š„MIND-BLOWING REVELATIONš„ Please stop and think about the implications of what's explained here. (1/3)
— Sense Receptor (@SenseReceptor) October 1, 2024
THIS is why it's IMPOSSIBLE to "vaccinate" against anything.
THIS is why "vaccines" are the PERFECT POISONS.
THIS is why eugenicists like Bill Gates love "vaccines."… pic.twitter.com/noMhx7yNVC
MIND-BLOWING REVELATION
Please stop and think about the implications of what's explained here. (1/3)
Onions have been cultivated for thousands of years and originated in the Near East and Central Asia. They were grown not only for use in cooking, but for their antiseptic qualities. In Egypt, onions were used in mummification. The most familiar allium is the common, or bulb, onion of the species Allium cepa, which may have a yellow, white, red, or purple skin. While onions may be fresh, they are most commonly purchased dried. Fresh, also called “sweet”, onions have a milder taste. Dry, also called “storage,” onions, have a stronger flavor. Dry onions have thick, paper-like skins. The vast majority of onions purchased at the supermarket are yellow storage onions. Pungent yellow onions are the best “keepers” and are great additions to soups and stews, while red onions are very sweet, but a poor choice for long-term storage. Red onions are good sliced and eaten raw in salads or sandwiches, or for topping a veggie burger. Common mild onions include Bermuda and Spanish varieties. Pearl onions -- which are most often white -- are the tiniest of the bulb onions, and are the top choice for boiling or pickling.
Quercetin is a powerful antioxidant with anti-inflammatory properties that may help fight chronic diseases like heart disease and cancer. In lab studies, quercetin was shown to prevent histamine release (histaminese are the chemicals that cause allergic reactions. This makes quercetin-rich foods like onions "natural anti-histamines."
While apples and tea also contain quercetin, onions appear to be a particularly good source. Research from Wageningen Agricultural University in the Netherlands showed quercetin absorption from onions is double that from tea and three times that from apples.
Research from the University also showed consuming onions leads to increased quercetin concentrations in the blood. As reported by The World's Healthiest Foods
". . . On an ounce-for-ounce basis, onions rank in the top of commonly eaten vegetables in their quercetin content. The flavonoid content of onions can vary widely, depending on the exact variety and growing conditions.
Although the average onion is likely to contain less than 100 milligrams of quercetin per 3-1/2 ounces, some onions do provide this amount.
And while 100 milligrams may not sound like a lot, in the United States, moderate vegetable eaters average only twice this amount for all flavonoids (not just quercetin) from all vegetables per day."
Quercetin is available in supplement form, but there are a couple of reasons why getting this flavonoid from onions makes more sense.
* One animal study found that animals received greater protection against oxidative stress when they consumed yellow onion in their diet as opposed to consuming quercetin extracts.
* Quercetin is not degraded by low-heat cooking, such as simmering. When preparing a soup with onions, the quercetin will be transferred into the brother of the soup, making onion soup an easy-to-make superfood.
Organosulfur compounds [in onions] such as diallyl disulfide (DDS), S-allylcysteine (SAC), and S-methylcysteine (SMC) have been shown to inhibit colon and renal carcinogenesis.That has to sit well with almost every reader even those who don't like onions.
The sulfur compounds in onions, for instance, are thought to have anti-clotting properties as well as help to lower cholesterol and triglycerides. The allium and allyl disulphide in onions have also been found to decrease blood vessel stiffness by releasing nitric oxide.I have first-hand experience with that. He adds that . . .
This may reduce blood pressure (always a good thing, no?) inhibit platelet clot formation and help decrease the risk of coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular diseases and stroke. [Amazing!] The quercetin in onions is also beneficial, offering both anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory properties that may boost heart health.All I can say is wow.
"Phony Diagnoses Hide High Rates of Drugging at Nursing Homes," at DNYUZ
The handwritten doctor’s order was just eight
words long, but it solved a problem for Dundee Manor, a nursing home in rural
South Carolina struggling to handle a new resident with severe dementia.
David Blakeney, 63, was restless and agitated. The home’s doctor
wanted him on an antipsychotic medication called Haldol, a powerful sedative.
“Add Dx of schizophrenia for use of Haldol,” read the doctor’s
order, using the medical shorthand for “diagnosis.”
But there was no evidence that Mr. Blakeney actually had
schizophrenia.
Antipsychotic drugs — which for decades have
faced criticism as "chemical straitjackets"—are dangerous for older
people with dementia, nearly doubling their chance of death from heart
problems, infections, falls and other ailments. But understaffed nursing homes
have often used the sedatives so they don’t have to hire more staff to handle
residents.
The risks to patients treated with antipsychotics are so high
that nursing homes must report to the government how many of their residents
are on these potent medications. But there is an important caveat: The government
doesn’t publicly divulge the use of antipsychotics given to residents with
schizophrenia or two other conditions.
With the doctor’s new diagnosis, Mr. Blakeney’s antipsychotic
prescription disappeared from Dundee Manor’s public record.
Eight months following his admission with a long list of
ailments — and after round-the-clock sedation, devastating weight loss,
pneumonia and severe bedsores that required one of his feet to be amputated —
Mr. Blakeney was dead.
