AUSTIN FITTS: November 1995, is when the FDA approved OxyContin and when HUD . . . radically upped the predatory lending and the mortgage guys . . . that's when the beat down on the poor neighborhoods really accelerated [with] the pill mills . . . and you had the private prison move with rounding up, and, Wow. Of course, the illegal drugs were pouring in.

Here is Fitts discussing the missing $20 trillion of taxpayer money specifically: https://t.co/MTcFJ2XMRg

— Sense Receptor (@SenseReceptor) September 9, 2024

"You have to depopulate the G7 nations...you can't keep the rackets going and have this many people. [And now you have] Larry Fink bragging about how [they've] created an economic model where with AI and automation, we can grow the economy with a shrinking population."

Investment banker, former HUD official, and founder of the Solari Report (

@solari_the

) Catherine Austin Fitts describes for Ryan Cristián (

@TLAVagabond

) how there was a "financial coup" of U.S. federal tax money that began in the fiscal quarter of 1998. This coup, which has now seen more than $20 trillion of taxpayer money go missing (between 1998 and 2015 alone), has come alongside a drop in life expectancy in the U.S. Fitts says that there was an attempt to balance the U.S. federal budget in 1995, but when that failed, that's when the FDA approved OxyContin and when HUD "radically upped the predatory lending and the mortgage guys." "If you look at life expectancy charts, that's exactly when life expectancy starts to turn down, first in the poor income groups, but then it accelerates dramatically during the pandemic," Fitts adds. "And if you look at our fertility...the only [country] who drops more [than we did] is China...And they had a one-child policy." Partial transcription of clip: "If you look at a building wealth reset versus direct going direct reset, essentially, here's the fundamental issue. If you look at how much the rackets are skimming from the economy, it is mind boggling. It's amazing that the wealth is as great as it is given the racket skim. So we have to dramatically reduce the racket skim Right. Or make it official and make it properly managed. Because right now, the racket skim is destroying productivity across the across the spectrum. So you have to reduce the racket skim or you have to somehow make it, you know, official and manage it properly, or you have to depopulate in the in the G7 nations. You have to do one or the other. You can't, you can't keep the rackets going and have this many people. "You know, it's interesting. The the financial coup started at the beginning of fiscal 1998. And but in the spring of 1997, the largest pension fund owner, president in the country, president of CalPERS, I was making a presentation on what I would now describe as the building wealth reset and how we could use new technology to make communities fantastically productive. Get government money out, dramatically reduce the deficit. And he looked at me and he said, 'You don't understand. It's too late. They've given up on the country.' I said, 'What do you mean it's too late?' He said 'They're moving all the money out starting in the fall.' "He said this to me in the spring of 1997. The fall of '97 is the beginning of the fiscal 1998 year, and that's when the money started to go missing. But it was clear to me that he was referring to they had given up. During 1995, there was a big effort to get the federal budget finally on a fiscally responsible basis. It ended up with a three-week budget war. You know, the government shut down, and, Rubin, as secretary of treasury went in and raided the exchange stabilization fund, which I think scared the guys who run the financial system to death because that's their sort of, you know, stash. And and I think that's when they gave up. And what was interesting is in the next month, November 1995, is when the FDA approved OxyContin and when HUD, you know, radically upped the predatory lending and the mortgage guys. And that's when the beat down on the poor neighborhoods really accelerated because they got the pill mills Right. The predatory lending, and you had the private prison move with rounding up and, wow. Of course, the illegal drugs were pouring in. "If you look at life expectancy charts, that's exactly when life expectancy starts to turn down, first in the poor income groups, but then it accelerates dramatically during the pandemic. And if you look at a chart of life expectancy in the 20 most industrialized countries, literally 19 look like this, and the United States looks like this. Wow. Now it's frightening. And if you look at our fertility, it also looks like this. The only one who drops more is China. Yeah. You know, and they had a one-child policy. Then so I have a new article called "Musings on Department of Defense," where I have those 2 charts, but I have a third video. And that's Larry Fink bragging about how we've now created an economic model where with AI and automation, we can grow the economy with the shrinking population."

Complete interview with Austin Fitts is here.

Preserve the mouth microbiome, don't kill it, for it is connected to your gut

“2 out of 3 Americans use Mouthwash”

Am starting to think there isn’t a single product out there that doesn’t harm us in some way. pic.twitter.com/NE4RJaUDoL

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) September 7, 2024 

Thank you to Wejolyn.  

