Jan 112021
 

by Edward Curtin

As I write on January 1, 2021, the new year is not starting very auspiciously. Ominous pronouncements are coming from the usual high places and their media mouthpieces, announcing “highly contagious virus variants” of so-called Covid-19.

Joseph Biden has warned of a very Dark Winter to come. His use of that term Dark Winter has been echoed by officials everywhere adept at reading the talking points handed to them. The echo chamber is resounding with dark warnings. Anthony Fauci and the CDC are predicting hundreds of thousands of deaths this month alone.

These officials are now saying the vaccines they are rolling out will take time; will not eliminate the virus, etc. Hedging their bets as they announce utter disaster to come, rather like a fire and brimstone warning from Jonathan Edwards for the sins of celebrating festive times. Guess who will be blamed?

Grim projections are following the holidays like buzzards to a dead carcass. Just follow the mainstream corporate media news headlines to confirm this. You don’t need any linked directions from me.

I prefer to be brief so you can read about the incredibly important 2014 book by Graeme MacQueen, The 2007 Anthrax Deception. Then read his book. His analysis of the anthrax attacks tied to 9/11 sheds important light on the current corona virus crisis.

Read full article here

Dec 312020
 

AE911Truth’s new documentary about Dr. Leroy Hulsey’s groundbreaking new study on WTC7
By Kevin Ryan
Global Research, December 30, 2020
OffGuardian 29 December 2020

The new film Seven (trailer above), directed by Dylan Avery, examines the story of the scientific study of World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) recently published by the University of Alaska Fairbanks. The study was led by structural engineering professor J. Leroy Hulsey and took nearly five years to complete. It evaluated the possibilities for destruction of WTC 7 using two versions of high-tech computer software that simulated the structural components of the building and the forces that acted upon it on September 11th.

After inputting worst case conditions, and painstakingly eliminating what didn’t happen, Hulsey and his team of engineers came to the following conclusions:

The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

These peer-reviewed conclusions directly contradict the findings of the U.S. government’s final investigation into WTC 7 as reported by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Seven documents the journey of Professor Hulsey and his team from their introduction to the subject and the related evidence to the final publication of their report in March of this year. It is an interesting story and important for several reasons. First, it shows what an objective group of engineering science professionals will find if they look closely at the destruction of WTC 7. Additionally, it provides a great example of what one concerned citizen can do to make a great difference in shedding light on the truth of the events of September 11, 2001.

The concerned citizen, who was barely mentioned in the film, is John Thiel, a nurse anesthetist from Alaska. In 2010, Thiel began a 3-year process of looking for an engineer to conduct an honest scientific investigation into the destruction of WTC 7. Thiel was not a structural engineer, but he knew that the official reports on the destruction of that building were false and he wanted to do something about it. Ten years later, after contacting 150 engineers, finally finding and gaining Hulsey’s commitment to do it, and persuading Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth to get involved, Thiel’s persistence paid off.
Seven also features comments from some brave engineers who have spoken out in the past about WTC 7. This includes fire protection engineer Scott Grainger, structural engineer Kamal Obeid, civil engineer and AE911Truth board director Roland Angle, and mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti. All these men make powerful statements in the film about NIST’s failures and omission of evidence.

The film reviews much of the evidence and how it was treated by the initial ASCE/FEMA building performance study and by NIST. It discusses circumstantial evidence including the suspicious tenants of WTC 7 (e.g. the CIA, the Secret Service, the DOD, and the SEC) and foreknowledge about the collapse of the building. It reviews the inexplicable “predictions” of WTC 7’s collapse by media giants CNN and BBC, both of which reported the collapse before it actually happened.

However, the strength of the film is in exposing the viewer to scientific facts and evidence as described by credible experts like Hulsey, Angle, Grainger, Obeid, and Szamboti. This includes the samples of steel exhibiting intergranular melting and sulfidation that the New York Times originally called “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation” but that were ignored in the NIST reports. It includes the fact that no tall building had ever collapse primarily from fire and that the fires in WTC 7 were ordinary and were fed by only 20-minutes of fire load in any given area. The film also highlights concerns about the lack of scientific integrity in NIST’s manipulation of model parameters like the coefficient of expansion of steel and the omission of shear studs on the WTC 7 floor assemblies.

