SATURATED FATS: There was no scientific evidence that saturated fat led to higher rates of heart disease or caused any issues. They heal, they don't harm

Reminder:

There was no scientific evidence that saturated fat led to higher rates of heart disease or caused any issues.

Cholesterol-rich foods:
- Milk
- Eggs
- Butter
- Red meat

They heal, don't harm. pic.twitter.com/ZxtlDFm73t

— Perennial Pastures (@regenranching) May 7, 2024

DR. HARVEY RISCH: [T]his military approach that had people in the military underneath the National Security Council, designed a response that all of our government agencies would carry out, they designed a response that would not follow public health principles

🔥"people in the mid and upper-middle levels of all these agencies...[were] brainwashed by upper-levels of our military establishment that are the professional brainwashers, because that's who the National Security Council pulled in to do the professional brainwashing..." (1/6)… pic.twitter.com/a6BlEZjpbE

— Sense Receptor (@SenseReceptor) May 6, 2024

People in the mid and upper-middle levels of all these agencies...[were] brainwashed by upper-levels of our military establishment that are the professional brainwashers, because that's who the National Security Council pulled in to do the professional brainwashing..." (1/6)

Professor Emeritus of Epidemiology at Yale Dr. Harvey Risch (

@DrHarveyRisch

) describes for Jason James (

@jasonjamesbnn

) how the "upper-levels of [the U.S.] military establishment" brainwashed the government, as well as the American people, into believing that things like lockdowns, masking, and the mRNA injections were necessary to defeat COVID. He highlights the fact that the National Security Council (NSC) took control of the "pandemic" response in the U.S. just seven days after it was declared a national emergency, and, echoing the work done by Sasha Latypova (

@sasha_latypova

) and Katherine Watt, says that the FDA's supposed approval of the COVID injections was pure "theater." "[W]hat happened...during the pandemic, is that...FDA, NIH, CDC, all of them, lost control of what would have been their scientific narratives. And they did that because...President Trump...handed [management of the 'pandemic'] off to the National Security Council, which militarized it, which made the pandemic no longer a pandemic, but a biowarfare attack," Risch tells James. The professor emeritus adds that the COVID injections are "not vaccines according to the government" and are, instead, "countermeasures, because it's a military approach that was adopted rather than a public health approach." "[T]his military approach that had people in the military underneath the National Security Council, designed a response that all of our government agencies would carry out, they designed a response that would not follow public health principles," Risch notes. Prior to the NSC's bizarre and harmful "pandemic" response plan, Risch says that prominent public health officials had said that "you don't lock down the population" and that "there's no point in closing airports [as] that won't do anything." He adds that public health officials also knew that "masks are essentially useless—for either protecting the wearer or for controlling source control, meaning keeping the wearer from spreading infection outside of the wearer." "[A]ll of this stuff was all laid out, and then the military turned it around and did the opposite of almost everything. And so, that colored our whole response," Risch says. Explaining further, the Yale professor says that "people in the mid and upper-middle levels of all these [U.S. government] agencies...[were] brainwashed by upper-levels of our military establishment that are the professional brainwashers, because that's who the National Security Council pulled in to do the professional brainwashing..." Risch goes on to say: "What happened is that, basically, your rank-and-file people in the mid and upper-middle levels of all these agencies, are relatively good people who believe in themselves, they believe in the science the way they see it; they believe that they think they are doing a good job, the best that they could under the circumstances, they think of themselves as wholesome, good-doing people. And they [didn't] realize that they [were being] brainwashed. That [they'd] been brainwashed by upper-levels of our military establishment that are the professional brainwashers, because that's who the National Security Council pulled in to do the professional brainwashing of all of our scientific, medical regulatory systems, as well as the general public. And we know how much brainwashing has gone on through the media and all that." "[T]his whole regime of mis-thinking, of propagandized fear and lack of recognition of what were the true issues going on, spread throughout the regulatory approval and scientific review institutions of our government," Risch adds. Touching on the topic of the COVID injections, Risch says that the FDA's VIRBAC (Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee) committee, "thought they were doing good by approving vaccines," but were, in fact, "essentially irrelevant." Risch adds that "It was just theater to legitimize that these vaccines weren't vaccines, they were countermeasures and were going to be used anyway come hell or high water, because that's what the military at the top, the National Security Council, had decided, in advance of this whole process unfolding." Indeed, Risch highlights the fact that the COVID injection rollout "was planned this way" and notes that "the military was involved in Event 201, the planning...sessions in September of 2019, and all the previous Event 201s..." that had taken place regularly in the years leading up to COVID. "Why was the military involved? Because they knew the likelihood of a bioweapons attack was grossly, much larger, much higher, than a spread from some animal reservoir into humans. So they were heavily involved in the planning for this and it shows how we carried out all of the pandemic management. Because it was obviously twisted and contorted to be a military response rather than a public health response.

COPPER DEFICIENCY: Can cause "Loss of pigmentation," abnormal electrocardiograms, glucose intolerance, hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, hyperuricemia, injury by free radicals, and thrombosis in animals...

"Foods with high copper content include animal livers and shellfish..."  

The symptoms of copper deficiency overlap with hypothyroidism. Along with inadequate intake, a reduction in cytochrome c oxidase activity, regulated by thyroid hormone, may contribute to copper deficiency. Ruminant liver and oysters are the best sources.

"Copper deficiency is… pic.twitter.com/1muro1CpmO

— Danny Roddy (@dannyroddy) May 6, 2024

From the Jama Network's "Copper in Nuts May Lower Heart Disease Risk," Arch Intern Medicine, 1993, 153(3):402. 

