New data from the Australian government shows that heart attack death among the nation’s vaxxed population has just spiked to the “highest level ever recorded.”
Australia is now grappling with the disastrous effects of the government-mandated Covid vaccination roll-out.
However, doctors remain baffled as to what could possibly be causing the sudden spike in massive heart attacks, including in children, that has gripped the nation following the pandemic.
The situation has become so dire that health officials have launched a “critical awareness campaign.”
WATCH:
BREAKING: Cardiac arrest events in Victoria, Australia are now at the highest level ever recorded.
Since the vaccine rollout, the number of athletes dropping dead from heart problems has soared to unprecedented levels.
Scientists have begun citing an obscure study that claims “being too happy” can cause sudden heart attacks in otherwise healthy individuals – among many other bizarre explanations that do not make sense.
Unfortunately, cardiac arrests are not the only consequence of the jabs. Rates of cancer, including rare turbo cancers, have also skyrocketed.
Do you remember the YouTube and TikTok influencers who shilled the experimental COVID-19 vaccines to their followers during the pandemic?
Most of them received payments from the government and pharmaceutical companies to sway their followers into supporting the vaccine roll-out.
Fact-checkers, YouTube, and other social media influencers were instrumental in spreading the mass formation psychosis that, as stated by Dr. John Malone, resulted in a significant portion of the population being essentially hypnotized into following the draconian Covid measures.
Fast forward a couple of years and karma is striking down those same YouTubers who took the jab and cashed in on Big Pharma money.
Hundreds of these young and healthy YouTube influencers are now being diagnosed with cancer – and many of them have admitted they are suffering from rare and aggressive turbo cancers.
Electric cars risk becoming effectively uninsurable as analysts struggle to put a price on battery repairs, the researcher for the car insurance industry has said
Jonathan Hewett, chief executive of Thatcham Research, the motor insurers’ automotive research centre, said a lack of “insight and understanding” about the cost of repairing damaged electric car batteries was pushing up premiums and resulting in some providers declining to provide cover altogether.
Electric cars can be particularly expensive to repair, costing around a quarter more to fix on average than a petrol or diesel vehicle.
Experts have previously warned electric vehicles are being written off after minor bumps because of the cost and complexity of fixing their batteries.
Mr Hewett said:
“The challenge is that we have no way of understanding whether the battery has been compromised or damaged in any way.
The threat of thermal runaway means that a catastrophic fire can take place if the cells of the battery have been damaged in a collision.
What we’re struggling to understand at the moment is how we approach that diagnostic technique.
It’s like a doctor trying to understand what’s wrong with you without any notes or an X-ray.”
John Lewis Financial Services stopped providing car insurance for electric cars last month for new and existing customers, as its underwriter Covéa analysed risks and costs.
Aviva removed insurance products for the Tesla Model Y earlier this year before restoring them several months later.
Average electric car insurance costs rose 72pc in the year to September, compared to 29pc for petrol and diesel models, according to Confused.com.
Mr Hewett said premiums would eventually begin to level out and match those of petrol and diesel cars once actuaries had the tools needed to better understand the risks of insuring electric cars, saying the issue would likely be “short term”.
However, he added:
“The battery is an extremely expensive component of an electric vehicle and until we find efficient ways of dealing with it we have the challenge of high premiums for electric vehicles, which nobody wants.”
Some customers are now being quoted over £100 a week to insure their electric vehicles, with others reporting premiums doubling or tripling compared to a year before.
Government guidelines suggest electric vehicles with damaged batteries should be “quarantined” from other cars due to the risk of battery fires, which are typically harder to put out than fires in petrol or diesel cars.
The London Fire Brigade has warned that fires involving lithium batteries are the fastest-growing fire risk in London, after it was called out to 87 e-bike and 29 e-scooter fires in 2022.
Paris’s transport operator withdrew 149 electric buses from operation last year after two ignited on separate occasions.
The website Tesla-Fire.com lists 25 reports of Teslas catching fire globally since the beginning of 2023.
Thatcham Research said insurers would need to spend an additional £900m a year on quarantine facilities for damaged cars as a result of the safety measures by 2035, as more battery-powered vehicles take to the roads, with the changes forecast to add £20 a year onto all car insurance premiums.
Conservative MP Greg Smith, who sits on the Commons transport committee, said:
“[The lack of battery diagnostics] is yet another reason why electric vehicles aren’t remotely suitable for the mass market yet and why we should be looking to other technologies, like synthetic fuels and hydrogen, that will be more reliable and friendly to the planet.”
Choosing between Hamas and the Israeli Defense Forces is a false choice. The side we should be on is the side of innocent civilians, regardless of where they live. Only by being against war will we stand against the correct enemy because, ultimately, most if not all wars are fought for the benefit of central bankers and their globalist allies
Those who side with warmongers choose enslavement and the destruction of mankind, as the sabre rattling in the Middle East is a tool to further centralize power and control over the global population
The next action item in the globalist takeover includes a cyberattack on the banks before the end of next year. The cyberattack will destroy the current banking system and usher in programmable central bank digital currencies and eliminate privacy online, requiring everyone to have a digital identification tied to their ISP
All online activity will be surveilled and analyzed by artificial intelligence, and the data used to prevent crime before it happens. Thought-crimes will also have ramifications, potentially resulting in the seizure of private property and/or removal of “privileges” previously understood as human rights
Everyone must now choose between enslavement or freedom. Not making a conscious choice is itself a choice. If you choose freedom, you need to make plans for how to exist outside the slave system being put into place and support Big Tech alternatives that offer complete privacy
Advertisement
In my mind Whitney Webb is one of the best investigative journalists on the web and does meticulous research on the topics she focuses on. In the video above, Marty Bent of the TFTC Bitcoin podcast interviews her about how the central bankers plan to use artificial intelligence (AI) to control the lives of everyone on earth.
This is one of the most shocking and concerning interviews I have heard in a long time as it has a dismal prediction as to how it is likely we may have only a year at best and maybe half a year to enjoy the internet as we know it now. Even though it is heavily censored it is still usable. This basic functionality may disappear if her predictions are accurate.
If that is the case, you will not have access to this site or the daily newsletters we provide and all the updates we will issue if this scenario happens. So, to guard against this scenario, I would suggest making sure you sign up to receive messages by texts on your cell phone.
As Whitney explains in her interview above, it is likely that in the next year there will be a false flag cyberattack on the banks similar to 9/11. They will then use this attack to shut down the internet and implement a draconian Cyber Patriot Act.
We have no idea of how long the internet will be down, but it could be weeks or longer. We will be unable to provide you with important updates if this happens as we only have your email. That is why I am urging you to please sign up in the form below so we can connect with you by messaging your phone.
As noted by Webb, the string-pullers always seek to divide people using emotional appeals, and this situation is a classic case of that. Are you with Hamas, or with the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF)? It’s a false choice. The side we should be on is the side of innocent civilians, regardless of where they live. “We should just step off the chessboard and stop playing their game,” she says.
Indeed, only by being against war will we stand against the correct enemy because, ultimately, most if not all wars are fought for the benefit of central bankers and their globalist allies, not for the benefit of nations, humanitarian or democratic causes. As noted by Webb:
“Half the population of Gaza are children under the age of 18 [i.e., below voting age and did not vote Hamas into power], so promoting the carpet bombing of that [area] and the refusal to let humanitarian aid in … there’s no celebrating that.”
Webb also points out there’s virtually no chance the Israeli forces did not see the October 7, 2023, attack coming. “It’s just absurd that they wouldn’t have been able to know that was going to happen in advance,” Webb says, “and there are IDF veterans and Israelis that definitely are no friends of Palestine or Hamas that are saying that’s the case.”
Israel referring to that attack as “Israel’s 9/11” could be another tipoff.
“If you’re familiar with the realities of 9/11, there’s only a few possibilities there. Either it was intentionally done by intelligence agencies, or it was allowed to happen by intelligence agencies,” Webb says.
“So, I think we can assume that similar possibilities may have happened here with Israel, because before all of this happened, Netanyahu was facing major issues domestically, a huge amount of protests against him, major efforts to remove him from power.”
As noted by Bent, 9/11 ushered in the Patriot Act (which had clearly been written and was waiting in the wings for just the right moment) that “led to the dystopian hellscape that we’re currently living in, and it’s just mindboggling that people can’t [recognize] the pattern … It’s the same playbook all over again.”
Indeed, the similarities are striking. The main difference is that we now have hindsight we didn’t have in 2001. Today, the ramifications of the Patriot Act have become clear, and as The Great Reset agenda moves forward, we can see how important the implementation of the Patriot Act was to that agenda.