A New York Times investigation found a similar pattern of
questionable diagnoses nationwide. The result: The government and the industry
are obscuring the true rate of antipsychotic drug use on vulnerable residents.
The share of residents with a schizophrenia diagnosis has soared
70 percent since 2012, according to an analysis of Medicare data. That was the
year the federal government, concerned with the overuse of antipsychotic drugs,
began publicly disclosing such prescriptions by individual nursing homes.
Today, one in nine residents has received a
schizophrenia diagnosis. In the general population, the disorder, which has
strong genetic roots, afflicts roughly one in 150 people.
Schizophrenia, which often causes delusions, hallucinations and
dampened emotions, is almost always diagnosed before the age of 40.
“People don’t just wake up with schizophrenia when they are
elderly,” said Dr. Michael Wasserman, a geriatrician and former nursing home
executive who has become a critic of the industry. “It’s used to skirt the
rules.”
Some portion of the rise in schizophrenia
diagnoses reflects the fact that nursing homes, like prisons, have become
a refuge of last resort for people with the disorder, after
large psychiatric hospitals closed decades ago.
But unfounded diagnoses are also driving the
increase. In May, a report by a federal oversight agency said nearly
one-third of long-term nursing home residents with schizophrenia diagnoses in
2018 had no Medicare record of being treated for the condition.
For nursing homes, money is on the line. High
rates of antipsychotic drug use can hurt a home’s public image and the star
rating it gets from the government. Medicare designed the ratings system to
help patients and their families evaluate facilities using objective data; a
low rating can have major financial consequences. Many facilities have found
ways to hide serious problems — like inadequate staffing and
haphazard care — from government audits and inspectors.
One result of the inaccurate diagnoses is that
the government is understating how many of the country’s 1.1 million nursing home residents are on antipsychotic
medications.
According to Medicare’s web page that tracks
the effort to reduce the use of antipsychotics, fewer than 15 percent of nursing home residents are on such
medications. But that figure excludes patients with schizophrenia diagnoses.
To determine the full number of residents being drugged
nationally and at specific homes, The Times obtained unfiltered data that was
posted on another, little-known Medicare web page, as well as
facility-by-facility data that a patient advocacy group got from Medicare via
an open records request and shared with The Times.
The figures showed that at least 21 percent of nursing home residents — about
225,000 people — are on antipsychotics.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees
nursing homes, is “concerned about this practice as a way to circumvent the
protections these regulations afford,” said Catherine Howden, a spokeswoman for
the agency, which is known as C.M.S.
“It is unacceptable for a facility to inappropriately classify a
resident’s diagnosis to improve their performance measures,” she said. “We will
continue to identify facilities which do so and hold them accountable.”
Representatives for nursing homes said doctors who diagnose
patients and write the prescriptions to treat them are to blame, even though
those doctors often work in partnership with the nursing homes.
“If physicians are improperly diagnosing individuals with
serious mental health issues in order to continue an antipsychotic regimen,
they should be reported and investigated,” Dr. David Gifford, the chief medical
officer at the American Health Care Association, which represents for-profit
nursing homes, said in a statement.
Medicare and industry groups also said they
had made real progress toward reducing antipsychotic use in nursing homes,
pointing to a significant drop since 2012 in the share of residents
on the drugs.
But when residents with diagnoses like schizophrenia are
included, the decline is less than half what the government and industry claim.
And when the pandemic hit in 2020, the trend reversed and antipsychotic drug
use increased.
A DOUBLED RISK OF DEATH
For decades, nursing homes have been using drugs to control
dementia patients. For nearly as long, there have been calls for reform.
In 1987, President Ronald Reagan signed a law banning the use of drugs that serve
the interest of the nursing home or its staff, not the patient.
But the practice persisted. In the early 2000s, studies found
that antipsychotic drugs like Seroquel, Zyprexa and Abilify made older people
drowsy and more likely to fall. The drugs were also linked to heart problems in
people with dementia. More than a dozen clinical trials concluded that the
drugs nearly doubled the risk of death for older dementia patients.
In 2005, the Food and Drug Administration required manufacturers
to put a label on the drugs warning that they increased the risk of death for
patients with dementia.
Seven years later, with antipsychotics still widely used,
nursing homes were required to report to Medicare how many residents were
getting the drugs. That data is posted online and becomes part of a facility’s
“quality of resident care” score, one of three major categories that contribute
to a home’s star rating.
The only catch: Antipsychotic prescriptions for residents with
any of three uncommon conditions — schizophrenia, Tourette’s syndrome and
Huntington’s disease — would not be included in a facility’s public tally. The
theory was that since the drugs were approved to treat patients with those
conditions, nursing homes shouldn’t be penalized.
The loophole was opened. Since 2012, the share
of residents classified as having schizophrenia has gone up to 11% from less than 7%, records show.
The diagnoses rose even as nursing homes
reported a decline in behaviors associated with the disorder. The number of
residents experiencing delusions, for example, fell to 4% from 6%.
A SUBSTITUTE FOR STAFF
Caring for dementia patients is time- and labor-intensive.
