Saturday, May 27, 2023

Why is the Solar Corona so HOT

 Now that we understand just what is going on, and that it has nothing whatsoever to do with hydrogen bombs and that the actual surface of trhe Sun is comparatively cold to the millions of degrees seen in the corona, we can make a conjecture.

It is that we are getting NNP ( Neutral Neutron Pair ) decay taking place in the corona which releases heat as it must.  It is completely possible and even plausible that this is where it all happens and that something different is happening deep into the SUN.

that would certainly supply ample energy to keep the surface at the temperature we see while providing an expanding Solar wind all the way out to well past the Oort cloud while also accelerating dust as well.  Yet compared to the age of the sun, it is very much scant and projections of mass change just do not wash.  And if NNPs are been continously been produced in the solar core we may well be approaching steady state..

One central conjecture caused by cloud cosmology is that all large celestrial objects are collection shells built about an internal star like object continously producing new neutral particles.  It could well be that our Earth itself has an egg shell we do not understand and that we also have a halo out to the Van Allen belts that ewe also do not understand.

Like yourself, i have accepted quite another scenario.  Yet here we are with what i know is a real alternative.


Squeezed by the Shorts: Time to Ban Short Selling?

As Ellen Brown indicates toward the end, the Bank of North Dakota goes from strength to srength.  So do pay attention.

and yes, short selling is inherantly fraud, but it is fraud that can only be properly pursued by brokerages now supported by unlimited Bank credit.  Obviously, you and I are not ever invited.  and this has been going on for centuries and the public never appreciates it all.

just banning it is not likely workable, but a new protocol needs to be thought about.

Squeezed by the Shorts: Time to Ban Short Selling?

Global Research, May 22, 2023

Short sellers have made a killing in the recent banking crisis, scalping $14.3 billion from bank stock owners just in March of this year. Short sellers “borrow” stock they don’t own and immediately sell it, driving the price down. Then they buy it back at the lower price, return the stock, and pocket the difference. Bankers say the practice is threatening the stability of the banking system and are calling for a ban on short sales of bank stock. The SEC is expected to decline but is investigating whether the practice constitutes illegal market manipulation intended to deceive investors.

It is argued here that short selling is fraudulent by its very nature – it is a fraud on the legitimate stock owners – and should be banned across the board. But first a closer look at the issues and some recent developments.

Flaws in the Banking Model

The banking crisis lingers on. Zerohedge reported on May 12 that U.S. deposit outflows from banks to money market funds continue, and small bank lending is collapsing. According to a Hoover Institution report by Stanford Finance Professor Amit Seru et al., around 2,315 banks – more than half the banks in the U.S. — are sitting on assets worth less than their liabilities, due to the radical increase in interest rates over the past year. As a result, the banks are “potentially insolvent.”

In fact, as economist Murray Rothbard pointed out decades ago, all banks are technically insolvent, due to their standard business model. They “borrow short to lend long” — borrow from depositors who expect to get their money back “on demand” and use the funds to back long-term loans. If the depositors all come for their money at once, the liquidity (readily available funds) would not be there to repay them; but the model works because most people leave their money in the bank. The banks are “sound” so long as no one shouts “fire!” and drives the depositors to all run for the exits at the same time.

For decades, the reserve requirement – the funds a bank must hold in reserve to meet sudden withdrawals — was around 10% of deposits. In March 2020, due to the Covid crisis, the Fed dropped the reserve requirement to zero, where it remains today. But bankers still assume they need to keep about 10% of their deposits in reserve in order to meet transfers and withdrawals. That works in “ordinary” times; but even with 10% in reserve, a bank would fail if more than 20% of its deposits were withdrawn in a single day, and that is what happened to Silicon Valley Bank on March 9. According to written testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on May 16 by Gregory W. Becker, Former Chief Executive Officer of Silicon Valley Bank:

By the end of the day on March 9, $42 billion in deposits were withdrawn from SVB in ten hours, or roughly $1 million every second.

As the bank run was ongoing, we were working to access additional liquidity when I was informed the morning of March 10 that the FDIC would be taking possession of SVB. That day, another roughly $100 billion in deposits were requested to be withdrawn, bringing the total actual and requested deposit outflow to roughly $142 billion, or about 80 percent of total deposits, over two days.

Four major banks have failed in the last two months – Silvergate Bank, Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, and First Republic. Why those four? As explained in my last article, the first three were “crypto” banks, which have been under attack by government agencies. First Republic was not in that category, but it was considered “crypto friendly” – you could deposit funds in a cryptocurrency exchange through the bank.

What rendered First Republic insolvent, however, was a business model in which it made very cheap loans to wealthy clients for commercial real estate. The loans were made at a time when the bank itself could borrow nearly interest-free, so interest-only loans seemed reasonable. The spread between the 0.12% at which the bank borrowed and the 3% at which it was lending was essentially free money to the bank, the principal balance to be collected after a lengthy interest-only period. The model worked until interest rates shot up and the bank could no longer borrow cheaply to fund the loans.

For the depositors of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature, the FDIC came to the rescue, returning not just the insured deposits (those in accounts under the $250,000 insurance cap) but all of the deposits. This move was justified as avoiding the “systemic risk” of triggering bank runs elsewhere. For First Republic, the FDIC arranged a sale on quite favorable terms to Chase Manhattan Bank. Silvergate wound itself down voluntarily.

The FDIC rescues cost the agency an estimated $35.5 billion, taking a major chunk out of the $128.2 billion in its insurance fund; but at least, it was thought, the banking crisis was over. So it was thought, until a handful of vulnerable banks including Pacific West and Western Alliance showed similar distress, losing between 45% and 60% of their year-to-date stock value versus a 27% decline in the regional bank index.

Attacked by the Shorts

Many banks have major unrealized losses on their balance sheets, however, and they have not been subjected to runs by depositors. The runs on First Republic and Silicon Valley Bank were evidently triggered by targeted short selling of their stock. First Republic was one of the most heavily shorted U.S. bank stocks as of one week before it failed, with one-third of its outstanding shares shorted. As of March 31, it had the second largest short position of any U.S. bank, the largest being in Silvergate Bank.

After J.P. Morgan bought First Republic out of receivership, the share prices of other midsized banks dropped during most of the rest of the week. They were easy targets for short sellers. As described in an article by Matt Levin titled “When Short Sellers Bet Against Banks,” “basically, it was like shooting fish in a barrel.”

