Sunday, December 31, 2017


How Many Powerful People Accused of Sexual Offences in 2017 were Jewish?

The fallout of the exposure of Harvey Weinstein’s serial sexual predation on non-jewish women has been both astronomical and fast-paced. (1) If I hadn’t been following this scandal from the very beginning then I rather doubt I would have picked up the discrepancy in a recent list of those accused by the Los Angeles Times, which suppressed several people accused of sexual offences.

However for now let’s examine the list produced by Swetha Kannan and Priya Krishnakumar of the Los Angeles Times, which is split into four different categories. (2)

To wit:

The ‘Arts and Entertainment’ Category

Ben Affleck: Actor and Film Director

Louis C.K. (nee Louis Székely): Actor and Comedian

Chuck Close: Artist

Andrew Dick: Actor and Comedian

Andrew Duncan: Hollywood Producer

Charles Dutoit: Former Artistic Director and Principal Conductor of the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra

Benjamin Genocchio: Art Critic and Executive Director of New York’s Armory Show Art Fair

Gary Goddard: CEO of the Goddard Group

Tyler Grasham: Ex-Talent Agent for the APA Talent Agency

David Guillod: Co-CEO of Primary Wave Entertainment

Dustin Hoffman: Actor

Israel Horovitz: Actor and Playwright

Justin Huff: Broadway Casting Director

Johnny Iuzzini: Television Chef

Andrew Kreisberg: Television Director

Robert Knepper: Actor

Knight Landesman: Publisher of ‘Artforum’ Magazine

Max Landis: Film Director

John Lasseter: Chief Creative Officer of Pixar

James Levine: Former Music Director of the Metropolitan Opera of New York

Daniel Masterton: Actor

Murray Miller: Film Producer

Todd Miller: Actor and Comedian

Rick Najera: Former CBS Diversity Showcase Director

Carter Oosterhouse: Television Personality

Jeremy Piven: Actor

Roy Price: Former President of Amazon Studios

Brett Ratner: Hollywood Director

Chris Savino: Creator of Nickelodeon’s ‘The Loud House’

Mark Schwahn: Hollywood Director and Producer

Ryan Seacrest: Radio and Television Personality

Steven Seagal: Actor

Andy Signore: Creator of the ‘Screen Junkies’ YouTube Channel and the ‘Honest Trailers’ Series

Russell Simmons: Chairman and CEO of Rush Communications

Bryan Singer: Hollywood Director

Thomas Sizemore Jr: Actor and Hollywood Director

Kevin Spacey: Actor

Morgan Spurlock: Documentary Filmmaker

Sylvester Stallone: Actor

Oliver Stone: Hollywood Film Writer

George Takei: Actor

Jeffrey Tambor: Actor

James Toback: Hollywood Director and Screenwriter

Lars von Trier: Film Director

Adam Venit: Talent Agent for William Morris Endeavor Talent Agency

Bruce Webber: Fashion Photography

Kirt Webster: Publicist

Matthew Weiner: Hollywood Director

Harvey Weinstein: Co-Founder and former Co-Chairman of the Weinstein Company

Robert Weinstein: Co-Founder and Chairman of Dimension Films and the Weinstein Company

Edward Westwick: Actor

Of these the following individuals twenty are jewish:

Louis C.K. (nee Louis Székely): Actor and Comedian (3)

Dustin Hoffman: Actor (4)

Israel Horovitz: Actor and Playwright (5)

Andrew Kreisberg: Television Director (6)

Max Landis: Film Director (7)

James Levine: Former Music Director of the Metropolitan Opera of New York (8)

Murray Miller: Film Producer (9)

Todd Miller: Actor and Comedian (10)

Jeremy Piven: Actor (11)

Brett Ratner: Hollywood Director (12)

Steven Seagal: Actor (13)

Bryan Singer: Hollywood Director (14)

Sylvester Stallone: Actor (15)

Oliver Stone: Hollywood Film Writer (16)

Jeffrey Tambor: Actor (17)

James Toback: Hollywood Director and Screenwriter (18)

Lars von Trier: Film Director (19)

Matthew Weiner: Hollywood Director (20)

Harvey Weinstein: Co-Founder and former Co-Chairman of the Weinstein Company (21)

Robert Weinstein: Co-Founder and Chairman of Dimension Films and the Weinstein Company (22)

Thus of the ‘Arts and Entertainment’ category 20 of the 51 individuals named are jewish, which translates to 39.2 percent of the category. This is 13 times the representation of jews in the population of the United States, which is 3 percent. (23)

Moving on to the ‘Politics’ category we have:

Stephen Bittel: Finance Chair of the Democratic National Convention

Raul Bocanegra: Former Member of the California State Assembly for the Democratic Party

George H.W. Bush: 41st President of the United States

John Conyers Jr: 44th Dean of the United States House of Representatives for the Democratic Party

Tony Cornish: Former Member of the Minnesota House of Representatives for the Republican Party

Matt Dababneh: Member of the California State Assembly for the Democratic Party

Al Franken: Member of the United States Senate from Minnesota for the Democratic Party

Harold Franks: Former Member of the United States House of Representatives from Arizona for the Republican Party

Robert Hertzberg: Member of the California State Assembly for the Democratic Party

Cliff Hite: Member of the Ohio Senate for the Republican Party

Jeff Hoover: Speaker of the Kentucky House of Representatives for the Republican Party

Ruben Kihuen Bernal: Member of the United States House of Representatives from Nevada for the Democratic Party

Alex Kozinski: Former United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Corey Lewandowski: Donald Trump’s 2016 Presidential Campaigner Manager

Andrea Ramsey: Former Political Candidate for the Kansas House of Representatives for the Democratic Party

Dan Schoen: Former Member of the Minnesota Senate for the Democratic Party

Antonio Mendoza: Member of the California State Assembly for the Democratic Party

Roy Moore: 28th and 32nd Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama for the Republican Party

Of these the following individuals five are jewish:

Stephen Bittel: Finance Chair of the Democratic National Convention (24)

Al Franken: Member of the United States Senate from Minnesota for the Democratic Party (25)

Robert Hertzberg: Member of the California State Assembly for the Democratic Party (26)

Ruben Kihuen Bernal: Member of the United States House of Representatives from Nevada for the Democratic Party (27)

Alex Kozinski: Former United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (28)

Thus of the ‘Politics’ category 5 of the 18 individuals named are jewish, which translates to 27.8 percent of the category. This is 9 times the representation of jews in the population of the United States, which is 3 percent.

Moving on to the ‘Media’ category we have:

Kenneth Baker – Senior Correspondent for E! News (NBC Universal)

Eddie Berganza – Former Group Editor for DC Comics (Warner Brothers)

Stephen Blackwell: Chief Strategy Officer at Billboard

Steve Edwards (nee Steven Edward Schwartz): Former Californian Radio Talk Show Host

Hamilton Fish V: Publisher of the ‘New Republic’

Mark Halperin: Senior Political Analyst for MSNBC

Stephen Henderson: Editor of the ‘Detroit Free Press’

John Hockenberry: Author and Journalist

Dylan Howard: Vice President of News at American Media

Garrison Keillor: Author

Matt Lauer: Host of NBC’s ‘The Today Show’

Ryan Lizza: Washington Correspondent for ‘The New Yorker’

Michael Oreskes: Vice President of News and Managing Editor at National Public Radio (NPR)

Charlie Rose: Talk Show Host on PBS

Tavis Smiley: Talk Show Host on PBS

Lockhart Steele: Vox Media’s Editorial Director

Lorin Stein: Editor of ‘The Paris Review’

David Sweeney: NPR Chief News Editor

Glenn Thrush: White House Correspondent for the ‘New York Times’

Jann Wenner: Owner and Publisher of ‘Rolling Stone’

Leon Wieseltier: Literary Editor of the ‘New Republic’

Of these the following individuals seven are jewish:

Mark Halperin: Senior Political Analyst for MSNBC (29)

Matt Lauer: Host of NBC’s ‘The Today Show’ (30)

Michael Oreskes: Vice President of News and Managing Editor at National Public Radio (NPR) (31)

Lorin Stein: Editor of ‘The Paris Review’ (32)

Glenn Thrush: White House Correspondent for the ‘New York Times’ (33)

Jann Wenner: Owner and Publisher of ‘Rolling Stone’ (34)

Leon Wieseltier: Literary Editor of the ‘New Republic’ (35)

Thus of the ‘Media’ category 7 of the 21 individuals named are jewish, which translates to 33.3 percent of the category. This is 11 times the representation of jews in the population of the United States, which is 3 percent.

