OffGridw/DougandStacy follow up on Tim Ballard
Sound of Freedom, Tim Ballard and O U R update! IT'S NOT GOOD..
OFF GRID with DOUG & STACY
16min
yesterday
Ballard is a fired, unpaid C_A intern, not an undercover office like his linkedin states, not an undercover operator like his twitter states, not an operative like the mormon church states, not an asset, not a case officer, not an analyst.
Also, Agency uses secrecy agreements, not NDAs, which Ballard states he is under.
Multiple lawsuits now against Tim Ballard and Operation Underground Railroad.
And former NY Fed Chair and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Pfizer's Sally Susman do it at the glob al level as co-chairs of the International Rescue Committee.
https://www.rescue.org/board-and-advisors
Modified mRNA Vaccines for Livestock and Cattle
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/modified-mrna-vaccines-for-livestock
Dr. Brooke Miller (00:04):
Good evening. My name is Brooke Miller and I'm the former immediate past President of the United States Cattlemen's Association. I'm here with Robert Malone, Dr. Robert Malone, who has been so gracious to have a discussion tonight on mRNA in livestock. Robert was originally going to be on our panel at the United States Cattlemen's Association annual meeting in Fort Worth, Texas, but he got called out of town and has to be in London. So he's so gracious to be here tonight with me and we're going to have a discussion. Just a little background on Robert, I've known Robert and his wife, Jill, for over two years now. We've become great friends and close allies. He has been a freedom fighter and a fighter for medical freedom since day one. He is a very accomplished individual. He has done a lot of research on mRNA technology and is credited by most as being the original inventor of mRNA technology.
So I thought he would be a great person to add his insight to mRNA technology and livestock. And Robert also has an agricultural background. He and his wife, Jill, have a horse farm here in Madison County, Virginia, and I'm proud to announce that he is a brand new member of the United States Cattlemen's Association. So with that, I'll introduce Robert Malone, my good friend. And we're just going to have a discussion on mRNA technology and livestock and just some of the science behind it and some of the concerns that we have about using this technology in food animals.
Dr. Robert Malone (01:51):
So we first broke this story well over a year ago on our Substack, and it was my wife, Dr. Jill Glasspool Malone, that did the deep dive of the research into where the mRNA technology was at, in terms of its use in livestock. And after that publication came out on Substack, then we had a number of people start to pick up that thread, which we're very grateful for. We always love it when people… We break the ice and then other people follow. And that's a great thing. And there's been a lot of follow-on concern. Some of it's valid, some of it's a little bit overblown.
(02:34):
And then we had various legislative initiatives come out, and unfortunately, at least one of those was overplayed and it easily got knocked down by the folks that have vested interest in moving this technology forward. And I think that was unfortunate because if the legislation had been written a little more conservatively, a little more cautiously, a little more focused on what the real issues are in terms of animal husbandry and livestock management, then it could have and should have gone through, in my opinion. But this is what happens often at the front edge of things. So let's jump into it, Brooke. You and I have talked about this before in another recording when we were setting up the beef initiative venue at your farm.
Dr. Brooke Miller (03:30):
Robert and I wrote a Substack on this issue, I guess it was probably back in August or September that we wrote the Substack, probably in August. And it's available on The Rancher Doctor Newsletter Substack.
Dr. Robert Malone (03:43):
So the gist of it is that right now we don't have any of these products that are authorized for cattle, whether it's beef or milk.
I had a long chat with a politician from Wisconsin. Obviously, they have considerable interests more in the dairy side than in the beef side. I talked to him about strategies suggesting that because these mRNA-based technologies are excreted in human breast milk, that there was a valid concern about them being transmitted in bovine products and that that ought to be one of the key focuses of the cattle industry for milk production in Wisconsin milk and cheese.