A May 8 article in American Banker observed that the KBW NASDAQ bank index fell by 7.6% over the week. But Western Alliance was down 28% and PacWest was down 43%. Concerns over apparent market manipulation prompted Rob Nichols, CEO of the American Bankers Association, to write a letter to the SEC seeking an investigation. He said:

Since the two bank failures in March, some of our members have experienced significant short sales of their publicly traded equity securities that do not appear to reflect the issuers’ financial status or general industry conditions — indeed, short sales have followed relatively favorable earnings reports from some of the banks in question and from peer institutions.

We have also observed extensive social media engagement about the health of various banks and the sector generally that appears disconnected from the underlying financial realities. We urge the SEC to investigate this behavior.

The Consumer Bankers Association also issued a statement, urging policymakers to call out what it called “unethical behavior.” The concern is that “rock-bottom share prices could spark large deposit outflows, undermining the health of otherwise solid banks.”

Other banking experts, including Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, have called for an outright ban on short sales of bank stocks.

U.S. Bans on Short Selling Historically

Bans on short sales are not new. Napoleon not only outlawed the practice but had perpetrators imprisoned. In the first half of the 19th century, short selling was banned in the U.S. due to speculation regarding the War of 1812. The ban remained in place until the 1850s.

After the market crash of 1929, short selling was restricted again. During the four-year industry-wide bear raid initiating the Great Depression, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was reduced to 10 percent of its former value. Whenever the market decline slowed, speculators would step in to sell millions of dollars’ worth of stock they did not own but had ostensibly borrowed just for purposes of sale. Concerned about reports of bear raids by short sellers, Congress gave the newly created Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) power to regulate the practice. Today short selling is not illegal, but market manipulation – intentional conduct aimed at deceiving investors by artificially affecting stock prices – is.

When Lehman Brothers went bankrupt in September 2008, some analysts thought the investment firm’s condition was no worse than its competitors’. What brought it down was not undercapitalization but a massive bear raid on 9–11 of that year, when its stock price dropped by 41% in a single day. In 2008, the SEC took temporary emergency action to prohibit short selling in financial companies. But research by the Fed showed that the ban had little impact on stock prices, while it increased trading costs.

As posited by Matt Levine, banning short sales in a particular stock could itself trigger a run:

Depositors might deduce that the state of the banking industry is pretty bad if the government is stopping people from betting that First Republic might fail, and they would withdraw whatever is left of their deposits.

For that reason, a temporary ban on particular stocks might be counterproductive. But what about banning short sales altogether?

A Blanket Ban on Short Selling?

The SEC’s mandate includes preventing fraud in securities transactions, and shortselling is inherently fraudulent without the express consent of the stock’s true owners. It is a fraud on the owners, who bought the stock because they believed in the company and wanted to see its business thrive, not dive.

They may have checked the box that said they had read and agreed to the obscure terms in the multi-page contract involved in signing up for a brokerage account; but even if they did actually read it, they probably did not understand what they were agreeing to. As explained by securities fraud attorney Jeff Sonn:

[Y]our brokerage firm cannot lend out your stocks without your permission. However, you may have signed a customer agreement that explicitly allows your broker to lend out your securities.

This clause is often tucked deep within the customer agreement, and few investors pay much attention to it. In many cases, investors who have a margin account with their brokerage firm will be asked to sign a hypothecation agreement. This agreement generally gives the brokerage firm the right to lend shares of securities that you own.

The brokers can “rent” the stock in a margin account for a substantial fee—sometimes as much as 30% interest for a stock in short supply. But the real shareholders get none of this tidy profit, and they can be seriously harmed by the practice.

Many investors protect themselves from sudden drops in price by placing a standing “stop loss” order, which is activated if the market price falls below a certain price. Short sellers need only trigger these orders to initiate a cascade of selling. The stop loss orders act like a pre-programmed panic button, which can trigger further selling and more downward pressure on the stock price.

Some of the damage caused by short selling was blunted by the Securities Act of 1933, which imposed an “uptick” rule and forbade “naked” short selling. But both of these regulations have been circumvented today.

Short selling is sometimes justified as being necessary to keep a brake on the “irrational exuberance” that might otherwise drive popular stocks into dangerous “bubbles.” But if that were a necessary feature of functioning markets, short selling would also be happening in the markets for cars, television sets and computers, which it obviously isn’t. The reason it isn’t is that these goods can’t be “hypothecated” or duplicated on a computer screen the way stock shares can. Short selling is made possible because the brokers are not dealing with physical things but are simply moving numbers around on a computer monitor.

Short selling is market manipulation for private profit, intended to drive down targeted stock prices. It was banned early in U.S. history and a good case can be made that it should be banned again.
The Public Banking Option

While we’re waiting for federal action, there is a way that states can protect themselves from this sort of instability in the banking sector. The stellar model is North Dakota, where headlines claim “ND Financial Institutions Assert Good Health in Wake of Bank Failures Elsewhere.” North Dakota has its own “mini-Fed,” the Bank of North Dakota (BND). The bank is wholly owned by the state and is not publicly listed, so its shares cannot be shorted by speculators; and the vast majority of its deposits are state revenues, so there is no fear of a run on the bank.

Local North Dakota banks partner with the BND and can sell a portion of their loans to it if they need liquidity. The BND also guarantees many of the loans in which it takes a partnership interest. By increasing lending, the BND has increased the local money supply and stabilized the entire North Dakota economy, so there has been no decline to trigger a run on the banks.

As detailed by Stacy Mitchell, co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, North Dakota has six times as many locally owned financial institutions per person as the rest of the nation. These local banks and credit unions control fully 83 percent of deposits in the state — more than twice the 30 percent market share that small and mid-sized financial institutions have nationally. The state-owned BND backstops the local banks that service the economy, keeps North Dakota’s money local, augments the local money supply, and provides an additional source of revenue for the state.

This article was first posted on ScheerPost.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, chair of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books including Web of Debt, The Public Bank Solution, and Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age. She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 400+ blog articles are posted at

She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

mRNA and Breastfeeding: COVID-19 Vaccinated Mothers Who Breastfeed — Babies Have Serious Reactions Including Death

We are also getting a lesson on the inevitably of science.  It takes time, sometimes a lot, but it is simply fact driven and all research directions will converge on the fact.

At no time was science able to prove the JAB safe and data manipulation is never science, it is data manipulation if applied in business is called prima fauci  fraud.