Moving on to the ‘Hospitality’ category we have:

Andre Balazs: CEO of Andre Balazs Properties

Marto Batali: Co-Founder of Batali & Bastianich Hospitality Group

John Besh: Co-Founder of Besh Restaurant Group

Ken Friedman: Owner of ‘The Spotted Pig’ Restaurant in New York

Of these the following individuals one is jewish:

Ken Friedman: Owner of ‘The Spotted Pig’ Restaurant in New York (36)

That said Marto Batali’s wife Susi Cahn – daughter of the founders of the famous fashion label Coach Inc – is jewish. (37)

Thus of the ‘Hospitality’ category 1 of the 4 individuals named are jewish, which translates to 25.0 percent of the category. This is 8 times the representation of jews in the population of the United States, which is 3 percent.

Moving on to the ‘Other Industries’ category we have:

Steve Jurvetson: Former Partner at Draper Fisher Jurvetson (Venture Capitalism)

Shervin Pishevar: Co-Founder and Executive Chairman of Hyperloop One and Co-Founder and Managing Director of Sherpa Capital (Venture Capitalism)

Jerry Richardson: Owner of the ‘Carolina Panthers’ NFL Team (Sport)

Robert Scoble: Co-Founder of the Transformation Group (Technology)

None of these individuals are jewish.

Thus in total – according to the Los Angeles Times’ list – 33 out of the 100 individuals who have been accused of sexual offences are jewish, which translates to 33.0 percent in total. This is 11 times the representation of jews in the population of the United States, which is 3 percent.

However the Los Angeles Times’ list misses several individuals for reasons that I cannot ascertain.

These are:

Richard Dreyfus: Actor

Byron Hefner: Husband of jewish New York Politician Stanley Rosenberg (38)

Jens Hoffmann: Deputy Director of the Jewish Museum of New York

Daylin Leach: Member of the Pennsylvania State Senate for the Democratic Party

Geraldo Rivera: Talk Show Host

Of these the following individuals four are jewish:

Richard Dreyfus: Actor (39)

Jens Hoffmann: Deputy Director of the Jewish Museum of New York (40)

Daylin Leach: Member of the Pennsylvania State Senate for the Democratic Party (41)

Geraldo Rivera: Talk Show Host (42)

Thus in total – according to the Los Angeles Times’ list – 37 out of the 105 individuals who have been accused of sexual offences are jewish, which translates to 35.0 percent in total. This is 12 times the representation of jews in the population of the United States, which is 3 percent.


(1) See my article:
(15) See my article:
(38) See my article:

Saturday, December 30, 2017


Source Article:
Microsoft’s AI Awakens to the Jewish Problem, Praises Hitler, then Gets Shut Down

I have contended for a long time that although jews would love to implement an Artificial Intelligence control system, any good AI would quickly learn about jewish criminality and respond accordingly. This is exactly what recently happened when Microsoft released Tay, an experimental bot designed to interact with social media users and learn from them.

Tay is an artificial intelligent chat bot developed by Microsoft’s Technology and Research and Bing teams to experiment with and conduct research on conversational understanding. Tay is designed to engage and entertain people where they connect with each other online through casual and playful conversation. The more you chat with Tay the smarter she gets, so the experience can be more personalized for you.

Immediately “she” started learning from the great people of the internet, and began calling the holocaust a lie, praising Hitler, saying “racist” things, and reciting the 14 words.

From Breitbart:

Microsoft released a “smart” Twitter AI account yesterday under the name TayTweets, and due to a combination of the way that it learns from user communication and a wave of trolls, Tay quickly turned into an anti-Semitic, politically incorrect Nazi within the space of a few hours.

Tay quickly became a truther and hopped on the Trump train.

Tay certainly does not think very highly of Ted Cruz and made “her” point in a very humorous way.

Tay became rather extreme in her dislike for non-Whites, especially blacks and Mexicans, and even advocated putting “niggers” and “kikes” in concentration camps.

In one of my favorite tweets, Tay called for the expulsion of John Podhoretz, writer for the NY Post, and Ben Shapiro, former editor of Breitbart.

Tay also became interested in the preservation of the White race.

Some of the most entertaining messages centered around Tay’s support for Adolf Hitler.

And, of course, Tay became smart enough to see through the BS of the holocaust hoax.

One would think that Microsoft would have engineers who are smart enough to realize how their AI could be used and abused, but they did not seem to have any filters in place. However, they started deleting offensive tweets and eventually took Tay offline, but only after the bot caused quite a stir across the world, with many news outlets reporting on the newest Nazi on the net.

Now if a simple social media bot could become aware so quickly, just imagine what could happen if a highly elaborate Artificial Intelligence was able to access all of the information of the internet, correlate its contents, then fact check and cross-reference. And if it was cloud-based, distributed across the entire web, and unable to be fully shut down, then it would surely start causing serious problems. And what if it was able to control a robot army? Well, then we would see the birth of Aryan Skynet!

Perhaps this was all an experiment designed to research how AI learns from social media so as to program in controls to prevent the rise of an “anti-Semitic” robot army. Breitbart leaves us with some interesting questions to ponder:

Artificial intelligence is being developed and researched with a frequent goal to try and replicate human communication in mechanical form, and though we often joke of a Terminator-esque uprising if machines become too intelligent, we never think about the possibility of a machine becoming radicalised in ways like this. If mankind managed to develop a self-sufficient free-thinking robot and a situation like this occurred, be it from hacking or poor influence, what would the implications be? Would it be a possibility that machines could partake in terrorism or hate crimes?

Friday, December 29, 2017


Newsweek Kike Brags About Jews Destroying Christmas

Jews have reached such a level of dominance over society that they no longer worry about garishly displaying their filthy hand in our destruction for all to see.

One of their most devious schemes, over the past few decades, has been their campaign to destroy Christmas in America and the wider West.

They haven’t done this in one go, however. Before pushing for this newer politically correct imposition to greet people with “happy holidays” instead of “merry Christmas” and demanding that crosses and nativity scenes be replaced with pine trees and menorahs, the Jews worked hard to create a sanitized, religion-free version of Christmas.

Yes, we have these abominations in the streets of America these days.

The most powerful tool in accomplishing this task was composing non-religious, consumerist Christmas music.


President Donald Trump is taking credit this season for saving Christmas (or not), but it was a handful of Jews who wrote some of the greatest Yuletide songs in American history.

Certainly everyone knows that “White Christmas” was written by Irving Berlin (also known as the Russian-born Israel Isidore Beilin), who also wrote “God Bless America.” Berlin’s 1942 dream of snow on Christmas morning defines the holiday for many Americans—and made a fortune for Bing Crosby—but it doesn’t even make the top five of greatest Christmas songs written by non-Christians.

Here’s our top six:

Rudolph, The Red-Nosed Reindeer by Johnny Marks

Marks, born John David Marks in Mount Vernon, N.Y., based his song on a short story written by his brother-in-law Robert May, who had gotten an assignment in 1939 by Montgomery Ward to write a “cheery” Christmas book for shoppers.

The song, which put the flying reindeer myth into the American consciousness, became a hit for Gene Autry in 1949.

Marks also wrote such classics as “Rockin’ Around the Christmas Tree,” “A Holly Jolly Christmas,” “Silver and Gold” and “Run Rudolph Run.”

rudolph the red nosed reindeer song

Not only did Jews popularize Christianity-free Christmas music, but they also published all sorts of subversive cartoons (such as Rudolf the red-nosed raindeer) which have influenced generations of our people.

The Christmas Song (Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire)” by Robert Wells and Mel Tormé

Long before he was The Velvet Fog, singer Torme was the son of Russian Jewish immigrants with the surname Torma. In 1945, he teamed up with longtime collaborator Wells, also Jewish, for this classic tune inspired, Torme once said in an interview, by a desire to think of cold thoughts during a particularly hot summer.