Workers need to be trained to handle challenging behaviors like wandering and
aggression. But many nursing homes are chronically understaffed and do not pay
enough to retain employees, especially the nursing assistants who provide the
bulk of residents’ daily care.
Studies have found that the worse a home’s
staffing situation, the greater its use of antipsychotic drugs. That suggests
that some homes are using the powerful drugs to subdue patients and avoid
having to hire extra staff. (Homes with staffing shortages are also the most
likely to understate the number of residents on antipsychotics, according to
the Times’s analysis of Medicare data.)
The pandemic has battered the industry.
Nursing home employment is down more than 200,000 since early last year and is at
its lowest level since 1994.
As staffing dropped, the use of antipsychotics rose.
Even some of the country’s leading experts on elder care have
been taken aback by the frequency of false diagnoses and the overuse of
antipsychotics.
Barbara Coulter Edwards, a senior Medicaid official in the Obama
administration, said she had discovered that her father was given an incorrect
diagnosis of psychosis in the nursing home where he lived even though he had dementia.
“I just was shocked,” Ms. Edwards said. “And the first thing
that flashed through my head was this covers a lot of ills for this nursing
home if they want to give him drugs.”
Homes that violate the rules face few consequences.
In 2019 and 2021, Medicare said it planned to conduct targeted
inspections to examine the issue of false schizophrenia diagnoses, but those
plans were repeatedly put on hold because of the pandemic.
In an analysis of government inspection reports, The Times found
about 5,600 instances of inspectors citing nursing homes for misusing antipsychotic
medications. Nursing home officials told inspectors that they were dispensing
the powerful drugs to frail patients for reasons that ranged from “health
maintenance” to efforts to deal with residents who were “whining” or “asking
for help.”
In more than 99 percent of the cases, inspectors concluded that
the violations represented only “potential,” not “actual,” harm to patients.
That means the findings are unlikely to hurt the homes’ ratings.
‘HE WAS SO LITTLE’
Mr. Blakeney’s wife of four decades and one of his adult
daughters said in interviews that he had never exhibited any mental health
problems. Then he developed dementia, and his behavior became difficult to
manage. His wife, Yvonne Blakeney, found that she could no longer care for him.
Over the next several months, Mr. Blakeney was in and out of
medical facilities, where he was treated for problems including a urinary tract
infection. He became increasingly confused and upset.
In April 2016, he went to the Lancaster Convalescent Center, a
nursing home in Lancaster, S.C., where a doctor labeled him with schizophrenia
on a form that authorized the use of antipsychotic drugs. That diagnosis,
however, did not appear on his subsequent hospital records.
Lancaster’s administrator declined to comment.
Six months later, Mr. Blakeney arrived at Dundee Manor, a
110-bed home in Bennettsville, S.C. At the time, it received only one out of
five stars in Medicare’s rating system. The low score reflected poor marks from
government inspectors who had visited the facility. It was also penalized for
inadequate staffing.
When Mr. Blakeney was admitted, schizophrenia did not appear in
his long list of ailments, which included high blood pressure, pneumonia and
advanced dementia, according to medical records disclosed in a lawsuit that his
widow later filed against the home.
Two weeks after his arrival, Dundee Manor’s medical director,
Dr. Stephen L. Smith, instructed the home to add the schizophrenia diagnosis so
that Mr. Blakeney could continue to receive Haldol. He was also prescribed
Zyprexa, as well as the sleeping pill Ambien and trazodone, which is often
given to help patients sleep.
Ms. Blakeney’s lawyer, Matthew Christian, said he had not seen
any evidence that anyone conducted a psychiatric evaluation of Mr. Blakeney.
Mr. Blakeney, who had worked for decades as a farmhand, was once
tall and muscular. But the drugs left him confined to his bed or wheelchair,
exhausted. When his wife and sister visited, they couldn’t wake him, even when
they brought his favorite meal of fried chicken. Over eight months, his weight
dropped from 205 to 128 pounds.
“I cried because he was so little,” Ms. Blakeney said. “You
could see his rib cage, just sticking out.”
Mr. Blakeney’s medical records show that several people warned
that he was too sedated and receiving too many drugs.
Three weeks after he arrived at Dundee Manor, a physical
therapist noted his extreme lethargy, even when she washed his hands and face.
In mid-November, after Mr. Blakeney lost 12 pounds in a single week, a dietitian
left a note for the doctor. “Consider medication adjustment,” she wrote, adding
that he was “sleeping all day and through meals.”
That month, an outside pharmacist filled out a form recommending
that Mr. Blakeney’s doses of Haldol and Zyprexa be reduced to comply with
federal guidelines that require nursing homes to gradually reduce doses of
antipsychotics.
On a form with Dr. Smith’s name and signature, a box labeled
“disagree” was checked. “Staff feels need” for the continued doses, the form
noted.
It was exactly the sort of decision — prescribing powerful drugs
to help the nursing home and its staff, not the patient — that the 1987 law was
supposed to ban.
Dr. Smith declined to comment. Dundee Manor didn’t respond to
requests for comment.