International Journal of Dental Hygiene explains that,

Five controlled clinical studies were included. These studies found associations between the daily use of mouthwashes and changes in the oral microbiome, but the nature of the effect varied according to the mouthwash. Chlorhexidine (CHX) rinses lowered microbial diversity. While 7-day use of CHX led to increases in the abundance of Neisseria,  Streptococcus,  and Granulicatella and a decrease in the abundance of Actinomyces, its prolonged use led to widespread reductions in several genera and species. Cetylpyridinium chloride-containing mouthwashes specifically lowered the abundance of gingivitis-associated genera. In contrast, N-acetyl cysteine-based mouthwashes did not promote changes in the oral microbiome. 

but concludes that it "favors the resolution of dysbiosis."  Contradictory.  How can these mouthwashes resolve dysbiosis when 

Dr. Alex Rinehart reminds us that,

Our system is normally protected from unwanted bacteria by the acidity of the stomach from hydrochloric acid production, and in the small intestine from bile acids. Yet the system isn’t perfect, and doesn’t always stop inflammation and toxins from finding their way into the blood from the gums.   

The oral microbiome is quite diverse. There are up to 700 species of bacteria in the mouth at any given time (3) – surpassing the 300-500 species of bacteria found in the gut (4). The bacteria in the gums will differ from the bacteria on the lips, as well as the cheek surface, the tongue, or the upper palate.

. . .

With more growth of the acid-producing bacteria such as Streptococcus mutans – the pH change not only leaches calcium from tooth enamel as part of the buffering process – the calcium can only do so much before the mouth becomes increasingly acidic due to the high growth of lactic acid-producing bacteria.

. . . 

A number of conditions have been linked to imbalances in the oral microbiome including:

Appendicitis, pneumonia, inflammatory bowel disease, colorectal cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, pregnancy complications, brain infection, respiratory infection, as well as lung ,liver, or spleen inflammation

CATHERINE AUSTIN FITTS: Americans have "moved the political process out of the power zone and into the entertainment zone."

"You have to decide, do I wanna be entertained? And in that entertainment space; do I wanna get online and fight and argue with people about, you know, who's gonna win the election? Or do I wanna jump in and get involved in the nuts and bolts of implementing real change? ... I'm interested in real power and real change...I find the entertainment space stupefying." --Catherine Austin Fitts

"We've moved the political process out of the power zone and into the entertainment zone...And if you need any solution or real change, you gotta move back into the power zone."

Investment banker, former HUD official, and founder of the Solari Report (@solari_the) Catherine… pic.twitter.com/f8zyJgJ6Pi

— Sense Receptor (@SenseReceptor) September 9, 2024

"We've moved the political process out of the power zone and into the entertainment zone...And if you need any solution or real change, you gotta move back into the power zone." Investment banker, former HUD official, and founder of the Solari Report (

@solari_the

) Catherine Austin Fitts describes for Ryan Cristián (

@TLAVagabond

) how Americans have "moved the political process out of the power zone and into the entertainment zone." Fitts notes that "in the power zone, if I decide I don't like something, then I'm gonna go down to the county commission or I'm gonna go to the state legislature or I'm gonna go to Congress, and I'm gonna work to get it changed." The investment banker adds that we are so "overwhelmed with consumer choices," however, that "politics [has] slowly migrated to the entertainment space." "You have to decide: Do I wanna be entertained and in that entertainment space? Do I wanna get online and fight and argue with people about, you know, who's gonna win the election? Or do I wanna jump in and get involved in the nuts and bolts of implementing real change?" Partial transcription of clip: "We've moved the political process out of the power zone into the entertainment zone...And if you need any solution or real change, you gotta move back into the power zone. "In the power zone, if I decide I don't like something, then I'm gonna go down to the county commission or I'm gonna go to the state legislature or I'm gonna go to Congress, and I'm gonna work to get it changed in the real actual mechanism that determines how the money gets whacked up and the resources get whacked up and what the laws are. "So I'm either gonna do it as an individual or I'm gonna figure out the groups that are do you know, taking it the right way, and I'm gonna work with them and support them. It's, you know, there are many different ways to go about it. It depends on the issue. But I'm gonna there there is a mechanism by which power is organized and allocated. And, in the legislative process and the administrative process, there is a law and regulation mechanism, and then the real powerful mechanism is the budget. "So you whack up the credit and you whack up the appropriations, you whack up the taxes. So when I was in Washington, I had one of the biggest budget jobs because I was overseeing the mortgage markets and the federal credit in the mortgage markets and all of those assets. I stopped watching TV from 1984 and I had a decorator who insisted you can't work in the government without TV. So she bought me a TV.