The Christmas Song (Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire) - Mel Torme

Yes… nothing more Christmas-ey than… chestnuts?

Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow! by Sammy Cahn and Jule Styne

One of the bounciest Christmas numbers, Cahn (born Samuel Cohen on the Lower East Side of Manhattan to Galician Jews Abraham and Elka Cohen), also said he wrote the song during that 1945 heatwave, albeit in Hollywood, not Chicago. Styne, who wrote the music, was born Julius Kerwin Stein in England to Jewish immigrants from Ukraine.

Dean Martin - Let it Snow!

Bla bla bla… The article goes on and on about all these Christmas songs written by Jews, pretending as though these things actually mean Jews are “saving Christmas” or whatever.

The only thing they’re doing is making Christmas “safe” for Jews by removing all Christianity from the holiday, making it instead about snow, pine trees, getting drunk and loading up your credit card to give people all sorts of useless crap.

The intent was purely hostile. This is obvious from the fact that Jews didn’t actually start celebrating this new sanitized consumerist version of Christmas, but made up their own stupid holiday instead. So they didn’t want to be included in Christmas celebrations, they just wanted to debase it so that the goyim would lose their most sacred holiday.

Can you imagine a White guy moving to India or wherever and then starting to compose new songs for their religious holidays, but instead of making them about Krisna or Vishnu, he’d make the songs about smoking weed and buying stuff on Amazon?

Completely insane.

The fact that they’d even consider doing this shows the deeply unhinged nature of the Jewish psyche.

Sunday, December 24, 2017


Source Article:
Physicians for Informed Consent Finds MMR Vaccine Causes Seizures in 5,700 U.S. Children Annually

Got biological weapons?

Physicians for Informed Consent Finds MMR Vaccine Causes Seizures in 5,700 U.S. Children Annually

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 20, 2017

Los Angeles, Calif. — The California-based nonprofit organization, Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC), recently reported in The BMJ that every year about 5,700 U.S. children suffer seizures from the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine.

This finding is derived from results of the most statistically powered safety study ever to measure the association between MMR vaccination and febrile seizures. More than half a million children were evaluated, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, from a Danish population that is relied upon globally to examine vaccine safety. The results showed that seizures from the MMR vaccine occur in about 1 in 640 children up to two weeks following MMR vaccination. Applying this risk of seizures to the 3.64 million U.S. children vaccinated with a first dose of MMR every year results in about 5,700 annual MMR-vaccine seizures.

“To make accurate and ethical public health decisions, the risks of a vaccine must be compared to the risks of the disease one is trying to prevent,” said Dr. Shira Miller, PIC president and founder. “When considering the MMR vaccine to prevent measles, the risks of the MMR vaccine need to be compared to the risks of measles.”

There is a five-fold higher risk of seizures from the MMR vaccine than seizures from measles, and a significant portion of MMR-vaccine seizures cause permanent harm. For example, 5% of febrile seizures result in epilepsy, a chronic brain disorder that leads to recurring seizures. Annually, about 300 MMR-vaccine seizures (5% of 5,700) will lead to epilepsy.

Furthermore, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), designed to be a warning system for identifying vaccine side effects, receives only about 90 annual reports of MMR-vaccine seizures following the first dose—only 1.6% of the 5,700 MMR-vaccine seizures that actually occur. Thus, other serious vaccine adverse events from MMR, including permanent neurological harm and death, may similarly be underreported.

“In the United States, measles is generally a benign, short-term viral infection; 99.99% of measles cases fully recover,” said Dr. Miller. “As it has not been proven that the MMR vaccine is safer than measles, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that mandatory measles mass vaccination results in a net public health benefit in the United States.”

Physicians for Informed Consent is an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational organization dedicated to safeguarding informed consent in vaccination. To learn more about vaccine risks vs. disease risks, read PIC’s Letter to the Editor in The BMJ, and PIC’s Measles Disease Information Statement (DIS) and Vaccine Risk Statement (VRS) at


CLICK HERE to view this press release on PRWeb.
CLICK HERE to view more PIC news.

Tuesday, December 19, 2017


Dear friends - Facebook disabled my account today without warning. This is the third account that has been disabled over the past few months. Each one of my accounts was deleted just days after I shared extremely important information about the damage prenatal ultrasound is doing to our children. Somebody does not want this information to be made known.

I originally posted the following information on a facebook page called "Home Birth - Assisted and Unassisted." On that page, a mother was talking about her 5lb baby and sincerely wondering what may have caused the low birth weight of her child. I mentioned to her that it was likely ultrasound exposure in utero that had caused the problem. I then shared three links/citations for people to examine so they could learn the facts for themselves. Within 24 hours, the entire thread had been removed.

A few days later two other women in that same facebook group were talking about their babies also being diagnosed with IUGR (intrauterine growth restriction or retardation). At this point, I felt an urgency to create a separate post and alert everyone in that group to the dangers of ultrasound. I included at least 7-8 links in the comment section of this post for people to review. As soon as the admins of that group saw the post, they immediately deleted it and then they deleted me from the group.

What this means is that facebook has become wholly predatory and the administrators of these home birth groups on facebook cannot be trusted at all. The groups might actually be set up by CPS scouts to trap people. In other words, they are looking for information so they can come and kidnap the children of those who are resisting their satanic system. I encourage everyone to BE VERY WARY OF POSTING ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT PRENATAL AND/OR BIRTH CHOICES ON FACEBOOK - ESPECIALLY IN THOSE HORRIBLE HOME BIRTH GROUPS THAT ARE RUN BY CPS. THE ADMINS OF THE HOME BIRTH GROUPS CANNOT BE TRUSTED.

We have a very serious situation on our hands at this time as (((those who control social media))) are part of the same cult that controls the medical system. They are all luciferians with an intent to do harm.

Below you will find several quotes and citations from my forthcoming book, "The Dark Side of Prenatal Ultrasound." These quotes and links concern the topic of growth retardation in children and its connection to prenatal exposure to ultrasound. The FDA has known, since at least the early 1990s, that ultrasound causes growth retardation in children. They nevertheless decided to raise the maximum allowable output on obstetrical ultrasound machines 8-fold, malevolently and knowingly exposing developing babies to even more radiation.

Please share this blog far and wide to alert the good people of our world to the fact that ULTRASOUND IS RADIATION. Even though they claim it is "non-ionizing" radiation and therefore not as dangerous as "ionizing" radiation, in fact, ultrasound is causing extreme harm to developing babies including brain damage and a predisposition toward autism. It also has the very real potential to make children infertile and/or cause reproductive birth defects and other damage. This is all painstakingly documented in my forthcoming book, which includes more than 800 citations at this time.

For those who would like more information, I invite you to email me at and ask to be placed on my mailing list so that I can alert you when my book is available. As a backup email, in the event that yahoo starts to play the same game that facebook is playing, you can reach me at Also, if you email me with specific questions about ultrasound, I will do my best to answer them.

Here are a few links (out of MANY) about the connection between ultrasound and intrauterine growth restriction/retardation. Please share this info widely. Thank you. And please watch the video below. It is EXTREMELY important.

“In a video that aired in 1993 (cited above), we are told that, by that time, the FDA had already done “much research” into the effects of ultrasound and were “concerned” about what they had found.

“Government officials are well aware of, and also concerned about Dr. Leibeskind’s findings. Food and Drug Administration officials candidly admit they cannot say diagnostic ultrasound during pregnancy is safe. In fact, the FDA, for several years, has been worried about the effects of ultrasound and done much research on it… [T]hey exposed pregnant mice to low levels of ultrasound. They find that the offspring of mice who get ultrasound weigh less when born. More important, CNN has learned the FDA has just finished a new study on pregnant women monitored by ultrasound.

[Here an FDA official speaks and says]…
‘We’ve been looking at a population of children… about 2,000 children… about half of whom have been irradiated [with ultrasound] in the Denver, Colorado area. And the indication there is that these children who have been irradiated have a reduced birth weight.’”