p1
But for folks like the Cattlemen's Association here, I think the big issue is whether or not they're going to be deploying it into your beef cattle and what that means. Now, what we do know is that a version of this technology developed by Merck and custom engineered for swine herds, basically for these large factory pig farms has been deployed. And there absolutely is interest in deploying this kind of technology into chicken houses. But as all of you know in the chicken industry, the margins are just squeaky, squeaky tight. And so any technology, vaccine technology, that's going to be deployed into chicken houses has got to come in at pennies per dose. And even if you just have, let's say gently, a technician going around and vaccinating your chicken flock, you're going to be well over a buck a dose real quick no matter what the cost is of the raw material. So I don't know how viable this tech is going to be for the chicken industry unless they find a way to aerosolize it. And that's a holy grail they're also seeking for humans is aerosolized vaccines that you can just inhale. And that's something that's been in the works for well over a decade now.
(06:08):
Dr. Jill Glasspool Malone and I had the first patent for mucosal vaccines, but it still hasn't led to any products yet. So what is a viable product is they will go through one of these large swine herds and sample the pathogen load, particularly viruses that are circulating in that particular farm. And then they'll take that back to the laboratory and design a custom mRNA-based vaccine for that swine herd that's operating in the close confines of a factory farm. And then go through and jet inject basically all the pigs in that farm to try to make it harder for whatever the viruses are that are circulating there to compromise the viability of the pigs in any of the piglets. So that is absolutely being deployed, and it was rushed through by USDA under something akin to the emergency use authorization process that has happened with humans, which is to say with almost no testing at all. But there is nothing yet in cattle industry, although I'm sure they would like to have it.
Dr. Brooke Miller (07:33):
Okay. Robert's getting pretty technical. He understands a lot of this technical stuff, and I do a little bit, but I think in the cattle industry we have to ask a couple questions: What is the benefit and what is the risk? What is the need? Is there a need for this in the livestock industry? I personally do not see a need for this, but I see the risk being pretty massive.
Who is Robert Malone is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
(07:55):
Number one is it going to be safe for the livestock? Number two, is it going to be safe to eat the livestock? And number three, what is going to be the public perception of this if it is adopted in the livestock industry? And I've had probably more calls and more concerns about this issue than anything else from the general public, the non-agricultural public, who is basically our consumer and our patron, and they're very concerned about this. And I think it'll be a very negatively viewed technology in livestock if this is adopted by our industry. I think people are going to reject it, and that's going to harm our markets, that's going to harm our exports and it'll harm our beef consumption in the United States.
p2
Dr. Robert Malone (08:44):
I agree with you.
Dr. Brooke Miller (08:46):
Can you speak onto the fact on what are the concerns or what are the potential risk from a medical standpoint, both for the livestock and for people consuming this and what you've seen both in the human side as well as this, as far as the transparency goes.
Dr. Robert Malone (09:08):
Okay, so at the start, let's focus on the animal itself. I raise horses, we're thinking about getting into wagyu, and I have been concerned with cattle and worked on a dairy farm as a kid.
So we are from a culture where you take care of your animals, and I think that's one of the things that really distinguishes the cattle industry from the chicken industry, for example. And so, what is the safety profile for your animals? We don't really know. We can extrapolate from humans, but there's been a new development that really I think does raise some serious concerns both for the bulls and the cows, but particularly for the cows. And that is that all of these products are contaminated with small fragments of DNA, and they are being delivered using a highly effective system, the most effective non-viral polynucleotide or gene delivery technology ever developed. And that means that the DNA contamination is going to get into the cells of your animals the same as the RNA is.
(10:23):
Now, as the RNA goes into your animal's cells, it produces a protein. And by definition for a vaccine that protein is a foreign protein. And so your animal's immune system is going to attack all those cells. And this stuff goes all over the body, including to ovaries in particular, which is of concern in terms of reproductive health. And we have had numerous examples in the human case that are now firmly established that this product, this technology, can negatively impact on fertility. And in particular, menstruation is well established, so that would be cycling in your cows, but it may also impact in the ova, the eggs that are being produced from the ovaries, so that potentially could have impacts on your calves. And the fact that this is also delivering DNA is particularly concerning because those small DNA fragments are more likely to insert into the genome than the RNA is. The RNA would have to be turned into DNA and then put into the genome.
