Is Divisiveness an Archaic Survival Mechanism?

We’ve all heard the saying, “’A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Under most circumstances, this seems to make perfect sense. However, lately I’ve begun to wonder if there are situations in which the opposite is true. Imagine a perfectly unified tribe in which every member gives his unquestioning allegiance to the tribe’s leader or leadership council. Now imagine that, in the face of an existential threat, the tribe’s leadership makes a fatal error of judgement. In this situation, one can imagine that a group of dissidents that take a different or even opposing course of action could ensure the tribe’s survival while the majority join together in going to their ruin.

Consider the case of the Nantucket Whaleship Essex, which, in 1820, was rammed and sunk by a bull sperm whale 2,000 nautical miles west of South America. This obliged the crew to set forth in their small whaling chase boats with limited provisions and water. The navigator estimated that the closest land was the Marquesas Islands, 1,200 miles to the west. With favorable winds and currents setting in that direction, the crew would likely reach the islands in less than two weeks. This was the course that Captain Pollard wished to take.

However, because the first mate, Owen Chase, and most of the other men were afraid of encountering cannibals in the Marquesas, they decided it would be better to sail 1,000 miles south in order to catch the westerlies back east, over another 3,000 miles of open ocean to South America, for a total distance of 4,000 miles. For most of the men, this proved to be a fatal decision, and the fact that it was driven by fear of cannibalism proved to be the cruelest of ironies.

Dr. McCullough and I often wonder why, in recent years, we have—by instinct, discernment, and critical evaluation—viewed the world through such an unorthodox lens. Could it be that, under certain circumstances, the group that holds the heterodox view is the more likely to survive?

“Which way should we sail, mates? 4,000 miles to South America, or 1,000 miles to the Marquesas?”

Why you should NOT get the flu vaccine

Get Your 2022-2023 Flu Vaccine Today! - Medical Associates of the Hudson  Valley

My advice? Just say NO! There is no measurable mortality benefit, but there is a clear mortality risk. Plus, you have a 4X higher risk of getting non-flu viruses after the jab. It would be nonsensical to take the jab.

My doctor told me I should get the flu vaccine because the flu can kill people and by taking the vaccine, it will reduce your risk of death. That sounded compelling to me, so I always took the shot when offered.

I now realize that was a big mistake. I regret the error.

To solidify the point, I did a Twitter post recently asking if there was any evidence that anyone should get the flu vaccine.

There wasn’t anything compelling that came back showing I should get the flu vaccine. Are you surprised?

Instead, what I did get back was a lot of compelling evidence that would dissuade anyone from getting the flu vaccine. I think you’ll find the list very interesting!

The bottom line is you should never get any vaccine without first seeing the all-cause risk benefit data.

I rarely go to the @CDCgov Twitter account, but I checked it out today just to see the latest misinformation they are spreading. I’ve found it actually educational since you can often do extremely well by listening to what they advise and doing the opposite.

Here’s the most recent tweet:

So in other words, your risk of flu is now near zero, so plan right now to get a flu shot this fall. I wasn’t able to find the risk/benefit calculation for some reason. Still working on that.

So I posted this:

Here is the study referenced in the tweet which admitted that for over 50 years, there were no studies showing the flu vaccine worked for healthcare workers.

From my Medicare article, check out this chart:

See the 475 deaths on day 0 of the flu shot? That’s impossible for a safe vaccine. It kills around 10 people per million which is 10X higher than what a safe vaccine is supposed to do. This is why the CDC doesn’t let anyone see the Medicare records. They keep them under lock and key.

So basically, there are the risks the CDC never tells you about. Is there a death benefit? No death benefit has ever been established.

So we’re pretty much done right there. No need to read further. But there’s more…

The responses I received on Twitter were also very enlightening.

My favorite response was from James Lyons-Weiler who pointed me to this study: Increased risk of noninfluenza respiratory virus infections associated with receipt of inactivated influenza vaccine which showed the flu vax makes you over 4X more likely to get infected with a non-influenza virus. The result is highly statistically significant. Isn’t that interesting? It reminds me of the COVID vaccine where they looked only at the change in COVID infections instead of looking at the change in anything else (like cancers, heart attacks, death, etc).

Did your doctor warn you about that???

Nobody provided any proof that flu vaccines worked.

There was one person claiming proof, but this does not use a DB RCT. It’s a correlation only. The Turtles book does an awesome job of explaining why this is flawed in their chapter on epidemiology. Basically, to show causality, you need to have a mechanism (which we do) and repeated correlations such as in different countries. The book is great because it gives excellent examples on how epidemiologists are not fooled by a single example like this one.

So to show causation, it would have to be repeated in other countries at a minimum. But that isn’t the case as shown in the Our World In Data article.

I bet you cannot tell from the graph below which year they introduced the flu vaccine in the US. And that’s exactly the point.

My second favorite response was from Professor Norman Fenton who linked his video showing the vaccine trick that no health authority will dare explain. In his short video, he shows how the US and UK governments can make a vaccine with 0% efficacy appear to have an efficacy of 86% (2 week delay) or 94.4% efficacy (3 week wait for the vaccine to become effective). Did you realize this?

My third favorite linked to the Cochrane review of the flu for older adults saying the infection risk reduction benefit of 58% was based on low-quality evidence and there was basically no reliable data on a hospitalization or mortality benefit. They wrote:

The study providing data for mortality and pneumonia was underpowered to detect differences in these outcomes.

In short, my doctor did not convey accurate information to me at all.

Then there was the Our World in Data page on the flu which said:

The total number of deaths from influenza has been roughly stable in the United States over the last 65 years.

Then there was the Peter Doshi article saying the same thing I’m saying:

And there was another paper showing that there is a huge discrepancy in the health of the vaccinated and unvaccinated population such that any benefit of vaccination cannot be reliably measured. In fact, if you look at the diagram, the unvaxxed got the exact same relative risk reduction during flu seasons as the vaxxed!!! This is really stunning because the slopes are similar. In other words, whether you were vaxxed or unvaxxed, you got about the same relative benefit (it’s all seasonality) which is why observational studies can’t see the signal; you need DB RCTs which nobody is doing!

Here are some of the other excellent responses:

Flu infections in Australia have been steadily increasing!

The real prophylactic treatment for influenza is NAC. It massively protects from symptomatic influenza episodes.