The film is only 45 minutes long and focuses largely on the evidence related to Hulsey’s study. It does not include some facts and evidence about WTC 7 that have been pointed out in the past. For example, it does not detail NIST’s history of failed hypotheses, like the diesel fuel tank hypothesis or the claim that the design of the building contributed to the collapse. It also doesn’t mention that the new WTC 7 was completed in 2006, when NIST was stating it had no idea what happened to the first one.

In the film, Professor Hulsey comes across as very credible and driven by the desire for an objective approach that gives the public an understanding of what happened to WTC 7. His comments about building his study on a clear palate, using pure science, ring true. Avery tells Hulsey’s story simply, without engulfing the viewer in unanswered questions.

Overall, Seven is an excellent presentation for people with a scientific mindset. As John Thiel wrote to me:

Any engineer or scientist with a basic understanding of physics, who does not suffer from cognitive dissonance, should easily be convinced of the truth after watching this video.

I agree.

If people want to help reveal the truth about WTC 7, and therefore about 9/11, they should share this film with every scientist and engineer they know. It is available on multiple streaming platforms, including Amazon Prime, iTunes, Vudu, Google Play, and Microsoft. As a society, our understanding of the crimes of 9/11 continues to be crucial to our understanding of what is going on today.

Seven is directed by Dylan Avery, released by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and available to rent and buy from various platforms, here.

Dec 292020
 

Zachary K. Hubbard has made a deep study of Gematria, finding that it has great powers not only of explanation, but also of prediction. Here is a link to his two books. I recommend reading the first one first (Letters and Numbers), or at least the first few chapters, before reading the newer one, Number Games-911 to Coronavirus. The link is on his Patreon page, but the books are now free.
https://www.patreon.com/posts/merry-christmas-45416770

I also recommend Zach’s website:
https://gematriaeffect.news/

Here is his Youtube channel, at least at the moment:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJ-Af2Dw5kFWvcfD_cLWwHw

Zach is a bit rough around the edges, and you may not agree with his analysis, but I urge you to give him a try.

 Posted by at 11:05 am
Nov 272020
 

by Craig McKee
https://www.ae911truth.org/news/716-youtube-google-suppress-ae911truth-boost-authoritative-sources-like-nist

The suppression of alternative voices on the internet, including those who challenge the official story of 9/11, is relentless. And it’s getting worse.

The censorship of non-mainstream viewpoints includes content created by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This practice, by online giants like Google, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, has been going on for a long time but has been reaching a fever pitch over the past two or three years.

It is particularly YouTube and its parent company, Google, whose policies have made it more difficult to find AE911Truth and its content online.

This is all being done in the name of reducing “harm” allegedly created by “extremism” and “misinformation.” Mainstream accounts of events like 9/11 are more and more being shielded from scrutiny as material challenging them is either banned or made harder to find.

Meanwhile, mainstream media are being held up as authorities on what is true and what isn’t. This effectively means that alternative journalists whose reports differ from those of the corporate media on the same subject are assumed to be spreading misinformation.

Internet censorship is being carried out in a number of ways. A few years ago, YouTube began “demonetizing” videos that it considered inappropriate or problematic in some way. This did not affect AE911Truth directly, since the organization has never used the platform to generate advertising revenue.

But more recent moves are having an effect.

AE911Truth videos won’t come up nearly as readily as they once did when someone searches for them on YouTube, nor are they as easy to find on Google. In fact, even when you type in the precise title of an AE911Truth video, you’re far more likely to find numerous mainstream outlets appearing ahead of what you are actually searching for. Sometimes you’ll see AE911Truth videos that have been re-posted on other YouTube channels.

Read more here

Oct 252020
 

 

OCTOBER 23, 2020

WHO Taps ‘Anti-Conspiracy’ Crusader to Sway Public Opinion on COVID Vaccine

An outspoken proponent of government-led tactics to influence public opinion on policy and to undermine the credibility of “conspiracy theorists” will lead the World Health Organization’s (WHO) efforts to encourage public acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine, Children’s Health Defense has learned.

Last week, WHO’s general director, Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus, tweeted that he was glad to speak with the organization’s Technical Advisory Group (TAG) on Behavioural Insights and Sciences for Health to “discuss vaccine acceptance and uptake in the context of COVID-19.”

