The Prediction of Julian Assange About the Extent of Washington DC Corruption
"When all is exposed, 98% of Washington will fall."
“Safe and Effective”? New Documentary, “An Inconvenient Study” Proves Harm and Lack of Informed Consent re Vaccinations
Del Bigtree (Min 15): "What did we prove in [our] lawsits [against HHS, FDA and NIH]? That the entire science behind vaccine safety was nothing but a complete fraud."
Five years ago, I would have thought anyone saying this was insane. I've had dozens of vaccines over my life and my wife and I made sure that our daughters were constantly up-to-date on the vaccines with the pediatrician. Now, after following independent media and congressional hearings, reading Aaron Siri's "Vaccines, Amen! (and see here) and watching the documentary, "An Inconvenient Study," I am convinced that Del Bigtree is making a highly credible claim.
Scientists can be corrupted by money and prestige, just like politicians, government officials, CEOs and any other human beings. I highly recommend that you completely ignore what corporate media currently peddles. Instead check out the above sources and make up your own mind.
If you are still skeptical, consider this: "David and Brenda McDowell got their triplets vaccinated with the pneumococcal shot, only for all three children to “shut off on the SAME DAY.”
If you think that you are well informed because you rely on official sources, consider the following an article published by "The Forgotten Side of Medicine." The title to the article: "Dissecting the Religion of Vaccines: How vaccines became the holy water of Western civilization."
Due to the high toxicity of vaccines, real studies inevitably show significant injury. The medical community’s strategy hence has been to block studies comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated from ever being produced.As such, placebo-controlled vaccine trials are vehemently rejected as “unethical” because they deny (placebo) children a “life-saving” vaccine—despite it being far more unethical to inject every child with vaccines of unknown safety (or benefit). Yet when “ethical” studies show vaccine injuries are real, they’re rejected as “non-controlled” and met with demands for “controlled trials” (that are banned for “ethical” reasons). This absurdity continues as:
When “non-controlled” datasets indicate safety, rather than be questioned, they are widely publicized.
Large datasets that could “ethically” compare vaccinated to unvaccinated exist, but the public is never given access despite extensive efforts to obtain them (and most recently, the CDC deleted theirs so Secretary Kennedy could not get it).
When individuals independently conduct such studies demonstrating harm, studies get retracted and investigators are often targeted by medical boards.
Most recently, a physician agreed to conduct a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study to prove vaccines were safe and then publish the results regardless of what they showed. Once its data irrefutably showed vaccines were immensely dangerous, he refused to publish the study and apologetically admitted to a hidden camera he did that to protect himself.
Many other incriminating datasets are routinely buried. For example, a CDC whistleblower testified that the CDC buried data they collected showing vaccines cause autism, and when a court order finally forced the CDC to release their data used to track COVID-19 vaccine safety, it showed significant harm and that past publications of this data had hid that harm. Likewise, Senator Johnson, through chairing the Senate’s investigative committee, was able to obtain concrete proof the CDC had internal data of serious complications from the vaccine (e.g., myocarditis) but then suppressed this knowledge from reaching the public.
In short, an illogical status quo has been enshrined where “the absence of evidence” for vaccine harm is erroneously accepted as “the evidence of absence.”
This article further asserts that the vaccine industry has imposed upon us what amounts to a religion. Strong sounding stuff, right? Consider:
Story at a Glance:•As more people awaken to the dangers of vaccines, they discover a persistent problem vaccine safety advocates have faced for decades: talking to vaccine zealots is like speaking to a brick wall.
•Regardless of the evidence presented, you cannot reach them—sometimes it feels like speaking to religious fanatics unwilling to consider the “blasphemy you’re spewing forth.”
•This is deliberate, as vaccines have been enshrined as the holy water which baptizes you into the faith of Western medicine and became the “miracle” the superiority of modern medicine is based upon.
•Because of this faith and the relentless propaganda accompanying it, a series of absurd and contradictory arguments have been established to assert vaccines are “safe” which would never be accepted anywhere else.
•As a result, all vaccine research is designed around the assumption vaccines must be safe, and all regulatory decisions sharing this bias—thereby making it nearly impossible to prove a vaccine is harmful, regardless of how many people it kills or injures.