See this clinical trial:

“The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effect of long-term treatment with NAC on influenza and influenza-like episodes. A total of 262 subjects of both sexes (78% > or = 65 yrs, and 62% suffering from nonrespiratory chronic degenerative diseases) were enrolled in a randomized, double-blind trial involving 20 Italian Centres. They were randomized to receive either placebo or NAC tablets (600 mg) twice daily for 6 months. Patients suffering from chronic respiratory diseases were not eligible, to avoid possible confounding by an effect of NAC on respiratory symptoms. NAC treatment was well tolerated and resulted in a significant decrease in the frequency of influenza-like episodes, severity, and length of time confined to bed. Both local and systemic symptoms were sharply and significantly reduced in the NAC group. Frequency of seroconversion towards A/H1N1 Singapore 6/86 influenza virus was similar in the two groups, but only 25% of virus-infected subjects under NAC treatment developed a symptomatic form, versus 79% in the placebo group. Evaluation of cell-mediated immunity showed a progressive, significant shift from anergy to normoergy following NAC treatment. Administration of N-acetylcysteine during the winter, thus, appears to provide a significant attenuation of influenza and influenza-like episodes, especially in elderly high-risk individuals. N-acetylcysteine did not prevent A/H1N1 virus influenza infection but significantly reduced the incidence of clinically apparent disease.”

De Flora S, Grassi C, Carati L. Attenuation of influenza-like symptomatology and improvement of cell-mediated immunity with long-term N-acetylcysteine treatment. Eur Respir J. 1997 Jul;10(7):1535-41.

There is no clear mortality benefit. There may be an infection benefit, but that seems unlikely.

You need a DB RCT to see the benefits.

There is a reason they don’t do the DB RCTs to prove the vaccine works. Can you guess what it is? Could it be because they don’t want to expose the fact that the vaccines don’t work.

Of course, today they can argue that they are not allowed to test whether the vaccine works or not because they can’t have a true placebo group because it would not be the standard of care.

Convenient, isn’t it?

So based on the rules, we’ll never be able to use a DB RCT to determine whether the vaccine works or not. They like it that way. No complaints from the drug companies on that one!

The best piece of advice I can offer is always demand to see the all-cause risk benefit data before you consent to getting a vaccine, any vaccine. Note: This has never been done for any vaccine.

Share

How to Save Your Life and Those You Love When Hospitalized

Download Interview Transcript | Download my FREE Podcast | Video Link

  • Laura Bartlett and Greta Crawford have founded an organization to address the forced treatments patients receive when they’re hospitalized for COVID-19, but the same strategy can be used to protect yourself against other medical hazards as well

  • The Caregivers and Consent document they created is an “advance decision” document. So, the moment you enter the hospital, the hospital staff know what they can and cannot do to you; they are legally required to respect your current care decisions. And unlike an Advance Directive (which only kicks in when you are incapacitated) the Caregivers and Consent document goes into effect immediately

  • It’s important to complete and notarize your Caregivers and Consent document BEFORE you ever need to go to the hospital

  • Make sure you send the completed, signed and notarized document to the CEO of the hospital in two ways: (1) via a professional courier (one that specializes in delivering legal documents); and (2) via the Postal system with certified mail, return receipt requested. The CEO is responsible for all legal business relating to the hospital, including the medical records, so the CEO, not your attending physician, is the one whose responsibility it is to get your consent document entered into your electronic medical record

  • Make at least 10 copies of the signed, notarized document and keep one copy on your person, in case you ever have an accident or acute illness requiring hospitalization. Also provide copies to the attending physician and nurse once hospitalized

  • Also, should you become hospitalized (and therefore unable to personally send the document to the CEO), designate a family member or friend to send your Caregivers and Consent document on your behalf. Additional recommendations to ensure your safety are included

Visit Mercola Market

Advertisement

In this interview, Laura Bartlett and Greta Crawford detail how you can protect yourself from one of the top contributors to premature death, namely conventional hospital care. The key here is to understand what the dangers are and take proactive measures to guard yourself and your family from them.

Nearly 10 years ago, I interviewed Dr. Andrew Saul, author of “Hospitals and Health: Your Orthomolecular Guide to a Shorter, Safer Hospital Stay,” in which he details how to minimize your risk of being a victim of a medical error.

First and foremost, Saul recommended making sure you have a patient advocate, someone who can speak on your behalf if you’re incapacitated and make sure you’re receiving the correct medication and treatment. During COVID, however, family or friends were not allowed into the hospital, and patients were routinely bullied into treatments they did not want or consent to.

The good news is, Bartlett and Crawford have developed a legal document that, when served to the hospital in the proper way, can ensure that your medical wishes are honored. By eliminating any confusion about your consent (or denial of consent), this document can literally save your life.

Bartlett and Crawford have founded an organization to address the lethal and, in many cases, forced treatments patients receive when they’re hospitalized for COVID-19, but the same strategy can be used to protect yourself against other medical hazards as well. Crawford explains:

“I created a website called ProtocolKills.com. This came after I was in the hospital with COVID. In the process of going to the hospital, I was denied informed consent and was completely unaware of some of the things they were doing to me. I was given five rounds of remdesivir, which nearly took my life, and I did not even know that I was being poisoned at the time …

During that time in the hospital, I went from thinking I was going to go home after I got oxygen to actually feeling like that I was going to die. I was almost certain I was going to die after being given just the first dose of remdesivir …

[And then there was] the constant push for the vaccine in the hospital, the harassment for not getting vaxxed, and the fact that I was given medication without my knowledge at all, which led me to start the website to not only inform people about what was going on, but [as] a platform to allow other victims who were not as fortunate as me.

Many of them, the majority of them, did not make it out alive. So, it’s a platform for them to share their story. We have over 250 stories on there about what they faced in the hospital. We really wanted to get this information out there to the public, but we also wanted to give a solution, not just to scare people. And that’s where I ended up meeting Laura.”

Bartlett continues:

“Before I met Greta at the beginning of COVID, in early 2020, I started helping my brother, Dr. Richard Bartlett, who had a protocol utilizing inhaled budesonide steroid as part of his protocol to treat COVID early. We also found it very effective once people were in the hospital to help reverse [the infectious process] and also the scarring and the inflammation of the lungs.

There are instances where it even helped people who were on ventilators as long as 30 days come off the ventilator and go home. So, I was helping him get that message out in early 2020. I’m not a doctor. I’m not a nurse. I’m just somebody who could help get that known around the world. My background is in media PR …

In the process, people who knew my brother, knew me, started reaching out to both of us with stories that they were in the hospital and they were having a hard time getting the doctor to respect their right to informed consent. It was an overwhelming number of instances where people just felt like they were being bullied or coerced, that their right to try budesonide, for instance, was just dismissed.

And it was almost as if informed consent didn’t exist. But in fact, it never went away. Even during the COVID shielding for hospitals, informed consent between the doctor and the patient never went away. You always had the right to informed consent.

So that’s where my work started. In the process, since there were so many people reaching out for help, I thought, ‘Well, why doesn’t somebody come up with a way for people to quickly access some information of what their rights are and their patient rights?’