 

 Posted by at 2:22 am
Oct 242020
 

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and CHD Urge Congress to Investigate the Origins of COVID-19

October 6, 2020

Children’s Health Defense
1227 N. Peachtree Pkwy, Suite 202
Peachtree City, GA 30269

Congressman Bill Posey
2150 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Posey,

Since it first emerged in China in November of last year, SARS-Cov-2 (COVID-19) has swept across the globe and ravaged communities throughout the United States.[1] The CDC reports that 209,560 Americans have died from COVID-19 as of today, October 6.[2] Millions of Americans have lost their jobs[3] and thousands of U.S. businesses have shut their doors permanently.[4] Our children have had their education and lives disrupted. This disease has reshaped our country.

We are writing to request that you fully investigate this matter of great importance to our nation and to the thousands of individuals and families who are members of Children’s Health Defense. You serve on the House Science, Space, & Technology Committee and these matters fall within the purview of your responsibilities on that Committee. You have the jurisdiction and the duty to lead these investigations, to bring greater understanding and transparency to what happened, and to help the nation.

Defeating this pandemic should be our first priority but we should not be reticent to also ask questions about the virus itself. As humans, we are driven to ask questions and explore the world around us. That is why we have gone to the moon, it’s how we discovered penicillin, and it’s why science continues to advance. This inquisitive spirit that leads us to ask questions and research the problems that we face is the underlying foundation of science, freedom of speech, democracy, and western philosophy.

“Consider this hypothetical scenario: an important gain-of-function experiment involving a virus with serious pandemic potential is performed in a well-regulated, world-class laboratory by experienced investigators, but the information from the experiment is then used by another scientist who does not have the same training and facilities and is not subject to the same regulations. In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?”[5]

These are not our words, but rather they are the words of Anthony Fauci, director of the NIAID, in a 2012 letter to the microbiology journal mBio advocating for gain-of-function experiments. Today, questions about the origin of COVID-19 have largely been dismissed without answers. We believe Dr. Fauci laid out a scenario eight years ago that deserves a full investigation today, particularly when you consider that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was doing the very type of research set forth in Dr. Fauci’s hypothetical scenario.[6]

It would be unthinkable to not investigate the causes leading up to and contributing to the circumstances around the Three Mile Island,[7] Chernobyl,[8] or Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accidents.[9] Is it not strange that we have so quickly moved past the origin of this pandemic? We have a virus that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people—mostly the elderly[10]—caused severe global economic damage,[11] and destroyed thousands of small businesses across America,[12] and there is little serious consideration as to where this virus originated.[13] Common sense says that we should do everything possible to understand exactly how this novel coronavirus pandemic came about so that we may take steps to ensure that it will not and cannot be repeated.

Some reputable scientists have raised the issue that the virus could have escaped from a lab as Dr. Fauci said was a possibility in 2012.[14] Others have suggested that COVID-19 was a natural result of contact between animals and humans.[15] That may indeed be the case; however, given the magnitude of the impact this pandemic has had on humankind, we need more than mere speculation or finger pointing about its origins. It is our duty to ourselves, to our children, and to humanity to seek out and discover the truth.

A virus escaping from a lab and leading to a pandemic is not just a hypothetical horror story; it is an historical reality—in 1977, the H1N1 flu reappeared in China and swept across the globe.[16] Scientists have identified this outbreak as the result of an escape from an unidentified lab.[17] Moreover, USA Today has done extensive reporting on other dangerous pathogens, including Ebola, SARS, and Anthrax, escaping from labs between 2004 and 2016.[18] More recently ProPublica has reported on the exposures of researchers to chimeric coronaviruses at the University of North Carolina.[19] The National Academy of Science and the Federal Select Agent Program have both documented the risks of research being done on highly dangerous pathogens.[20] Some of these escapes have involved viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2.[21] Fortunately, these escapes have rarely led to any infections, but we must take this investigation seriously because these pathogens represent some of the deadliest diseases humanity has encountered.[22] COVID 19 is the sentinel deadly warning of worse to come and we ignore its origins at our own peril.

