Michel Foucault and Jean Paul Sartre during protests

 

French philosophers Michel Foucault and Jean-Paul Sartre during a protest in tribute to Pierre Overney, a Maoist worker killed during a strike at a Renault automobile factory. (Getty Image)

[BREAKING] UK Court Rules Assange to be Extradited to US - The Duran

 

 The Duran 

[BREAKING] UK Court Rules Assange to be Extradited to US + CANZUK leaders are going crazy

We failed. We failed. We failed

Oscar "De Profundis"

 

Oscar Wilde in New York in January 1882. (DeAgostini/Getty Images)

De Profundis by Oscar Wilde 

CDC: Myocarditis and Pericarditis After mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination

Alert: This is on the page of CDC - Center for Disease Control and Prevention - 

Myocarditis and Pericarditis After mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination

CDC and its partners are actively monitoring reports of myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination. Active monitoring includes reviewing data and medical records and evaluating the relationship to COVID-19 vaccination.

Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle, and pericarditis is inflammation of the outer lining of the heart. In both cases, the body’s immune system causes inflammation in response to an infection or some other trigger. Learn more about myocarditis and pericarditis.external icon Seek medical care if you or your child have symptoms of these conditions within a week after COVID-19 vaccination.

What You Need to Know

Cases of myocarditis reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)external icon have occurred:

After mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna), especially in male adolescents and young adults,

More often after the second dose

Usually within several days after vaccination

Most patients with myocarditis or pericarditis who received care responded well to medicine and rest and felt better quickly.

Patients can usually return to their normal daily activities after their symptoms improve. Those who have been diagnosed with myocarditis should consult with their cardiologist (heart doctor) about return to exercise or sports. More information will be shared as it becomes available.

Both myocarditis and pericarditis have the following symptoms:

Chest pain

Shortness of breath

Feelings of having a fast-beating, fluttering, or pounding heart

Seek medical care if you or your child have any of these symptoms, especially if it’s within a week after COVID-19 vaccination.

If you have any health problems after vaccination, report them to VAERSexternal icon.

Healthcare Providers: For additional recommendations and clinical guidance, visit Clinical Considerations: Myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines | CDC.

Please, refer to the page to read more details and remember to question what is between the lines. Isn't it good they are paying attention on some problems the vaccines are causing? If they continue like this in 10 years it will be possible to know some long term effects of these vaccines. (Funny, same for clinical trials.)

2020/2021 Epic Fail

 

"What I'm worried about are governments that exploit this crisis in order to curb civic freedoms" Christine Anderson

 

"... the basic fundamental rights... and the European citizens are under threaten right now." C. Tehres

"... we have to do more to fight for his right of freedom." "I'm not fearful of Covid at all. What I'm worried about are governments that exploit this crisis in order to curb civic freedoms." (Emphasis mine)  Christine. Anderson Member of the European Parliament

Didn't See This Coming: EU Parliament Reject Orwellian "Vaccine" Mandates In Favor Of Human Rights

Rumble — European Union Members of Parliament are coming out strongly against the Human Rights abuses that have come about as a result of the NWO's "Green-Pass" vaccine mandates. They are saying that governments across Europe (and the world) are violating the fundamental freedoms of its citizens, which are enshrined in law.

The MPs are making it clear that the "Covid-Agenda" has nothing to do with science, nor public health, but rather is intended to bring about a Totalitarian system that eliminates even the most basic of human rights in order to enslave the population. (Emphasis mine)

Did anyone anticipate that members of the European Union would be coming out against the New World Order?

😲

ADT -Active Denial Technology (burning skin feeling) and "The voice of God"

                                     UNITED STATES 10.23.2013 Video by Sgt. Brittany Fogel 

 

"The Solid State Active Denial Technology (SS-ADT) is a non-lethal weapon system which disrupts hostile activities and can deny personnel from remaining in specific areas, without causing permanent physical harm or collateral damage."

The video depicts it so appealing that it seems that we should have this system in our houses for protection. We need protection, security we need protection... We need it badly.

It is a non lethal weapon after all.

Let's listen to Mark Cancian's experience with the non lethal weapon on his article "‘Heat Ray’ And ‘The Voice Of God’: My Experience With The Nonlethal Weapons Eyed For Use In D.C. Protests" published at Forbes: 

Excerpt:

"How should people think about these systems? The reporting has been breathless as if the military were about to shine death rays on peaceful citizens. The exotic nature of the technologies has added to the anxiety. In fact, both systems have been around for a long time and deployed overseas. (It’s not clear whether (emphasys mine) ADS was used overseas.) ADS has not been used operationally in the United States. LRAD is commercially available, and police departments use it occasionally. Indeed, LRAD has a variety of uses from scaring wildlife off runways to alerting boaters about danger.