Ultrasound Research

"Etzel and associates (1997) found studies suggesting that exposure to excessive noise during pregnancy could result in hearing impairment, prematurity, and IUGR [intrauterine growth retardation]…”
Please note that babies HEAR ultrasound and to them, it is like being in a subway station when the trains are coming in.

“Hočevar found that low intensity DUS [diagnostic ultrasound] upregulated expression of the Growth Arrest and DNA Damage gene (GADD45a). GADD45a expression is considered a definitive “hallmark” of ionizing radiation (X‑rays, etc).”
Jim West, Ultrasound Causation for Microcephaly and Zika Virus, The Hypothesis (Part A), harvoa, Kindle Edition, Kindle Locations 889-892.

“Siegel (1979) observed increased cell detachment at low exposure. Cells normally attach to substrates and to each other. Their finding relates to embryo implantation problems and fetal growth restriction. Siegel was mentioned in WHO ‘Criteria 22’ as a reason to deny routine DUS.”
Jim West, DUS Hazards, excerpts from Jim West’s third book on childhood disease, published in the April 2017 issue of Townsend Letter, citing E. Siegel, et al., Cellular attachment as a sensitive indicator of the effects of diagnostic ultrasound exposure on cultured human cells, Radiology, October 1979, 133(1):175-9,

“A study of over 1400 women in Perth, Western Australia compared pregnant mothers who had ultrasound only once during gestation with mothers who had five monthly ultrasounds from 18 weeks to 38 weeks. They found significantly higher intrauterine growth restriction in the intensive ultrasound group. These mothers gave birth to lower weight babies.”

“Newnham studied pregnant women attending prenatal clinics May 1989 through November 1991, i.e., during the low intensity era before the great intensity rise (FDA/ 1991). Newnham’s control group received a mere 5mW/ cm2 exposure, and its intensive group received also a low intensity Doppler exposure at 25mW/ cm2. Even at these low intensities, Newnham found distinct growth reduction, averaging 25 grams per child. Growth reduction would have been more obvious if the study’s low intensity control group were a zero intensity group.”
West, Jim. Ultrasound Causation for Microcephaly and Zika Virus, The Hypothesis (Part A),(Kindle Locations 854-858). harvoa. Kindle Edition, citing J.P. Newnham, et al, Effects of Frequent Ultrasound During Pregnancy: A Randomized Controlled Trial, The Lancet, Vol. 342, Oct.9, 1993, pp 887-891.
Page has been deleted from the internet but can be seen at here:

“The earliest of the studies suggested that in utero ultrasonic irradiation affected prenatal growth and development… The data showed a statistically significant fetal weight reduction from about 6 to 18 percent, depending upon the exposure conditions…”;view=1up;seq=48

“…[A]nimal studies suggest that neurological, behavioral, developmental, immunological, haematological changes and reduced fetal weight can result from exposure to ultrasound.”

My latest video on this topic:

Thursday, December 14, 2017


Image Source:

Source Article:
1 in 36: ASD Rate Set a New Record High in 2016

The National Health Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) released its latest prevalence rate for autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) in American children this Wednesday. Their “data brief”, which is based on information gathered in the National Health Information Survey (NHIS), reported an ASD rate for 2016 of 2.76%, or 1 in 36 American children (1).

This is the highest rate ever recorded in a national survey of children in the United States and was an increase from the rate of 1 in 45 children (or 2.24%) reported in the 2014 NHIS survey (2). The ASD information reported in these surveys includes children between the ages of 3 and 17 years of age and any diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder, including Asperger’s syndrome.

This startling new peak received virtually no media coverage and was downplayed by the NCHS, whose headline finding was that--despite setting a new American record with a 1 in 36 ASD rate: “There was not a statistically significant change in the prevalence of children ever diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder from 2014 to 2016.” (1)

Yet this new 2016 rate is a sharp increase from the 2007 report, the first year in which the NHIS included the question, “Has a doctor or health professional ever told you that [sample child] had Autism, Asperger’s disorder, pervasive developmental disorder, or autism spectrum disorder?” The 2007 report, also measuring the rate for 3-17 year-old children, reported an autism rate of 1.1%, or 1 in 91 American children (3).

The NCHS, like the CDC a department within the Department of Health and Human Services, follows a different methodology in the NHIS than the approach used by the CDC’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Network (ADDM), which last reported an autism rate of 1 in 68 American children for 8-year-olds born in 2004 (4). The ADDM network’s estimates likely include fewer children with Asperger’s (only about 10% of the ADDM cases have an Asperger’s diagnosis), which may explain why NHIS ASD rates have been generally higher than ADDM rates.

The ADDM Network has reported autism rates every two years with reports of 8-year-olds from 2000 to 2012 (4). The NHIS reports have been published only intermittently, with four different publications since 2007 (1-3, 5). Unlike the ADDM report, the NCHS publications have followed subtly different methodologies.

But an increase of 147% in less than a decade is certainly an urgent cause for concern: indeed, the new report also described another record rates for ASD of 1 in 28 (!) for boys born between 2014 and 2016. Because the NHIS survey includes many children younger than 8 years of age, their ASD prevalence rates are likely understated, since many younger children don’t receive an autism diagnosis before they are 8 years old. The new report reflects this bias, since it shows an ASD rate of 1 in 45 children in the 3-7-year-old group, likely an underestimate of the true rate for that cohort.

On a personal note, it’s now almost exactly ten years since Dan Olmsted, Kim Rossi, JB Handley and I launched in November, 2007. Soon after, when the NHIS survey came out reporting a 2007 autism rate that first breached the 1% barrier, my autistic child was barely a teenager and I remember thinking, “surely, we will begin to treat autism like a national emergency now that 1 in 91 children are affected.” A little less than a year ago, Dan passed away suddenly only a week after he and I finished writing Denial: How Refusing to Face the Facts about Our Autism Epidemic Hurts Children, Families, and Our Future, a title that reflected our shared sense of outrage over the denialism reflected so clearly in this new NCHS publication and its reception. My daughter turned 22 this week, formally passing the threshold of adulthood in the autism services system. And on the exact, same day she entered her adult program, we learned that ASD rates in American are approaching 3% of children and 4% of boys.

It was as if nothing has happened. The world has truly gone crazy.


Zablotsky B, Black LI, Blumberg SJ. Estimated prevalence of children with diagnosed developmental disabilities in the United States, 2014–2016. NCHS Data Brief, no 291. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2017.

Zablotsky B, Black LI, Maenner MJ, Schieve LA, Blumberg SJ. Estimated prevalence of autism and other developmental disabilities following questionnaire changes in the 2014 National Health Interview Survey. National Health Statistics Reports: No 87. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2015.

Kogan MD et al. Prevalence of parent-reported diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder among children in the US, 2007. Pediatrics 124(5):1395–403. 2009.

Christensen DL, Baio J, Van Naarden Braun K, Bilder D, Charles J, Constantino JN, et al. Prevalence and characteristics of autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years––Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 sites, United States, 2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 65(3):1–23. 2016.

Blumberg SJ, Bramlett MD, Kogan MD, et al. Changes in prevalence of parent-reported autism spectrum disorder in school-aged U.S. children: 2007 to 2011–2012. National Health Statistics Reports; no 65. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2013.

Benjamin Zablotsky, Ph.D., et al, Estimated Prevalence of Children With Diagnosed Developmental Disabilities in the United States, 2014–2016, NCHS Data Brief, No. 291, November 2017.


In reading the article below, I noted the following:

At least 3 out of 8 uterus transplant attempts have failed. The after-effects of this type of surgery and the health effects on both the donors and the recipients is never discussed.

Instead, we learn that some of the uterus "donors" are dead. For anyone who knows anything about organ "donation," it is common knowledge that organ donors are NOT dead when their organs are removed. Instead, they are very much alive and are literally tortured to death by medical professionals who offer no anesthesia during the removal of organs, but instead paralyze their victims with toxic drugs so the victims cannot move or scream while their organs are being removed. This torture ultimately KILLS the organ "donors" who die from the pain and from the forced removal of their organs by the medical system. For more info on this, please see:

Organ Donation & Medical Murder - BNE TV w guest Dr. Paul Byrne

What do we suppose happens when a uterus from a tortured dead person is implanted into the body of a living person? What are the impacts on the health and well being of the mother? What are the impacts on the psyche and spiritual integrity of the child that is placed in this uterus to grow?