During the COVID pandemic, the globalist cabal began to reveal its true intentions like never before. Many of the players ceased to even pretend that it’s about anything other than the subjugation of the masses.
Since we now know the aim of the globalists is to enslave humanity within a technocratic, transhumanist dystopia where everything we say and do is known by the government and can be used against us, we ought to be very wary about encouraging a war that can then be used to justify a global kind of Patriot Act.
Webb segues into the next action item in the globalist takeover, which appears to include a cyberattack on the banks sometime before the end of next year.
“There’s a public-private partnership [The Partnership Against Cybercrime] housed within the World Economic Forum (WEF) [and] the groups that compose this partnership are the FBI, the DOJ, the Secret Service, one of Israel’s security agencies, the UK National Crime Agency, a bunch of banks and a few tech companies … Palantir, PayPal, Microsoft.
They’re led by a former Israeli spy named Tal Goldstein … Jeremy Jurgens, who is No. 2 at the WEF after Claus Schwab, at the big WEF meeting earlier this year was like ‘Yep, [there will be a] big, giant cyberattack before 2025.’
The Partnership Against Cybercrime — that’s the DOJ and all of these guys — say that it’s going to be a cyberattack on the banks. Isn’t that convenient? The banks can just be like, ‘We’ve collapsed, but but it wasn’t our fault. It was the fault of these nasty hackers.’ And I’m sure the hackers will be Hamas and Iran.
They can blame anyone, because as we know from Vault 7 and Wikileaks that the CIA has the ability to frame literally any government it wants, or any group it wants, for a cyberattack, and the CIA lost control of those tools — hence Wikileaks obtaining them and publishing them — so anyone can do it [and] anyone can blame anyone, so it’s very difficult to attribute.
Even if you look at headlines about cyberattacks that have happened over the past several years, it’s usually a cybersecurity company that, if you look on its website, was created by In-Q-Tel (the CIA) or by Israel’s unit 8200, which is Israel’s NSA equivalent, and they’re saying stuff like ‘High probability that it might have been these guys and our proof is that we don’t have any proof, but it looks like something we think they did before.’
I mean, there’s no evidence for anything but out of that gobledygook you get a headline that says ‘Chinese hackers responsible,’ or ‘Iranian hackers responsible,’ and that’s all people see and read.”
As noted by Bent:
“It’s very easy to see that we could be in Chapter 1 of a systemic bank failure. It starts with this conflict in the Middle East, it keeps rising and then there’s an excuse to begin cyberattacking perceived enemies and that’s how the banks get attacked.”
According to Webb, a group of big banks affiliated with the WEF called the FS-ISAC (the Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Center) has been gaming this out since 2021.
“They collaborated with the European Central Bank, the FED [Federal Reserve], and the Carnegie Endowment, which at the time was run by the current CIA director William Burns, talking about exactly how the cyberattack on the banks was going to play out.”
Once the banks have been taken down in a major cyberattack, the central banks will then “save the day” by introducing a programmable central bank digital currency (CBDC) where every transaction can be traced. In areas where public awareness about the risks of CBDCs is too great, such as the U.S., they may try to keep the two-tier system as it exists under the current Fed Now system. As explained by Webb:
“The CBDCs exist, but the public doesn’t necessarily interact with it, which is essentially what FED Now is going to be. It’s about settlements between banks. They’ll use the CBDC. The public will interact instead with deposit tokens that’ll be issued by the commercial banks. They’re not called CBDCs but they’re programmable money, and they’re going to run on the rails of FED Now.”
All the big banks have signed on to the concept of deposit tokens and tokenized assets — and the control system that comes with it. The head of JP Morgan Chase, Jamie Diamond, recently suggested that private property should be seized for the purpose of combating climate change, and that’s precisely what they’ll be able to do with tokenized assets. “So, it doesn’t have to be a CBDC to have the same consequences,” Webb says.
The second thing that will happen once the cyberattack on the banks has occurred is the elimination of online anonymity.
“Everyone must choose between freedom and enslavement, and the option to choose freedom is rapidly closing.”
The principles of “know your customer” (KYC) will be imposed on everybody for everything, and anything that doesn’t have that will be made illegal under National Security justifications. Essentially, what we’re looking at is a cyber Patriot Act, which will allow for the unfettered surveillance of everyone’s online activities, and the ability to restrict or block access to the internet.
“Of course, the end of online anonymity means tying a government issued [digital] ID to your internet access … at the ISP level, and that’s what they’ve mapped out. The internet as you know it will not exist after this happens,” Webb says.
“The goal is no anonymity, period, and to have everything you do surveilled and compiled, and to have AI oversee it all and do this predictive policing, pre-crime stuff based on what you’ve already done, and what you will do.
So, the most important thing to do is not to participate in the system after that event. Just don’t do it.
I would say, if you want some of the stuff that’s on the internet now, in terms of knowledge, back that up offline. Download it. Put it on hard drives. Faraday bag it. Keep it safe, because if you might want that stuff after all this happens, and you don’t want to have to get the cattle tag to be able to be online, definitely think ahead.
Because if you want to believe what the WEF says about this timeline — and I would take them seriously — you’ve got a year, give or take a few months, before the internet gets nuked.”
If all of that sounds unbelievable, look at what’s happened already. As noted by Webb, Microsoft recently announced that when you use Microsoft Windows your data is no longer your data.
Microsoft can use your data without your consent to train their AI, and you cannot opt out of this. What’s more, Microsoft can delete your data if they so choose, and block you from accessing your device by blocking your Microsoft ID.
“Where Microsoft is going, you’re not going to be able to keep access to your own data unless you avoid committing thought crime … If you’re serious about fighting this stuff you have no excuse to not invest in some sort of freedom tech stuff.
So, I definitely think people … need to put a lot more attention, considering what we’re facing … and support developers that are developing that tech.
There’s a huge need for to divest from Big Tech as much as possible, and it needs to happen quickly, because the choice is either participate in the system being designed for you by crazy people and become a slave, or don’t become a slave.
And if you don’t want to be a slave, you have to invest now in Big Tech alternatives, unless you want to live a completely analog life …
The easiest route is to go the slavery route, and that’s how they’ve designed it on purpose. The whole selling point of that system is that it’s convenient and easy. So, obviously, it’s going to take some work to go the other route, but the future of human freedom depends on it so I think it’s a pretty easy choice.”
One example of “freedom tech” mentioned in the interview is Above Phone,1 which offers de-Googled smartphones and laptops.
Webb recently wrote an article for Catherine Austin Fitts’ Solari Report on artificial intelligence, based on “The Age of AI: And Our Human Future,” a book by Henry Kissinger and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Her article is titled “The Final Coup,” because that’s what she believes AI really is all about.
“Their argument is, AI is going to be so much smarter than us that it’s going to be able to to see aspects of reality that we can’t see, [and] we should definitely trust that whatever it tells us is in this invisible hidden reality is totally reality, and not just some AI hallucination — which is an actual term; that’s a real phenomenon, where AI presents something provably false as fact.
It could very easily be that whatever this ‘reality’ is that AI is identifying is delusional, or just made up … Anyway, they don’t bring that up in their book at all. They just say AI is going to allow us to pursue this awesome quest for super knowledge and we’re going to be able to see unseen realities.
But there’s a tradeoff, they say, and the trade-off is that in order to unlock AI’s full potential we have to essentially sell off our ability to perceive reality. We have to … deepen [our involvement with AI] to the point where we’re dependent on AI to make decisions for us, and we become cognitively diminished by AI.
Meaning that we aren’t using our brains like we did before to make decisions and reason and perceive reality. AI is doing all of that for us. That’s what they envision and that’s very dystopian, but then they start talking about this two-tier society model.
This AI ‘revolution’ will be very empowering for some people, the policy makers, the heads of multinational corporations, the people who design AI and code it and task it and regulate it. They’ll find this very empowering.
But the people who consume AI … everyone else, really … will be bewildered by its opaque decision-making. They’ll be disempowered or find it disconcerting, and won’t really have any control over their lives anymore.And then, over time, will cease to be able to realize what’s happening to them. That’s literally what the book is about.
They talk about how AI is going to draw people, mainly this disempowered class, into a new version of reality that is being designed by the empowered class, the technocrats. It’s very Matrix-esque and very creepy. It also has to do with what they say is going to be AI control over the information space.
Of course, that’s going to really come into its own once both AI and the internet are heavily regulated by a centralized authority, which is what the UN is gearing up to do next year.”