So, I started a nationwide hotline, called the Hospital Hostage Hotline [call or text 888-c19-emergency, or 888-219-3637]. It’s still in effect. I still get calls from all over the country. And I’ve been able to help people who went in even for non-COVID reasons like a urinary tract infection that was [also] diagnosed as COVID, and they were being pushed towards a protocol and told they couldn’t leave the hospital.

They needed to know they could, that they always had the right to leave AMA — Against Medical Advice — if that’s what they chose. They also have the right to either consent or not consent to things and it should be respected. I realized that one of the biggest tools for getting that informed consent notice to the doctor was not to just verbally say it, but to have it in writing. These aren’t my original ideas.

I actually had a hospital insider reach out … somebody who had been in the system and knew how to navigate the system at a high level in administration, give me some tips and tools on how to navigate the hospital system to make sure that informed consent was not only documented and delivered effectively to get into the electronic medical record, but also, what their basic patient rights were and how to advocate for them.”

One drawback of signing an AMA is that insurance won’t pay for your treatment. That threat will often keep patients in the hospital because they’ll have to pay out of pocket. So, it can be used against you.

“Profit has been a big factor in a lot of suffering,” Bartlett says. “Patients were afraid to leave because they were told, like in the instance of a gentleman that I was helping in New Jersey who went in for a urinary tract infection.

He was an elderly man. This was early 2020. They quickly tested him for COVID and started him on that road towards a ventilator. And they told him flat out, ‘If you leave, none of this will be covered by insurance.’ So that was a big factor.”

Hospitals may also misinform you about your AMA rights, as we’ve seen repeatedly during COVID. More often than not, the hospital’s reluctance to release a patient has to do with protecting its revenues. Bartlett offers the following story to illustrate:

“Somebody that I was helping advocate for said the doctor actually said to them, ‘You cannot leave.’ This person was 15 or 16 days into their COVID diagnosis and they were feeling better. They were likely not COVID positive …

That’s where the name of the hotline came from. They actually felt like hostages. That’s what they were reporting to me. ‘I feel like I’m held prisoner.’ But in fact, they always had the right to leave a hospital whenever they chose to. It’s not up to the doctor when they can leave. They have to make that medical choice for themselves, whether or not they feel like they can leave.”

Patients clearly need a way to put themselves back in the driver’s seat, and the novel medical consent document Bartlett and Crawford created, available on OurPatientRights.com, is the most powerful way I’ve seen so far to do that. As explained by Bartlett:

“What we learned from this whole ordeal over the last couple of years is that there was a need for a novel document that did not exist, to our knowledge, that covers your written consent. A document that documents your current consent, not an advance directive that kicks in after you’re incapacitated.

Before you go into the hospital, write down your consent wishes so that everybody involved in your care within the hospital will have eyes on it because it’s put into your electronic medical record. It’s notarized. It’s signed before you go in. That’s the key. So do it while you have full capacity.

It’s a novel strategy. I’m so grateful to the hospital insider who saw the problem and helped us navigate the system, so that we have an insider’s perspective on how to do this to keep people safe.”

As noted by Crawford, while COVID-19 may seem like a distant memory, people are still being hospitalized and diagnosed with COVID, and are being held hostage by a hostile medical system seemingly intent on milking them for all their worth, until death, if need be.

This is where filing a written medical consent form can help save your life. No doctor can override your written decision (consent) declining certain medications or treatments. Verbal communication is not enough. It must be in writing, notarized and delivered in a manner that formally serves the hospital and puts their physicians on notice.

As explained by Bartlett, when you enter a hospital, you must sign a general consent authorization form. This is basically a contract between you and the hospital. Since you have bodily autonomy, they need your consent before they can do anything to you.

Typically, the general consent form authorizes hospital staff to test, treat and care for you in whatever way they see fit — and when a patient signs the general consent authorization, physicians feel justified that they can implement a hospital protocol without further explaining the risks, benefits or alternatives of that protocol to the patient.

Now, if you’re well enough to read the entire document, and see something in there that you don’t agree with, you can strike the sentence or paragraph and initial it, to indicate that you do not consent to that specific detail. However, that still doesn’t offer you much protection.

What you need is a much more specific document where you detail the types of treatments you consent to and the ones you don’t. You need to carve out a niche from the general consent form that specifies exactly what you do (and do not) consent to. And you need to be clear. Fortunately, the Caregivers and Consent document carves out that niche to communicate clearly to all physicians your exact consent wishes.

“You need a written consent document that, in addition to just the general consent, is a contract between you and the doctor, so he knows, he’s put on notice, what it is that you absolutely do not consent to. For instance, a COVID injection, if that’s your wishes,” Bartlett explains.

“They have a code of ethics, the American Medical Association guidance to physicians, per the ethics opinion 2.1.1, that when the patient surrogate has provided specific written consent, the consent form should be included in the record. This is key. Write it down. You don’t need an attorney. You don’t need any fancy training. You don’t need to be a doctor, don’t need to be a nurse.

You can write it down, and then, when you deliver it in our specific way — and it’s very important how you deliver it — it gets put into the electronic medical record for everybody to see. Now you’ve got receipts, that if you do something against consent, it’s intentional. OK?

So, here’s the website you can find a template for that. It’s called OurPatientRights.com. What you’ll see there are two PDF documents. [On one of the PDFs there are two pages.] One is the actual template, the other one is instructions on how to deliver it. And you can edit the document by the way. You can write your own. It’s just a template. But there’s also very specific instructions on how you are going to deliver this so it’s not disregarded.

Here’s what you’re going to see in the document. ‘I [your name] advise all physicians, nurses, and other caregivers that this Caregivers and Consent document reflects my current wishes for my care and are carefully planned and intentional wishes.’ That’s very important because it’s current. It’s not going to kick in when I’m incapacitated.”

Advance medical directives don’t kick in until or unless you’re incapacitated, so that’s another completely different kind of document reflecting current consent wishes. What Bartlett and Crawford have created is an “advance decision” document. So, the moment you enter the hospital, they know what they can and cannot do to you. And, they are legally required to respect your written directives. The following section of the document reads:

“Receipt of this Caregivers and Consent document by the hospital serves as notice that I will report to the Medical Board any physician who violates my carefully planned and intentional wishes that are based upon my deeply held religious and spiritual beliefs and are delineated within this Caregivers and Consent document.”

This puts the doctor on notice. This isn’t a threat. It’s merely a factual statement that if anyone goes against your wishes, they’re intentionally disregarding your consent. Once it’s in your electronic medical record, they can’t say they didn’t know that you did not consent to a specific test, drug, vaccine or procedure. So, ignoring your written consent is then actually a criminal offense akin to assault and battery. It’s also medical malpractice.