COVID-19 first broke out in the city of Wuhan, in the shadow of the world’s leading coronavirus research lab, but the communist Chinese government originally labeled a neighboring wet market as the point of origin of the virus.[23] Investigations have shown that the virus started in the province as early as November 17th and that the market was only an early super spreader event.[24] The Huanan market in Wuhan is very far from the Yunnan province caves where similar coronaviruses were found but it is only a few miles from the Wuhan Institute of Virology which was performing coronavirus research on SARS-like viruses.[25]

In order to determine the cause of COVID 19, the first question to ask is “do we know what research the scientists conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology?” We can answer this question with information from grants provided to the Wuhan lab and its very own scientific publications.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology is a biosafety level-4 lab that has made its reputation studying infectious diseases, particularly coronaviruses similar to SARS.[26] In fact, because coronaviruses are endemic to bats, Zheng-Li Shi, the virologist directing coronavirus research, was nicknamed China’s “Bat Woman.”[27] As a part of their work, researchers in the Wuhan lab were engaged in engineering SARS-like viruses through what is known as “gain-of-function” coronavirus research.[28] We also know that U.S. taxpayer dollars through the National Institutes of Health were funding some of that work (see below, NIH grant NIAID R01AI110964 that was awarded in 2014 via a third party – EcoHealth Alliance in New York).[29] Gain-of-function research takes existing pathogens and tries to make them more dangerous for humans with the ultimate goal being to prepare vaccines and therapeutics to combat future emergent viruses.[30] The Wuhan Institute of Virology was combining and manipulating SARS-like coronaviruses in the hopes of better understanding how the original SARS pandemic came about and to prepare for new viruses that could emerge from bats.[31] In the course of this research they engineered new SARS-like viruses that were efficient at infecting humans cells through the same receptor that the SARS virus uses.[32] SARS-CoV-2 is this exact type of virus that Wuhan researchers were creating and storing. In fact, the closest relative of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is the RaTG13 virus which is studied and stored exclusively at the Wuhan Institute.[33] Moreover, Ralph Baric, a leading U.S. coronavirus researcher, has pointed out that it is possible to engineer a virus without leaving a trace.[34] He notes that SARS-CoV-2 was not engineered with any known published genetic information and that it is not possible to tell if it was engineered using an unpublished genetic sequence.[35]

In the November 30, 2017, issue of the medical journal PLOS Pathogens, Zheng-Li Shi and other Wuhan researchers describe how they constructed chimeric novel coronaviruses – that is new genetically-engineered coronaviruses by combining the genetic materials from various known coronaviruses.[36] They show in the paper that three of these chimeric coronaviruses were found to be easily transmitted in human cells. In other words, they were potentially highly infectious to humans. This paper also notes that it was partially funded by the 2014 U.S. National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID)  grant (R01Al110964) provided to New York-based EcoHealth Alliance.[37] A number of other federal grants, in the amount of $53 million, have been awarded to EcoHealth from various federal agencies over the past decade.[38] The Wall Street Journal has reported that the NIH recently demanded that EcoHealth turn over all of the information they have about the research resulting from their work relating to Wuhan and coronaviruses.[39] The US Congress and the American people have a right to know exactly what work their tax dollars supported in China. Even without China’s assistance, much of this information may be obtained in greater detail, and by subpoena if necessary, from quarterly and annual reports, emails, meetings, and phone communications by the grant program managers and involved staff at NIAID and EcoHealth both between themselves and Wuhan.

The timing of the 2014 grant has raised additional questions; it was awarded at the same time the United States was imposing a moratorium on gain-of-function research.[40] The NIH put this moratorium in place due to concerns of prior pathogen escapes from biosafety rated laboratories.[41] In 2015, University of North Carolina virologists, who had previously been studying coronaviruses, published a paper with researchers in Wuhan.[42] As noted in the paper, this work was funded by a grant awarded prior to the moratorium. These researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology later continued their work after the moratorium using grant money awarded to EcoHealth Alliance from NIAID.[43] The Wuhan Institute has performed groundbreaking studies of SARS and made tremendous gains in coronavirus research, but no lab is immune to safety failures or escapes. In fact, the Washington Post reported that 2018 internal State Department memos outlined serious concerns about safety lapses at the Wuhan lab.[44]

More recently, on September 15, the Telegraph reported that “an international team of scientists will examine the possibility SARS-CoV-2 leaked from a laboratory.”[45]  The article also reports that the leader of this team will be Peter Daszak who is the President of EcoHealth Alliance which funded gain-of-function coronavirus research in the same Wuhan lab that he is being called to investigate.[46] While Dr. Daszak is a well-respected expert on emerging infectious diseases, there are clear conflicts of interest that must be addressed.