If the U.N. gets its way, AI will not only censor the internet, it will write all the information you can access on the internet, and the U.N. will be the central authority of it all.
As noted by Webb, this book is important, because Schmidt is the de facto AI czar in the U.S. He funds all the AI experts in President Biden’s administration (even though it’s illegal for him to do so) and develops the administration’s AI policies. So, he’s actively driving the U.S. agenda for AI development, adoption and expansion.
Webb is a figurative fire hydrant of information — people, organizations, companies and the linkages between them — so for more details, you’ll definitely want to set aside the time to listen to this interview. I’ve only skimmed the surface of everything she discusses.
The key takeaway here, though, is this: Everyone must choose between freedom and enslavement, not just for themselves but also for their descendants for generations to come, and the option to choose freedom is rapidly closing. Putting off making that choice is itself a choice. You’re automatically choosing enslavement and, ultimately the destruction of humankind itself. What will yours be?
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.
Over the last 50 years, there has been a sustained push to transfer all wealth to the upper class and to economically enslave the rest of the population — an approach favored as it provides the most cost-effective way to enslave the populace
Because of this, over and over, we see terrible policies be enacted with inevitably make everyone poorer. In turn, as the decades have gone by we’ve become much poorer and must struggle more and more to make ends meet
The way COVID-19 was handled, particularly the lockdowns was one of the worst economic assaults on the working class in American history. It was devastating for many, and as time moves forward, its damage continues to worsen and everything that used to be affordable is becoming unaffordable
Understand where this economic warfare came from will allow us to both understand how to resist it and how to resist falling prey to the economic servitude it creates
Advertisement
Over the last few months, I’ve heard many of my physician colleagues lament how difficult it is to buy a house–something I never heard prior to COVID. Given that physicians are some of the highest wage earners in the country (the lowest paying specialties all make it to the top 5% income bracket), this is quite extraordinary and speaks to how almost everyone is slowly moving towards the reality of “You Will Own Nothing and Be Happy.”
I’ve put a lot of thought into why this is happening, and I believe the severely misguided COVID lockdowns served as the catalyst for this widespread economic disenfranchisement. However, at the same time, I do not believe it could have happened without the broader context that proceeded it.
Shortly after the Trilateral Commission was founded in 1973, someone in my uncle’s circle give him a copy of some of the founding documents which laid out a blueprint for the decades to come. Not long after Carter was elected and many members of administration belonged to the Trilateral Commission.
My uncle then gradually watched unbelievable thing after thing come to pass, and before long he started telling his family members (myself included) what else was planned. I in turn could not help but notice that much of what he told me has in fact come to pass as the decades have gone by.
Given the eerie accuracy of those predictions, I’ve tried to confirm the authenticity of those documents. I must admit that I was never able to do so (e.g., my Uncle no longer had them when I learned about this and the individual who shared it with my uncle was no longer alive when I tried to track them down).
However, I am nonetheless inclined to believe in their authenticity due to their accuracy and that much of what was originally put forward there precisely matches what the World Economic Forum is now pushing forward (which leads me to believe the WEF essentially took over the Trilateral Commission’s role).
Prior to the advent of Democracy, monarchies were the rule, and monarchies had absolute power over everyone. Conversely, ever since Democracy become the default mode of government, the ruling class has always had a yearning to return to the days of Kings and Queens and there has been a constant effort to chip away at the power Democracies give to the people.
Note: One of the earliest examples I’ve found of this can be found in the Robber Barons, the story of cut-throat industrialists who, in the post-Civil War era, monopolized America and birthed much of the predatory capitalism we see to this day (e.g., Rockefeller and Carnegie played pivotal roles in creating the modern medical monopoly).
After the Robber Barons became the wealthiest individuals in history and had more money than they knew what to do with, one thing they were well known for was throwing lavish balls where each participant acted out being a European aristocrat.
During the age of monarchies, kings and queens assigned regions of their kingdom to lords (e.g., a duke) who each had their own army, land, and serfs to work the land for the kingdom. The serfs were not treated well (e.g., they had poor living conditions along with minimal human rights) and had to work quite hard each day in the service of their lord.
For this system to retain its control, the serfs needed to be unaware there were other options for how governments could be run (an awareness of which eventually unraveled the feudal system) and to be so destitute they felt they had no choice to comply with it. In essence, it was not that different from many of the other common strategies the ruling class has used for control throughout history. After World War 2, two historical abnormalities emerged.
The first was that technology had increased the destructive capacity of warfare to the point it became too costly (e.g., if a war destroy’s a country industry you can’t make money off it in the future) and risky (e.g., due to nuclear weapons) for it to be to the benefit of the ruling elite to conduct it on a large scale.
The second was America’s intact industrial base (due to it being too far away to be bombed during the war) allowed it to rapidly become the world’s leading economy.
As a result, a massive degree of wealth flowed into the United States, and before long everyone prospered from it (e.g., an African American high school drop out could make enough working reasonable hours in a factory to buy a house and support a stay at home family — now married college graduates both working full time often cannot do any of that). This made it much harder to control the population since they were no longer impoverished.
To “solve” these problems, a system of economic feudalism was enacted where lords were replaced with transnational corporations and physical warfare was replaced with economic warfare. This required:
Changing the laws so corporations assumed more and more unchecked power.
Exporting America’s manufacturing base and wealth to the rest of the world so the common American people could no longer enjoy the economic prosperity that had previously allowed them to chose what they wanted to do with their lives.
Eliminating more and more employment options outside of large corporations.
Creating so many financial interdependences that it would be impossible to back out of this new corporate form of government or to profit from starting a large scale war.
In addition to financial self-sufficiency, other anchors to reality (e.g., the family structure) that had previously provided social cohesion and allowed the citizenry to remain strong against tyranny were also systemically removed from the society.
By enacting each of these, it was almost guaranteed that more and more workers would succumb to the economic pressure to become serfs to their corporate lords. One of the best illustrations of this agenda can be seen with the vaccine mandates.
Corporations throughout America made receiving a dubious COVID-19 vaccine be a condition of employment, despite many of their workers not wanting to receive it under any circumstances (e.g., because they had seen others die from it).
Many workers eventually agreed to the mandates because they felt they had no other choice to keep food on the table, and I personally know of numerous people in those circumstances who were severely injured and deeply regret submitting the mandate. This is a perfect illustration of corporate serfdom.
Note: The legality for those mandates was highly questionable, and the federally imposed ones were later outlawed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
One of the challenges I always have when looking at a complex event is deciding if it was the result of an organized conspiracy or a naturally emergent phenomena, as in many cases, a good (and plausible) case can be made for each.
For example, many people believe a coordinated group of sociopaths were responsible for all the bad things that happened with COVID-19, and depending on who you ask, the sociopath’s motivation was either to make as much money as possible, or gain power over the world.
Conversely, a good case can also be made that a collective hypnosis took over much of the political leadership and then the general population, leading all of them to fanatically believe many of the atrocious things they were doing were actually in the best interests of society (this is known as the mass formation hypothesis).
When I look at problems like this, I often think warfare prior to the development of gunpowder. At that time, it was well known that battlefields were chaotic, and completely unpredictable outcomes could happen there. Generals were selected on the basis of their ability to direct the flow of battlefields to an outcome favoring their side.
However regardless of how much things were planned out, there was always a certain flow that emerged on its own no general could directly control, and in many ways a general’s task was to create a wave in the battlefield and then guide it as best as they could in the hope a favorable outcome would occur.
In turn, often when I observe events occurring in the public sphere, I feel something similar is happening, where those in positions of power are trying to use the limited tools at their disposal to guide the flow of the current social change to a process which benefits them — but at the same time, to some extent they are helpless against the tide of what is happening in the general populace and unpredictable things they never set out to do happen on their own.
In the case of COVID-19, I believe something similar happened; a group of people seeking to use the pandemic for their own agenda worked to push things to move in one direction, but before long, particularly once the fear they stoked set in, a current formed with its own momentum (which was aided by officials not wanting to admit they screwed up).
I share these analogies to illustrate how hard it often is from looking at the outside to determine what actually caused things to happen and whether or not your explanation for a series of events is indeed accurate. In situations like these, I often go by the rule that if a theory accurately predicts an unknown that happens in the future, the theory should be utilized until new evidence emerges that argues for adopting a different theory.
One of the biggest reasons why I believe in the Trilateral Commission theory is because year by year, I’ve watched policies be enacted which took wealth away from America’s working class or small businesses and moved it oversees or to the global elite. Despite the effects of those policies being fairly predictable, very few leaders have ever done anything to challenge their implementation.