It is also true that everyone claiming otherwise commited fraud simply because every such person automatically reviews the pertnient papers and typically spots a waffle.  If not, then why not? and why were we listening to you?


mRNA and Breastfeeding: COVID-19 Vaccinated Mothers Who Breastfeed — Babies Have Serious Reactions Including Death

Decreased Breast Milk Production, Milk Discoloration, Bleeding. Study of 16 cases

Global Research, May 23, 2023

Babies Who Died When COVID-19 mRNA Vaccinated Mothers Were Breastfeeding (Two Cases)

36 year old mother from New Mexico wrote: “On July 17, 2021, my baby passed away. I had been breastfeeding my 6 week old baby at the time that I received the first Pfizer vaccine on June 4, 2021.

He became very sick with a high fever on June 21, about 2 weeks after I got the first Pfizer vaccine. He was treated for 2 weeks with IV antibiotics for a supposed bacterial infection, however, they never found any bacteria.

After the 14 day course of antibiotics, he was home for one week, but exhibited strange symptoms (e.g. swollen eyelid, strange rashes, vomiting). I took him back to the hospital on July 15, where he presented with what they called an atypical Kawasaki disease. He passed away shortly thereafter from clots in his severely inflamed arteries. He died on July 17, 2021.

Mother received her 2nd dose of Pfizer vaccine on March 17, 2021 while at work. The next day on March 18, 2020, her 5 month old breastfed infant developed a rash and within 24 hours was inconsolable, refusing to eat and developed a fever.

Baby was brought to ER, blood analysis revealed elevated liver enzymes, was hospitalized but continued to decline and died on March 20, 2021 with diagnosis of TTP.
Babies Who Had Serious Reactions When COVID-19 mRNA Vaccinated Mothers Were Breastfeeding

There are hundreds of these cases so I will only highlight a few:

A mother from Pennsylvania wrote: “I received 1st dose of Moderna on June 18, 2021. I fed my three month old daughter milk that I pumped from my breasts later that night and put her to bed. When transferring her to her bassinet at approximately 11:30pm, she started a seizure that lasted seven minutes. We were transported to Hospital where she suffered two more seizures in the early morning hours of June 19th. She has been a healthy baby with no health conditions prior to these events.

A 33 year old mother from New Jersey writes: “I am breastfeeding. My daughter had seizure like episodes starting on Saturday 1/2, Sunday 1/3, Monday, 1/4 and 2 times on Tuesday 1/5.”

A mother from California had J&J vaccine on March 10, 2021. Her 16 month old baby developed jaundice the next day and was admitted for evaluation of hemolytic anemia.

On Feb 1, 2021, the mother received 1st Moderna dose. The next day the nursing 12 month old infant developed fever and swollen lymph nodes in the groin.

A 29 year old mother from New York had Moderna and writes: “I’m breastfeeding my 14 month old son. A couple of days after I received my first dose of the Moderna vaccine, he broke out in red spots all over his body. A few days later, he developed a low grade fever. It’s been one week since I was vaccinated. He does not have a fever anymore and the red spots are almost all gone.”

A 35 year old mother from New Mexico had one dose of Pfizer. She writes: “ I am breastfeeding my 15 month old son and he got a rash on his abdomen and face that has progressed more over past several days. He has had no fever but acts like he doesn’t feel great as he was not eating like his normal self. I don’t know if the rash is related or not but it is during the time of the vaccine.”

A 32 year old mother from Alaska writes: “I am currently breastfeeding my 5-month-old son. I received my first (Pfizer) vaccine on 12/28/2020 and directly breastfed within 4 hours of receiving the vaccine. Two days after my vaccine my son was at daycare and had two large diarrhea blowouts and two large emeses followed by a 1-minute episode where he was limp with entire body cyanosis and in-and-out of consciousness. He also had a maculopapular rash on his torso. EMS was called. He was observed in the emergency department for a few hours then recovered. He has continued to be well and back to baseline since the event.”

A 30 year old mother from Connecticut had one Moderna jab. Two nights after her 1st Moderna dose, her 5 month old boy had violent vomiting, diarrhea, body rash, and hematuria.

A 29 year old mother from Kentucky had 1st Pfizer dose. She writes: “I am currently breastfeeding my 4 month old son. He started pooping blood 4 hours after my 1st dose of the vaccine. His next 3 stools were blood streaked and then returned to normal.”
COVID-19 mRNA Vaccinated Mothers Who Had Reactions Related to Breastfeeding

A 28 year old mother from Oregon had 1st Pfizer dose. She had arm soreness, lip swelling and numbness next day. She developed a significant decreased in breast milk supply starting 2-3 days after Pfizer and it did not recover. She had been breastfeeding her baby completely since birth in July 2020.

Mother had Pfizer vaccine. She noticed reduced breast milk production and her breast milk has turned green.

A 33 year mother from New Jersey writes: “I am breastfeeding. The first pump after my Pfizer shot ( three and half hours after) 2oz of blood was pumped from the right breast”

A 36 year old woman from Pennsylvania who was breast feeding her previous infant born in 2019, had 1st Pfizer dose on Dec.21, 2020. She was 4 weeks pregnant and had a miscarriage 10 days after Pfizer.

A 37 year old woman from California writes: “The Moderna vaccine induced my menstruation. I am currently breastfeeding and had not been menstruating since becoming pregnant in January 2019. I had a baby since then and due to nursing on demand my period had not returned. Less than 24 hours after getting vaccinated I woke up to a moderate menstrual flow, bright red blood. I am still menstruating and experiencing mild cramping and bloatedness in my abdominal area. There was no prior indication this would happen before the vaccine. I had not even spotted before. My cycle has historically been very regular and I am certain the vaccine had something to do with stimulating my endocrine system and thus causing my menstruation.”
COVID-19 Vaccine mRNA Found in Breastmilk

It is interesting to note that mRNA was found in breast milk as early as April 2021 in a paper by Low et al. (click here)

It was recently confirmed again in a paper by Hanna et al. in Sep.2022 (click here)

US Genomics Expert Kevin McKernan wrote a substack article about how mRNA ingested by the infant through breast milk, could exert clinical effects by:COVID-19 vaccine mRNA is RNase resistant due to modified N1-methyl-pseudoU, so it doesn’t break down easily;
Baby’s oral mucosa can be transfected by mother’s mRNA (contained in extracellular vesicles in breast milk);
Mother’s mRNA can survive the baby’s gut and digestive process.

His fascinating account of how mRNA is transported in breast milk can be found here: (click here)

“Milk is considered as more than a source of nutrition for infants and is a vector involved in the transfer of bioactive compounds and cells. Milk contains abundant quantities of extracellular vesicles (EVs) that may originate from multiple cellular sources. These nanosized vesicles have been well characterized and are known to carry a diverse cargo of proteins, nucleic acids, lipids and other biomolecules. Milk-derived EVs have been demonstrated to survive harsh and degrading conditions in gut, taken up by various cell types, cross biological barriers and reach peripheral tissues. The cargo carried by these dietary EVs has been suggested to have a role in cell growth, development, immune modulation and regulation.”