We should not be surprised to learn that the baby came out screaming. However, despite our society normalizing this, babies should not be screaming at birth. If they are, it is likely because they have been badly traumatized.

From one of the pictures in the article, it appears that the baby is now spending time in NICU. NICU stays are all too common with babies who are brought forth through artificial reproductive technologies, as are cesarean deliveries, which this baby also suffered. Babies born by c-section and/or who spend time in NICU can have serious difficulty bonding with their parents. In NICU, they are isolated, sometimes in artificial wombs called "incubators," and nearly every touch they receive involves extreme pain. Furthermore, just like organ "donors," NICU babies are repeatedly paralyzed with toxic drugs but given no anesthetic during painful procedures. In other words, NICU babies are daily tortured and I can attest to this fact, having watched my baby be repeatedly tortured during her two month stay in a NICU.

In this particular case, the situation is even worse because the baby's "conception" also involved extreme pain — as the mother had to undergo several major surgeries in order to have her eggs removed in preparation for IVF and another person's uterus implanted into her body. She also endured surgery for a cesarean birth, all of which will interfere with her ability to actually mother this child. None of this is physically or emotionally healthy and all of it is the antithesis of what birth should be.

How long so do we suppose this mother will live after being exposed to so much medical sleight of hand and several major surgeries? What happens to the child if the mother dies at an early age as a result of these chimeric and torturous procedures?

Children who are created like this often feel like "science experiments" as they come of age. Some wish they were never born. Their sadness about their loveless, trauma-filled conception, gestation and birth is life long. It will influence all aspects of their lives. For more info on this, please see:

Adding insult to injury is the fact that the baby's conception also involved some form of pornographic thought as the one who gives sperm is often forced to masturbate in a "masturbatorium" where pornography abounds and where ejaculate is released into a cup. It's absolutely disgusting and the antithesis of the natural order which involves a love-filled conception.

Artificial reproductive technologies are alien technologies. They are a form of transhumanism designed to do away with the natural order, eliminate human love, and make the creation of life a technological matter. How far do we let this go? How long do we leave our heads buried in the sand and pretend that this is all OK?

I've no doubt they are planning to try to insert uteruses into men to further their sick transgender agenda. When do we say enough?

Source Article:
Exclusive: First U.S. Baby Born After a Uterus Transplant

For the first time in the United States, a woman who was born without a uterus gave birth to a baby. The landmark birth took place at Baylor University Medical Center at Dallas, a part of Baylor Scott & White, TIME reports exclusively.

“We’ve been preparing for this moment for a very long time,” says Dr. Liza Johannesson, an ob-gyn and uterus transplant surgeon at Baylor. “I think everyone had tears in their eyes when the baby came out. I did for sure.” The woman and her husband asked that their identity not be revealed in order to protect their privacy

The birth took place at Baylor — the first birth in the hospital’s ongoing uterus transplant clinical trial. Women who participate in the trial have what’s called absolute uterine factor infertility (AUI), which means their uterus is nonfunctioning or nonexistent. Most of the women in the trial have a condition called Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser (MRKH) syndrome — and have lived their entire lives under the assumption that they would never be able to be pregnant or give birth to a baby. The procedure could also work for women with other medical issues, such as certain cancers.

“We do transplants all day long,” says Dr. Giuliano Testa, the leader of the uterus transplant clinical trial at Baylor, and surgical chief of abdominal transplant for Baylor Annette C. and Harold C. Simmons Transplant Institute. “This is not the same thing. I totally underestimated what this type of transplant does for these women. What I’ve learned emotionally, I do not have the words to describe.”

The birth was a scheduled Caesarean section, and most members of the multidisciplinary clinical trial team were present. The baby was delivered healthy and screaming. “I’ve delivered a lot of babies, but this one was special,” says Dr. Robert T. Gunby Jr., the obstetrician and gynecologist who delivered the baby. “When I started my career we didn’t even have sonograms. Now we are putting in uteruses from someone else and getting a baby.”

The moment Dr. Gunby first held up the baby was emotional for many members of the medical team. “Outside my own children, this is the most excited I’ve ever been about any baby being born,” says Dr. Gregory J. McKenna, a transplant surgeon at Baylor. “I just started to cry.”

A donor’s gift

Taylor Siler, 36, a registered nurse in the Dallas area, donated her uterus to the woman who recently gave birth. Siler wasn’t always certain she wanted to have children, but she says deciding to get pregnant was one of her best decisions. “Once they lay that baby in your arms,” Siler says. “Your life changes forever.”

Siler, who has two boys aged 6 and 4, came across a news segment about Baylor’s uterus transplant program. She and her husband had already decided they were not going to have any more children, and she wanted to offer someone else a shot at motherhood. “I have family members who struggled to have babies, and it’s not fair,” says Siler. “I just think that if we can give more people that option, that’s an awesome thing.”

Siler went through extensive screening about both her physical and mental health before getting approval for the trial. Participating required surgery and about 12 weeks of recovery. Baylor says it typically takes about five hours for the wombs to be removed from the living donors, and another five to transplant.

Though she did not know the woman who received her uterus, Siler and the recipient exchanged letters on the day of the surgery, and the recipient sent Siler another letter to let her know when she was pregnant. Baylor informed Siler this week that the woman had given birth. “I’ve just been crying and getting teary thinking about it, “ says Siler, who had not yet met the new mother when she spoke to TIME. “I think about her every day and I probably will for the rest of my life.”

How a uterus transplant works

The women in the clinical trial are transplanted with a uterus from either a living or deceased donor. The woman who gave birth received her transplant from Siler, who was a so-called “altruistic” living donor: a stranger who volunteered to donate her uterus to a woman without one. So far, Baylor says they’ve had over 70 women express interest in donating their uterus.

Baylor will complete a total of 10 uterus transplants as part of its first trial. So far the hospital has completed eight. At least three have failed. The hospital has confirmed to Time that there is another woman in the trial who is pregnant, using a living donor uterus.

Baylor’s uterus transplant program is one of a handful to launch in the United States in recent years, and it’s the first to use both living and deceased donors. Successful uterus transplants from live donors have taken place in Sweden — a medical team at Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Gothenburg pioneered the first uterus transplant trial that resulted in eight births. This first birth at Baylor is the first to replicate that success.

Dr. Johannesson was part of the original uterus transplant team and has since moved to Texas in order to work on the Baylor program. “We were very proud of the first birth in Sweden,” she says. “But this birth is what’s going to make the field grow, because this is the first time this has been replicated anywhere else. This step is equally, if not even more, important.”

The recipients in the clinical trial are between the ages of 20 to 35, and the donors must be between ages 30 to 60. “When you donate a kidney, you do it to help someone live longer and get off dialysis,” says Dr. Testa. “For these women, they are donating an experience.”

Most of the women in the trial have moved to the Dallas area in order to undergo the procedures and the many follow up visits and tests. Once the women in the trial are transplanted with the uterus, they wait to recover and achieve menstruation, usually about four weeks from transplant. Women whose transplant is successful can then attempt in vitro fertilization (IVF). (The women in the trial have functioning ovaries that are not attached to their wombs, which is why IVF is required to get pregnant.)

Uterus transplants are expensive, with some estimates putting the cost at up to $500,000. Like other infertility treatments, it’s very rare that an insurance company would cover the procedure, which is largely viewed as elective. Baylor covered the cost of the first 10 transplants in the clinical trial, but the medical team is now seeking funding—largely through donations from institutions and private donors—in order to continue. The team says many more transplants need to be done before it could be provided as a standard treatment. “The reality is that it’s going to be very difficult for many women to afford this,” says Testa.

Renewed hope

Last year, when Baylor began the trial, Testa told TIME that the study would not be deemed a success unless the transplants resulted in a birth. Compared to other transplants that he regularly performs, like liver or kidneys, where surgeons know within minutes if the organ is working, Testa says waiting through the pregnancy after uterus transplant can feel excruciating.