One of the rare exceptions was Ross Perot, a billionaire who used his wealth to run in 1992, becoming the most successful third party candidate in history. A key part of Perot’s campaign was speaking against many of the predatory policies (e.g., NAFTA — the North American “Free Trade” Agreement) that were transferring America’s wealth to the upper class and that both the Democrat (Clinton) and Republican (Bush Sr.) uniparty presidential candidates supported.
If you watch their 1992 Presidential Debate, it’s fascinating how much of what Perot said was just as true then as it was now.
Note: In 2016, Trump ran on a populist platform very similar to Perot’s. Since the issues Perot highlighted became much worse in the time since his campaign occurred, much of the American public was very receptive to Trump’s message of economic nationalism.
Unfortunately, once Trump became president, as retold in Joe Navarro’s memoir, much of the Republican party and the Whitehouse staff did not support this, which significantly hampered his ability to enact those policy changes. Likewise, the media and those outside his party were even more strongly opposed to those policies.
Given that the economic conditions have significantly deteriorated in the last 3 years, it is likely Perot’s message will be even more popular in this election cycle — something already demonstrated by the unprecedented popularity of RFK Jr.’s presidential campaign.
When my uncle explained the theory of economic feudalism to me, he told me that as the years went forward, people would become poorer and poorer and that unless you planned out how to prevent yourself from becoming an economic slave it would happen to you too decade by decade, I’ve watched the economic trajectories of each subsequent generation and seen how things the previous generation took for granted have become unobtainable dreams for later ones that followed.
Yet, they rarely see what the upper class is doing to them (since they keep on being torn apart by having the basic anchors of their identity such as community or family be taken away). Instead, they are taught to focus on attacking other demographics within the working class they’ve been told by the media to blame for all their problems.
One of the most memorable pieces of graffiti I ever saw said:
“Sick people are easier to control.”
In turn, I believe the medical system is one of the primary tools being utilized to realize our economic enslavement. Specifically:
When you are sick, especially with a condition that affects your ability to make money or to think clearly (both of which are quite common) it becomes much harder to resist something which is occurring around you and you do not agree with.
By having every treatment be expensive, something that is taken forever and something you cannot go without, members of the population are forced to become economic slaves in order to receive the medical care they need.
Modern medical care often causes creates more illnesses that disable you and require spending even more of your savings on medical care (e.g., many vaccine injured individuals I know have had to spend their life savings on treatments for their injury which have only partially helped them).
Note:A 2019 study helps put the above points into context — it found 66.5% of all bankruptcies were tied to medical issues.
I believe one of the fundamental problems in our society is that we rarely have an honest conversations with each other about how we know something is true — a question an entire (but largely forgotten) branch of philosophy, epistemology, exists to address.
Since the truth is often murky and hard to uncover, tools like critical thinking and epistemology are needed, but more and more, instead of developing those tools, we are taught to settle those questions by simply trusting the most trustable expert.
When the COVID-19 lockdowns were proposed, they didn’t make any sense and much of the public was opposed to them. To overcome this opposition, gradually increasing goal posts were introduced.
As you might remember, they were first sold to the public as two weeks to slow the spread, and when any factual objection was raised, the response was normally a combination of “two weeks is not a big deal” and “how could you be so selfish as to chose avoiding a minor inconvenience over saving a lot of lives.”
Yet, once the public assented to that, the propaganda switched, they were extended indefinitely and eventually the dangerous and unproven vaccines were offered as the solution to this new “problem.” If we take a step back, we should consider what the epistemological basis was for the lockdowns many of us were tricked into agreeing to.
First, a model was put forward asserting that a global catastrophe would occur if strict lockdowns were not immediately implemented, and that model was largely responsible for convincing leaders around the world they had no choice but to enact the reprehensible lockdowns. To give you an idea of just how “accurate” it was:
Note: Much of the existing evidence suggests lockdowns increased rather than decreased the COVID-19 death rate.
Yet despite its repeated failures to accurately predict COVID-19, it was never challenged nor updated as data became available showing its assumptions were wrong. Instead leaders didn’t think the argument through and simply took the most trustable experts at their word.
Note: One of the few the exceptions was Ron DeSantis who actually considered the dissenting voices and tried on his own to make sense of the existing data.
Sadder still, let’s consider what the WHO had to say about this in 2019.
“The evidence base on the effectiveness of NPIs (non-pharmaceutical interventions) in community settings is limited, and the overall quality of evidence was very low for most interventions.
There have been a number of highquality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating that personal protective measures such as hand hygiene and face masks have, at best, a small effect on influenza transmission. However, there are few RCTs for other NPIs, and much of the evidence base is from observational studies and computer simulations.
School closures can reduce influenza transmission but would need to be carefully timed in order to achieve mitigation objectives. Travel-related measures are unlikely to be successful in most locations…and travel restrictions and travel bans are likely to have prohibitive economic consequences.
The most effective strategy to mitigate the impact of a pandemic is to reduce contacts between infected and uninfected persons, thereby reducing the spread of infection, the peak demand for hospital beds, and the total number of infections, hospitalizations and deaths.
However, social distancing measures (e.g. contact tracing, isolation, quarantine, school and workplace measures and closures, and avoiding crowding) can be highly disruptive, and the cost of these measures must be weighed against their potential impact.”
The WHO’s guide in turn suggested:
Note: I believe setting up UV lights (with the UV appropriate wavelength) would have done more to prevent to prevent the transmission of COVID indoors (e.g., see this study and this review) than any other intervention we did — most of which were ultimately useless. More importantly, unlike the other options, the affordable UV approach was not disruptive to our daily lives.
Beyond the existing evidence again and again arguing against the lockdowns, common sense did as well. Consider each of these scenarios:
If border controls were implemented prior to a single case of COVID entering an area, they could potentially stop an epidemic (although the evidence for this was quite weak). At the start of COVID-19, there were numerous calls for travel restrictions from the countries affected by COVID-19 (some of which Trump implemented), but all of them were stonewalled by the same people who later became rapid lockdown advocates.
I believe this was the most justifiable argument for lockdowns, but by the time lockdowns were being considered, we were long past the window where they could be used to prevent COVID from entering communities.
Once COVID was in a country, in the absolute best case scenario (assuming lockdowns worked 100% and everyone complied with them — neither of which was true), lockdowns could only pause the spread of the disease.
However, since lockdowns could not be sustained indefinitely, they would eventually have to be broken, at which point all the people who had been “protected” from COVID would get it anyways. This approach hence only made sense if either:
It was possible to build up the surge capacities of the hospitals (which its not in the USA) so they would be prepared for soon to arrive COVID surge once the lockdowns were lifted.
Breakneck work was being done to identify a treatment for COVID so it could be released in tandem with the lockdowns being lifted. Sadly, our leaders did the opposite and actively suppressed or censored each therapy independent investigators successfully identified.
A time would emerge in the near future where people were at a much lower risk of developing complications from COVID and pausing the spread until that time would create the safest way to get herd immunity to the disease (and have it mutate to a less harmful variant).
As it so happened, that applied to the summer season, but despite widespread pleas to drop the restrictions over the summer, individuals were instead encouraged to avoid being outside around others at that time. This in turn led to many instead catching COVID over the winter when their bodies were much more vulnerable to the disease and they had not gotten an outdoor vitamin D boost over the summer.
The lockdowns were only done to those with the highest risks of complications from COVID-19 while those with a lower risk were allowed to be exposed and develop a natural immunity to the disease (making it less contagious and hopefully cause it to mutate to a less harmful variant). This also did not happen, and when it was proposed, it was relentlessly attacked by the public health authorities.
If lockdowns were implemented once the virus was already prevalent throughout the community, the chance they had of preventing transmission throughout the population was virtually non-existent. Nonetheless, this was frequently the stage at which lockdowns were implemented.
Given how irrational the lockdowns we saw were, it led many to quickly conclude their primary purpose was to psychologically prime the population to agree to the experimental COVID vaccinations — which is ultimately exactly what happened.
In medicine, I’ve accepted there will always be therapies that are widely utilized but offer no benefit to patients — instead I try to focus my energy on the ones that actively harm patients. In the case of the lockdowns, their complete irrationality was never my primary concern. Rather, their potential costs were far more concerning.
First off, it is well known that a significant number of people cannot tolerate isolation, so it was very likely that many pre-existing psychiatric issues would worsen, and many of us heard tragic stories of this (e.g., youth suicides significantly increased). Consider for a moment what the WHO had to say on this subject:
“In the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, global prevalence of anxiety and depression increased by a massive 25%, according to a scientific brief released by the World Health Organization (WHO) today.”