•This article will review the absurd fallacies used to defend mass vaccination, the unsound mindsets that produce them, and the incredible opportunity we have to at last shift this dysfunctional dynamic.
Keep in mind the pathetically thin testing of vaccines that the industry insists that we inject into our children:
Until recent changes urged by Robert F. Kennedy, this was the vaccine schedule for children (on the right):
The corporate media is an accomplice to the lack of accurate information available to the American public. Consider this:
Did you know the news used to regularly air stories about people's lives being ruined by vaccines?That all changed after Clinton let Pharma buy out the media.
Here I compiled 56 mind-blowing news segments they'd never air today.
Illiberals
Definition of "Illiberal" (aggregated by Grok):
"Illiberal" is an adjective that primarily means not liberal, especially in a political sense where it describes attitudes or systems opposed to principles of liberalism, such as restricting individual rights, freedoms, or democratic norms.merriam-webster.com
It can also refer to being narrow-minded, intolerant, or bigoted about cherished opinions or values.
vocabulary.com +1
In older or literary contexts, it might mean ungenerous, stingy, or lacking in culture and refinement.
dictionary.com
The term is often used today to describe "illiberal democracies," which are governments that maintain the appearance of democracy while suppressing opposition or civil liberties.
en.wikipedia.org
With that definition in hand, let me say:
I do not oppose Women. I oppose Illiberal Women.
I do not oppose Men. I oppose Illiberal Men.
I do not oppose LGBTQIA+ people. I oppose Illiberal LGBTQIA+ people.
I do not oppose Muslim people. I oppose Illiberal Muslim people.
I do not oppose Asian people. I oppose Illiberal Asian people.
I do not oppose White people. I oppose Illiberal Muslim people.
I do not oppose Black people. I oppose Illiberal Black people.
Etc, etc. Maybe this is a long-winded way of expressing what MLK said so eloquently: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
Jimmy Kimmel’s Litmus Test
Bill Maher (to Adam Corolla):
Jimmy Kimmel, you know he's very mad at me, and I know you're close to him. I help you tell him that, you know I'm sorry that you know he they got bent out of shape. I don't think I did anything wrong. We can have disagreements. I agree you and I don't agree on everything. Look at this clash now, and yet we're cool (Bill Maher and Adam Corolla), like the Republicans are always.
This is the difference between the right and the left. It bugs me so much. My tribe is supposed to be the left, but these are the people who just can't talk to you unless you're exactly there, whereas the Republicans, they always fucking come to my show. John Kennedy from Louisiana, right? was on last week, took his beating like a man, like they all do, and we came across lovingly and smilingly and happily. And we can disagree when you and I aren't always completely on the same page, although we're very close because we're both smart guys. But like, I just don't get that from Jimmy. I'm sorry. Like, I think he is one of the nicest guys. I did a mea culpa when we exchanged emails, not about what he was complaining about, but just saying, like, you know, sometimes I am a little brash about me when they compare me with the other late night guys.
And I'm not like, you guys. I'm not. You could all exchange your monologs, all of you, and no one would know the difference in tone, okay? Whereas me? I'm not there. I don't just buy into the left wing bullshit, and I never stop making fun of the right wing bullshit at all right? If that's not good enough for you, then I think you're the asshole. And I don't think Jimmy is an asshole. No, I think he's a great guy. And it bugs me . . .
Jimmy Kimmel is an excellent proxy for what has happened to many people on the Left. I'm not referring to all people who lean Left, but a significant sub-set. I know many of them. I've been de-friended by more than a few. This subset utilizes a litmus test. If you don't check all of their boxes, they see you as the enemy, as a republican, as a nazi, as a threat. But time for a reality check: All people disagree with all other people on at least some things and, usually, many topics. It is fantasy to assume that any two people align on every topic and sub-topic of the day. Emphasis on sub-topic here. Immigration, transgender, foreign policy, public assistance, race relations, social justice and every other "topic" is actually a big complex basket of subtopics. Every one of these subtopics invites nuanced conversations involving minor or major disagreements.