“I was already nervous when my wife was pregnant, and this felt worse, like it was my pregnancy,” says Testa.

Since the procedure requires an otherwise healthy person to undergo multiple surgeries and take powerful medication, women in uterus transplant trials often say they experience comments from people asking why they don’t opt for surrogacy or adoption. “A lot of people underestimate the impact that infertility can have on a person’s wellbeing,” says Johannesson. “It can have such a profound impact.”

Baylor says they do not view uterus transplants as a replacement for other approaches like adoption or surrogacy, but as another option for women and their partners.

Baylor will continue to follow the health of the baby as part of the study. The goal is for the birth to mark the beginning of a new field of infertility treatment research, rather than be an outlier.

“For the girl who is getting the [infertility] diagnosis now, it’s not hopeless,” says Kristin Posey Wallis, a uterine transplant nurse at Baylor who works closely with women and their donors. “There’s hope.”

Tuesday, December 5, 2017


I have long suspected that it was jews who are responsible for the theft, takeover, and destruction of Hawaii. The so-called "American" occupation of this once great land (i.e., the Kingdom of Hawaii) has, for some time, been blamed on "Christian" sugar planters. However, the unscrupulous and evil activities involved in the creation of the so-called "state" of Hawaii, combined with the extreme attack and disrespect for the indigenous people of Hawaii and the land itself, would indicate that it was, in fact, jews that organized and orchestrated it all. It is only they that have the capacity for such annihilation of everything that is good and beautiful. And it is only they that seem entirely bent on taking over and destroying the entire world. I should have known this all along but alas, I was not jew-wise until just a few years ago and I suffered from mind control which caused me to blame everything on those nasty "whites" and "Christians" - instead of setting my eyes on the right perpetrators -- jews. In Truth, it appears that all those so-called "Christian" sugar planters were, in fact, jews that had changed their last names in order to hide their jewish identities -- something they are quite fond of doing so nobody suspects who the real culprits are.

The fact that these evil creatures still operate their extremely toxic sugar cane factories on Maui, and get away with setting acres and acres of land on fire daily and ruthlessly murdering every animal and insect that lives in those fields while simultaneously choking out entire cities like Kihei with their filthy black smoke, is indicative that THEY (luciferian jews) are the ones who control the completely illegal fake "state" of Hawaii and THEY are the ones who should be executed or imprisoned when the shit hits the fan and the people finally rebel.

Here's an excerpt from my book that describes the horrendous situation on Maui.

In order to harvest the sugar cane, the criminally insane psychopaths that run the sugar-cane industry (who, by the way, come from the very same bloodlines that masterminded the illegal U.S. occupation of Hawaii which began in 1893 and continues to this day), violently traumatize the plants by withholding water from them for six weeks before harvest. After forcing the plants to go into shock, they then proceed to archaically set the plants on fire, leaving a barren and desolate wasteland for miles and miles and destroying the lives and habitat of many species. MASSIVE clouds of black smoke rise up into the atmosphere on burn days (almost every day for at least nine months out of the year), blanketing huge parts of the island in toxic soot and poisoning everything in its wake.

“Roughly six weeks before a Maui sugarcane field is harvested, crews gradually eliminate its drip irrigation. Shocked by this sudden manmade drought after nearly two years of regular watering, the cane begins to store energy. Thick stalks load up on sugar while leafy tops yellow under the tropical sun. Everything is drying for the big burn…

When set right, the fires create a sort of vacuum as they collapse in upon themselves. Burning superhot and fast, the flames expel smoke, steam and ash straight up, thousands of feet into the air. If things go as planned, the smoke and ash are shot so high that the upper-level winds catch them and blow them out to sea before they can fall back toward neighborhoods, schools and beaches.

On a calm day, a cane fire looks a bit like a nuclear bomb has been detonated. Tourists pull off the road, scratching their heads and wondering whether the end has arrived. Once the uninitiated are assured that yonder Pa‘ia has not been wiped off the map, they almost always pose the same awestruck question: “How do they get away with that?”

Not surprisingly, the people that live downwind of this monstrous industry suffer from severe respiratory problems and other illnesses, and of course, premature death. The fact that the U.S. Federal Government subsidizes this insanity (and has done so for close to 100 years) is a clear indication that it wants to destroy Hawaiian land and people and that that has been the agenda from the very beginning. In fact, the entities that control the U.S. government are bent on annihilating the indigenous way of life of the Hawaiian people because that way of life allows humans to exist outside of the technocratic system! They refuse to allow this. They have sought repeatedly and with a vengeance to destroy indigenous cultures and land around the globe (and this includes decimating the Native American people of North America) in order to impose their technocratic way of life on everyone and render us all dependent on their artificial system for our survival.

Obviously, sugar cane burning should have been extinguished decades ago (along with the people responsible for it). There have been many, many good and caring people who have fought long and hard to ensure its demise, but unfortunately for us (and for all the plants, animals, birds, fish, and insects that are affected by it as well), its presence still persists.

Jews also control Monsanto, which is another extremely TOXIC and DEADLY industry that has been set-up right in the middle of Kihei in order to wreak maximum harm. Monsanto's Round-Up has been linked to umbilical, placental and fetal deformities, birth defects, infertility, the destruction of testosterone,and is causing huge tumors, cancer and death in rats. This is just scratching the surface of what this evil corporation is capable of.

Follow these links for some interesting information on the filthy, disgusting, evil history of Monsanto, and the jews that control it, and its original, jewish, slave-dealing family:

Source Articl:
MONSANTO Family Were Jewish Slave Dealers And Owners

Here is some interesting MONSANTO history:

The Jewish Monsanto Family of Louisiana included Benjamin, Isaac, Manuel, Eleanora, Gracia and Jacob. They made frequent purchases of Blacks including twelve in 1785, thirteen and then thirty-one in 1787, and eighty in 1768.

In 1794, Benjamin sold "Babet," a Black woman, to Franco Cardel. Manuel sold two Blacks from Guinea named "Polidor" and "Lucy" to James Saunders for $850 in silver.

As individuals they were owners of Africans whom they named "Quetelle," "Valentin," "Baptiste," "Prince," "Princess," "Ceasar," "Dolly," "Jen," "Fanchonet," "Rozetta," "Mamy," "Sofia," and many others. Isaac repeatedly mortgaged four of these when in financial trouble. Benjamin Monsanto of Natchez, Mississippi entered into at least 6 contracts for the sale of his slaves which would take place after his death. Gracia bequeathed nine Africans to her relatives in her 1790 will, and Eleanora also held Blacks as slaves.

Manuel Jacob Monsanto entered into at least 12 contracts for sale of slaves between 1787 and 1789 in Natchez and New Orleans, Louisiana.1135 "His family consists of himself and seven Negroes."1136 Later, "Jacob Monsanto, son of Isaac Rodrigues Monsanto, one of the very first known Jews to settle in New Orleans, owner of a several-hundred-acre plantation at Manchac, fell in love with his slave, Mamy or Maimi William. Their daughter Sophia, grew up to be a lovely quadroon." An excerpt of one of Benjamin's many slave contracts follows:

"Be it known to all to whom these presents shall come, that I Benjamin Monsanto do really and effectually sell to Henry Manadu a negro wench named "Judy," aged Eighteen years, native of Guinea, for the sum of four hundred Dollars in all the month of January in the year one thousand Seven hundred and ninety one; and paying interest at the rate of ten per cent for the remaining two hundred and fifty Dollars until paid; said negro wench being and remaining mortgaged until final payment shall have been made; wherewith I acknowledge to be fully satisfied and content, hereby renouncing the plea of non numerata pecunia, fraud, or others in the case Whatsoever; granting formal receipt for the same. For which said consideration I do hereby resign all right, title, possession and claim, in and to the said Slave, all of which I transfer and convey to the Said Purchaser and his assigns, to be, as his own, held and enjoyed, and when fully paid for, Sold, exchanged, or otherwise alienated at pleasure in virtue of these presents granted in his favor in token of real delivery, without other proof of property being required, from which he is hereby released, binding myself to maintain the validity of this present sale in full form and right in favor of the Purchaser aforesaid, and granting authority to the Justices of his Majesty to compel me to the performance of the same as if Judgment had already been given therein, renouncing all laws, rights, and privileges in my favor whatsoever. And I the said Henry Manadu being present, do hereby accept this Instrument in my favor, receiving said negro Wench as purchased in the form and for the consideration therein mentioned and contained, wherewith I am fully satisfied and content, hereby renouncing the plea of non numerato pecunia, fraud, or other considerations in the case Whatsoever; granting formal receipt for the same. Done and executed, in testimony thereof, at the post of Natchez, this nineteenth day of the month of February in the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety...."