Note: While it’s harder to quantify, I believe the most devastating psychological impact was towards the elderly, shown by the fact many stated they would rather risk dying than be separated from their families. Likewise, I heard many tragic stories of an elder being prevented from being with their family at the moment of their death, something which for spiritual reasons, I believe is one of the worst things that can be done to someone.
There were also many health issues I and many of my colleagues noticed from the prolonged isolation and inactivity. These included:
A general worsening of metabolic health (e.g., one study found people gained an average of 2 pounds per month of lockdowns).
An increase in musculoskeletal pain throughout the body (e.g., consider this study).
Immune suppression from not being exposed to the sun, exercising, or being stimulated by germs from your peers.
Delayed evaluation and treatment of critically important diseases (e.g., cancer). At the time this concern was raised, it was dismissed, but now it is being cited as the cause of the spike in cancer which followed the vaccination campaign.
There were also many other severe consequences to those who were locked down. For example, domestic abuse rose by 8.1% during the lockdowns.
Likewise, school closures (which were completely unjustified as children had no risk for COVID-19) had devastating effects on the educational development of students across America — particularly the poorest children. Given that a successful education is one of the most important tools to prevent poverty, this was quite concerning.
In short, when you consider the known non-benefits of the lockdowns in contrast to the known harms of them, it is really is quite the mystery as to exactly why so many ardently insisted on them.
While the effects in the previous section are tragic, the greatest concern with the lockdowns were economic in nature. Many knew from the start they would be catastrophic for the poor and thrust many into poverty. When it was all said and done:
They caused a “historically unprecedented increase in global poverty” of close to 100 million people, and a 11.6% global increase of extreme poverty. The impact of this is hard to even begin to put into words.
150 million people no longer had the food they needed. The magnitude of this wave of global starvation in another thing that is almost impossible to put into words.
One third of American’s small businesses closed. These were often sources of generational wealth and more importantly, an alternative to corporate serfdom.
We witnessed the largest transfer of wealth in history. From 2020 to 2021, billionaires went from owning slightly over 2% of the global household wealth to 3.5% of it.
At the times these arguments were raised to oppose the lockdowns, the common talking point used to dismiss them was that human lives were more important than money, so if we had to hurt the economy to save American lives it was worth it.
Yet this point ignored a well known fact — poverty and economic distress is not good your health. For example:
Widespread economic distress significantly increases the death rate. For example, when the Soviet Union collapsed and many former Soviet nations were thrust into poverty because their economies collapsed, the death rates spiked (in some cases doubling).
As depressing as the short term economic costs of the lockdowns were, the long term ones appear to have been even worse. The most concerning one is the rapid inflation throughout our economy, which has happened at a rate not seen since 1981. To put its effects into context:
For those who are more affluent, these increases are very manageable, but for everyone else, especially those living paycheck to paycheck (or say on a fixed income due to being on social security), they are life changing. All of this helps to explain why so much populist anger is now emerging (e.g. the most popular song in America speaks to these themes and reached its popularity without any mainstream promotion).
Note: This inflation was likely due the lockdowns closing many small businesses, the lockdowns freezing the global supply chain (something known to cause major depressions), and the massive deficit spending that was done to mitigate the consequences of the lockdowns — in the first 3 years of COVID-19, the national debt increased by 8.42 trillion, which increased our total debt 35.4%.
All of these consequences of the lockdowns and the inevitable inflation that would follow were known ahead of time but nonetheless ignored.
In parallel to this rapid inflation and the loss of many longstanding jobs during the lockdowns, we are also seeing many signs a recession is on the horizon (e.g., unprecedented layoffs are hitting workers big tech). All of these together make things extraordinary challenging for those who were already struggling to make ends meet.
One of the fastest forms of inflation during the lockdowns happened in the housing sector. As a result, many Americans who had previously would have been able to afford buying a house are no longer were able to — and a generational gap in home ownership was created.
The current attempt our government has made to reverse it — spiking the interest rates has not achieved its intended target (instead the price increase has only slowed), but it has made houses even more unaffordable as the increased monthly payments resulting from higher interest rates are now beyond many family’s budgets — hence making home ownership only feasible for rich investors who have the funds available for cash payments.
If you take a step back and consider this from the perspective of economic feudalism, it makes perfect sense. People that are not property owners who need to somehow earn their paycheck each month to have a place to live are much more likely to comply with unjust dictates from an employer (e.g., corporate vaccine mandates).
Conversely, there has been a longstanding belief amongst the constitutionalists that property ownership is necessary for Democracies as that causes the property owners to be invested in the success of the society around them in parallel to having degree of independence that allows them to be able to see and then vote for what is in the best interests of society.
This speaks to a broader issue, which is that successful democracies require a thriving middle class, whereas corrupt governments with far fewer personal freedoms typically have much greater wealth disparities (a small extravagantly wealthy elite alongside a large impoverished general population). From a feudalistic standpoint, the latter is again the desirable outcome.
One of the challenging things about economics is that it’s very easy to assert something caused something else and then provide a sound rationale for why that happened, but its much harder to prove the validity of that argument (hence why we have many different schools of economic thought). That said, what follows are the most plausible explanations I’ve identified for the housing spike:
The rise of remote working and the desire to get away from cities (e.g., for increased quality of life, to escape the lockdowns or to be in less contagious areas) caused many more highly paid workers (e.g., those from the coast in tech) to invest in previously ignored real estate markets (e.g., Boise Idaho’s home prices went up by 40% over the first two years of COVID).
That spike never really went away (as no one wanted to sell at a loss) and in many parts of the country became the new normal while wages remained largely the same. Recently, I spent a week investigating exactly what happened in Maui with the fires so that I could use my platform to provide something which could help the people there:
One of the less appreciated facets of the story was that the people of Maui had been under enormous economic pressure since COVID-19 started. This was because:
The home prices spiked, likely due to many who could work remotely wanting to move there. According to the Maui Retailer Association, from 2019 to 2022, the median single home price increased from $741,355 to $1,105,000 (a 49% increase) and the average price increased from $1,081,560 to $1,706,571 (a 57.8% increase).
In addition to that spike making home ownership impossible for many who had lived in Hawaii, it also drove rent prices up, with many parts of Maui experiencing a 16% increase during that period.
At the same time this happened, since Hawaii’s traditional economy is primarily in tourism, the pandemic (which closed tourism in Hawaii) was devastating to the existing population, and put many who had lived in Hawaii for years into the situation where they were priced out and either became homeless (which is a significant issue in Hawaii) or had to move back to the mainland.
Because of these existing factors, the Lahaina fires were particularly devastating to the economically vulnerable members of the state, as the fires:
Significantly reduced the available housing on the island (much of what burned down had previously belonged to lower income families) — hence making the remaining housing even harder to obtain.
Destroyed many of the traditional jobs (Lahaina was the tourist district and many were employed there).
Froze the entire island economy because the initial government messaging said to stay away from Maui during the fires. For those already struggling to make ends meet, that loss of work was devastating.
As a result, the most likely consequence from those fires is for the traditional members of Maui’s population to either leave or transition to a lower standard of living while an affluent elite displaces them. This increase in wealth disparity linked to housing in-affordability is something we are likely to see continue to increase and happen in more and more places as time continues to move forward.
Residential real estate is being seen as the safest investment and thus being driven up by investors not seeking the home for their own families, a problem best synopsized by this video discussing the concerning rise of homebuyers being outbid at the last moment by cash offers from outside investors:
There are a few ways to interpret the trend of large investors moving to buy up the housing market. They include:
Commercial real estate had previously been a bedrock investment for large institutions. Because the pandemic decimated the commercial real estate market (e.g., since many are now working from home businesses no longer need to rent as much office space, and the transition to online shopping closed many physical retail locations) a new investment area needed to be found. Residential housing was a logical alternative for many.
The massive spike in housing prices created by the lockdowns made that market look like an ideal investment to many.
Concerns over inflation and the devaluation of the dollar (due to how much our debt increased in the last few years) has made many want to have their dollars be parked in physical assets that will not be devalued by further deficit spending.
In addition to the previous two explanations, it is also possible that there is a deliberate attempt being made to displace the working class from home ownership (so they are forced to live paycheck to paycheck as corporate serfs who own nothing), or that those who desired that outcome used their influence to direct the COVID response so it would increase the likelihood that it would happen.
