims about anthropogenic climate change. Derrick and James discuss what the climate change propagandists have right and what they have dangerously wrong. They also discuss the agenda behind the climate change movement. You are not going to want to miss this informative and empowering episode!
EWR Comment: our info on this topic can be found here. It includes a petition signed by thousands of scientists and a speech by Australia’s Sen Malcolm Roberts who nails it completely. He has also spoken out similarly about the new ‘safe & effective’ medical treatment.
Bright Green Lies investigates the change in focus of the mainstream environmental movement, from its original concern with protecting nature, to its current obsession with powering an unsustainable way of life. The film exposes the lies and fantastical thinking behind the notion that solar, wind, hydro, biomass, or green consumerism will save us from climate change. Tackling the most pressing issues of our time will require us to look beyond the mainstream technological solutions and ask deeper questions about what needs to change.
The book
“Bright Green Lies dismantles the illusion of ‘green’ technology in breathtaking, comprehensive detail, revealing a fantasy that must perish if there is to be any hope of preserving what remains of life on Earth. From solar panels to wind turbines, from LED light bulbs to electric cars, no green fantasy escapes Jensen, Keith, and Wilbert’s revealing peek behind the green curtain. Bright Green Lies is a must-read for all who cherish life on Earth.” —Jeff Gibbs, writer, director, and producer of the film Planet of the Humans
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.
“The deliberately inaccurate reporting by New Zealand’s mainstream newsrooms of police breaching the peace to eject the Freedom Occupation means such news outlets have separately, and together, breached section 240 of the Crimes Act, which deals with crimes of deceit.” Steve Edwards
Dear New Zealand Press Council, NZ Broadcasting Standards Authority and Commerce Commission,
RE: Failure to Report Police Breaching the Peace to Disrupt the Freedom Occupation
The deliberately inaccurate reporting by New Zealand’s mainstream newsrooms of police breaching the peace to eject the Freedom Occupation means such news outlets have separately, and together, breached section 240 of the Crimes Act, which deals with crimes of deceit.
The police objective on February 10th, 21st and 22nd was to produce scenes of violence, with the confidence that the mainstream media would not bother to accurately report the clustered events. The modus operandi of the NZ Police has been to bait protesters, knowing the biased media of New Zealand would maintain a lack of fairness and balance by promoting discrimination against the Parliamentary Occupation.
1. Fake News
You must be logged in to post a comment.