“Let me tell you, there are good physicians and they are clamoring for something like this,” Bartlett says. “They are thankful there is something they can use to push back against administration and say, ‘I’m not going to violate this person’s written consent. I’m not going to do this to this person …’

With these documents, if you are blatantly refusing to honor a patient’s wishes and religious beliefs, and you’re doing it against these documented legal forms, then you risk losing your license altogether as a physician and never working in medicine again …

But you need it in writing … and it needs to be served in a very specific way. You need to do this before you ever go to the hospital. Have it handy in case you get yourself into a predicament, like a multi-car pileup on the highway and an ambulance transports you to the hospital. The time to have this done is before there’s a problem.”

The document also specifies that “All items in this Caregivers and Consent document shall remain in effect unless I choose to revoke in writing; no one else may alter or amend this Caregivers and Consent document.” So there can be no misunderstanding. Your doctor or nurse cannot claim you gave implied consent because you mumbled something incoherent in your sleep. In other words, if you didn’t change your consent wishes in writing, you didn’t change your consent wishes. Period.

As mentioned, you can customize your Caregivers and Consent document any way you like. But to give people a starting point, the template, available on OurPatientRights.com, includes things like:

  • “I do not consent to the use of medications without my being informed of each medication’s risks, benefits and alternatives before they are ordered. Only after that information is communicated shall I choose to either grant consent or to not grant consent for each and every medication that is ordered.”

  • “I do not consent to receiving any vaccine or booster for COVID-19 or COVID-19 variant.”

  • “I do not consent to receiving the seasonal flu vaccine.”

  • “I request and consent to the use of 1 mg of budesonide via nebulizer every 4 to 6 hours for COVID-19 or COVID-19 variant diagnosis with respiratory issues.”

If you want to, you could change the verbiage to state that you do not consent to ANY vaccine. If you have allergies, add that to the list. Personally, I would recommend adding the following dietary notice:

  • “I do not consent to receiving ANY processed food, such as high-fructose corn syrup or seed oils. The only acceptable oil for me is butter, ghee, beef tallow or coconut oil. Acceptable forms of protein would be eggs, lamb, bison, beef or non-farmed seafood; but they must not be prepared with seed oils. If the hospital is unable to provide this food for me, my family or friends will bring it for me.

  • Additionally, I do not consent to not being able to take my normal supplements while in the hospital.”

I would strongly recommend that you integrate this additional clause because it’s a stealth form of abuse. These kinds of foods can only impair your effort to get well, no matter what your problem is. You may also want to add a notice saying you do not consent to receive blood donations from COVID-19 vaccinated donors, and that all blood donations must be from donors confirmed to have not received any COVID-19 vaccines.

As mentioned multiple times in this interview, it’s crucial to follow the proper procedure. Here’s a summary of the necessary steps:

  1. Complete your customized and personalized Caregivers and Consent form BEFORE you ever need to go to the hospital.

  2. Get the form notarized. Make sure you sign the form in front of the notary.

  3. Send the completed, signed, notarized form to the CEO of the hospital in two ways: (1) via a professional courier (one that specializes in delivering legal documents); and (2) via the Postal system with certified mail, return receipt requested.

    The CEO is responsible for all legal business relating to the hospital, including the medical records, so the CEO, not your attending physician, is the one whose responsibility it is to get your consent forms entered into your electronic medical record.

  4. Make at least 10 copies of the signed, notarized form and keep one copy on your person or in your wallet or purse, and another in the glove compartment of your car, in case you ever have an accident. Also provide copies to family or friends. If you happen to be hospitalized before you’ve had the chance to send the documents, have one of them follow the delivery procedure outlined on the General Instructions form.

  5. Once you’re hospitalized, you or one of your contacts will give one copy to your attending physician and another to your nurse, and inform them that this document is already in your electronic medical record, or that the hospital will be served the documents shortly. Distribute additional copies to other care providers as needed.

  6. Also, upon hospitalization, request to see your electronic medical record to make sure your Caregivers and Consent form has been entered. It is your right to see your electronic medical record, and it’s available through an online portal, so don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

    Also routinely check your medical record (or have your patient advocate do it for you) to make sure your wishes are being followed and that you’re not being given something you’ve denied consent for.

Crawford notes:

“What we’ve experienced using these documents is a complete change in the attending physician, from being aggressive and maybe trying to push you, to being very helpful and efficient. Once they receive these documents, they just do a 180. As a matter of fact, one patient’s brother told me he’s getting treated better than he’s ever been treated at a hospital before.”

Again, having this document in your medical record virtually guarantees that they cannot harm you by doing something you don’t agree with. Of course, some psychopath might ignore your directives, but they’ll have to pay a hefty price, as they’re guaranteed to lose a malpractice suit and be stripped of their medical license. The legal consequences are so severe that the person doing it would have to be beyond irrational.

Keep in mind that while you can request and consent to certain treatments, such as ivermectin, for example, this document CANNOT force your doctor or hospital to use that treatment. They can still refuse to administer something you’ve consented to.

They cannot, however, administer something that you’ve declined consent for. The ace up your sleeve at that point is that you can still sign out AMA (against medical advice), get out alive, and seek desired treatment elsewhere. Getting out alive is the key goal.

Again, here are the three resources created by Bartlett and Crawford:

  • ProtocolKills.com — Here you can find a hospital protocol for COVID, information about remdesivir, patient rights information, alternative health care options and patient testimonies

  • OurPatientRights.com — Here you can download the template for the Caregivers and Consent document and general instructions

  • Hospital Hostage Hotline — Call or text 888-c19-emergency, or 888-219-3637

In closing, please share this information with everyone you know. Bring it to your church, synagogue and local community groups. Everyone needs to know they can secure their patient right to informed consent and how to do it so that their wishes cannot be ignored. This is the most effective way to empower yourself when it comes to your medical care. So please, help spread the word.

Subscribe to Mercola Newsletter

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

The Use of EMF Filters for Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

Download Interview Transcript |Download my FREE Podcast | Video Link

  • If you’re Type 1 or Type 2 diabetic and are electrically hypersensitive, your blood sugar may increase when you’re exposed to dirty electricity

  • Risk factors for electromagnetic hypersensitivity include spinal cord damage, whiplash, brain damage, concussion, chemical and heavy metal toxicity, impaired immune function and bacterial or parasitic infections such as Lyme

  • Dirty electricity has been shown to worsen multiple sclerosis (MS), and many MS patients report improvement when installing EMF filters to remove dirty electricity from their environment

  • Dirty electricity may also worsen asthma, heart problems, anxiety, infertility, tinnitus and other health problems

  • Test reveal microwave radiation causes red blood cells to aggregate and clump together, which can raise your risk of stroke, heart attack and other health problems

Visit Mercola Market

Advertisement

Editor’s Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published September 9, 2018.

In this interview, Magda Havas, Ph.D., discusses the benefits of electromagnetic field (EMF) filters. These devices are particularly important for those who are electrosensitive.