Ultimately, it’s impossible to know, but regardless of the exact reason for why it’s happening, as the previous decades have all shown, I believe we can reliably predict that it will keep on happening unless we as a people fundamentally change how we approach this issue.
One of the things I’ve found immensely frustrating about advocates for the poor and working class is that typically they only provide lip-service to the issue and do nothing to actually fix it, leading to the problems continuing to get worse and worse (once again consider the 1992 presidential debate I cited above).
When the COVID lockdowns were proposed, it was amazing to watch how ardently the progressives who claimed to be doing everything they could to protect the vulnerable members of our society did not give a second thought to the known economic costs of the lockdowns.
Now, we are all experiencing the harms of those policies, and just like each previous time, very few are speaking out against the increasing economic feudalism we are experiencing. Rather, since COVID-19 we’ve watched the birth of a massive censorship apparatus which is aggressively censoring any rational viewpoints which argue against policies that enrich the upper class at everyone else’s expense.
Fortunately, I believe the egregiousness of this situation has in parallel created a much greater willingness in the population to question the audacious lies that are pushed on them. As a result, the independent media now is outpacing the influence of the legacy media, which for decades has been able to control the narrative of the country, but now is losing that power.
I am thus very hopeful, we may at last be arriving at a point where the public political will exists to reverse the unchecked greed and economic feudalism we’ve watched proliferate over the last 50 years.
However, at the same time, because the stakes are now so high (e.g., those invested in the old model do not want to relinquish their power), it is very likely whatever transition occurs will be quite rock, and I hope each of us can play our critical roles in helping to guide our society in the direction that most benefits everyone.
A Midwestern Doctor (AMD) is a board-certified physician in the Midwest and a longtime reader of Mercola.com. I appreciate his exceptional insight on a wide range of topics and I’m grateful to share them. I also respect his desire to remain anonymous as he is still on the front lines treating patients. To find more of AMD’s work, be sure to check out The Forgotten Side of Medicine on Substack.
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.
In the United States, daylight saving time (DST), which began Sunday, March 12, 2023, ends Sunday November 5, 2023. On that day, at 2 a.m. local time, clocks “fall back” one hour to 1 a.m., to what’s known as standard time
March 26, 2019, the European parliament voted to end DST as of 2021
While the original intention was that extending daylight hours during the summer would result in energy savings, research shows it’s not saving us any money, and is contributing to ill health
Researchers have noticed a statistically significant increase in the number of car accidents, workplace injuries and heart attacks in the days after the time changes in the spring, which appear to be related to loss of sleep and circadian rhythm disruptions
While the most adverse health effects are attributed to the springtime switch to DST, the switch back to Standard Time in the fall means your body has to get used to it getting dark earlier in the evening. Tips to help your body adjust to the time change are included
Advertisement
Editor’s Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published October 25, 2019.
In the United States, daylight saving time (DST), which began Sunday, March 12, 2023, ends Sunday November 5, 2023. On that day, at 2 a.m. local time, clocks “fall back” one hour to 1 a.m., to what’s known as standard time.12
In Europe, clocks are rolled back an hour on the last Sunday of October, which this year falls on October 29.3 Regardless of the exact day, this time change from DST to standard time results in the gain of one hour of sleep.
While the loss or gain of one hour might sound like a negligible amount, research clearly shows it has significant ramifications for public health and safety — particularly after the switch to DST in the spring. However, even the switch back to standard time can leave you feeling off-kilter for days or even weeks, as your body adapts to the earlier onset of darkness.
Many Europeans are now rejoicing, though. March 26, 2019, the European parliament voted to end DST as of 2021,4 so certain parts of Europe aren’t worrying about clock-changing this year. As reported by The Guardian,5 member states are allowed to “choose whether to remain on ‘permanent summer’ or ‘permanent winter’ time under the draft directive.”
This means that countries opting to remain permanently on “summertime” (the term used for DST in Europe) would perform their last and final clock adjustment on the last Sunday in March 2021. For countries opting to remain in permanent wintertime/standard time, the final adjustment would take place on the last Sunday of October 2021.
While some U.S. states and territories have abolished DST, most have not.6 However, the tide is starting to turn even in the U.S. Each year, more states are considering taking action to end it.
As reported by National Geographic,7 dozens of state bills have been introduced in 2019, proposing various changes to DST. Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, California, Oregon and Washington are all considering legislation to opt out of the time change.
As explained in the featured video, daylight saving time is intended to give you more access to daylight hours, thereby reducing energy costs and promoting healthy outdoor activities.
But is it worth it? Kazakhstan abolished DST as of 2005,8 citing health complications as the reason for its decision.9 In 2011, Russia’s president Dmitry Medvedev also canceled DST due to the “stress and illness” it causes.10
While the original intention was that extending daylight hours during the summer would result in energy savings,11 research shows it’s not saving us any money. For starters, lighting is no longer the most significant portion of energy consumption, and extending daylight hours encourages greater use of air conditioning and heating, both of which use more energy than lighting. A study12 by Yale economist Matthew Kotchen and Laura Grant, Ph.D., concluded that:
“… contrary to the policy’s intent — DST increases residential electricity demand. Estimates of the overall increase are approximately 1 percent, but we find that the effect is not constant throughout the DST period. DST causes the greatest increase in electricity consumption in the fall, when estimates range between 2 and 4 percent.”
Kotchen notes when DST begins in the spring, people are waking during the coldest and darkest part of the day, often turning up the heat to stay warm, and during long evening hours, more air conditioning is used, leading to an overall higher energy use. He told The New York Times,13 “The way people use energy now is different from when daylight saving came about.”
Similarly, a 2018 meta-analysis14 of 44 different papers found that, on average, DST lowered electricity use by a mere 0.34%. Locations further from the equator, with mild summers and low cooling demands, may save energy, but geographical locations closer actually use more energy during DST.
Aside from failing to provide any significant energy savings, the biannual clock changes also have a detrimental impact on your physical health. Between accidents and health repercussions, it seems clear DST is actually costing more than it’s saving.
Researchers have noticed a statistically significant increase in the number of car accidents,15 workplace injuries16 and heart attacks17 in the days after the time changes in the spring, which appear to be related to loss of sleep and circadian rhythm disruptions.
According to one 2009 study,181920 workplace accidents and injuries increase by 5.7%, and 67.6% more workdays are lost as a result of injuries following the change to DST. Ditto for traffic accidents. A 1996 study2122 found traffic accidents rose by 8% on the Monday following the changeover to DST.
More recent research,23 published in 2018, found traffic accidents increase 16% on the first day after DST and 12% on the second day. Fatal alcohol-related traffic accidents also increase for the first week after setting the clocks ahead.24
Suicide rates for men also rise in the weeks following DST.25 According to the authors, their finding “suggests that small changes in chronobiological rhythms are potentially destabilizing in vulnerable individuals.”
Cardiac events are more commonplace every Monday, greater than any other day of the week, and are likely related to changes in sleep associated with the transition from weekend to workday. This is known as the “Monday cardiac phenomenon.”26 On the Monday and Tuesday following spring DST, studies2728 show the risk is even more pronounced.
For example, a University of Alabama study29 found the number of heart attacks increased by 10% on the Monday and Tuesday following the time change to DST in the spring, and decreased by 10% on the first Monday and Tuesday after the clocks are switched back in the fall.
Other studies have found even larger discrepancies. For example, data presented at the American College of Cardiology’s 63rd Annual Scientific Session in 2014 revealed a 25% increase in heart attacks the Monday after DST in the spring, and a 21% decrease in the fall when an hour of sleep is regained.30 The most recent meta-analysis31 looking at this phenomenon was published in the March 2019 issue of the Journal of Clinical Medicine. Here they found:
“A significantly higher risk of AMI [acute myocardial infarction] (Odds Ratio: 1.03 …) was observed during the two weeks following spring or autumn DST transitions.
However, although AMI risk increased significantly after the spring shift, the incidence of AMI during the week after winter DST transition was comparable with control periods … Conclusion: The risk of AMI increases modestly but significantly after DST transitions, supporting the proposal of DST shifts discontinuation.”
Preliminary research32 presented at the 2018 American Heart Association conference found the number of patients admitted for atrial fibrillation (irregular heartbeat) also rises in the days after DST in the spring, from 2.56 admissions per day to 3.13 admissions.
Researchers have also found people are less productive once DST is implemented. A 2012 National Geographic article33 quoted Till Roenneberg, a Russian chronobiologist, who said most people show “drastically decreased productivity,” decreased quality of life, increased illness, and are “just plain tired” in the week after DST in the spring.