Because the LRAD is like a powerful megaphone, its use seems relatively familiar. ADS is different, a novel and exotic capability for which there is no ready analog. People should think of it like a taser, which police departments routinely use. For those fortunate enough not to have met one up close, a quick explanation: a Taser fires electrodes into the victim and then hits them with a high voltage that is enough to short-circuit the nervous system for a short period of time. Victims are incapacitated. Tasers have gained acceptance because they provide an intermediate step between a baton and a bullet. Someone coming after a police officer with a stick, for example, needs to be stopped, but they don’t need to be shot.

ADS is similar. It uses technology to incapacitate people without hurting them. It’s an intermediate force option. An important difference, however, is that tasers are used every day, and are hence familiar, while ADS is strange and unfamiliar.

Aren’t these the kind of systems that militarize the police? No. Militarization of the police is a real problem, but that’s not the issue here. Debates about militarization arise because DOD has a program whereby it provides excess military gear to police departments. Many have criticized the program for encouraging the overuse of force. However, the ADS and LRAD provide the opposite kind of capability: civilian policing capabilities brought into the military. Further, ADS would not be available even if police departments wanted it because the system is expensive, complicated, and scarce.

So, would it have been appropriate to deploy the systems? It’s important to note that the systems were not used and were not even moved to the area. The D.C. National Guard does not own them; they would come from other parts of DOD, likely the Marine base at Quantico. It’s also clear that a staff member just asked a question. That’s what staff members are supposed to do. It’s a long way from asking a question to deploying a capability.

The question of usage gets wrapped up in disputes about President Trump’s attitude towards the use of force against demonstrators, and the fact that many people disagreed with his views. It’s a reasonable discussion about what level of violence requires what level of response. Wherever the line gets drawn, however, it is better to use a high-tech electronic beam than batons, tear gas, and, ultimately, firearms."

Entire article here.

 Geneva Guidelines on Less-Lethal Weapons and Related Equipment .

Decide.

  Graphic content - "non lethal weapon and the Olsen case"

Lula is being tortured in jail despite numerous proves of his innocence

Lula is a political prisoner.
It is crystal clear for all of those who understand lesson number one of laws.
And he is also being tortured as I have explained here with just a few details.
Lula needs to be free. Justice must prevail. As a Brazilian citizen I ask for those who can help this country to make justice, please, do what you can.
Remember that Lula is 73 years old. He is facing all of this with incredible resilience.
Crime against humanity that is what Lula in prison is.

The Intercept 

Judge Sergio Moro repeatedly counseled prosecutor Deltan Dallagnol via Telegram during more than two years of Operation Car Wash.

"A LARGE TROVE of documents furnished exclusively to The Intercept Brasil reveals serious ethical violations and legally prohibited collaboration between the judge and prosecutors who last year convicted and imprisoned former Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva on corruption charges — a conviction that resulted in Lula being barred from the 2018 presidential election. These materials also contain evidence that the prosecution had serious doubts about whether there was sufficient evidence to establish Lula’s guilt.


The archive, provided to The Intercept by an anonymous source, includes years of internal files and private conversations from the prosecutorial team behind Brazil’s sprawling Operation Car Wash, an ongoing corruption investigation that has yielded dozens of major convictions, including those of top corporate executives and powerful politicians."

Read the whole coverage at "The Intercept"
#FreeLula

Hiroshima 74 years ago...

...the Japanese city of Hiroshima, killing more than 70,000 people instantly. A second ...
You know. We all know...

Amazon Deforestation is close to it's tipping point

Amazon Deforestation is close to it's tipping point

Uncontacted indigenous tribe in the brazilian state of Acre. Credit: Gleilson Miranda / Governo do Acre / Wikipedia
March, 20 2018 by Fapesp-Brazil
PhysOrg

“Deforestation of the Amazon is about to reach a threshold beyond which the region’s tropical rainforest may undergo irreversible changes that transform the landscape into degraded savanna with sparse, shrubby plant cover and low biodiversity. This warning derives from an editorial published in the journal Science Advances co-authored by Thomas Lovejoy, a professor at George Mason University in the United States, and Carlos Nobre, chair of Brazil’s National Institute of Science & Technology (INCT) for Climate Change.

“The Amazon system is close to a tipping point,” Lovejoy said. According to the authors, since the 1970s, when studies conducted by Professor Eneas Salati demonstrated that the Amazon generates approximately half of its own rainfall, the question has been raised of how much deforestation would be required to degrade the region’s hydrological cycle to the point at which it would be unable to support rainforest ecosystems. The first models developed to answer this question showed that the tipping point would be reached if approximately 40 percent of the region were deforested. In this case, central, southern and eastern Amazonia would experience diminished rainfall and a lengthier dry season. Moreover, the vegetation in the southern and eastern parts of the region would become similar to savanna.