Pfizer’s Post Marketing report issued April 2021 with Adverse Event reports through Feb. 28, 2021:

Pfizer’s documents give us some interesting information on page 12 (click here)

Babies who were breastfed by COVID-19 mRNA vaccinated mothers had a 13% adverse event rate (17/133), and a 2% serious adverse event rate (3/133).
mRNA Vaccines Are Not Safe for Breastfeeding

So COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is NOT SAFE for breastfeeding mothers or babies.

This was confirmed by the UK Government on August 16 2022, when it declared that “Women who are breastfeeding should also not be vaccinated” (click here)

Alberta Health Services can be sued for medical misinformation: (click here)

AHS advises Albertans: “There are no known risks to getting the COVID-19 vaccine while breastfeeding”.

Every pregnant Alberta woman can now sue AHS for medically misinforming them. It is time for historic class action lawsuits.
My Take…

COVID-19 vaccine mRNA is found in breast milk. This has been known since at least April 2021.

Pfizer’s own documents report that the rate of adverse events in babies who are breastfeeding from COVID-19 mRNA vaccinated mothers is 13% and serious adverse events occur in 2% of babies, including two baby deaths recorded in VAERS.

Most common reactions babies have to mRNA in breast milk are: fever and rashes, then diarrhea, vomiting, and sometimes more serious such as hemolytic anemia, bleeding in urine or stool, and seizures.

We now have an outbreak of myocarditis (heart inflammation) cases in babies < 28 days old, with 16 cases of myocarditis in the UK, including two deaths that are not reported in VAERS (click here). These cases can be due to mRNA in breast milk or LNPs with mRNA crossing the placenta before baby is born.

Mothers report decrease in breast milk production, breast milk discoloration (turns blue or green), sudden onset irregular or heavy menstrual bleeding, breast lumps and more.

COVID-19 mRNA vaccination in breastfeeding mothers was NEVER SAFE, any Institution or expert who claimed otherwise was lying.

Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.

The Battle of Bakhmut: Russian Forces Take Full Control of the Province

This was a conventional battle using masses of men, armor and most important artillary.  It was sustained over two thirds of a year and Ukraine lost and I suspect thgey lost a lot of men here as well.  The russians did as well but they where attacking.

It was the main event and certyainly pinned down Ukrainian reserves against any possibility of a spring offensive.  Russia can now shift the center of mass ahead of another battle.

Russian objective is clearly limited to ethnic Russian Eastern Ukraine which was been abused by Ukrainian nutcases.  The sooner we have a border commission the better ,and the sooner russia actually joins NATO the better as well.  The whole russian arms industry needs to be revamped and integrated with NATO to provide a solid southern frontier for a united Europa.

The Battle of Bakhmut: Russian Forces Take Full Control of the Province

Global Research, May 23, 2023

After more than 290 days of intense fighting and tens of thousands of casualties, the Battle of Artyomovsk (called Bakhmut in Ukraine) is over.

On May 20, Moscow’s officials announced that Russian forces had taken full control of the province, with no more Ukrainian units in the region. With this, the bloodiest infantry battle since World War II ended. The case once again shows how Moscow militarily controls the conflict, leaving no doubt as to which side is winning on the battlefield.

The announcement was made around noon on the 20th, in a statement published on social media by Evgeny Prigozhin, head of the Russian private military company (PMC) Wagner Group. A few hours later, several Russian state officials confirmed the news and publicly congratulated the Wagner’s fighters for their victory on the battlefield.

As expected, Ukrainian spokespersons and Western media initially reacted by denying the news. For a few hours, Ukrainian officials claimed that Kiev’s forces were still in the city, but then the narrative changed, and officials admitted that Russian control had been achieved.

As it would become impossible to maintain the lying discourse for a long time, the Ukrainian tactic became that of admitting defeat in order to try to use a “victimist” narrative to raise more Western support.

At a press conference on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Hiroshima, Japan, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky recognized the defeat by stating that there is “nothing” in Bakhmut now, and that the city is only in Ukrainian “hearts”.

“You have to understand that there is nothing (…) For today, Bakhmut is only in our hearts. There is nothing in this place”, he told journalists, trying to use emotional techniques to move Western public opinion.

Zelensky’s words, however, sound hypocritical when the case is analyzed in depth.

Bakhmut’s fall was imminent, with several military experts claiming it was only a matter of time before it happened. The Russians were very close to victory and obviously the Western intelligence services which control the Ukrainian forces knew this, but they ignored the reality of the battlefield and chose to bet on a lying and irresponsible narrative about a “spring counteroffensive” to try to boost the international support for the regime.

As an argument to justify the “possibility” of a Ukrainian victory, the mainstream media intensively reported the existence of an alleged internal conflict in Russia between the forces of PMC Wagner and the Ministry of Defense.

The narrative was created taking advantage of speeches by Prigozhin himself, who is known for always using psychological warfare techniques, trying to appear weak and disunited in the face of the enemy. Both Ukrainian and Western intelligence certainly knew that Prigozhin’s words were a kind of “trap”, but they chose to adopt Western media discourse and ordered troops to remain in the city, rather than strategically retreating to save lives in the face of imminent defeat.

As a result, the last days of the city under Ukrainian control were marked by intense fighting with the use of heavy artillery and incendiary thermobaric weapons.

Zelensky, even having the necessary intelligence data to predict the defeat, not only did not authorize any evacuation, but he also stayed at a safe distance from the frontlines during the most difficult days of the conflict. His international tour has been lasting long, which is why he hasn’t even been in Kiev to take emergency measures or welcome and award the survivors.

The end of the battle also reveals the military expertise of the head of the Wagner Group, who successfully used psychological skills to confuse the enemy and accelerate victory. This is the first time that a PMC has won a large-scale infantry battle against a regular army. The southern command of the Russian Army helped in the last days of combat, mainly with the supply of artillery, but the protagonist of the victory was the Wagner Group, contradicting the Western discourse that the PMC would be weakened and close to collapse.

It is necessary to mention that the Ukrainian forces work together with western mercenaries and receive huge support in arms and intelligence. This makes the control that the Russians maintain over the conflict even more evident, since they were able to win an enemy so well equipped in an intense battle using practically only a PMC, without any great mobilization of its combat potential.