Disruptions in your sleep pattern tend to cascade throughout your entire body. For instance, sleep helps reset your neural circuits that are impaired during sleep deprivation. With too little sleep, your cognitive flexibility suffers.
Research34 from the University of Washington found cognitive inflexibility even affects judges who are handing down sentences. On the Monday after DST in the spring, longer sentences are imposed on people who have been found guilty.
A similar negative effect has been found in students. A 2015 study35 found DST adversely affected sleep patterns of high school students and their ability to be vigilant at school.
Other data suggest it may affect academic performance. Researchers compared 10 years of SAT scores from Indiana where only 15 of the state’s 92 counties moved their clocks forward during the study period. The data indicated SAT scores were 16% of a standard deviation lower in counties that adopted DST.3637
On a side note, one reason Indiana is used as a discussion model for DST is because it lies smack-dab between Central and Eastern time zones. Geographically, it’s actually in the Central zone, but in 2006 it adopted the standardized DST to align with Eastern standard time changes.
The decision has been controversial in Indiana, where the western part of the state wants to align with the Central zone, while the eastern part favors aligning with Ohio’s Eastern zone.3839
A 2019 article40 by Health.com also cites evidence linking DST to higher rates of depression diagnoses, cluster headaches and lower success rates among women undergoing in vitro fertilization.
Many of the problems attributed to the biannual time change has to do with the fact that gaining or losing an hour of time throws off your circadian clock. As noted in a November 2018 NPR report,41 your internal clocks aren’t easily reprogrammed, as they’re all synchronized to the 24-hour cycle of light and dark.
According to Fred Turek, director of the Center for Sleep & Circadian Biology at Northwestern University, who is featured in the NPR article, it takes a day or two for your body to adjust to the new time. As noted by NPR:42
“Over the last 20 years, scientists have documented that, in addition to the master clock in our brains, every cell in our body has a time-keeping mechanism. These clocks help regulate important functions such as sleep and metabolism.
And increasingly, there’s evidence that when our habits — such as when we eat and sleep — are out of sync with our internal clocks, it can harm us. As we’ve reported, our bodies crave consistent routines. When we disrupt our routines … it can increase the risk of metabolic disease.”
That changing our clocks backward and forward affects our routines and biological clocks is clear. The question is, would it be better to remain in perpetual DST or in perpetual standard time? Or does it not make a difference?
This somewhat sticky issue is addressed in a 2019 paper43 in one of my absolute favorite journals, Frontiers in Physiology. This is one of the best reviews you will ever read about daylight saving time and it’s free to read or download in its entirety.
The review addresses “numerous fallacies … propagated by lay people, politicians and scientists,” and offers “suggestions of how problems associated with DST … can be solved based on circadian biology.”
It’s a very comprehensive paper, and I recommend reading through it if you want a more in-depth understanding of how keeping one time or the other influences biology. Here’s an excerpt illustrating some of the issues at hand:
“In September 2018, two sleep researchers from the University of Salzburg claimed in an interview that there is no hard scientific evidence against perennial DST and that the risks would be negligible.
This press release contained several statements that echo wide-spread incorrect beliefs and is therefore an excellent substrate for clarifying fallacies …
The press release adds that ‘… many people extensively use smart phones or laptops shortly before they go to bed. The strong blue components … are the true robbers of sleep. … the potential effects of summer time can be neglected in comparison.’
Indeed, several studies have shown that the usage of artificial light in the evening, and specifically that of electronic screens, does ‘rob’ sleep and delays the circadian clock. The second half of the statement, however, is missing the point: the combination of nighttime light exposure and DST is far worse than nighttime night exposure alone.
The nighttime light exposures delay the body clock in relation to the sun clock, which translates to living further west is a time zone, while DST advances the social clock in relation to the sun clock, which translates into moving the time zone further east.
Thus, in DST, the two effects additively (i.e., both delaying the body clock and advancing the social clock in relation to the sun clock) increase SJL [social jetlag, i.e., misalignment of biological and social time, such as discrepancy between work and free time44] since both effects increase the difference between the mid-sleep on work-free days (closer to the individual circadian mid-point of sleep) and mid-sleep on workdays …
In summary, the scientific literature strongly argues against the switching between DST and Standard Time and even more so against adopting DST permanently.
The latter would exaggerate all the effects described above beyond the simple extension of DST from approximately 8 months/year to 12 months/year (depending on country) since body clocks are generally even later during winter than during the long photoperiods of summer (with DST). Perennial DST increases SJL prevalence even more, as described above.
A solution to the problem is shown in Figure 2C, which contains a combination of obliterating DST (in favor of permanent Standard Time) and reassigning countries and regions to their actual sun-clock based time zones. Under such adjustment, social (local) clock time will match sun clock time and therefore body clock time most closely.”
In addition to the strong recommendation of getting eight hours of sleep on a consistent basis, there are some other things you can do to mitigate the effects of the time change until the powers that be decide to eliminate it.
While the most adverse health effects are attributed to the springtime switch to DST, the switch back to standard time in the fall means your body has to get used to it getting dark earlier in the evening. When “falling back” an hour, the following tips can be helpful:45
Gradually start going to bed earlier, say 30 minutes earlier than usual Saturday, and another 30 minutes earlier Sunday. This will help you get up earlier to maximize your exposure to daylight earlier in the morning rather than later in the evening.
Be particularly mindful of using electronic devices in the days prior to the switch-over. Research46 on teens shows that using electronics for four hours during the day can increase your risk of needing more than an hour to fall asleep by 49%.
So, if you’ve ever considered “unplugging” for a day or two, the weekend of the time change is a perfect time to turn everything off, or cut down your use of electronics to a bare minimum so that you can optimize your sleep. You can also consider supplementing with melatonin if you have trouble falling asleep on an earlier schedule.
Exercise in the mornings over the weekend, in accordance with your overall level of health and fitness.
Eat dinner earlier and pay attention to your diet, making sure you are consuming plenty of fresh, whole foods, preferably organic, and minimal amounts of processed foods and fast foods; keep your sugar consumption low, especially fructose. I invite you to review our optimized nutrition plan here.
Practice good sleep hygiene, including sleeping in complete darkness, checking your bedroom for electromagnetic fields, and keeping your bedroom temperature cool enough for optimal sleep. For a full report about how to maximize the quality of your sleep, see “Sleep — Why You Need It and 50 Ways to Improve It.”
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.
If we have learned nothing more from the last 160 years let it be that we cannot afford to sit back and let anyone else govern us.
We may be lazy and scared, but we still have no choice.
Many people, when faced with the challenges and questions of self-governance, recoil and desperately search for someone to tell them what to do and how to think, or better yet (in their minds) do it for them.
They are only too willing to hand-off responsibility for themselves and their own lives after a lifetime of cradle-to-grave supervision.
First, from our parents, second, from the school officials and teachers, third from our superior officers in the military service or professors in college, and later throughout our lives from our bosses in businesses and corporations.
There’s no window in time to learn who we are and what we want until we are ready to retire, and by then, life itself is slipping from our hands.
Unless we make that time for ourselves and call it “now”.
Too late too many of us wake up and think, “Hey, I was enslaved all my life!”
When I am talking to Assemblies around the country, I get questions and criticisms that tell me that people still aren’t quite “getting it” and are afraid of freedom.
Set free from their prison cells, they rush out into the sunshine and open air, only to be frightened by the big bold world, and they turn around, rush back into their cells, slam the door, and in a cold sweat search for someone to take charge and order them around again.
It was so much easier to be a slave — in some ways.
Throughout history, people have chosen to enslave themselves rather than search within themselves — and take responsibility for their own lives.
We have been only too willing to give away the burden of our own authority.
Read the Books of Samuel I and II for a recount of how this happened to the Hebrew people, too.
Now fast forward to the debate surrounding the adoption of The Unanimous Declaration of Independence.
The Founding Fathers skirted around the issue of slavery in order to secure unity on the issue of breaking away from Britain. They knew it was wrong to leave slavery in place, but some key parts of the country depended on slavery for their economic benefit and wouldn’t give it up.
The Southern States didn’t want to give up the institution of slavery back then, the same way that the central bankers don’t want to give it up now. And for the same reasons.
The Founding Fathers compromised. Eighty years later, in the 1850’s, the issue of slavery came back to haunt their Grandsons.
At that time, a similar debate took place, with the Federation of States recommending that we use public funds to buy all the privately owned slaves and set them free. End of problem.
That’s actually what was done in Great Britain and throughout Europe.