Given the destruction that this COVID-19 pandemic has caused, and the various issues raised above, the American people who have been harmed deserve a thorough investigation into the origins of this virus. There are many questions that the American people, the US Congress, our children and our parents deserve answers to. Among them are:

Did COVID-19 evolve naturally and if so, how did it so readily infect the human population?

  • If it evolved naturally, why did the outbreak occur more than 1,000 miles from where similar strains of bat coronaviruses are found in Yunnan caves?[47]
  • The original SARS virus rapidly mutated after it entered the human population in 2002 and only stopped late in the pandemic but, from the beginning, SARS-CoV-2 (the COVID-19 virus) has remained very genetically stable in human populations suggesting a unique adaptation to the human host and transmission. What are likely explanations for this stability?[48]
  • Though scientists initially suspected that pangolins were the intermediate host, that theory has been rejected; what other intermediate hosts explain the virus’ adaptation to human transmission that has made it so dangerous?[49]
  • Why, of all places, did the outbreak occur in the shadow of the Wuhan lab where coronavirus research was being conducted, if the outbreak and the lab have no connection?

Did COVID-19 escape from the Wuhan lab? If so:

  • How did this happen?
  • What were the lab failures or safety protocols that were violated?
  • What measures can be taken to ensure that there is never again a pandemic with lab origins?

Could COVID-19 be the result of gain-of-function research? And, if so:

  • Are there are other coronaviruses, being held at the Wuhan Institute of Virology or elsewhere, that are more similar to SARS-CoV-2 than RaTG13 is?
  • Has the Wuhan lab made all of the coronavirus genomes that it has sequenced publicly available for the scientific community to study?
  • What did officials at NIH, NIAID, EcoHealth Alliance and other U.S. entities know about the details of the gain-of-function research taking place at the Wuhan lab?
  • Do the NIH, NIAID, EcoHealth Alliance or anyone associated with these organizations know any details related to the possible origins of COVID-19 that have not been shared with the American people?
  • Should U.S. taxpayer money have been provided to the Wuhan lab given the safety protocol issues highlighted in U.S. government documents and U.S. newspaper reporting?[50]
  • Did the NIH funding of gain-of-function research in Wuhan in 2014-2019 violate the letter or spirit of the U.S. moratorium on gain-of-function research that was put in place in 2014?
  • Was the R01Al110964 grant from NIH to EcoHealth Alliance orchestrated in such a manner that it was intended to circumvent the U.S. moratorium on gain-of-function research? Were US government officials aware of the use of this grant for gain-of-function research in spite of the funding pause?
  • Did any other U.S. government grants to EcoHealth aid the gain-of-function research taking place at the Wuhan lab? A lab that was involved in very risky “gain-of-function”[51]

We are not suggesting malintent. Indeed, nobody at the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facilities meant for a dangerous radiation leak to happen. Harm and malevolence arise from silencing those who are demanding answers or failing to investigate the pandemic’s origin, mistakes made, and how best to prevent future events from recurring. For most people currently alive, COVID-19 is the greatest destructive event of their lifetime, and is a defining time point in world history. China, by the nature of its communist political system, cannot be relied on to thoroughly investigate this matter. It falls upon the leadership of the U.S. Congress to accept its moral duty and God-given and legally pre-ordained responsibility to launch complete and transparent investigations. The grants and publications which show that U.S.-funded coronavirus gain-of-function research was taking place at Wuhan are public and cannot be ignored forever. If we do nothing, history will hold us and our system of government accountable.

We trust that you, your office, and the House Science, Space, & Technology Committee will take the steps necessary for a full and thorough investigation into the issues of the origin of the virus. The Lancet COVID-19 Commission, which chose Daszak to lead their investigation into the origins of the virus, cannot be trusted to effectively eliminate conflicts of interest from their investigation.[52] This shows the need for an independent investigation by the leaders that we have elected to guide us through crises such as these. This investigation must begin in earnest and with haste.

Please review the linked (attached) documents which substantiate the issues raised.

Sincerely,

Robert Kennedy, Jr., Chairman
Children’s Health Defense

Lyn Redwood, RN, MSN, President
Children’s Health Defense

 Posted by at 10:09 pm