In fact, the victory on the 20th shows that the inconsistent and weakened side is the Western-Ukrainian one, where the intelligence services do not communicate directly with the military and induce them to maintain unsustainable positions on the battlefield, which results in the death thousands of Ukrainians.

On the part of Russia, PMC Wagner, Ministry of Defense and intelligence act visibly cohesively and obtain significant victories using few resources, betting largely on psychological warfare tactics to deceive the enemy.

Friday, May 26, 2023

Oxygen restriction helps fast-aging lab mice live longer

That is certainly plausible. Protection as well but thin air induces physiolgical changes and also gets you free of the often intense humid conditions we have nearer sea level.  we already understand that the Greek Pantheon were a handfu of humans who were able to upgrade their life expectancy using an elixer at least.  this we have been advancing ourselves with the obvious application of vitimin C and D.

Now living in a lower oxygen and also lower pressure environment is also positively indicated.

what this does do is argue powerfully for developing residency at around ten to fifteen thousand feet or perhaps a standard of 12,000 feet which is common enough.  It will mean elevator lifts along mountain slopes to gain the altitude and then building extended ssteel post and beam foundations along the mountain contour.

We may also construct our floating cities to have an engineered low pressure sysdem evacuating the living space behind airlocks.  This could be limited to sleeping spaces.  It could also be set of sea level pressure with a lowering of oxygen content as well.  This is obviously much cheaper and easier.  I wonder what the mice can tell us.


I found a post in about oxygen restriction and its use in increasing longevity is it possible the Greek gods used Mount Olympus because it was such a high mountain so they could get a longevity boost due to less oxygen in that environment here is a link


MAY 23, 2023

Oxygen restriction helps fast-aging lab mice live longer

Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

For the first time, researchers have shown that reduced oxygen intake, or "oxygen restriction," is associated with longer lifespan in lab mice, highlighting its anti-aging potential. Robert Rogers of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, US, and colleagues present these findings in a study published May 23rd in the open access journal PLOS Biology.

Research efforts to extend healthy lifespan have identified a number of chemical compounds and other interventions that show promising effects in mammalian lab animals— for instance, the drug metformin or dietary restriction. Oxygen restriction has also been linked to longer lifespan in yeast, nematodes, and fruit flies. However, its effects in mammals have been unknown.

To explore the anti-aging potential of oxygen restriction in mammals, Rogers and colleagues conducted lab experiments with mice bred to age more quickly than other mice while showing classic signs of mammalian aging throughout their bodies. The researchers compared the lifespans of mice living at normal atmospheric oxygen levels (about 21%) to the lifespans of mice that, at 4 weeks of age, had been moved to a living environment with a lower proportion of oxygen (11%—similar to that experienced at an altitude of 5000 meters).

They found that the mice in the oxygen-restricted environment lived about 50% longer than the mice in normal oxygen levels, with a median lifespan of 23.6 weeks compared to 15.7 weeks. The oxygen-restricted mice also had delayed onset of aging-associated neurological deficits.

Prior research has shown that dietary restriction extends the lifespan of the same kind of fast-aging mice used in this new study. Therefore, the researchers wondered if oxygen restriction extended their lifespan simply by causing the mice to eat more. However, they found that oxygen restriction did not affect food intake, suggesting other mechanisms were at play.

These findings support the anti-aging potential of oxygen restriction in mammals, perhaps including humans. However, extensive additional research will be needed to clarify its potential benefits and illuminate the molecular mechanisms by which it operates.

Rogers adds, "We find that chronic continuous hypoxia (11% oxygen, equivalent to what would be experienced at Everest Base Camp) extends lifespan by 50% and delays the onset of neurologic debility in a mouse aging model. While caloric restriction is the most widely effective and well-studied intervention to increase lifespan and healthspan, this is the first time that 'oxygen restriction' has been demonstrated as beneficial in a mammalian aging model."

Two UK Babies Dead From Myocarditis

Right now, a famously rare disease is showing up where it happens to be famously rare which makes the whole scenario otherwise unbelievable.  so of course we all come back to the JAb and also back to shedding as well.  This can be nasty stuff and we are still in mushroom mode in terms of our science.

The JAB does continue to show evidence of been a depopulation vector.  We will need to restructure our global civilization to mandate that all 18 year old girls must produce four babies before they are 24 under social contract.  Thkis will counter the pending disaster and overcome this assault.

So humanity need not go to extinction ,but it does need a complete social reengineering using my methods
 of natural community and the rule of Twelve..

Two UK Babies Dead From Myocarditis: Total of 16 Babies Developed “Severe Myocarditis” in Wales & England, Eight Ended Up in Intensive Care

Can COVID-19 mRNA vaccinated mothers injure their babies? YES!

Global Research, May 22, 2023

This is a major international story. On Tuesday, May 16, 2023, the WHO issued an alert that there had been 15 newborns in the UK, 10 in Wales and 5 in England who were struck down with severe myocarditis (inflammation of the heart) from June 2022 to March 2023. (click here)

The cases occurred from June 2022 with a peak in November 2022 involving babies under 28 days old.

Out of the affected babies, one has died. Eight were treated in intensive care, where they were intubated, put on a ventilator and received circulatory support.

“Health chiefs were spooked by the ‘unusual’ spike in cases over such a short space of time, prompting a thorough investigation.”

According to Zerohedge: “in the same hospital (covering the South Wales region) over the previous six years, “only one other similar case has been identified.”
Official explanation

The UKHSA said it was “investigating the situation in England”.

PCR testing of nine of the children confirmed they had coxsackie B3 or B4 — types of enterovirus.

Dr. Christopher Williams, consultant epidemiologist for Public Health Wales, said: ‘Enterovirus is a common infection of childhood, causing a range of infections.

It only affects the heart on very rare occasions. This cluster is unusual due to the number of cases reported in a relatively short time frame.

“Investigations are now ongoing in collaboration with the pediatric team in the children’s hospital of Wales to understand the reasons why and to investigate any further cases that may be reported in the coming weeks and months.”

Another baby died of myocarditis, not part of the 15 UK newborns

Another baby who is not included with the 15 newborns affected, also died of myocarditis. Joann Edwards from Mountain Ash in South Wales gave birth to Elijah on Feb.25, 2022 but within a few days of being at home, he became lethargic, developed jaundice and was taken to the hospital when he was a week old because he stopped feeding.

The baby was diagnosed with sepsis, myocarditis and died within days of hospitalization (click here)

Mrs. Edwards said her family has been ignored and was ‘gobsmacked’ after hearing about other cases as they were ‘led to believe that we were a one-off’.