Most people just don’t want to believe EMFs are problematic because electricity and electric, wireless devices are so incredibly convenient and provide us with many logistical benefits. Most public health authorities also insist EMFs are safe. I was initially a skeptic myself, as was Havas.

I intellectually acknowledged there might be cause for concern, but I thought I could simply sidestep any danger by living a healthy lifestyle. Then, about a year and a half ago, I attended a presentation by Havas and Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt, which served as a powerful catalyst for changing my views — to the point I started taking aggressive steps to remediate and lower my exposure to EMFs.

Havas is an associate professor at Trent University in Canada. Initially, her research focus was acid rain and metal pollution. In 1990, while teaching a course called “Pollution Ecology,” she decided to include electrosmog as well.

“I had heard that children who live near power lines have an increased risk of developing leukemia,” Havas says. “I thought this would be a different type of pollutant that I could introduce into the class. I update my lectures every year because the world of chemical toxicology changes so dramatically.

I began to look at the literature and found that it was really confusing. There were a lot of studies showing that, yes, children who live near power lines have a greater risk of developing various types of cancers … I felt it wasn’t time for me yet to enter this field because that wasn’t my area of expertise. My area of expertise was chemical toxicology.

One day, my husband was visiting his brother in Wales. They were walking the dog late at night near a nuclear power plant. They went under some high-voltage transmission lines. My brother-in-law was a chemical mechanical engineer. He whipped out a fluorescent tube from under his coat and held it up under the power line. It lit up.

My husband came back and told me about this, because he knew I was interested but had put it on hold. That evening I unscrewed one of the tubes from our kitchen, under the cabinets. I did the same thing near a high-voltage transmission line, and it lit up. That sort of intrigued me. I didn’t understand the physics of it. I do now, but it took me a while.

I asked a friend of mine, a physics professor at my university, ‘Do you think this could cause childhood leukemia?’ It was his response that really turned me onto this research. His response was, ‘Definitely not.’ I think when you ask someone for their opinion about something, it’s really important to find out what that opinion is based on, so I just asked him.

He said, ‘There’s not enough energy. It’s not ionizing radiation. There’s not enough energy to cause cancer, so you have nothing to worry about.’ That wasn’t a satisfactory answer. At that point, I decided that I was going to demolish the literature. I was going to go through absolutely everything very, very carefully, and figure out for myself whether I thought this was a real factor …”

It took her three years to conclude the EMF childhood leukemia link was real, albeit the effect is small. She then scoured the occupational literature, looking at people who work in high electromagnetic occupations. Again, the literature showed there was an increased risk of leukemia, but also brain tumors and breast cancer.

From there, she began to look at natural EMFs to find out how the human body reacts to them. “I went from childhood leukemia, some residential exposure, to occupational exposure, to natural electromagnetic fields,” she says. “And then a friend of mine suggested I look at the healing effects of electromagnetic therapies.”

At this point, there didn’t appear to be a predictable pattern to the effects she was finding. This finally changed once she delved into the research on pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) to heal bone fractures. This is a well-established therapy that has been used since the 1960s. One of the documents stated PEMF should not be used on cancer patients, although it didn’t specify why.

“What PEMF therapy does among other things is it increases cell division. When you have increased cell division in bone, that’s good, because it’s going to promote healing. But if you have increased cell division of cancerous cells, then that’s not good. I sort of had an aha moment.

At that point, I realized that low-frequency EMFs can cause cancer and can definitely promote the growth of cancer. Since then, the research is just basically supporting all of that information. I went from studying extremely low frequency EMFs to doing research, and introducing it into my courses.”

Around 2003, Havas was approached by a mother whose daughter was electrically hypersensitive. She asked Havas to conduct a study at the daughter’s school, to evaluate the effects of EMF filters such as the Stetzer filter, which reduce dirty electricity. At the time, Havas was unfamiliar with dirty electricity, but reluctantly agreed to conduct the experiment.

“I was very skeptical that you can put something in an electrical outlet and that would clean the electricity and everyone would be happy and healthy after that,” she says, noting that she really did not expect to find any effects of these filters.

“When I finally got to analyzing the data, I was absolutely shocked by what I found … At that time, electrical hypersensitivity was attributed to less than 1% of the population. We didn’t have a large enough sample size in the school. Even if one teacher was electrically hypersensitive, it wouldn’t show up, because we didn’t have a large enough sample size.

But we found that about 44% of the teachers improved while the filters were plugged in. We did a before and after, and because they didn’t know what was going on, it wasn’t a placebo effect. It was totally blinded. They thought we were evaluating their teaching ability. They had no idea what we were doing.

We told them we couldn’t tell them because it would affect the results. But at the end of the study, we’d reveal all the information. We had a custodian who plugged filters in on the weekend. These are just little boxes that you don’t really notice.

We did that study and found that teacher health improved, and student behavior improved. Many of the symptoms that improved in the school were those we associate with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. This was quite intriguing to me.”

After completing that experiment, Havas met Dave Stetzer, co-creator of the Graham-Stetzer filter (along with the late Dr. Martin Graham), and was able to learn more about his research first-hand. He told her he was prediabetic, and whenever he was in an environment with a lot of dirty power, his blood sugar increased.

Since blood sugar is an objective assessment, and something you cannot consciously control, Havas decided to study

EMFs effects on diabetics. What she discovered was that if you’re Type 1 or Type 2 diabetic, and are electrically hypersensitive, then your blood sugar will increase if you’re exposed to dirty electricity.

“There’s something called ‘brittle diabetes,’ which is a form of diabetes where people can’t control their blood sugar. It suddenly goes up or it suddenly goes down, and it’s not related to their activity, their food or medication. I really think that brittle diabetes is environmentally triggered.

I think one of the triggers is electromagnetic pollution, whether it’s dirty power or higher radio frequencies. One of the people we worked with was a woman in New York, who was a Type 2 diabetic. She didn’t take any medication … If she measured her blood sugar and it was high, she would take a 20-minute walk, and it would come down to a normal, acceptable level.

On days when it rained or she didn’t feel like walking outside, she would walk on an electric treadmill. Whenever she walked on the treadmill, her blood sugar actually skyrocketed, went way up, which is not what you would expect.

One of the things doctors recommend is exercise for their patients. They don’t distinguish between walking outside or walking on a treadmill, but treadmills give off dirty power. They also have a high magnetic field.

So, if you’re a diabetic and you’re electrically hypersensitive, you might actually do more damage to your body because of the stress the electrosmog generates in the body. Hence, your blood sugar goes up.”