(11:38):
But in the case of these small DNA fragments, they can directly impact on the integrity, let's say, chromosomal integrity, or the technical term is genotoxicity. And that's a reasonable concern both in terms of your livestock and things like bone marrow stem cells and splenic cells, these cell types that reproduce a whole lot and have stem cells and are prone to various cancers. And then you have potential reproductive toxicity, you have neurotoxicity, so they're associated in some frequency with damage to the spinal cord and damage to peripheral nerves. And you all know that cows that are compromised neurologically, they have to be culled. You can't tolerate having a cow that is partially lame because of nervous system problems or potentially paralyzed.
(12:44):
So there are significant risks to your livestock associated with this tech and you can't deny it. We see it in the humans. We're now down to the point of just arguing about how frequent is it and how do you define rare, but there's no debate anymore about the damages that this tech is causing in humans in terms of heart damages, brain damages, damages to immune system. I mentioned reproductive system, also the pituitary gland, so some central issues having to do with endocrine system, which you know is crucial to your animal's health and weight gain and everything else. So I think in terms of a cattleman's point of view, for people that care about their animals and need to have healthy animals to get them weighed and get them to market on time, that should be a concern. Is there a concern about transfer to humans?
Dr. Brooke Miller (13:53):
Hold on. I want to make one more point. Because of the technology, it's encased in a lipid nanoparticle, and the lipid nanoparticle can transport the mRNA across every cell membrane in the body, so it goes everywhere. That's correct?
Dr. Robert Malone (14:08):
Including placenta.
Dr. Brooke Miller (14:09):
Yeah. And so what the mRNA does is goes to every organ in the body potentially, and then the mRNA is modified, and it's modified in order to last longer and avoid breakdown. Would you agree with that?
Dr. Robert Malone (14:26):
And to be immunosuppressive.
Dr. Brooke Miller (14:28):
Yeah, so it is modified, so it's going to persist. And so potentially it could go to just about every cell in the body, and then it programs that cell to produce the antigen or the foreign protein, which is in effect something that is immunogenic.
Dr. Robert Malone (14:50):
And will be targeted by the immune system.
p3
Dr. Brooke Miller (14:53):
So it could basically cause the body to attack itself by producing these foreign proteins.
Dr. Robert Malone (14:58):
It absolutely will. That is the purpose. That is the logic for this is to replicate as if your animal was infected by the pathogen. But the big difference is that this produces a heck of a lot of protein. It's a remarkably efficient system, and often it produces much more protein and throughout the body, which is very different from the infection that your animal might acquire that it's trying to protect against, where for instance a lot of these respiratory viruses are more localized to the upper respiratory tract and the innate immune system of the host, whether it's human or bovine, will start to attack that right away. And then gradually the antibodies come up and the cellular immune response comes up. And the cellular immune response in particular is what is going to kill all those cells that are producing the protein, the antigen, that the RNA codes for. So it is going to cause some damage, and how much damage is going to vary from animal to animal.
Dr. Brooke Miller (16:08):
One thing I've heard from the promoters of this technology is it would allow them or us to produce these vaccines at a more rapid rate. And while some may look at that as a positive, I look at that as a negative because if it's so rapidly produced and deployed, we don't have the time to decide whether it's safe.
Dr. Robert Malone (16:30):
Safety test. I agree. And so this is one of these holy grail situations that's all based on factory farming. The logic that when you put humans in tight quarters in cities or you put animals in tight quarters like on a big pig farm or a chicken house, then you have a lot more risk for emerging infectious disease, viruses that circulate rapidly in that and evolve to potentially become more infectious or more pathogenic or both. And this is a problem of factory farming, which is not generally something that, certainly when you got animals out feeding on grass on the range, you don't have them densely packed and you don't have those kinds of dynamics.