Cwm Taf Morgannwg Health Board is now probing Elijah’s death.
What is going on?…

16 UK infants with myocarditis, 2 died, 8 in Intensive Care.

This is an extremely important story.

I don’t buy the official explanation. It’s very suspect. Of these 16 cases, 9 were allegedly diagnosed by PCR tests and all tested positive for enterovirus.

The problem is, we know that PCR tests were notorious for producing over 95% false positive results during the COVID-19 pandemic which were used to drive fear.

In reality, anyone can over-cycle these PCR tests to produce false positives for any virus, and you have the perfect cover-up.

And if the World Health Organization is involved, the probability of fraud and cover-up approaches 100%.

COVID-19 mRNA vaccinated mothers…

My first question is: were the 16 mothers COVID-19 mRNA vaccinated?

Given how aggressively COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were pushed on pregnant women, it is highly probable that they were. For the sake of argument, let’s assume they were.

My second question is: Can the mother’s COVID-19 vaccination cause myocarditis injury in her newborn infant and if so, how?

The short answer is: YES.
COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines are crossing the Placenta…

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, including Pfizer and Moderna, are delivered in the form of mRNA packaged in lipid nanoparticles or LNPs.

These LNPs CAN AND DO cross the placenta and here are the studies proving it:Dec.2015 – Nanoparticles can cross mouse placenta & cause injury (click here)
Nov.2020 – Translocation of (ultra)fine particles and nanoparticles across the placenta: a systematic review on the evidence of in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo studies (click here)
Dec.2022 – Lipid Nanoparticle composition drives mRNA delivery to the placenta (click here)
Feb.2023 – Ionizable Lipid nanoparticles for in vivo mRNA delivery to the placenta during pregnancy (click here)

Bottom line: COVID-19 mRNA vaccinated mothers deliver COVID-19 mRNA vaccine LNPs across the placenta to their unborn child.

Once LNPs enter the fetus, they have negative clinical impact on it. A study by Young et al. showed that some pregnant mice lost their fetuses when they were given LNPs (click here)

This was exposed recently by well known whistleblower Jikkyleaks and has been dubbed #Placentagate.

Jikky says: “This could be one of the biggest scandals in medicine” (click here)

My Take…

COVID-19 mRNA vaccinated mothers deliver LNPs with mRNA to their unborn children through the placenta. This was never studied by Pfizer or Moderna.

Once the LNPs are in the fetus, they distribute freely throughout, including into the baby’s heart where spike protein expression causes inflammation (myocarditis)

Furthermore, mRNA was also recently detected in breast milk, in the paper by Hanna et al. (click here)

US Genomics Expert Kevin McKernan wrote a substack article about how mRNA ingested by the infant through breast milk, could exert a clinical effect by:COVID-19 vaccine mRNA is RNase resistant due to modified N1-methyl-pseudoU, so it doesn’t break down easily;
Baby’s oral mucosa can be transfected by mother’s mRNA;
mother’s mRNA can survive the baby’s gut and digestive process.

Look at this fascinating explanation: (click here)

“(Breast) Milk is considered as more than a source of nutrition for infants and is a vector involved in the transfer of bioactive compounds and cells.

Milk contains abundant quantities of extracellular vesicles (EVs) that may originate from multiple cellular sources. These nano-sized vesicles have been well characterized and are known to carry a diverse cargo of proteins, nucleic acids, lipids and other biomolecules.

Milk-derived EVs have been demonstrated to survive harsh and degrading conditions in gut, taken up by various cell types, cross biological barriers and reach peripheral tissues. (click here)

Translation: COVID-19 mRNA vaccinated mothers can transfer mRNA to their infants through breast milk (in extracellular vesicles), the mRNA can survive the baby’s digestive process, and the mRNA can then exert a serious clinical impact, including well known adverse events such as myocarditis.


I have a reasonable suspicion that maternal COVID-19 mRNA vaccination may be causing myocarditis in babies. In this cluster of 16 UK babies that developed “severe myocarditis”, 8 ended up in the ICU and 2 died. Notice that all 16 babies were 28 days old or younger, which seems particularly odd.

Any possible link between maternal COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and these 16 infant myocarditis cases including 2 deaths, should be investigated but this will probably never happen. A cover-up (with the help of the WHO) may already be well underway and it will all be swept under the rug to protect Pfizer & Moderna.

But this story is important because it raises a KEY question:

Can COVID-19 mRNA vaccinated mothers give mRNA to their babies and injure them? YES, both through the placenta in utero, and through breast feeding via breast milk.

In both situations, the COVID-19 vaccine mRNA can exert a serious clinical impact on the infant, which includes all well known mRNA adverse events such as MYOCARDITIS.

Sea Raiders in Nordic Bronze Age Rock Art

What this provides is confirmation that long boat seafaring existed in the North SEa during the Bronze Age as I have conjectured in my posts.  This was necessary to explain both the Sea Peoples and the Baltic Tojan War that then led to the 1159 BC disintegration of the European Bronze Age and also the doric invasions of Greece from the Baltic.

Understand that the Trojan War was in the Baltic in 1179 BC  and the Oddessy was an exploration of the now Norwegan coast.  This was a generation before the folk movement after crop failure in 1159 BC which lasted a full generation and also ended the global Atlanten world as well.  See book by DaVinci for textual evidence.

At least we now know that they had the technology then ultimately made famous with the vikings and the creation and settlement of the Russ et all..

Sea Raiders in Nordic Bronze Age Rock Art

29 Aug 2021

Prehistoric Scandinavian rock art displays scenes of warriors and long, narrow boats. Are these figures showing some kind of Bronze Age Vikings? The world famous ancient petroglyphs in Sweden, dating to the Nordic Bronze Age, portray a world of sword-wielding warriors and their ships. But these figures - holding aloft axes and spears and shields - are usually said to be carrying out rituals, not warfare. Is that true? Are there any scenes of violence here amongst the thousands of weapon-bearers? If this is about ritual then what were the rituals for? And what can all this tell us about the lives of these seaborne Nordic warriors who lived 3500 years ago?

<iframe width="1349" height="480" src="" title="Sea Raiders in Nordic Bronze Age Rock Art" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

the Sun is Not a Hydrogen Bomb?

 Continuing my workthrough on Robert Temple's book on plasma..  We address the contradictions regarding accepted opinion that the Sun as an ongoing Hydrogen bomb.  I now understand that the whole meme is not viable.  I equally understand this in regard to our understanding of gravity.