Another school experienced a dramatic reduction in asthma attacks, and the principal, who had multiple sclerosis (MS), improved almost immediately once Stetzer filters were installed. Intrigued, Havas started working with people diagnosed with MS. In the video, she shares a number of stories from her case files, some of which are rather dramatic. Here’s one example:

“A woman told me, ‘Tell me when you’re coming for the interview and the measurements. I’ll leave the door open. Just knock and come in because it’ll take me too long to walk to the door to open it for you.’ That particular woman, within six weeks, was not only able to walk without any assistance and open the door. She told me she actually went on a vacation with her husband and was dancing.

I kept thinking, ‘No one’s going to believe me, because I could barely believe my own eyes’ … I began to videotape these individuals. The videotape was my proof … Many different types of MS benefited. Not everyone we tested benefited, but the vast majority had some improvement, not only in their physical ability, but also their cognitive abilities. It was really quite obvious.”

MRI scans further showed that MS patients who had used EMF filters for several years had a decrease in the sclerosis in the brain. Not only did filtering EMFs improve the symptoms, but it actually allowed the body to heal itself. Results of this investigation into the effects of EMF on MS were published in 2006.

Havas became very interested in finding out how to diagnose electromagnetic hypersensitivity

(EHS), which is recognized by the World Health Organization.

(EHS is also sometimes referred to as idiopathic environmental intolerance, meaning the cause is unknown.) According to Havas, a number of conditions can increase your risk of EHS, including:

  • Spinal cord damage and whiplash

  • Brain damage and concussion

  • Chemical toxicity, such as high levels of mercury, lead, PCBs or other neurotoxins

  • Bacterial and/or parasitic infections such as Lyme

  • Impaired immune function and lupus

  • The very young and the very old

Researchers have also found a significant association between tinnitus and EMF hypersensitivity, hinting at a shared pathophysiology between the two conditions.

In this study, 89 EMF hypersensitive patients were compared to 107 controls, matched for age, gender, living surroundings and workplace environment.

Nearly 51% of EMF hypersensitive patients had tinnitus, compared to just 17.5% of controls. While prevalence was significantly higher among those sensitive to EMFs, tinnitus duration and severity did not differ between the two groups. According to the authors:

“Our data indicate that tinnitus is associated with subjective electromagnetic hypersensitivity. An individual vulnerability probably due to an overactivated cortical distress network seems to be responsible for both electromagnetic hypersensitivity and tinnitus. Hence, therapeutic efforts should focus on treatment strategies (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapy) aiming at normalizing this dysfunctional distress network.”

One organ that is particularly sensitive to EMFs is your heart. To investigate, Havas conducted an experiment

with people who claimed EMFs caused heart palpitations, very frequently when entering certain stores, or the mall.

“They felt as soon as they walked in, their heart rate would rise. They would have kind of an anxiety attack and have to leave the store as quickly as possible,” Havas says.

“Often, they said they would make a list, go in and do the shopping as quickly as possible and leave, because the longer they stayed in the store, the worse they felt. They would develop brain fog, become dizzy and nauseous.”

Using heart rate variability technology, Havas and Jeffrey Marrongelle, a chiropractor who does energy medicine, assessed 25 people, some of which claimed to have EHS and others who had never even heard the term.

The participants were exposed to microwave radiation from the bay station of a cordless phone, which emits nonstop radiation. Interestingly, while no real relationship could be found between those who claimed to have EHS and the exposure, people who were fit and in good health had the greatest response.

“Basically, what they experienced was a stress response. There was an increase in their sympathetic and a decrease in their parasympathetic response, with an increase in either heart rate or a change in the heart rate, in terms of arrhythmia …

This was a double-blind study that was really very powerful, showing this is not something that people can actually regulate themselves.

Just one example, we had a person who had a heartrate of about 65. They were lying down on a mat. The cordless phone was behind their heads, so they couldn’t see it and didn’t know when it was turned on or off. Their heart rate zoomed up to 120 beats per minute while they were lying down.

Most people would have to go up at least a flight of stairs in order to get that kind of response from their heart. As soon as the phone was disconnected, their heart rate returned to normal. While this was a more extreme case, there were several people who had that kind of response.”

Havas has also conducted many tests on her own blood over the years. She noticed that after working on the computer, her blood was coagulated and viscous.

After spending eight minutes on a PEMF mat, her blood was free-flowing again. Continuing her tests, she realized that whenever her body had been exposed to microwave radiation, whether from a Wi-Fi router, a cordless phone or cellphone, it went into rouleau formation (aggregates of red blood cells). She explains:

“There are virtually no cells that are single cells. Everything is just clumping together. We know that the effect of that is really quite damaging. It could cause a stroke. It could cause a heart attack. It certainly reduces your circulation in your fingers and toes, for example, leading to cold extremities and a tingling sensation.

All these tests we were doing was to try to alert medical doctors to what they can do in office to diagnose someone with EHS. Things like blood sugar, heart rate and blood coagulation are some of the things that can actually be done, so that doctors can do the diagnostics …

There are some people who respond only to microwave radiation. They don’t respond to anything else. Others respond primarily to dirty power. Dirty power and microwaves are virtually ubiquitous. They’re everywhere … I think dirty electricity is really a missing link.

There are very few people in the world studying the biological effects of dirty electricity. There has been a huge amount of research looking at electromagnetic interference, which is another thing that dirty electricity does.

Engineers are very familiar with this. They very often will shield against that to protect sensitive electronic equipment. They don’t realize that by protecting the equipment, you’re also protecting human health. That’s really important.”

Before you begin remediation, you need a couple of tools to actually measure the EMFs in your home or office. Here, it’s important to realize that not all devices accurately measure all three types of EMFs — the electric fields, magnetic fields and radiofrequency fields. Havas recommends three different types of meters:

  • The Acousticom 2

  • The TriField meter (while it measures electric, magnetic and radio frequencies, it’s really only good for measuring magnetic fields. It’s not an accurate tool for measuring electric fields or radio frequencies)

  • A Microsurge (Stetzer) meter, which measures dirty electricity, and at least one Stetzer filter, to allow you to determine how much you can reduce the dirty power at any given location

    “I think if you have these three different devices, and you know what the levels are, what you’re looking for … then you can go around your house and find out what you’re exposed to. It’s really quite simple,” she says.

    “There are ways of going around doing the measurements. The more you play around with it, the more comfortable you become with it. You’ll find some real surprises when you have the meters, because things that you think might be turned off or aren’t radiating may be and increasing your exposure. Doing your own testing is something I highly recommend.”

As for the Stetzer filter, most homes will probably need at least 20. A large home may need anywhere from 40 to 80 filters in larger homes. At about $40 apiece, the investment can be significant. You can, however, get a discounted bulk rate if you call Stetzer Electric. You won’t find the discount online; you’ll need to make a phone call and you can get the price down to around $25 per unit.

It will be important to also purchase a meter, otherwise you will have no idea how serious your problem is and where to place the filters. Typically, two to three need to be installed in your bedroom (the most important), rooms that have computers, and the room close to your circuit breakers.