I had one for a brief period of time, and I would watch the Sunday shows. And I knew because I was working with the budget, everything that was happening pretty much in the budget in my area, but in related areas in the general budget. And and on the, you know, the Sunday shows, here's what's going on in the budget, and here's what the shows are saying, and they're two parallel universes. "I'll never forget realizing this, when I watched in the nineties as people who used to have real political impact and choices literally migrated from a world where they had political power and had influence and their vote had influence to a world where their their entire desire for choice and impact was satisfied by consumer choices. They were overwhelmed with consumer choices, and politics was slowly migrated to an entertainment space. "You have to decide, do I wanna be entertained? And in that entertainment space; do I wanna get online and fight and argue with people about, you know, who's gonna win the election? Or do I wanna jump in and get involved in the nuts and bolts of implementing real change? ... I'm interested in real power and real change...I find the entertainment space stupefying." 

 

If there isn't enough evidence and information surrounding the dangers and illegalities of not just the code injection but all injections that are falsely called vaccines it may be important to take a new look at the term anaphylaxis a term normally reserved for a serious allergic reaction that has a rapid onset and is life-threatening and requires immediate medical attention, or so we've been told.  But hold on.  In reviewing the work of 1913 Nobel Prize winner, Charles Richet, biotech expert and analyst, Sasha Latypova, and legal expert Katherine Watt have a broader take on this condition because they believe it may be at the center of what is injuring people and killing them in this mass genocide operation.  Let's take a closer look and welcome once again to the show Sasha Latypova.  

2:25. How did you and Katherine Watt get interested to even dig into this topic, and why do you think it's important right now?

2:30.  Katherine has been working on a very large project going back through vaccine-related laws of the United States all the way back to the 1700s, so she and another collaborator are writing what she calls "a beast of a" report on how all these laws and this entire framework have been put in place and specifically looking at definitions.  As you know, definitions are very important, like what is a vaccine?  What is a virus? etc, because definitions in law are basically everything.  So that work is ongoing, and as part of this work, she came across Richet's Nobel Prize and she sent me originally his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, a lecture, which I read and I was shocked by it.  And then I decided to research it further, and I actually went into the archives and I found his book that he published in 1913, he published his book, and I provided several screenshots from it on my sub stack when I wrote about this so I read his book and I kind of understand what he did and the conclusions that he made he also sites other authors working on the same area at the same time.

4:00. Who was this guy was he a scientist was he a money guy Charles Richet?

4:07. Yeah at the turn of the 20th century I would classify him as a sort of there were a lot of these gentleman scientists so people who had independent financial means and they were interested in different topics of science so he seemed to have been very well connected of the original story says that the Prince of Monaco invited him on his yacht which was a huge ship that was traveling in the Mediterranean and he went to research the jellyfish, the Man of War, the very dangerous jellyfish and so from then on when they returned he started working with different poisons that he made from similar things so getting them out of War was kind of difficult so he created what he himself called virus of Actinaria.  Turns out, the virus of Actinaria is basically the tentacles of a sea anemone dissolved in glycerine.  At that time, the definition of "virus" was poison.  So he made poison, and he described how he made it, and he called it a virus, which was the scientific nomenclature at the time and this whole methodology this particle that infects and flies around and you get it from casual contact.  That wasn't there.  It was already well understood that that doesn't happen, and viruses are something you inject to poison.  That's what he was doing in his laboratory experiments he mostly worked on dogs he poisoned a lot of dogs and other people that he collaborated with or knew about who worked with rodents, rabbits, guinea pigs, and sometimes other animals. Turns out white mice and some breeds of rats do not experience anaphylaxis.  Isn't it surprising that they are the staple of pharmaceutical research?

6:10. You also mentioned that he was at that turn of the century the group of eugenicists, he wasn't doing this to help mankind, or did he find out I guess, did anybody have success stories in terms of health so that those mice, the animals that do not experience that abrupt serious allergic reaction, why?  Do they have something that we don't have?