According to Medicare’s public database of nursing home ratings,
only 7 percent of Dundee Manor’s long-term residents were getting antipsychotic
drugs in the third quarter of 2018. That put the nursing home in a good light;
the national average was roughly double.
But Dundee Manor’s relatively low figure was a mirage created by
the large number of residents who were diagnosed with conditions like
schizophrenia. In reality, The Times found, 29 percent of Dundee Manor’s
residents were on antipsychotics at the time, according to unpublished Medicare
data obtained through public records requests by California Advocates for
Nursing Home Reform.
FIVE-STAR PROBLEMS
False schizophrenia diagnoses are not confined to low-rated
homes. In May, the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human
Services, for example, identified 52 nursing homes where at least 20 percent of
all residents had an unsupported diagnosis. Medicare rated more than half of
those homes with at least four of the maximum five stars. (The inspector general’s
report didn’t identify the nursing homes. The Times obtained their identities
through a public-records request.)
One was the Hialeah Shores Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in
Miami, a 106-bed home bordered by palm trees and a white painted fence. It is a
five-star facility that, according to the official statistics, prescribed
antipsychotics to about 10 percent of its long-term residents in 2018.
That was a severe understatement. In fact, 31 percent of Hialeah
Shores residents were on antipsychotics, The Times found.
In 2018, a state inspector cited Hialeah Shores for giving
a false schizophrenia diagnosis to a woman. She was so heavily dosed with
antipsychotics that the inspector was unable to rouse her on three consecutive
days.
There was no evidence that the woman had been experiencing the
delusions common in people with schizophrenia, the inspector found. Instead,
staff at the nursing home said she had been “resistive and noncooperative with
care.”
Dr. Jonathan Evans, a medical director for nursing homes in
Virginia who reviewed the inspector’s findings for The Times, described the
woman’s fear and resistance as “classic dementia behavior.”
“This wasn’t five-star care,” said Dr. Evans,
who previously was president of a group that represents medical staff in nursing
homes. He said he was alarmed that the inspector had decided the violation
caused only “minimal harm or potential for harm” to the patient, despite her
heavy sedation. As a result, he said, “there’s nothing about this that would
deter this facility from doing this again.”
Representatives of Hialeah Shores declined to comment.
Seven of the 52 homes on the inspector general’s list were owned
by a large Texas company, Daybreak Venture. At four of those homes, the
official rate of antipsychotic drug use for long-term residents was zero, while
the actual rate was much higher, according to the Times analysis comparing
official C.M.S. figures with unpublished data obtained by the California
advocacy group.
More than 39 percent of residents at Daybreak’s Countryside
Nursing and Rehabilitation, for example, were receiving an antipsychotic drug
in 2018, even though the official figure was zero.
A lawyer for Daybreak, Charles A. Mallard, said the company
could not comment because it had sold its homes and was shutting its business.
A SPRINKLE OF DEPAKOTE
As the U.S. government has tried to limit the use of
antipsychotic drugs, nursing homes have turned to other chemical restraints.
Depakote, a medication to treat epilepsy and
bipolar disorder, is one increasingly popular choice. The drug can make people drowsy and increases the risk of
falls. Peer-reviewed studies have shown that it does not help with
dementia, and the government has not approved it for that use.
But prescriptions of Depakote and similar anti-seizure drugs
have accelerated since the government started publicly reporting nursing homes’
use of antipsychotics.
Between 2015 and 2018, the most recent data available, the use
of anti-seizure drugs rose 15 percent in nursing home residents with dementia,
according to an analysis of Medicare insurance claims that researchers at the
University of Michigan prepared for The Times.
And while Depakote’s use rose, antipsychotic prescriptions fell
16 percent.
“The prescribing is far higher than you would expect based on
the actual amount of epilepsy in the population,” said Dr. Donovan Maust, a
geriatric psychiatrist at the University of Michigan who conducted the
research.
About half the complaints that California
Advocates for Nursing Home Reform receives about inappropriate drugging of
residents involve Depakote, said Anthony Chicotel, the group’s top lawyer. It comes in a “sprinkle” form that makes it easy to slip
into food undetected.
“It’s a drug that’s tailor-made to chemically restrain residents
without anybody knowing,” he said.
In the early 2000s, Depakote’s manufacturer, Abbott
Laboratories, began falsely pitching the drug to nursing homes as a way to
sidestep the 1987 law prohibiting facilities from using drugs as “chemical
restraints,” according to a federal whistle-blower lawsuit filed by a former
Abbott saleswoman.
According to the lawsuit, Abbott’s representatives told pharmacists
and nurses that Depakote would “fly under the radar screen” of federal
regulations.
Abbott settled the lawsuit in 2012, agreeing to pay the
government $1.5 billion to resolve allegations that it had improperly marketed
the drugs, including to nursing homes.
Nursing homes are required to report to federal regulators how
many of their patients take a wide variety of psychotropic drugs — not just
antipsychotics but also anti-anxiety medications, antidepressants, and sleeping
pills. But homes do not have to report Depakote or similar drugs to the federal
government.
“It is like an arrow pointing to that class of medications, like
‘Use us, use us!’” Dr. Maust said. “No one is keeping track of this.”