The “representatives” of the business interests of the Northern States balked at this. Why should they have to give up anything financially to set Southern Slaves free? That cost should fall on the Southerners who had benefited and profited from the institution of slavery.
So instead of making a substantial, but by no means crippling financial sacrifice for the Public Good, the Northern “States of States” backed by the British Territorial United States Government and the British Crown pushed for war.
The result cost an estimated 1.5 million American lives and devastated the whole country. The Northern members of the original Confederation were bankrupted, and their Southern cohorts were ruinated by the British Territorial U.S. Army.
Lest anyone be confused, the fact that Lincoln bankrupted the Northern “States of States” involved in the Civil War in 1863, is absolute hard evidence that these participants in the “war” were commercial corporations. The actual States are not eligible for public bankruptcy protection.
We were left with a full third of our government inoperable and awaiting reconstruction.
Lincoln, a Bar Attorney deceitfully usurping upon the actual Office of The President of The United States of America, was murdered by his own Generals and Cabinet Officers acting in collusion with Southern Partisans working for the Holy See— which fought on the side of the Southern States of States.
Rome has always subsidized itself on slaves and tribute from enslaved nations, so no surprise that the Holy See fought on the pro-slavery side of the conflict.
The U.S. Army — a mixed bag of American and British Territorial mercenaries — took control of the country and set up military districts in the States of the Union — first in the South, and later in the North.
They also set up unauthorized military “district courts” to collect war reparations.
Bear in mind that this was done by men who were taking their paychecks from our pockets, operating deceitfully and secretly for their own self-interest, and against the actual civilian government they were sworn to protect and serve.
Also realize that throughout the Civil War and afterward, our country’s lawful and honorable military was unlawfully converted into a commercial mercenary force serving British Crown and Roman Municipal interests.
So here we are, America, the Land of the Free, in the grip of a British Territorial Commercial Mercenary Army, which has been working under cloak of secrecy, and passing itself off as “representing” us ever since— while whoring their services off to the old nasty European powers and illegally confiscating our property and labor and natural resources.
Over time, the criminals benefiting from this grew bolder and more greedy. The commercial corporations benefiting from this needed more and more and more collateral to pay for their investments and war-mongering, so by 1925, they seized upon our labor assets and via a system of undisclosed registrations contrived to mischaracterize Americans as “Dual Federal Citizens”.
The Territorial U.S. Citizens were reduced to the level of Indentured Servitude, while the Municipal “citizens of the United States” popularly described as Fourteenth Amendment citizens, were reduced to utter slavery.
The final turn of this screw came with the First Inaugural Address of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in which he announced his decision to sell all the Municipal slaves to the Pope via clearinghouse certificates — birth certificates, in other words.
In this way, a system of peonage was enforced on the British Territorial U.S. Citizens and a system of slavery was enforced upon Municipal citizens of the United States — and this form of Dual Federal Citizenship was additionally and secretly imposed upon millions upon millions of unsuspecting Americans by an unholy alliance of military, political,
and commercial interests that all owed us good faith and service.
It has also taken place in the presence of the so-called Thirteenth Amendment, which claimed to abolish slavery on our shores.
Leave it to the attorneys to find a sly excuse and reinterpretation of plain words.
Private slavery was abolished on the land and soil of our country. The plantations were sacked and the slaves released — but not set free. Not for long. Within months, Southern Democrats had set up another enslavement racket.
Private slave ownership might be abolished on the land and soil, but public slave ownership was still allowed in international jurisdiction. The so-called Federal Corporations, both the U.S.A, Inc. and the UNITED STATES, INC., operated out of the District of Columbia could still own slaves.
So they eagerly grabbed up “title” to people presumed to be slaves by any means possible, first enslaving men and women of color into this new racket, and later, via the already described birth registration racket, creating Dual Federal Citizens to function as Indentured Servants and as slaves.
Both slaves and indentured servants are very valuable assets and serve admirably as collateral backing loans, which is what the foreign Federal Corporations wanted — loans of credit that they could use for their benefit, and still claim to be operating under our Constitutional agreements.
The central banks colluded with them in this and issued the credit they wanted as “Federal Reserve Notes” based on all the purloined American physical assets and American labor assets.
All without the American people knowing a thing about it.
In this generation, we’ve seen a British Territorial Citizen, Barack Obama, half white, half black, trying to foment a race-based war on our shores, trying to convince people that racism was the root cause of slavery and poverty and misery.
How do you explain the millions of Irish slaves who preceded the African slaves by a hundred years, Irishmen and Irishwomen whose white Irish bodies were simply worked to death and piled up like cordwood and covered over with dirt to create “Wall Street” in New York?
Slavery isn’t a racial issue. Anyone and everyone can be a slave.
We’ve even had Joe Biden, trying to somehow, in his half-baked way, put out the message that the LGBTQ portion of our population is the “new” special interest group enjoying special privileges and victimhood status.
But slavery isn’t a sexuality issue, either. Anyone of any sexual orientation can be enslaved.
Slavery is the issue. It has always been the issue, and it is still the issue to be resolved today.
Slavery is profitable, and that’s why men have engaged in it since ancient times.
It is also a singularly self-defeating practice, as it denigrates and defames and diminishes every man and woman on the face of the Earth.
In 1926, the League of Nations abolished slavery in all jurisdictions worldwide. Virtually all of the member countries piled on and signed it.
The League of Nations was quickly disbanded and replaced with the United Nations instead.
The United Nations approves of and thrives on slavery and indentured servitude. That’s why there’s a United Nations instead of a League of Nations.
When you ask, “Hey, what happened to the League of Nations?”
You will be told that the League of Nations was disbanded because it failed to prevent war. With 22 hot wars presently raging unabated, has the United Nations done any better?
No, the League of Nations was disbanded because it took a stand against slavery on a worldwide basis, and that was something that the puppet masters running the phony corporation governments and banks didn’t want to end.
That’s how they’ve made the Lion’s Share of their income for thousands of years and the means they have used to finance their war-mongering, too.
Just ask (if he were still alive) Benjamin D’Israeli, Queen Victoria’s former Lord of the Exchequer and Prime Minister, how he “enfranchised” and enslaved the British working class and used them and their labor and everything they owned as collateral to finance the British Raj in India.
Slavery.
Ask Allen Dulles and Michael Hayden and Big Moe and the Rockefellers and the LBJ’s of the world how World War II was financed, and then read the Buck Act.
Slavery.
The worst part of it all, is that mankind has largely done this to ourselves, by abdicating our own freewill and individual authority, by handing over our “proxies” to “representatives”, by not having faith in ourselves and our ability to self-govern, by being lazy and wanting to remain in an infantile dependent state, and being afraid of our own natural empowerments.
Then ask yourselves, how can you be free if you are still a slave to money? Ask yourselves, what is money?
It’s a product. A widget. A “symbol of value” — but what is the value being symbolized?
In one way or another, the value that money represents is energy — your energy and the energy of creation, manifested as labor and the material substance of the Earth, which is the inheritance of all mankind.
The assets backing the money belong to you, and the money backing the credit belongs to you, too. You are the value being symbolized and you are the image of the Living God, raised up in material form.
By what madness have you been enslaved, and given away your authority and your freedom to symbol-makers?
Mere people just like you, sitting in the back room of an office in a building called a “treasury” crank out these symbols like widgets and charge you “full face value” for paper and digital idols (another name for symbols).
Other mere people, just like you, sit in banks and enter digits into accounting forms, and presume to tell you what your “value” is — according to them and their records.
These people are just middlemen gone wild. They are charging you for their use of your own assets.
They are sitting as lords over you and denying you access to your own credit.
And you are allowing this? You are allowing them to use your own assets and credit against you? You are letting them sell you a promise in exchange for actual physical assets, and never collecting what they owe you?
It’s time to end slavery and break the money spell, so that we and our children and our children’s children’s children and all the generations hence can say good-bye to the evils these practices and delusions have caused.
It’s time for you to wake up. All the way up.
It’s time to decide whether you will be ruled by the True God and the Law of Creation, or some Fakir you or someone else elected.
How about King Saul? He’s dead, but so what? So are all these corporations that have been ruling over you. Faceless, nameless, unaccountable things — that’s why we call them Corps —-corpses.
And unless you really want to live your life as a corpse and be accounted for as a Genetically Modified Organism owned as chattel property by the DOD and DARPA, it’s time to settle the past and the issue of slavery once and for all.
Yes, it’s time, and that time — the only time we have, is now.
—————————-
See this article and over 4400 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com
To support this work look for the Donate button on this website.