Take for instance, the big basket of topics falling under the label of "transgender." As I have written often, I think every adult should be allowed to do anything they want with their own body and they must be respected, honored and invited to associate with any other person and to fall in love with anyone they choose. Many people on the Left , however, demand absolute obeisance, telling you that if you don't chant exactly like they do, in unison, exactly when and where they chant, you must be kicked out of the friendship. There are many important sub-issues to transgender that should be considered individually. For instance, A) Whether society should change its language to accommodate the alleged (and perhaps real) pain of other people B) whether people who identify as transgender should be treated equally under the law, C) whether it is OK for grade school math teachers to talk about sex with students without their parents' knowledge and consent, D) whether confused children and adolescents should be subjected to surgeries (including mastectomies), "puberty blockers" and cross-sex hormones that leave them permanently disfigured and/or sterile, E) Whether a minor can meaningfully consent to permanent changes to their bodies that render them sterile, F) The extent and type of psychological counseling a minor should undergo before being allowed to engage in transgender surgeries and drugs, G) the extent to which social contagion accounted for the rise (and more recently the fall) in minors declaring that they are "transgender." Whether biological males should be allowed to compete in women's sports, H) whether it is biologically true that trans women are women, I) whether it is OK for a state government to take children away from their parents when state employees disagree with parents on transgender issues, J) Should males be imprisoned along with women, even though rapes and pregnancies are now being reported in those prisons (see here)? K) Whether "LGBTQIA+" is a meaningful descriptor for a a singular community, given the the inherent conflict among those referred to by the letters? I could go on and on.
There are many other sub-issues to "transgender" topic that I could list. For instance, J.K. Rowling has listed a dozen of these sub-issues in her Sept 1, 2025 post on X. I would bet that many people who lean Left would agree with Rowling on many or most of the issues she lists. Yet she has bee labeled a "terf" and threatened with death on many occasions.
The way the topic of "transgender" splinters into countless sub-issues is true of every political and social issue. Anyone being honest knows that, as a country, we face hundreds, potentially thousands, of sub-issues.
This much is indisputable: Every person disagrees with every other person on many of the countless sub-issues of the day. It is impossible for any person to lack any disagreement on some of the sub-issues of the day even with their closest and most loyal friends.
During the Great Awokening, we were falsely convinced that when a friend disagreed with us about an issue or sub-issue it was a personal attack, not a mere disagreement. We started disparaging maxims like "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me." And this one: "To each his own." The need to express disagreement is embedded in the Constitutional foundation of the United States. That is why our Founders have a brilliantly devised set of checks and balances for resolving or compromising our inevitable differences.
Anyone currently claiming that they have friends who completely agree with them is not talking about someone they really know. They are not talking about actual friends. They are referring to a relationship steeped in dishonesty, based on fear of speaking openly.
I challenge anyone reading this to ask themselves this question: Am I willing to keep loving and engaging freely with friends who disagree with me on some topics and sub-topics? If not, you don't have real friends. Instead, you are starring in your own Truman Show, self-imprisoned in a social cage.
Luckily, you've got the key to you own liberation. [More ...]
About Personal Sovereignty
I found these ideas useful. There are about 8 frames here. Many of ideas boil down to making sure you don't put too much stock in what others think about you. Otherwise, you'll be controlled by others. There's a caveat, of course. If you are surrounded by people you highly respect and they are all telling you you're making a mistake, it's time to pause and consider the things they are telling you.
THE ARCHITECTURE OF IMMUNITY: 8 SIGNS YOU CANNOT BE CONTROLLED (THREAD)
The Illusion of Independence
You believe you are a free thinker. That delusion is precisely what makes you easy to conquer. The modern liberal apparatus does not need to force you into submission when it can simply trick you into believing their thoughts are your own. Influence does not announce itself. It operates in the shadows of your unchecked emotions. Most people spend their entire lives reacting to manipulation they mistake for their own thoughts. They believe they are independent, but independence is not a feeling. It is a structure. If you do not possess the psychological fortifications to repel the mob, you are already under their control. This is not about confidence. It is about dominance. There are eight specific markers that separate the sovereign mind from the useful idiot.