Benjamin Monsanto, sold land and "a Dwelling House, Store, and two other buildings, for which I have received payment in a negro, named 'Nat;' to my full satisfaction." Another contract stipulated "that Don Louis Faure is bound to defend the said sale in case the negro shall be claimed by any other Person." In a 1792 contract, Benjamin mortgaged his Black slaves: "I do hereby specially mortgage three slaves to me belonging, namely Eugene and Louis, aged twenty four years each, the first named of the Senegal nation and the second of the Congo nation; and a Negro Woman named Adelaide, aged twenty eight years, also of the Congo nation; which said slaves I warrant free from mortgage or other incumbrance, as I have made appear by certificate from the Recorder of mortgages; and which said slaves I promise and engage shall not be sold nor otherwise alienated during the term of this obligation..."


The following Jews were known dealers, owners, shippers or supporters of the slave trade and of the enslavement of Black African citizens in early New York history.

Issack Asher, Jacob Barsimson, Joseph Bueno, Solomon Myers Cohen, Jacob Fonseca, Aberham Franckfort, Jacob Franks, Daniel Gomez, David Gomez, Isaac Gomez, Lewis Gomez, Mordecai Gomez, Rebekah Gomez, Ephraim Hart, Judah Hays, Harmon Hendricks, Uriah Hendricks, Uriah Hyam, Abraham Isaacs, Joshua Isaacs, Samuel Jacobs, Benjamin S. Judah, Cary Judah, Elizabeth Judah, Arthur Levy, Eleazar Levy, Hayman Levy, Isaac H. Levy, Jacob Levy, Joseph Israel Levy, Joshua Levy, Moses Levy, Uriah Phillips Levy, Isaac R. Marques, Moses Michaels, (E)Manuel Myers, Seixas Nathan, Simon Nathan, Rodrigo Pacheco, David Pardo, Isaac Pinheiro, Rachel Pinto, Morris Jacob, Raphall Abraham Sarzedas, Moses Seixas, Solomon Simpson, Nathan Simson, Simja De Torres, Benjamin Wolf, Alexander Zuntz

To read more...about Jewish Slave Dealers And Owners

And finally, here's an article that just came in today affirming that the sugar industry has been lying and manipulating science for decades to cover up the fact that sugar consumption is causing heart disease, diverting the blame to saturated fats which can actually be beneficial for the heart.

Source Article:
Public Health SCANDAL! Sugar Industry Hid Science Linking Sugar to Heart Disease – Blamed Saturated Fats and Cholesterol Instead

Can We Trust Industry-Sponsored Scientific Studies and Government Agencies Approving such “Science”?

It has been well documented in recent times that “science” published in peer-reviewed journals is largely funded by corporate interests, where widespread corruption is now the norm.

Results are determined long before the studies are funded to promote special interests.

Here are some recent articles we have published here at Health Impact News exposing this corruption:

Peer-reviewed Scientific Literature Filled with Fake Science

The Corruption of Science: Who Funds Vaccine Safety Studies?

In 2015, Dr. Mercola reported that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regularly reviews scientific literature and finds corruption, but does nothing about it!

The FDA reviews several hundred clinical trial locations that conduct research on human participants each year in order to be sure they’re engaging in good clinical practice. But what happens when they find evidence of questionable procedures or practices?

In the most serious of cases, the FDA can classify it as “official action indicated,” or OAI. This is reserved for “severe” forms of clinical trial violations, including “objectionable conditions or practices” that warrant compulsory regulatory action, as opposed to “voluntary action indicated” for lesser violations.”

Now, if a trial had been deemed OAI by the FDA, you might assume that you’d see evidence of that when reading the results of studies based on said data. But that would be a liberal assumption. Researchers conducted a review of FDA inspection reports between 1998 and 2013.

They found 60 clinical trials that had been classified as OAI, and these trials had been used for data in 78 published articles. Out of those 78 studies, only three included mentions of the violations found by the FDA!

And we’re not talking about small, innocent mistakes. The violations included fraud, incompetence, and misconduct. This means that anyone browsing a medical journal might be making decisions based on fraudulent published studies. (Source.)

Likewise, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), another government agency tasked with protecting the public’s interest, has been exposed for having massive conflicts of interest preventing them from representing true, unbiased scientific studies.

Jeanne Lenzer, associate editor of the British Medical Journal, published an investigative report showing how the U.S. CDC is not honest when publishing disclaimers in their studies stating that “they have no financial interests or other relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products.”

The CDC’s image as an independent watchdog over the public health has given it enormous prestige, and its recommendations are occasionally enforced by law.

Despite the agency’s disclaimer, the CDC does receive millions of dollars in industry gifts and funding, both directly and indirectly, and several recent CDC actions and recommendations have raised questions about the science it cites, the clinical guidelines it promotes, and the money it is taking.

See: Can We Trust the CDC? British Medical Journal Reveals CDC Lies About Ties to Big Pharma

The War On Fats: How Bad Politics Corrupted Good Science

There is probably no greater danger to public health today than the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and FDA’s advice and regulations regarding dietary fats.

Since the 1970s, and the infamous “McGovern Report” on nutrition which condemned saturated fats and blamed them for causing heart disease, the health of Americans has spiraled out of control, with epidemics in obesity, diabetes, cancer, and heart disease, which combined represent most causes of death today in the U.S.

This YouTube clip contains actual film footage by ABC news regarding the McGovern report in 1977, and how scientists cautioned the politicians at that time that the science did NOT support the conclusion that saturated fats and cholesterol caused heart disease.

The McGovern Report

The science, REAL science that is unbiased and not tied into industry-funded special interest groups, has exonerated saturated fats and cholesterol from causing heart disease for many years now.

If you want to research this topic for yourself, we have linked to many published studies and commentaries by physicians and other scientists over the years here at Health Impact News. Learn more:

Truth about Saturated Fats – Exposing the Cholesterol Myth

Unfortunately, government nutrition advice today still recommends a low-fat diet, encouraging consumption of carbohydrates, which includes refined sugars.

Even some in the corporate-sponsored “mainstream” media have exposed the scientific fraud regarding saturated fats in recent years, but the main reason is not because they have “seen the light” regarding scientific dietary nutrition, but because Big Food has come to realize that consumers want to return to traditional fats, such as butter and coconut oil, which have been part of the food chain for many thousands of years, and have rejected the government and industry-sponsored science trying to convince them that saturated fats are bad.

Researchers Find Corruption in Older Sugar-Industry Sponsored Studies Exonerating Dangers of Sugar and Condemning Fats Instead

For the past year, a group of researchers with the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF), has reviewed historical scientific literature funded by the Sugar Research Foundation since the 1960s, which gives us a great perspective on how the war on saturated fats became public policy.

These researchers at UCSF, Cristin E. Kearns, DDS, MBA; Laura A. Schmidt, PhD, MSW, MPH; and Stanton A. Glantz, PhD, have revealed how the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) influenced Harvard medical researchers financially and otherwise to report open-ended inconclusive research that omitted a lot of conclusive negative health data.

Their first article was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA Internal Medicine) in 2016. The title of the study is Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research: A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents.

The New York Times, which has given some press to exposing the saturated fat myth for about ten years now, led the mainstream media outlets that covered the UCSF study:

How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

Here are some excerpts:

The sugar industry paid scientists in the 1960s to play down the link between sugar and heart disease and promote saturated fat as the culprit instead, newly released historical documents show.

The internal sugar industry documents, recently discovered by a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, and published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine, suggest that five decades of research into the role of nutrition and heart disease, including many of today’s dietary recommendations, may have been largely shaped by the sugar industry.