Ideally, readings should be below 50 and even better below 35. If installing a filter doesn’t lower the reading by at least 20%, it is probably best to find a different location for the filter.

It also would be best to have a knowledgeable electrician evaluate your home for any wiring errors as that cannot be fixed by the filters. What’s more, anything you plug into an improperly wired (code violation) circuit will increase harmful magnetic fields. A surprisingly large number of homes have wiring errors and can be as high as 30% or more in some areas.

I’ve previously written about the dangers of LEDs and fluorescent light bulbs, but Havas brings up yet another, even worse, type of bulb — so-called smart lights that you can turn on and off with your smartphone.

“They radiate microwaves as high as your Wi-Fi router or your wireless phone,” she says. I went to a lighting conference in Germany two years ago. I was giving a talk on different types of lighting and looking at the spectrum, looking at all the different frequencies they emit, including ultraviolet and the relative ratio of blue to red, all that kind of stuff.

The lighting industry was sponsoring this conference, so I said, ‘Can you send me a good-quality lightbulb?’ They said, ‘No problem.’ They sent me one and it was probably the worst bulb I’ve ever tested. It was one of these smart bulbs that as soon as you turn it on, it’s emitting microwave radiation.

I remember talking to the president of the company when I went to Germany. I showed the results … I said, ‘Your lightbulb was one of the worst because of this microwave radiation. You know, it’s making people sick.’ He said, ‘I had no idea. But the entire industry is going that way, and we don’t want to be left out.'”

Havas explains:

“It turns out you can have electricity flowing through the ground. This is happening more and more often. In part because of the way we use electricity in North America; with the way that we distribute it and transmit it.

We have so many multiple grounds that the electricity from an area of high electrical conductivity can move to an area where there’s less electrons, so they just move through the ground. When you have moving electrons, you can create a current.

There are farms mostly in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa that have a really serious ground current problem with their dairy cows. These cows are just constantly lifting their feet because they’re being exposed to ground current. But it’s not the 60-cycle that’s most damaging. It’s the dirty power [100 kHz] flowing through the ground that is causing it …

There are people who claim that the best thing you can ever do is get grounded. I would agree with that, provided you’re in an area where you don’t have a ground current problem. It’s like you can drink clean water, you can drink dirty water. They have very different effects.

If you have dirty electricity flowing through the ground, getting grounded means it’s now entering your body, because it comes right in through one leg and down the other basically.

These devices that you plug into your electrical outlet that you then put on your bed so that you’re grounded at night, people who use them are beginning to tell me that after a couple of days or a couple of weeks, they’re actually beginning to feel quite ill.

My guess is that they’ve got dirty electricity coming through the ground, into their sleeping area, and hence, making them sick. You have to be very, very careful where you’re grounded …”

The EMF topic is a big one, and we’ve not covered every angle here. For more information about the mechanisms of harm, see “Study Links Cellphone Radiation to Heart and Brain Tumors,” in which I review mechanisms of action proposed by Martin Pall, Ph.D., Alasdair Philips and Paul Héroux, Ph.D.

You can also peruse Havas’ website, MagdaHavas.com, where you’ll find a number of video presentations, historical references and general information about EMFs.

Links to her studies can be found in the reference section below. Five case studies

were also published for the World Health Organization Workshop on Electrical Hypersensitivity in 2004, which you can read in full, and one of her most recent papers,

“When Theory and Observation Collide: Can Non-Ionizing Radiation Cause Cancer?” can be found in the journal Environmental Pollution.

Subscribe to Mercola Newsletter

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

“Population Decline Will Change the World for the Better”, Scientific American Says

An article from the “climate change” section of Scientific American had such a catchy title that I could not pass it up.

… the United Nations predicts dozens of countries will have shrinking populations by 2050. This is good news. Considering no other large animal’s population has grown as much, as quickly or as devastatingly for other species as ours, we should all be celebrating population decline.

Declining populations will ease the pressure eight billion people put on the planet. As the population and sustainability director at the Center for Biological Diversity, I’ve seen the devastating effects of our ever-expanding footprint on global ecosystems.

The article is authored by Stephanie Feldstein, the population and sustainability director at the Center for Biological Diversity.

Stephanie Feldstein, Population and Sustainability Director, Center for Biological Diversity

Stephanie recommends two books, one “The Jane Effect” devoted to Jane Goodall. Jane, just like Stephanie, wishes and works for a smaller population. Look at this one-minute video of Jane speaking at the World Economic Forum.

“all these problems that we talk about would not be a problem if there was the size of the population that there was 500 years ago.”

Stephanie’s Scientific American article explains the climate benefits of declining fertility rates:

While many assume population decline would inevitably harm the economy, researchers found that lower fertility rates would not only result in lower emissions by 2055, but a per capita income increase of 10 percent.

She urges us to shift from growth to degrowth, a term meaning a decline in the quantity of goods and resources our societies are consuming:

Population decline is only a threat to an economy based on growth. Shifting to a model based on degrowth and equity alongside lower fertility rates will help fight climate change and increase wealth and well-being.

Anticipating that lower birth rates in first-world countries will make it difficult to care for aging populations, Stephanie recommends replacing the missing young people via immigration:

But despite how inevitable population decline will benefit people and the planet, world leaders have done little to prepare for a world beyond the paradigm of endless growth. They need to prepare for an aging population now while realigning our socioeconomic structures toward degrowth. Meanwhile, immigration can help soften some of the demographic blows by bringing younger people into aging countries.

Since I wrote numerous articles highlighting reductions in live births and baffling increases in mortality, let me share some statistical updates.

Sweden is one of the few countries reporting live births by month. The latest report brings disconcerting news as birth rates continue being depressed instead of recovering. For example, February 2023 births are 12% down compared to Feb 2021. (Sweden’s live births started to decline nine months after Swedish women began to get vaccinated in 2021)

As arkmedic reported, abortions due to fetal malformations rose by 13% in the UK in 2021 compared to 2020.

The 13% increase in ground E (fetal abnormality) abortions happened on the background of overall abortions barely changing in 2021. So, these are due to an abnormal and unexplainable increase in fetal abnormalities. Surely cannot be due to the safe and effective Covid vaccines that British women were forced to accept in 2021, right?

Germany publishes a spreadsheet with daily deaths, which we can download and explore. The tab titled “D_2016_2023_Tage” contains these daily deaths for 2016-2023. I computed a 7-day running average of 2023 deaths and compared it to the running average of 2016-2019 deaths for the same days.

Here’s the excess deaths chart by day (the X-axis is the day number, the y-axis is excess mortality smoothed by 7-day average):

Germany’s excess mortality is back to a worrying level of 17%.

We can see that excess mortality and reduced fertility work together to reduce the population of many Western countries, making Scientific American’s Stephanie Feldstein and her WEF friend Jane Goodall happy.