LOBBYING FOR MORE
In 2019, the main lobbying group for
for-profit nursing homes, the American Health Care Association, published a brochure titled “Nursing Homes: Times
have changed.”
“Nursing homes have replaced restraints and antipsychotic
medications with robust activity programs, religious services, social workers
and resident councils so that residents can be mentally, physically and
socially engaged,” the colorful two-page leaflet boasted.
Last year, though, the industry teamed up with drug companies
and others to push Congress and federal regulators to broaden the list of
conditions under which antipsychotics don’t need to be publicly disclosed.
“There is specific and compelling evidence
that psychotropics are underutilized in treating dementia and it is time for
C.M.S. to re-evaluate its regulations,” wrote Jim Scott, the chairman of the Alliance for
Aging Research, which is coordinating the
campaign.
The lobbying was financed by drug companies
including Avanir Pharmaceuticals and Acadia Pharmaceuticals. Both have tried —
and so far failed — to get their drugs approved for treating patients with
dementia. (In 2019, Avanir agreed to pay $108 million to settle charges that
it had inappropriately marketed its drug for use in dementia patients in
nursing homes.)
‘HOLD HIS HALDOL’
Ms. Blakeney said that only after hiring a lawyer to sue Dundee
Manor for her husband’s death did she learn he had been on Haldol and other
powerful drugs. (Dundee Manor has denied Ms. Blakeney’s claims in court
filings.)
During her visits, though, Ms. Blakeney noticed that many
residents were sleeping most of the time. A pair of women, in particular,
always caught her attention. “There were two of them, laying in the same room,
like they were dead,” she said.
In his first few months at Dundee Manor, Mr. Blakeney was in and
out of the hospital, for bedsores, pneumonia and dehydration. During one
hospital visit in December, a doctor noted that Mr. Blakeney was unable to
communicate and could no longer walk.
“Hold the patient’s Ambien, trazodone and Zyprexa because of his
mental status changes,” the doctor wrote. “Hold his Haldol.”
Mr. Blakeney continued to be prescribed the drugs after he
returned to Dundee Manor. By April 2017, the bedsore on his right heel — a
result, in part, of his rarely getting out of bed or his wheelchair — required
the foot to be amputated.
In June, after weeks of fruitless searching for another nursing
home, Ms. Blakeney found one and transferred him there. Later that month, he
died.
“I tried to get him out — I tried and tried and tried,” his wife
said. “But when I did get him out, it was too late.”
The post Phony Diagnoses Hide High Rates of Drugging at Nursing Homes appeared
first on New York Times.
— St. Michael, the Archangel (@aveng_angel) June 16, 2023
HERE IS THE VIDEO. WATCH IT. LATYPOVA'S REMARKS BEGIN AT THE 5:50 MARK.
PREP Act was a law launched in 2002, and amended in 2005 that allows the HHS Secretary to issue a declaration to expand this liability shield for using unapproved medical interventions, devices, pharmaceuticals, all sorts of things, diagnostics, therapeutics, anything, using the Emergency Use Authorization essential to bypassing the normal regulatory frameworks and consumer safeguards, which are quite extensive today for very good reasons because we want to make sure that the medications are being used as safe. So this is a shield essentially that the government uses and now, specifically, the DoD is using extensively to shield themselves and anyone that they hire for the task from any liability from using these poorly tested, untested, experimental, and completely black box, devices, and technologies.
8:50 Dr. Meryl Nass. The Defense Department has been accustomed to doing whatever it wants and has a history of using untested products on soldiers. In the Gulf War, they got a memorandum of understanding with the FDA that allowed them to use products that were unapproved and unevaluated by the FDA and at other times in the past also. The DoD is kind of a law unto itself. So for them, this was nothing new. It was just happening on a larger scale. It wasn't just 2 million soldiers, but it was also 134 million Americans. But then this method was shipped out to the rest of the world, so 8 billion people.
9:42 Polly Tommey. Why have we called this program, "Willful Misconduct"? What is the purpose behind that?
9:48 Latypova. I think it's because of the George Watts case v. Lloyd J. Austin, III, in other words, the DoD. His estate is suing the Dept. of Defense for his death. The only basis that we have to break this liability shield, a very extensive one, is based on willful misconduct. So the case complaint was that the willful misconduct was essentially a bait-and-switch scheme that the Department of Defense and Health and Human Services, HHS, ran on the American public.
11. PREP provides blanket immunity for covered persons such as the DOD with a sole exception for willful misconduct the enumerated sovereign immunity for the United States and an agency such as the DOD (42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(f)) is unconstitutional since for closing all redress violates due process enshrined in the 5th Amendment and it's central promise and assurance that all levels of American government must abide by the law and provide fair procedures particularly in instances such as this where Mr Wash was "deprived of life." The enumerated sovereign immunity for the United States and an agency such as the DOD has is also an unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment. A "legal cause of action is property within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment."
So, now we have a death of a civilian from disregard for safety and using this PREP Act liability shield, and his attorneys are stating that "Well because this was willful misconduct because knowingly the Department of Defense administered, distributed the experimental product while telling everyone it was FDA approved. And that was the lie that they perpetrated on this young man who died as a result of it.