6:40. They did not know.  I think they just figured out that these breeds don't experience anaphylaxis, and said, well, we're not going to work with them because we are interested in the anaphylaxis.  In addition to his interest in anaphylaxis and vaccination or early attempts at vaccination, he was a committed eugenicist.  He thought that black people were inferior, and he was actually a president of a Eugenics Society in Europe, I think in France.  At that time, eugenics was a fashionable conservative position in high society, so almost everybody, if you read the literature which I do from the early 20th century, you will see that high society, well-to-do social economic classes are all eugenicists and this is acceptable; it's considered a proper conservative point of view.

7:38. I agree with you I've been inspired by the work of Scott Shara who's done a whole bunch of work originally to avenge his daughter's Grace's hospital murder.  But he ends up stumbling and digging into finding that this was all part of the greater eugenicist movement.  It was a very proper thing to do.  You wanted a healthier race.  People just missed that whole, they fell into it, the masses, thinking that it was going to be something good for them.  

8:10. Right it's a little bit of a digression but it's important to understand this stems from Darwinism by the way and there was a lot of scientific debate at the time it wasn't a centrally so the concern of these rich people was how do we prevent these poor classes that were dirty and inferior from overbreeding.  That was their main concern and actually, Darwin was against that not because he was some humanitarian his position was that if we prevent them from over-breeding then we don't have the competitive evolutionary selection if you read the literature at that time it's really fascinating but it shows where these ideas come from yes it came from the richer classes the more well-to-do classes, who called themselves "well-bred" from trying to limit and prevent over breeding of poor classes, which they associated with infectious diseases, epidemics, general dirty stuff, crime, that was their attempt to limit it.  So they devised all these methods and Richet was working in it although in the book at least he doesn't say explicitly his goals, he just lays out the scientific stuff.  I think they were working on how they can figure out how, we can prevent epidemics and limit the reproduction of the dirty classes.

Actor Robert Reed, who played Mike Brady, "America's Favorite Dad" on The Brady Bunch, 1969-1974, played a physician on Medical Center, 1975, who underwent sexual reassignment

Robert Reed, 1932-1992, co-starred in the Brady Bunch, as America's favorite dad from 1969-1974.  In 1975, all that changed with his appearance on Medical Center, starring Chad Everett.  Reed won an Emmy for this role as a transgender.  The movement was well on its way in 1975.  Reed, by the way, died of AIDS.

Got to love these promo pieces, 

After The Brady Bunch ended in 1974, actor Robert Reed (Mike Brady) showed off his acting chops and played a doctor who wants to go through a sex change operation in a touching episode of the TV series Medical Center. There is both pre-op and post-op footage of the episode available on YouTube from Conelrad. The two-part episode aired in 1975 and was called the The Fourth Sex. It was clearly ahead of its time and earned Reed an Emmy nomination. 

"Ahead of its time"?  WTF does that mean?  This was a sick trend imposed on sick professionals.  It is true that in some circles this somehow got to be vogue.  So who is promoting this, allowing this to be put on primetime?  What makes me sick is that these "coming out" episodes are all about the character "revealing their true self," as if they'd been hiding it for so long.  Hiding it from whom?  They always play the victim.  

Who are some of the most significant contributors to the transgender movement?  --Jennifer Bilek

Gilead Sciences emerges as a leading supporter of LGBT issues, with other notable contributors including George Soros’ Open Society, Gill, Arcus, Ford, Astraea, Tides, Evelyn and Walter Haas, David Bohnett, Wells Fargo, and Pride Foundations.

BTW, Gilead Sciences owns Remdesiver.   

These entities are prominent funders of the agenda to deconstruct human reproductive sex. The Arcus Foundation, backed by the founders’ stock in the $130 billion medical corporation, extends its support to organizations such as the Astraea Foundation, and it plays a pivotal role in creating a political infrastructure. This infrastructure supports organizations like GLSEN, which introduces gender ideology in schools, and GLAAD, which is responsible for shaping media discourse on this industry by promoting it as a ‘human right.’ The funding also supports the Victory Institute, which trains leaders for political roles that can influence policies to support the industry. MAP is another foundation that tracks the philanthropic funding cultivated by these organizations.