The reductions in CO2 emissions would benefit our planet, they say, and whatever shortfalls in the younger population of Western countries can be supplanted by immigration, thus replacing the native population.

The important science publication Scientific American chose such a celebratory article for a reason – they want to highlight the benefits of population declines that are coming.

Share

It would be easy for me to end my post on a conspiratorial note, saying, “Science funders want us all dead to reduce CO2 emissions” and “The replacement conspiracy theory is finally confirmed.”

Doing so would make a concise, hard-hitting substack post that may see a good number of shares and generate some interest.

However, as my readers are critical thinkers, I want to prompt you to consider the population situation and ongoing depopulation with some nuance. Perhaps, thinking about these questions would lead to a lively discussion in the comment section.

We have to ask ourselves difficult questions:

  • Do we have the optimal population level in every country?

  • Which measures that lead to reductions in the population are ethical and which are unethical?

  • Even if the reductions in population size, that come as a result of the reckless Covid vaccinations, are unethical, will the world benefit from them?

  • What sort of population changes will occur if COVID vaccine-related trends continue?

The above questions are complicated.

We, humans, just like most animals, are genetically programmed to reproduce. All of us descended ONLY from predecessors who instinctively desired to have sex and who brought up children despite numerous difficulties and poverty.

So, the desire to reproduce is naturally present in many of us. It is reflected in our culture: many of us think that kids are cute and lovely, pregnancy and motherhood are celebrated, and so on.

Does, at some point, the desire to reproduce conflict with the amount of resources available to us from nature? Compare Russia and Bangladesh, for example.

You can see right away that the population density in Bangladesh is much higher than in Russia. Do both countries have optimal population levels? I would say neither does – Russia could have more people, and Bangladesh could have fewer people.

The “ethics of depopulation” is a topic that would require thousands of pages exploring the moral complexities of influencing people’s desire and ability to reproduce.

However, some things are stark and simple: making people infertile or more likely to die by forcing them to submit to novel, unproven biomedical treatments is never right.

I want to invite you to post comments in the comments section. Is depopulation occurring? Is that a good thing? Can the world benefit from population reductions if such reductions are accomplished by evil means?

Let us know what YOU think!

Share

The Commander – in – Chief Fraud

 By Anna Von Reitz

Information provided to H.E. Cardinal Mamberti and the Vatican Chancery Court regarding our Claims March 6th 2005January 19th 2023 in Seq:

We are attaching a summation of exactly how the lawful Australian Government and Constitution owed to the people of Australia was undermined by the British Monarchy, and how in fact, arbitrary changes in the definitions of words and the creation of a Commander-in-Chief office were used to implement this unlawful and illegal change. 
This is how the British Territorial Government contrived to and succeeded in creating dictatorial powers for itself throughout the Commonwealth, and how its commercial “service” corporations overthrew the lawful national governments by fraud and deceit. 
The author of the attached expose, Dick Yardley, a dedicated researcher, has done a masterful job of detailing the process that was also used to do the same thing throughout the Commonwealth nations, substituting an unlawful Territorial Government for the National Government owed — by sleight of hand and legal deceit.  
The Perpetrators of these gross wrongs undertaken in breach of trust and service contract were consciously re-creating the fraud that Abraham Lincoln worked in America and spreading it to the Commonwealth with malice aforethought.  
Lincoln deceived the public by appearing to run for and be elected to the actual Public Office of The President of The United States of America,  while secretly operating in a private corporate capacity, that of “President” of the United States of America, Incorporated.  
This substitution scheme allowed Lincoln to access, use, and abuse the empowerments of the actual Public Office with nobody being the wiser.  
The military unknowingly accepted Lincoln as Commander-in-Chief, an office attached to the actual Public Office, and never questioned his authority. 
This allowed Lincoln, an Undeclared Foreign Agent, to promote and conduct the entire illegal and unlawful Mercenary Conflict we know as The American Civil War, and also allowed him to promote dictatorial powers for the Office of Commander-in-Chief and the use of so-called “Executive Orders” to commandeer both the military and the civilian government offices. 
The Perpetrators were so pleased with this Substitution Scheme in America, that they literally created Offices of the Commander-in-Chief throughout the Commonwealth— as documented by Dick Yardley in Australia– so they could make use of this template to undermine the lawful national governments throughout the British Commonwealth countries, too.  
The problem, of course, is that Lincoln was never the lawful Commander-in-Chief, and had no possible standing or authority to occupy the offices of our American Government to begin with, including the Office of the Commander-in-Chief.  Both the original prohibitions against foreign conflicts of interest and the Titles of Nobility Amendment ratified in 1819 made sure of that.  
So while the British Monarch could raise their pen and create a brand new Office of the Commander-in-Chief in Australia or South Africa or any other British Commonwealth, and then use that office to take over the military and subourn the lawful civilian government, the original template for all this grossly unlawful activity by commercial corporation personnel— all undertaken in breach of trust and contract — was provided by Abraham Lincoln acting forty years before the events in Australia.
We wish for Dick Yardley’s claim to be incorporated into and made part of our claim on behalf of our nation-states of the Union and living claimants worldwide, who have suffered from the same evils, and the same undermining of the national governments at the hands of commercial corporations under contract to provide essential government services. 
We wish for his claim on behalf of Australia to be extended generally to all the Commonwealth nations pending further research. 
We already know that these Commonwealth nations were all similarly impacted by this same gross breach of trust and violation of service contracts, including but not limited to the individual national Constitutions, and we also know that the imposition of new offices of the Commander-in-Chief were instrumental in all cases wherein these nations had standing defense forces of their own. 
Lincoln was never validly “Commander-in-Chief” and thus, everything he did devolved into fraud.  He committed gross breach of trust and commercial service contract and, yes, treason in conflict of interest.  As he personally “declared” war on the Southern States-of-States without any Public Office and without any Congressional Declaration, the responsibility for the destruction and the loss of life and everything else associated with The American Civil War, rests upon the British Crown and the British Monarch and the Principals responsible. 
Likewise the breach of trust and service contracts visited upon the Commonwealth nations rests on the same Parties, promoting and extending a known criminal fraud scheme against the countries and people of the Commonwealth nations.  
We wish for the immediate return of all vested authority to the control of elected national governments and the end of illegal territorial occupation, that is, occupation by mercenary forces in the employment of the Municipal Corporations and their franchises and agencies discussed throughout. 
We wish for disclosure to the General Public and announcement of Public Elections and an end to private political party elections being substituted for legitimate Public Elections. 
Issued by: Anna Maria Riezinger
                 In care of: Box 520994
                 Big Lake, Alaska 99652
May 6th 2023 
—————————-

See this article and over 4100 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com

To support this work look for the Donate button on this website. 

How do we use your donations?  Find out here.