(17:22):
Now, in the feedlot, that's a whole different story, and that may really be what's driving this initiative to want to have something is, again, the big feedlot operations, the factory farm operations, and their fear that they're losing weight and product because of infectious disease or having to cull herds. Those are the threats. And so their belief is that they have this one manufacturing process and they can just tweak it. They can go to the computer and type in whatever sequence they want from the pathogen, and the manufacturing process just changes the sequence of the RNA, but everything else is the same. And so it changes the sequence of the RNA, but everything else is the same. It makes it really quick to jam these things out if you don't do the testing. The truth is that the real time crunch comes in doing the tests and doing it right to make sure that things are safe and that they're actually effective.
Dr. Brooke Miller (18:20):
So the old adage, "Haste makes waste," is so true?
Dr. Robert Malone (18:23):
Absolutely. That's a perfect capture for what's going on here.
(18:28):
And then, in terms of the human health, not to even mention the consumer response, I mean, a lot of, as you're mentioning, Brooke, that's why when we first put this article out, why it's gotten so much traction and amplification on social media and in the press, et cetera, is because people are aware that these mRNA vaccines have caused problems. We're arguing now about how bad the problems are, but we're now to the point where everybody agrees that they're causing problems.
Dr. Brooke Miller (19:01):
I think the general public, their lack of uptake of the most recent booster is pretty good evidence that there is huge concerns.
Dr. Robert Malone (19:10):
They're done.
Dr. Brooke Miller (19:11):
It's less than 7% of the human public is even considering the booster.
Dr. Robert Malone (19:15):
And Poland sent the shots back to Pfizer. Pfizer is now suing Poland to force them to pay for shots they don't want. There's multiple nations all across the world that are just completely done and they don't want anything to do with this, and that's a sign.
(19:34):
So, is there a risk to your human consumer?
p4
Dr. Brooke Miller (19:40):
That's what I wanted to go over next. What do you see as potential, not definite, but potential risks to the human consumer, and questions that must be answered fully and transparently before even considering adopting this technology and lifestyle?
Dr. Robert Malone (19:59):
I'm going to start with ones that I think are really solid in terms of risk. And as I mentioned, dairy is unequivocal, is absolute. That this material gets secreted in milk. And that is, if you are deploying this technology into cattle for milking, I think you're going to find real pushback from the consumer who's already sensitized to hormone use, et cetera, and paying a premium for milk that is not manipulated hormonally. And if it comes out that the industry is using this technology, it's going to have a major impact. Now, maybe the likes of Bill Gates are going to like that because they want us to all eat crickets and mealworms, so maybe that's a win for them.
Dr. Brooke Miller (21:02):
And lab grown meat-
Dr. Robert Malone (21:02):
Yeah, exactly.
Dr. Brooke Miller (21:03):
… bathed in hormones and antibiotics.
Dr. Robert Malone (21:05):
Yeah. But in the real world, I just don't see how this is going to benefit the large dairy farm.
Dr. Brooke Miller (21:13):
And so, potentially, if the mRNA potentially has been shown in human milk to be secreted in human milk, and so, if consumers consume that mRNA, then they could potentially turn their body into manufacturers of that protein.
Dr. Robert Malone (21:33):
The papers that have come out that have documented this assertion that they can't demonstrate that these particles that are passed through the milk are still biologically active, but that doesn't mean much because they're using really insensitive assays. It's very preliminary, hasn't been rigorously tested like a whole lot of this stuff. And frankly, I don't believe it. So, I think that there is a reasonable risk, reasonable enough, that until it is definitively demonstrated to be safe, that assumption has to be that it's not safe, because we're talking about exposure to naive consumers that wouldn't be intending to take these medical products, and yet they would be receiving them potentially in milk. So as far as I'm concerned, deploying this tech into dairy herds is just suicidal for the dairy farmer. I can't see how the industry buys into that.