Simply put, the reported surface temperature is way too low and certainly non conforming.  that sunspots are much cooler still puts any such a model on its head.

so let us return to DARK MATTER as neutral neutron pairs and simply ignore the neutral electron pairs and neutral neutrino pairs.  as we cannot detect hydrogen ,we certainly cannot detect any of all this.  what we are able to detect are decay products from which our experienced universe arises from.  It is amazing just how much all that has removed us from a theoretical reality.

The easiest conjecture for the sun is to project that what we see and experience is primarily NNP decay into hydrogen which then flows away from the Sun as a plasma flux along with radiation caused by electron decay onto the hydrogen.  I will mention that other elements also emerge but are scant enough.

The next easiest conjecture is that cool NNP conglomerations will decay into known elements.  This may well be happening on Earth as well.  It is still a slow process, as is hydrogen decay out in space.  It appears obvious that NNP compression inside a gravity well will trigger rapid hydrogen decay.  It is then easy to expect decay taking place inside the earths crust  I do not think that compression is sufficient to trigger decay and there is likely much more too it.  I do expect though that it is sped up but not so much as we can notice it.  It may be mostly be about hydrogen and oxygen as well.  We simply can only conjecture until we pack all this inside a tube.

Is it plausible that what we see are protons that have cooled off enough to recombine with electrons and thus radiate the light we see at the temperature we measure.  Of course deeper into the sun would be cooler as well.  And we would measure super high temperature away from the apparent surface which in fact swe do.

All this turns out to be a simple protocol for the production of matter.

What is important is that the plasma leaving the cold Sun is super hot at millions of degrees and produces the solar wind which is hten fills our solar system way past the outer edges.  It appears that this solar wind is also producing dust.  It starts of been hyperhot and then expands and cools continously.  We are protected by our magnetic field and we also have the Van allen Belts which captures radiactives, oviously not hydrogen.

Yet the Sun is cold and certainly not contibuting to the massive heat production.

all this is impossible in terms of fusion energy or for that matter for fission energy.  My projected NNP decay solves this nicely.  We have a massive inflow of elctrons at the poles and the solar wind is driven by the outflow of positive ions which means all of the exit velocity is electrostatic pressure.  this virtuous cycle between  Galactic content and our Solar system produces all our light and solar heat while also flooding the solar system with protons and dust which can obviously descend into a gravity well.

all of a sudden, we now understand just what creates the Oort belt.

Understand that all current science cannot start to explain any of  this.  even knowing the plausibility of my NNPs still took me time to undetrstand that this was plausibly DARK MATTER and that DARK MATTER decay produces all our elements and certainly powers the surface of the otherwise cold Sun.

Our empirical science has just grudgingly accepted the existence of DARK MATTER and then ignores what is 98% of our Galactic mass.

Thursday, May 25, 2023

Millions of Lives Lost’ in Pandemic Mainly From Pharma-Government Nexus, Says Critical Care Expert

Understand that i now think that the 1918 spanish flu epidemic was a failed experiment.  Rinse and do over again.

So here we are with the truth.

They have made it practise to abandon successful meds by reconditioning the market and away we go.  just what is the truth ladies?  they have also butchered us for two decades with Chemo whose premise is biologically stupid.

Objectors continue to be run over.  why do i have to make a study of medicine to stay safe?

Millions of Lives Lost’ in Pandemic Mainly From Pharma-Government Nexus, Says Critical Care Expert

A person receives a COVID-19 vaccine at Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles, Calif., on Dec. 22, 2021. (Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images)

May 20, 2023Updated: May 21, 2023

Dr. Pierre Kory, a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist, is blaming the nexus between the pharma industry and the government along with corrupt medical journals for deceiving the public about COVID-19 and vaccines, which resulted in “millions of lives lost.”

“I always knew pharma was bad. I didn’t understand that they are literally a criminal syndicate, who have been committing crimes for decades. They pay fines, then move on and continue their standard operating business,” Kory said in an April 28 interview with EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders” program. “When it came to government, I wasn’t aware of how corporations have literally taken over almost all the agencies of government. The response to COVID was controlled and conducted by the pharmaceutical industry, with probably even bigger powers behind them.”

To understand how the pharma industry’s propaganda works, Kory claims to have looked at three years of every policy issued by government agencies.

“All you had to ask yourself was, ‘What would a pharmaceutical company want?’ Voila, there was your policy. Every single policy was in line with serving the interests of a pharmaceutical company,” he said.

“Guess what that brought us? It brought us multiple humanitarian catastrophes, millions of lives lost from the suppression of early treatment, millions of people dead around the world from the vaccines, and now epidemics of vaccine injury and long COVID with very little treatment.

“Ultimately, it was a war of information. All of the destruction was about information and how it was controlled. I was already transformed before the Twitter Files. The Twitter Files are just absolutely astonishing. Government intelligence agencies and health agencies were literally controlling Twitter, and what was showing up on Twitter,” he said.

In a March 17 exposé, investigative journalist Matt Taibbi revealed the alleged collusion between Stanford University’s Virality Project (VP) and Twitter to censor what they deemed to be misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines. VP is also said to have colluded with the American government.

“Though the Virality Project reviewed content on a mass scale for Twitter, Google/YouTube, Facebook/Instagram, Medium, TikTok, and Pinterest, it knowingly targeted true material and legitimate political opinion, while often being factually wrong itself,” Taibbi said on Twitter.

The initiative “accelerated the evolution of digital censorship, moving it from judging truth/untruth to a new, scarier model, openly focused on political narrative at the expense of fact.”
Compromised Media and Medical Journals

According to Kory, corporations are funding media agencies to promote vaccine campaigns and censor any information that would raise the levels of vaccine hesitancy among people. “It’s almost like you’re watching a military operation, and they’re using all of the institutions of society.

“I saw a global propaganda and censorship campaign which made the world go mad,” he said. “I saw them do things with this blanket of propaganda and censorship, like mandating these vaccines for young children, who had basically zero risk of anything serious happening to them from COVID.

“They mandated these vaccines and people lost their jobs. They were victimized and vilified for being unvaccinated, along with those who were adjacent to them. If you were anywhere near an unvaccinated person, you still got attacked. The most absurd thing was the people who got vaccinated and then got injured.”

Another tactic the media used was fearmongering. “The fear and dangers of COVID were constantly propagated,” Kory said.

“It was a war where the voices of truth and sanity were getting drowned out by lies that were told for different objectives. The CEO of Moderna has $4 billion [in] wealth. The pharmaceutical companies made tens to hundreds of billions with this massive transfer of wealth. It has been a really difficult three years.”

Kory also highlighted the role played by medical journals during the pandemic. “The high-impact medical journals played a massive role in the human toll of COVID by censoring positive studies of repurposed drugs like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin,” he noted.