Get copper from animal sources, like ruminant organ meats. 

 

"Copper deficiency is the only nutritional insult that has been shown to produce abnormal electrocardiograms, glucose intolerance, hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, hyperuricemia, injury by free radicals, and thrombosis in animals...

From "Copper deficiency in Humans," Annual Review Nutrition, 1988;8:235-257. 

"Loss of pigmentation might also be expected in chronic copper deficiency since this is a pronounced feature in most species." "Foods with high copper content include animal livers and shellfish..."  

 "Osteoporosis is another feature seen in all species." Anemia neopenia and osteoporosis have been the principal features."

Ruminant liver and oysters are the best sources.

Beef heart.

[RG911Team] Air Force Medic Kevin McPadden was near WTC Building 7 on 9/11… and so was Amy Goodman of @democracynow. What did they see and hear?

[RG911Team] Air Force Medic Kevin McPadden was near WTC Building 7 on 9/11… and so was Amy Goodman of @democracynow. What did they see and hear? pic.twitter.com/fnPWb1gLZI

— Richard Gage, AIA, Architect (@RichardGage_911) May 6, 2024

More on McPadden. 

ED HONES: 3 MOST-COMMON REASONS PEOPLE LOSE EMPLOYMENT LAWSUITS

 The speaker's name is Ed Hones.  He's good and he covers important work-related topics.  

Talk to a lawyer to get advice on your specific situation. 

LYING: #1 REASON WHY PEOPLE LOSE EMPLOYMENT LAWSUITS

Employment lawsuits are very difficult to win.  The burden of proof falls largely on the employee bringing the lawsuit; that means the employee has to prove everything.  The employee will have to disprove whatever the employer uses as a defense.  So, to win your case, your lawyer will need to carefully plan a strategy; to do that, they need to know everything.  EVERYTHING. Every case has good facts and bad facts.  Your lawyer needs to know both--the good, the bad, and the ugly.  

Most complaints are forthright about the good facts.  Bad facts are equally important some either don't tell the lawyer about bad facts or they lie about the bad facts.  Lawyers need to know the bad facts so they can get ahead of it early on, they can structure your complaint with specific communications, documents, and discovery, and oppose certain people and not others.  If your lawyer doesn't know about the bad facts until you're deep into the litigation process, it can be too late to do anything about it and that will tank your case.

HISTORY OF POOR PERFORMANCE:  #2 REASON WHY PEOPLE LOSE EMPLOYMENT LAWSUITS

How do employment lawsuits work for most lawsuits the courts use the burden of shifting analysis.  And that just means that the requirement to prove something switches between the parties.  First, the employee has a requirement to prove that they were discriminated against, retaliated, wrongfully terminated, or whatever.  And then it switches over to the employer, who will have the opportunity to prove some NON-DISCRIMINATORY REASON for doing whatever it did to the employee.  If the employer can successfully prove its non-discriminatory reason, well the employee loses the case.  What that boils down to is if the employer can prove that you were a crummy employee, you lose your case.  So obviously employers will claim this in every case.  They will claim the employee was a terrible worker, always late, always getting into trouble, having rude outbursts, and on and on and on.  If they are lying about it, your lawyer will have no problem disproving their lies.  But if they have evidence to show that you were a crummy employee, that can tank your case.  For example, say John Doe brings a claim of wrongful termination but his employer shows that John received two negative performance reviews over the past year received a disciplinary write-up for getting in a fight with a co-worker, and showed up late to work five times as evidenced by his time cards.  In that case, because the employer has so much evidence showing that he was a bad employee and that they had a legitimate reason to terminate him.

TIMING OF EVENTS: #3 REASON WHY PEOPLE LOSE EMPLOYMENT LAWSUITS

Some claims like retaliation or wrongful termination come down to the timing of events. To understand more about that, watch my videos on retaliation and wrongful termination.  To win cases like retaliation claims, the employee needs to show 2 things: first, that they engaged in a protected activity, and second, that their employer took an adverse action against them because of it.  So the sequence of events is going to be very important in claims like these because the employee has to show that they engaged in this protected activity first and that only after they engaged in that protected activity did the employer decide to take the adverse action against them.  So if the sequence of events works out, these cases are very easy to prove.  But sometimes a sequence of events will undermine the claim altogether because sometimes the employer will have evidence that it was planning the adverse action way before the employee engaged in this protected activity.  For example, Jane Doe feels like her managers are treating her differently because she's a woman.  So she writes a complaint to her company's HR department, and the next week the company fires Jane.  On its surface, this looks like an obvious case of retaliation because Jane engaged in protected activity when she sent that HR complaint and the employer terminated her right after.  But in this case unbeknownst to Jane or her lawyer, the company had been dealing with financial difficulties and had decided to lay off James hold Department a month before Jane made her complaint in that case if the company can prove with evidence of laying off Jane along with the rest of her Department a month before she submitted her complaint to HR then Jane is probably going to lose her lawsuit because the company could not have been motivated by Jane's complain before she made the complaint.

First, do not lie to your lawyer.  They need to know everything--the good, the bad, and the ugly.  

Second is poor performance.  If your employer can prove that you're a crummy employee, that can tank your case.  

Third and final reason is timing.  If your employer can prove that it made its decision to fire you BEFORE you engaged in any protected activity, it'll be hard to prove that the employer was motivated by your protected activity and that can sink your case too.