…The calculation derives from a study published in 2016 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and conducted by Nobre and other researchers at the INPE, the National Space Research Institute (from which Nobre is a retired researcher), the Natural Disaster Surveillance & Early Warning Center (CEMADEN) and the University of Brasília (UnB). “Although we don’t know the exact tipping point, we estimate that the Amazon is very close to this irreversible limit,” Nobre said. “Deforestation of the Amazon has already reached 20 percent, equivalent to 1 million square kilometers, although 15 percent [150,000 km²] is recovering.”

According to the researchers, the mega-droughts of 2005, 2010 and 2015-16 could well represent the first signs that this tipping point is about to be reached. These events, together with major floods in 2009, 2012 and 2014, suggest the entire Amazon system is oscillating. “Human action intensifies the disturbances to the region’s hydrological cycle,” Nobre said…”

Read on at: Phys.org

Progressive Brazilians are discussing the Amazon problem on a daily basis. Indigenous people are being attacked - two deaths already - and the outrage is reaching a high scale. This last president is destroying Brazil.
#FreeLula

Letter from Brazil 4

Letter from Brazil 3

Letter from Brazil 2

Letter from Brazil

Do USA want to kill Lula?

US have been killing heads of state for a long time. Does the empire want another great politician to be killed?

Dramatic day for Brazilians: Supreme Court denies Habeas Corpus to Lula

Lula's lawyer in the Supreme Court

We are living in an unlawful country.
I don't want to say anything. Injustice is hard to bare. 

Brazil is being ruled by USA

It's shameful, criminal, absurd but for those who know US foreign policy no news.
Brazil is upside down. 
I am indignant.

Image: Carmem Lúcia the Brazilian judge who rescheduled Lula's Habeas Corpus that would be appreciated tomorrow June, 25, 2019.

Whistleblowers need protection and reward

Whistleblower Protection Law: a blog by the attorney James Zuckerman that I just came across where we can find law protection to whistleblowers..
I thank all whistleblowers and I wish we could create a prize for them.

About justice

Stephen Fry has been working occasionally for Bill and Melinda foundation?

50:30 OMG! Stephen has been working occasionally for Bill and Melinda foundation? This is appalling! I'm extremely disappointed with Stephen! I love him so much but after listening some of his statements in this interview it's clear he lacks some information.
Queen Elizabeth as a totem? She is a ... Ok... Do your research for I'm not the one who will spoil the party. 
Stephen being a part of technocracy?
No Stephen, don't be in the center. Be outside this system. This is your place.
Now I'm going to cry.
Stephen working for agenda 2030... Oh! Bill, the murderer.

I'll keep admiring Stephen. I don't think he is aware of what this foundation is all about.
He has been fighting cancer and I wish him a very quick recovery.

Start by this article. Do your research.

Report Slams Gates Foundation for Self-Serving Agenda, Corporate Ties
NonProfitPRO

January 26, 2016

By Sean Norris

Just days after Microsoft announced it would donate $1 billion in cloud-computing resources to 70,000 nonprofits worldwide, founder Bill Gates is in the crosshairs for his philanthropy.

In a 54-page report released Thursday, U.K. social advocacy group Global Justice Now slammed the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for using its enormous giving-power to influence global health policies in the foundation's own interests. The report also claims the Gates Foundation often invests in the same health care and pharmaceutical companies it funds, creating “a corporate merry-go-round" that benefits corporations while undermining support for basic public health systems.

"The [foundation's] program is not a neutral, charitable strategy for which the world should be thankful that a rich man is deciding to spend his money on good causes," reads the report's introduction. "Analysis of the foundation's programs shows that it has an agenda—it is a specific ideological strategy that promotes neo-liberal economic policies, corporate globalization [and] the technology this brings, and a long outdated view of the centrality of 'aid' in helping the 'poor.'"

Among the report's allegations against the Gates Foundation:

It provides a disproportionate amount of funding to health organizations in high-income countries, "exacerbating unequal research and development infrastructures between poor and rich regions." The report cites as an example the foundation's "overwhelming focus" on developing and promoting new vaccines at the expense of already-proven preventative measures for diseases that most affect poverty-stricken areas.
Its projects are primarily "vertically funded interventions targeted at specific diseases or health problems" and do little to strengthen public health systems, leaving underdeveloped nations ill-equipped to combat the root causes of disease. The report backs this claim with comments from Margaret Chan, director general of the World Health Organization (WHO), who said in an interview with The New York Times that the WHO's budget is "driven by what I call donor interests." This limits the organization's ability to maintain fixed support staff "to build response systems" when there is no active health emergency. Adds the report: "The inference in Chan’s remarks is that the WHO, whose largest donor is [the Gates Foundation,] is unable to respond adequately to ebola and other disease outbreaks because donor interests prevent it from being able to build public health systems in developing countries.
It "prioritizes support for corporations." The report notes that the Gates Foundation has funded a huge number of projects for major corporations—including Monsanto, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck and Coca-Cola—and that the corporations often stand to profit. According to the report, the foundation has owned or still owns shares in some of the corporations it funds. "The foundation is profiting from its investments in corporations which contribute to social and economic injustice," reads the report.
***