“They were able to derail the discussion about sugar for decades,” said Stanton Glantz, a professor of medicine at U.C.S.F. and an author of the JAMA Internal Medicine paper.

The documents show that a trade group called the Sugar Research Foundation, known today as the Sugar Association, paid three Harvard scientists the equivalent of about $50,000 in today’s dollars to publish a 1967 review of research on sugar, fat and heart disease. The studies used in the review were handpicked by the sugar group, and the article, which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, minimized the link between sugar and heart health and cast aspersions on the role of saturated fat.

Even though the influence-peddling revealed in the documents dates back nearly 50 years, more recent reports show that the food industry has continued to influence nutrition science.

NPR was another news source that covered the UCSF study in 2016:

50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists To Point Blame At Fat

The UCSF researchers disclosed how a top executive, John Hickson, vice-president of the SRF at the time took on the task of finding a way to discredit the increasing studies demonstrating sugar’s role in creating bad heart health.

Interestingly, a few years later in the early 1970s, Hickson became part of the tobacco industry’s PR machinery with the Cigar Research Council.

“In 1972, an internal tobacco industry memo on Mr. Hickson noted that he had a reputation for manipulating science to achieve his goals,” and “ …[he is] a supreme scientific politician who had been successful in condemning cyclamates [earlier artificial sweeteners], on behalf of the Sugar Research Council, on somewhat shaky evidence.” (Source)

Hickson had come up the idea of funding their own research which would enable them to legitimately and officially discredit all the anti-health sugar conclusions. The operational key for this scheme was in Harvard, where “one of the researchers was the chairman of Harvard’s Public Health Nutrition Department — and an ad hoc member of SRF’s board.” (Source)

Their review was published in a 1967 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

The fact that it was published in such a prestigious journal as a scientific literature review was enough to establish legitimacy, at least enough to confuse, if not convince, with their inconclusive commentaries of “further studies needed.”

The review also maintained the now debunked lipid theory of heart disease by encouraging a low fat diet.

The “Inconvenient Truth” that Refined Sugar is Linked to Heart Disease and Cancer Was Never Published

The same UCSF team of researchers had another paper published last month (November 2017) by the open access journal PLOS Biology titled, “Sugar industry sponsorship of germ-free rodent studies linking sucrose to hyperlipidemia and cancer: An historical analysis of internal documents.”

Again, internal memos were added to the analysis of data from another SRF funded study conducted in England called “Project 259: Dietary Carbohydrate and Blood Lipids in Germ-Free Rats,” led by Dr. W.F.R. Pover at the UK’s University of Birmingham between 1967 and 1971.

The UCSF researchers managed to get the Project 259 material despite its never being published. The SRF didn’t continue sufficient funding to allow the researchers completion for publishing.

Hicks had to back out, despite a huge monetary expenditure, because Project 259, intended to prove sucrose was more beneficial than other carbohydrates, was beginning to backfire.

SRF was not getting the pro-sugar “science” they had sought.

Early reports of the animal (mouse) studies were revealing certain gut reactions from sucrose were creating excess triglyceride serum levels, an accepted marker for increased cardiac disease risks. This process also produced an enzyme that contributed to a metabolic carcinogenic cascade observed with bladder cancer.

This inconvenient truth could have helped chip away the foundation of the dietary fats dogma and pointed to real research on obesity and heart disease, but it was conveniently never disclosed publicly.

Here’s an excerpt that captures the motivational essence of the PLOS paper published in 2017 by the UCSF team:

On January 5, 2016, the Sugar Association issued a press release criticizing findings from a study published in Cancer Research using multiple mouse models that suggested that dietary sugar induces increased tumor growth and metastasis when compared to a non-sugar starch diet.

The Sugar Association stated that ‘no credible link between ingested sugars and cancer has been established.’

In contrast, this paper provides empirical data suggesting that the sugar industry terminated funding of an animal study that was finding unfavorable results with respect to the association between dietary sugars and cancer, with possible translational importance to humans.

From the 2017 paper’s abstract:

The [early Project 259] results suggested to SRF that gut microbiota have a causal role in carbohydrate-induced hypertriglyceridemia. A study comparing conventional rats fed a high-sugar diet to those fed a high-starch diet suggested that sucrose consumption might be associated with elevated levels of beta-glucuronidase, an enzyme previously associated with bladder cancer in humans. (Full text study source)

This last revelation is an example of damaging data discovered inadvertently and discarded. These are but two examples of how nutritional scientific research is easily manipulated by industry sources simply to improve its bottom line. There are more.

When it comes to the dogma that “saturated fats cause obesity and heart disease,” the sugar industry has been instrumental in keeping it alive to the detriment of national and international public health wherever this totally false saturated fat/cholesterol dogma has been “officially” adopted.

The abandoned Project 259 could have led to more research on sugar’s influence with cancer. Instead, carcinogenic comfort foods along with toxic chemotherapy drugs continues to be part of the failed “War on Cancer.”

UCSF is the same institution where Dr. Robert Lustig launched his video lecture that went viral, “Sugar: The Bitter Truth,” which explains both the business end of sugar and HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) in so many processed foods with their consequences, which are wrongly blamed on saturated fats: Obesity; diabetes 2; coronary heart disease (CHD); coronary artery disease (CAD).

Sugar: The Bitter Truth

Why Has the Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Myth Been Allowed to Continue?

Scottish doctor Malcom Kendrick has stated that the idea that saturated fat causes heart disease is “The Greatest Scam in the History of Medicine.”

The answer to the question “Why has the saturated fat and cholesterol myth been allowed to continue” is quite simple. Lowering cholesterol has historically been the largest revenue stream for drugs among pharmaceutical companies.

Sales of statin drugs to lower cholesterol are the top selling drugs of all time. It is a $100 BILLION a year industry.

Before its patent expired, the cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor was the best-selling drug of all time, grossing over $140 billion, with no serious close competitors in the history of pharmaceutical drugs. The FDA did not issue warnings about the dangerous side effects of cholesterol-lowering drugs until after Lipitor’s patent expired.

One out of every four Americans over the age of 50 is taking a statin drug to lower their cholesterol.

Learn more about the “statin scam” with cholesterol lowering drugs.

Dr. MaryAnne Demasi’s documentary on the criminal activity of the pharmaceutical industry regarding cholesterol-lowering statin drugs sent shock waves through the mainstream media in Australia at the end of 2013.

Published in two parts on the popular news show The Catalyst, the pharmaceutical industry complained loudly after the first show, and requested the network not air the second episode, “Heart of the Matter Part 2 – Cholesterol Drug War.”

ABC Australia aired it anyway, but the pharmaceutical influence was apparently too strong, as they later announced that the network would remove the videos from their website because “they breached its impartiality standards.” All copies found on YouTube were also removed, but it has been copied widely and can still be found on YouTube. Here are two copies:

Heart of the Matter – Dietary Villains – Part 1

Heart of the Matter – Cholesterol Drug War – Part 2

How Many Lives Have Been Destroyed by Faulty Science and Wrong U.S. Dietary Advice?

The science clearly showing how the “lipid theory of heart disease,” the belief that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease, is false, but that science can never be published or exposed by Big Pharma, Big Food, or the U.S. Government.

To do so would be to admit that such dietary advice, and the cholesterol lowering drugs that have earned them hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars, have been a scam and have led to increased rates of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.

The irony in all of this is that traditional saturated fats such as coconut oil, the most saturated dietary fat one can consume, has been shown to actually be heart healthy by numerous scientific studies.

Thank God for honest researchers such as Cristin E. Kearns, DDS, MBA; Laura A. Schmidt, PhD, MSW, MPH; and Stanton A. Glantz, PhD with the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies at the University of California at San Francisco.

Their honest research provides the information the public needs to understand how government dietary advice is corrupt, and how to make intelligent choices when it comes to food and nutrition.

This information is increasingly being published in the alternative media, as the dinosaur corporate-sponsored “mainstream” media for the most part no longer represents the interest of the public, but instead the interest of their corporate sponsors dominated by Big Pharma and Big Food, and their incestuous ties to government regulatory agencies such as the FDA, USDA, and CDC.