11:00 Dr. Meryl Nass. The way that the PREP Act is written, there are almost no requirements for safety or efficacy. What it requires is that the FDA, and the FDA issues it, simply believe, with or without evidence, that the benefits are going to be greater than the risks. But it does say that the FDA needs to disclose the known significant risks. And the FDA did not do that. So the FDA was hiding many of the known risks. But the other thing that happened was a bait-and-switch. So in August of 2021, the Federal government announced all these mandates but only at the time that FDA approved a license for the Pfizer vaccine. So on August 23, the FDA issued a license for the Pfizer vaccine for adults, but none of that product was made available in the United States. So every body continued to get the Emergency Use product with a huge liability shield and the only potential way to litigate against them was to prove willful misconduct which was they knew they were doing something wrong but they hid it. So what we're saying is, yes, they knew that the product being administered to George Watt and to everybody else in the country was not licensed, but the FDA, the DoD, and the rest of the Federal government pretended that it was.
12:32 Tommey. And this is Children's Healt Care case, correct? Yep.
And the reason you're on here is because your lawyer can't talk about it.
12:50 Latypova. I think it's a great case because, finally, in my opinion, a correct defendent is named, in other words, which is the DoD and Lloyd J. Austin, III, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, who were the head of the operation, while the pharmaceutical companies are complicit and knowingly administered poisons because they are experts and they understand exactly what they are doing and know what consumer safeguards have been subverted. But they are operating under the Department of Defense who was heading Operation Warp Speed, OWS, now it's been renamed to Acceleration of Countermeasures, another name but essentially the same thing.
[Huh. The federal government is notorious for renaming projects and programs. Remember when the Iraq invasion was initially named Operation Iraqi Liberation with the acronym of O.I.L.? They're always trying to show how clever they are when in reality they're stupid monsters.]
This was at the time that these shots were rolled out and relevant to George Watts' case this was headed by the Department of Defense, Chief Operation Officer was General Gustave F. Perna, reporting directly to President Trump. Structurally, the same reporting system reporting to Biden. The Dept. of Defense leadership represents about 2/3 of Operation Warp Speed, most of them without any health care experience. So this was all orchestrated from there, using several legal framework of several laws, so the PREP Act is one of them. But there are others, such as Public Health Emergency Declaration to begin with, and the Emergency Use Authorization
So, could we build a bridge to the Moon?
Yes, but it would take a long time and it would be very expensive.
Whereas in Washington, everything starts out with "No, no," and you've got a toll booth on every inch with people trying to extract the profit to let you do anything. And one reason is in New York you have to make things work for the equity. In Washington, if you're just printing government money, you know the equity doesn't have to work. So Trump is, if you look at the people he's bringing in, he's looking at redoing the economic model and making it much more economically relevant but he approaches it as an entrepreneur which of course is driving all the people who are trained to be good government officials, it's driving them crazy, because they're not entrepreneurs.
23:00. Why does he do this?
23:04. Because he knows that we need to change and he's trying to find a way to invent a productive change but he's so bold and how he does it and he's much too generous with taxpayers' money for himself . . .
23:26. What is his motivation, in your opinion?
23:28. I think he's very frustrated by the way the world is working now and I think he really feels that he can do something about it is my impression.
So every hundred years, the Central Banking warfare model does a reset, 80 to 120 years. If you go back in the history, you know, they regularly do a reset. We knew we had to do a reset. We knew we were going to globalize, so we had to do a reset, and I thought I had permission from the group of people I knew, you know, high up in the financial system. I was going to figure out how technology would impact a family, a business, a government, a not-for-profit, and I was going to figure out how we could re-engineer the model to do a reset successfully. But I had a vision of a reset and I called it "The Building Wealth Reset," where you can create so much significant wealth bottom up . . . that the American people could continue to maintain a reasonable standard of living in the middle of globalization without having an environmental disaster. We came up with the initial plans and it was really exciting because there was one brief moment when I really thought it was going to work. And I presented it. I had a group of the top pension fund leaders who were an advisory board to one of my subsidiaries of Hamilton [Dillion, Read, & Co.] and I presented the plan to them, and I'll never forget it. The president of the largest pension fund looked at me and he said, "Oh, my God." He said, "This is what we tried to do long ago, but they were able to stop us." And I said, you didn't, you didn't have the technology, the learning metabolism can be so increased that you can get people that productive that fast. We had built Learning Centers in poor neighborhoods and were able to teach people how to become very economically productive very fast. And, you know, we had the numbers and the documentation to prove it. And he looked at me, he was stunned, and he said, "It's too late. They've given up on the country. They're moving all the money out starting in the fall," and that was when the $21 trillion started to go missing from the US government.
25:39. $21 trillion?
25:40. $21 trillion, so in the mid-90s the government was supposed to start publishing their annual audits of their financial statements because under the Constitution you're supposed to report, you know, here's how much money we collected or borrowed, and here's how much we spent, and you're required to do that disclosure with the exception of the black budget piece. So the government started a process of reporting undocumentable adjustments in between fiscal 1998 and 2015. They reported $21 trillion of undocumentable adjustments. At the time we published that number, $21 trillion in 2017, the U.S. debt was up to $21 trillion. So the US government borrows $21 trillion, the money comes in to Treasury, and then $21 trillion disappears.