Perhaps the most troubling allegation, though, is one we've heard before—that the Gates Foundation, through massive donations and global influence, has effectively bought the silence of would-be critics. The Seattle Times addressed the issue in 2008:

“The danger isn’t in what people do tell you—it’s in what they don’t,” departing foundation CEO Patty Stonesifer warned in the 2007 annual report.

In other words, Stonesifer says, the Gates Foundation needs honest feedback and criticism to help it figure out how best to improve the health of the world’s poor, boost food production in Africa and improve schools in the U.S.

Honesty can be hard to come by, though, when you’re handing out staggering amounts of cash.

And some question how sincere the foundation is about listening to critics.

“They’re not really fostering tough debate,” said Pablo Eisenberg, a columnist for The Chronicle of Philanthropy and senior fellow at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute. “They have not solicited and gone after people who will tell them the truth.”

The Global Justice Now report reinforces those claims. It notes that the Gates Foundation has spent $1 billion on policy and advocacy, investing heavily in training programs for journalists at major media organizations, and funding research and articles in scientific journals. It also notes that the foundation supports a number of NGOs that "might otherwise be expected to criticize aspects of the foundation's agenda," but have been notably silent.

In other words, many of the organizations capable of holding the foundation accountable are unwilling or unable to do so. Adds the report, quoting Sophie Harman, an academic at Queen Mary University in London: "One explanation for the silence is that 'everyone is scared of challenging Gates and the foundation’s role because they don’t want to lose their funding.'"

It makes sense that the organizations receiving funds wouldn't actively criticize the foundation providing the funding. But if the reports are true, it's led to an echo chamber of sorts—one in which the Gates Foundation cannot be criticized. From The Seattle Times story above:

Countless blogs and websites spout off on Microsoft’s every twitch. A single blog, The Gates Keepers, watchdogs the Gates Foundation. Few people ever weigh in with comments. The moderators say they remain anonymous out of fear of lawsuits and what they call “Bill Chill.”

“If we criticize the foundation in our own names our funding will be cut or we will lose our jobs,” reads one exchange.

***

It's a complicated ethical dilemma. The Gates Foundation is the world's 12th-largest donor, spending more on aid than most countries—including Canada, Belgium and Italy. It is a vital source of funding for hundreds of nonprofits, NGOs and other organizations in almost every sector, providing critical support for their missions. According to the report, the foundation issued 6,210 grants from 2010 to 2014 alone, and has spent $23.9 billion since 2000.

Even if the Gates Foundation is a bully that stands to benefit from its own philanthropy, as Global Justice Now alleges, it's hard to argue that it's not making a positive difference in world affairs. At one point, the report notes that The Global Fund, an organization that the foundation supports, has spent just 10 percent of its total output since 2002 on strengthening public health systems. It is intended as a knock against the Gates Foundation, but the math says otherwise. The Global Fund has spent a total of $25 billion over that span—10 percent of that is still $2.5 billion. That's not inconsequential.

It's also worth noting that many of the report's positions are subjective. Has the Gates Foundation prioritized vaccines? Yes, but those vaccines have saved an estimated 5.812 million lives. Has the foundation invested heavily in genetically modified organism (GMO) research and advocated for genetically modified crops? Sure, but a large portion of the scientific community believes GMOs could end world hunger. Global Justice Now counts these and other claims as a strike against the Gates Foundation, while largely ignoring the positive outcomes.

Still, the report's top recommendation—that the Gates Foundation should receive an independent review and evaluation—seems fair. More accountability, especially from organizations of this size, isn't a bad thing. As Nonprofit Quarterly's Martin Levine writes, "Beyond debating merits and downsides of specific strategies, the growing influence of a small number of very large foundations should cause us to consider if their work is sufficiently transparent and accountable."

For its part, the Gates Foundation stood by its philanthropic approach. In a written response, the foundation said its chief goal is to "improve quality of life for the world's poorest people," and that doing so requires collaboration from organizations across all sectors—nonprofit, for-profit or otherwise.

"Governments are uniquely positioned to provide the leadership and resources necessary to address structural inequalities and ensure that the right solutions reach those most in need," said the foundation. "The private sector has access to innovations—for example, in science, medicine and technology—that can save lives. And we believe that the role of philanthropy is to take risks where others can’t or won’t."