“They published clearly fraudulent trials that were designed to fail; to show that ivermectin didn’t work, and to show that hydroxychloroquine didn’t work.

“They also manipulated trials showing the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. Remember 95 percent effective, then to 70, 50, 30 percent? Then, they said, ‘Okay. It doesn’t work for transmission, but it still protects against hospitalization and death.’ The reality is that nothing was ever true, and they were just shifting their stories.”

According to Kory, the propaganda and censorship carried out by high-impact medical journals have been so massive that he is unable to trust them.

“When I read a study, the first thing I read now is about the conflicts of interest. That’s all you have to read. Once you read a study and you see that they have numerous conflicts of interest with the actual molecule or compound or medicine that’s being studied, you cannot trust that paper,” Kory said.

“It may be true. It may not be true. But I refuse to act on a paper whose conclusions were reached by investigators who have direct conflicts of interest with their findings. There’s no more objectivity.”

War on Repurposed Drugs

Kory also insists that there is a “war” against repurposed drugs. He pointed out that when the National Institutes of Health (NIG) finally decided to conduct a large randomized controlled trial on ivermectin, the individual they chose as its principal investigator was a “woman from Duke who they gave a $140 million grant to, who has stock in a competitor to ivermectin.

“She has conflicts of interest with Gilead Sciences, who manufactures remdesivir. She’s got a long rap sheet of pharmaceutical industry influences, as does almost every other investigator on that trial.

“What are they studying? They’re studying a drug that would decimate the COVID market for every single one of those pharmaceutical companies. Can anyone actually believe they’re going to lead to anything but a predetermined result?”

Kory claims to have a collection of a large number of rejection letters from medical journals that were sent to investigators who had conducted “good randomized controlled trials, showing phenomenal benefits of ivermectin.

“The rejection letters were all the same, ‘I’m sorry, this topic is not of sufficient interest to our readers at this time,’” Kory said. “You either want to laugh at that or cry, because in the middle of a global pandemic with people dying across the world, they said that a positive trial of ivermectin was not of sufficient interest to their readership. This is how it’s done.”

Kory talked about reading an article sent by one of his colleagues that finally made him understand how the pharma industry and propaganda worked to manipulate the world.

“It’s a short and very powerful article, and they outlined each tactic. I said, ‘Wait. I’ve seen this. I’ve seen that. They did this yesterday. They did that to me two days ago. This is what they’re doing to the FLCCC [Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance].’

“It was almost like getting the teacher’s edition to the world. Suddenly, it was like a light went on. I said, ‘That’s what is happening. The FLCCC and I have launched ourselves into the middle of a decades-long war on repurposed drugs. This is not about ivermectin, and it’s not about hydroxychloroquine,” he said. “The disinformation has been going on for a long time.”

Multiple studies have been done on ivermectin’s impact on COVID-19. A study from 2020 led by the Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute had shown that a single dose of ivermectin could stop the COVID-19 virus from growing in cell culture.

“Even a single dose could essentially remove all viral RNA (effectively removed all genetic material of the virus) by 48 hours and that even at 24 hours there was a really significant reduction in it,” Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute’s Dr. Kylie Wagstaff said at the time.

In 2021, government from the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh claimed that the use of ivermectin allowed them to maintain a lower fatality as well as positivity rate amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Global Coverup Exposed, Pharma-Military Links

“The scale helped expose it,” Kory said while talking about the global COVID-19 propaganda, “but also the fact that it failed.

“You could see that it failed early on, and how much they had to do to hide that. If it had been a success, it would not have exposed anything. In fact, it would’ve entrenched it even more.

“You saw a failed medical experiment being covered up on a global scale. It was the cover-up. There is the old adage, ‘It’s not the crime that gets you in trouble, it’s the cover-up’. It was the fact that they had to cover up a global catastrophe, and there’s no way to do that.

“The truth is starting to come out now. You’re starting to see more and more investigations. I wouldn’t call them tribunals, but some of the state legislators are starting to look harder.”

Kory also highlighted the links between the American military and COVID-19 vaccines. “Pharma was working for the military to make these vaccines,” he said.

“The contracts were all from the Department of Defense. That was a Department of Defense contract. The Department of Defense did not do their due diligence in ensuring safety. The manufacturing of these products violated every CGMP [Current Good Manufacturing Practice] standard, which is an FDA regulation.”

“There’s never been a product, even a baby seat, a car seat, a car, a can of peaches, nothing has had this level of adverse events reported, including deaths and the variation between lots. It was a manufacturing catastrophe.

“If the pharmaceutical industry was working correctly, those things would’ve been stopped and taken off the market immediately,” Kory stated. “But it was just an unrelenting push through the media, even the government and the Department of Defense.”

Kory compared the COVID-19 policies implemented in the country to some sort of military exercise. “Let’s say it (COVID-19) was an accident and our government had been preparing for this massive countermeasure, and it really was the military that was employing a military countermeasure.

“That actually makes some sense, because when you see all of the medical ethics that were violated, that’s telling you it’s not health care. We still have a sense of ethics, and they forgot it overnight. It sounded like a military exercise, where you have to sacrifice 100 people to take that hill.

“The VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] exploded, and with the amount of deaths that were reported within the first weeks, nobody looked at it. It was nothing but attacking VAERS as a source of data, ‘Nothing to see here.’ It was like the military seeing the battlefield strewn with soldiers and just moving ahead, ‘You have to get your objective.’”

“The corporations benefited and profited greatly, but the conduct was like nothing we’ve ever seen before.”

VAERS Deaths And Adverse Events

According to a Dec. 22 analysis published by The Epoch Times, a total of 909,868 adverse events were reported in the VAERS system related to all six COVID-19 vaccines in the United States as of Dec. 9. This included 96,140 serious adverse events and 15,733 deaths.

In contrast, total adverse events for major vaccines related to other diseases like seasonal flu, hepatitis B, HPV, measles, and polio only came to 380,490. There were 28,058 serious adverse events and 3,185 reported deaths.

Documents disclosed in March showed that the number of vaccine injury reports that popped up after COVID-19 vaccination began exceeding the expectations of officials.

The contractor hired to process reports to the VAERS system had only estimated a maximum of 1,000 reports per day as the “worst-case scenario.”

However, this limit was broken in December 2020, less than three weeks after regulators greenlit COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. By Jan. 10, 2021, the number of daily reports exceeded 4,500.

In February this year, Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo claimed that there was a 4,400 percent jump in life-threatening conditions reported in the state with VAERS since the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.