26:49. The big question is where does it end?
26:53. So I thought he meant that we are reallocating the equity in the Pension funds to invest in the Emerging Markets which made sense what I didn't understand though is that's not what he meant he literally they started to move trillions and trillions of dollars out of the federal you know they borrow money and pull the money out and they were literally building a second civilization separately they were literally draining as much money as they could through the federal mechanism because remember that's just a laundry from the Pension funds you sell a treasury bond to the pension funds and you move the money to Treasury, you take it out the back door, and you're just moving the money out of the pension funds into I'm assuming it's a new endowment for a new government. So we are in the middle of a reset, and that reset is fundamentally changing how the financial system will work. The central bankers want who basically are the key bureaucracy, and if they want to do what they want to do which is to take over control of fiscal policy and be free of the Constitutional framework, they need changes. And that's the war that's going on right now, and Trump will have to be right in the middle of that.
28:15. So this new society in the short term, how's it going to look like?
28:19. I used to say that COVID was the operation by which the new Society broke back in and took control. So what they want is they want digital IDs, they want all digital monetary system, they want the central bankers controlling fiscal policy. So the central bankers can literally decide what the taxes are and just take it out of your account.
28:40. A new currency?
28:42. It's not a currency, it's a control system. There are no markets. It's technocracy.
28:50. He claims he's going to drain the swamp.
28:51. No that's not going to happen.
28:53. At the same time, he's working with people like . . . you can't re-engineer the model and you and your pals make money and drain the swamp at the same time. That's not going to happen. So, you know, his number one focus is going to be re-engineering the model of getting it economic, and while he's doing that, unfortunately, he's got a whole lot of major donors who are trying to maximize their profit. So he's got to manage that.
29:19. So he's not going to drain the swamp.
29:20. There are three questions. Is he going to implement a digital ID? Because then he's implementing the swamp. Is he going to allow an all digital monetary system? Because then he's building the swamp. Is he going to allow the DOGE and Vivek and Elon to let the central bankers take over control of fiscal policy through corporate contractors? Then he's implementing the control model, one, two, three. Now he can do that on the all-digital monetary system. He can do that with CBDC. Or, he can let the FED get out of the Constitutional provisions and do Central Bank CBDCs, which will probably be the way you go after you beat everybody up with crypto and they make a lot of money.
30:10. He doesn't seem like a guy that wants that for his voters, and his voters don't seem to want that.
30:16. So I think it is Trump's instinct to loathe the idea of total central control. This is a guy who doesn't . . . he wants to be a sovereign individual, and if you look at some of what he says and does I think he really enjoys the idea of being part of a civilization where people have sovereignty both in their governments and individuals. The reality though is he's in a system where he doesn't have control, which of course always frustrates him. There will be tremendous pressures on him to do what the bankers want.
31:00. Also, some people behind the scenes, like Peter Thiel. Is it Palantir that decides what the government does, or is it the other way around?
31:10. Of course, that's the question. I think the government in theory decides because you have a contract in payments, and they only do what they're authorized under the contract and the payments to do. At the same time, a lot of the bureaucracy is no longer in a position to tell the corporate contractors what they do. The corporate contractors have more power. So there's a whole team of people. Elon Musk is not a person, it's a team and it's playing a role. And how much is that Elon Musk as a person is still doing?
31:55. Can Trump see through that?
31:56. Of course. He's operating in his system. He doesn't control the system, and he's dealing with the system the way it is.
32:16. And he does want to change it in your opinion?
32:19. O, I think he does want to change it. I think he does want America to remain the global hegemon. I mean that's what he said, "Make America great again." He really wants America to be successful. His biggest problem is that he has allies who think they control him and major donors, so . . .
32:42. That's an interesting situation. Trump got into this position first of all because everybody underestimated him, right?
32:53. No. He got in this position because the Republican establishment decided, okay, this is the guy who can get us the control grid. This is the guy who can get the heartland to go along with digital IDs to stop . . .
33:09. Basically that's what I'm saying, because in your opinion, he's not willing to do that. He's schooling them.
33:17. I'm saying it is not his inclination. It is not his nature. If you're a successful entrepreneur, you know that total control is bad economics and I think he still feels and and I think he still and I think he still feels he wants to make America great again but I think his first time through he understands that you know if you don't do what they say they kill your family right so for example when I finished the litigation I published a book I mean I wrote a book and I wanted to publish it I put it up online because there's so much documentation behind it it was better to do it digital three times I've tried to publish it the last time I tried to publish it they threatened to kill somebody in my family if I did I backed off you know my family didn't buy into this and I don't have a right to put my family at risk but
34:05. So the only person who can change the system is someone, some really big interests.
34:10. No. Here's how you change the system. You don't change the system by one guy riding in on a white horse and fixing everything. You change the system by so many people shifting their time, their money, their intention, their prayers, that crowd moves this way and you can't force them to go this way. It's too out of control. In 2016, I was planning on not going back if Clinton had won because it wasn't safe.
34:38. For you?
34:38. For me.
34:40. Why?
34:42. So during litigation I dealt with a huge amount of physical harassment and surveillance and it was very dangerous.
34:48? Physical harassment?
34:49. Yeah, oh yeah.
34:52. In the US? What does that look like?
35:00. So your house gets broken into. You get poisoned. You get followed. People run you off the road.
35:08. They poison you.
35:08. I was poisoned 8 times. I wouldn't settle. We were publishing and designing and making a tool called, Community Wizard, and Community Wizard made accessible . . . Right now, if you go to the White House, or at that time if you go to the White House, and read the federal budget, it says here's how all the money works in military. Here's how all the money works in housing. Here's how . . . but it doesn't say here's how all the federal money works in your neighborhood, because if you can see it in your neighborhood you can get it changed, right. And so the finance chairman of the campaign would get it, but you don't get the disclosure you need to vote for political representation. You can get some for your state, but even now some for your county, but you can't get really good data. So we were making a software tool where you could go in and dial and download all the data and start looking in ways that were very visual and you can start to really grapple and that you could start to change the money and make it much more efficient. And so one of the things that they did was seize our offices. They seized the software tool and kept it locked up for years. It took me years to get it back out, and by the time I got it back out it was all Legacy software and we literally tried several times to start from scratch. The politics were . . . so, in 2019, some of the harassment kicked up again; it was one of the reasons I finally decided to come do the Dutch residency. And it was really funny because when it happened, you know because I had had so many amazing miraculous experiences dealing with the poisonings and the physical harassment . . .
36:50. When they poisoned you they were trying to kill you?
36:53. No. Here's my theory because you only know what you experienced you don't know what the facts are so there is one time I think it was intended to kill me I think the others were just intended to scare me and make you tired you know it really when you get toxic because I described to people there is in America a great poisoning going on people are really being poisoned and they're being poisoned in a variety of ways and it's intentional and as if you steal people's retirement funds you got to lower life expectancy it's just math.
37:25. What is your goal in life?
37:28. So I just want to be free.
37:29. Do you feel free here?
37:30. What I said to somebody at the time is I'm just tired of playing Tomb Raider. I just don't . . . if you look at what I want to do in my life, I want to help people figure out the Building Wealth Reset and I want to help people push it in that direction, because the problem is not what are these guys doing. The problem is when these guys fail, what's our point?
37:54. Did that change your approach to what you're doing right now?
37:57. Yeah I spend a lot less time worrying about security, right. So I'm a little rusty in terms of my gun use, but no, no I'm very good with a gun I'm very good with a gun.
38:14. They're not legal here, right, you know?
38:15. Well I in Hickory Valley there's a joke, so in Hickory Valley, Tennessee, there's a joke that the men have to sleep with bulletproof vests because the women are so well armed.
If I was Trump, I would do exactly what he's proposing to do at HHS with Kennedy. I would get the data out and use the data to put the question back to the American people. Look at the data, what does the data say, and then based on what the data says, what do you think we ought to do? So he's trying to get the population engaged in helping him re-engineer the model. His greatest strength is he's always done that, he's always, while the media is trying to just push the official narrative, he's trying to get people educated about reality enough to support him in the changes.
So step by step.
Yeah, so, and, of course, everybody goes crazy because it's like being in a ballroom and everybody's doing the waltz and some guy walks in and says what do you think, should we do a Tango? and starts to play tango music, and everybody starts crashing and bumping into each other and gets mad, you know, because they're like, "A Tango? What? I don't know how to do a Tango. I'm going to lose money.
39:40. Is this transition going to be paid for?
39:42. Yes.
39:44. What's that going to look like?
39:49. Your guess is as good as mine he's going to be trying to recalibrate the model at the same time you've got all these people who are going to be trying to plunder the government now that they've won.
40:00. So it's going to be interesting times.
40:01. It's going to be wild. It's going to be wild. So for example,
40:06. Are you looking forward to it? So I don't know if you have ever seen . . . my father was a surgeon, so we talked about this at the dinner table, so forgive me, if you've ever seen a serious infection rise to the surface and turn into a a boil that then pops and drains, it's a really despicable process, but it's very good for your health to get the infection to rise to the surface. So you know the red button question is now rising to the surface, and I think it's, you know, it's healthier than continuing to try and pretend.
40:40. If you would have a red button here right now on this table and it will bring you in danger and your family in danger would you still push it?
40:50. Slavery is a worse danger than the chaos that will ensue you know if we push the red button. I have news for you, the world is pushing it as we speak, so get ready, put on your big boy pants, and get ready to rock and roll.
41:07. We walked the road to the future. Is this the future 4 years from now where we are standing?
41:12. We're standing and we are facing a period of unprecedented change, and what we say at the Solari Report for 2025 is "Our Year Will Be Endowed by Grace," because when things break down and change at this high speed and radical ways, you know it can be very uncomfortable and very disconcerting, but can also open the window for Grace to come in and operate by faith.
41:39. The sun is shining in your face right now