(22:32):
In terms of deploying it, let's say some guidance comes down, because you know all your animals are tagged and tracked and now they want to electronically tag them, so, are they going to insist that your animals be jabbed before they go to the feedlot, that's a scenario I could see happening, and is that potentially a risk for the consumer? Because the material, the modified mRNA is not a natural product, it's a synthetic product and it has very unusual characteristics, which includes immune suppression, and it includes this difficulty in being degraded, this long half-life, we would call it, we don't know how long it's going to persist in the meat, and it goes all over the body. So, we can't predict at this point and until there are lengthy studies demonstrating safety. Once again, I think the burden of proof is on the USDA and on the manufacturer to demonstrate the safety to the consumer. And until that's demonstrated, I suggest that the position of the Cattlemen's Association be a hard no.
(23:54):
Do we actually need these products? Are we having problems with the spread of infectious disease, taking out animals in the feedlot, or reducing weight gain? You're in a better position, you all, than I am to answer that, but I'm not aware that there's a pressing medical need to vaccinate with novel products that have unknown characteristics that you can't already cover with existing vaccines.
p5
(24:29):
Now, there's another one, Brooke, that I think has not had any airplay yet. So, we talked about the small DNA fragments. That's a new risk. And that's more of a risk to your animals, to your herd. But there's another risk that's really starting to percolate up, and the technical term is spongiform encephalopathy.
(24:53):
And that is a risk associated with these products, which when deployed in humans, in a small fraction of humans, are causing neuroinflammation. So, this is inflammation in the brain. And when those cells get activated, those glial cells that respond to inflammation in your brain, this can lead to what we call neurofibrillary tangles.
(25:26):
Now, in the case of the mRNA vaccines with this spike protein, that may be contributing to it, but the bottom line is that there is a reasonable concern about a prion-like property that's triggered by these products.
Dr. Brooke Miller (25:48):
That's a very good point, Robert, because that is a dirty word in the cattle business. You want to wreck a market immediately overnight, you have a case of this prion disease and the markets will absolutely tank overnight.
Dr. Robert Malone (26:03):
Yeah. And you would have to have a widespread herd culling. So, I think that's on the horizon. And if I was in the beef industry, I would be particularly concerned about those data suggesting that at some frequency we're seeing spongiform encephalopathy problems in the humans, and that would be reasonable to transfer over into cattle. Imagine, that even having this background of spongiform encephalopathy in humans, and you have a situation in your herd, the cow starts staggering a little bit. And it could be just that it's peripheral nerve damage or it could be that it's a minor transverse myelitis, it's a spinal cord problem, not necessarily a spongiform encephalopathy, a prion disease, but you see the symptoms and you call out the veterinarian and suddenly you've got a potential problem.
(27:14):
And I just don't see the risk benefit here. I don't see that there's a need for these products, particularly in cattle. I think that it's misguided in the swine herds and not feasible in chickens.
(27:31):
But in the cattle to deploy this, given all these risks and all these unknowns, it just seems to me that this is something that the Cattlemen's Association would be well-served to basically give a hard no to your legislators and to the USDA and try to knock some sense into these people that they're messing around with markets and consumer issues and a whole lot of unknowns that darn well better be looked at before you start deploying this into your cattle herds for whatever great reason they think, maybe it's going to stop them farting less and impact on global warming.
(28:16):
But whatever their logic is, my advice as somebody who understands the tech pretty good, just say no.
Dr. Brooke Miller (28:25):
We're going to wind this up real quick, but a couple of issues that I want to just sort of relate to what I've seen in the human side is we've seen these allied or these groups that are aligned with the agricultural livestock and they become out as pushing this technology, and they're propaganda. They send out a lot of propaganda. It's not research.
Dr. Robert Malone (28:53):
Yeah.
Dr. Brooke Miller (28:53):
It's not research-oriented. It's, "Hey, trust the FDA. Trust the USDA. They make sure this stuff is safe and effective. mRNA is a naturally occurring protein and it doesn't last long, and they stick it into your arm and it stays there and it doesn't go anywhere." And how much of that was true?
Dr. Robert Malone (29:17):
It's all lies.
p6
Dr. Brooke Miller (29:18):
Yeah.
Dr. Robert Malone (29:18):
Everything you just recited is a verifiable lie. And this is not natural RNA, which typically lasts for minutes to at most an hour or two in your body when it's produced. This is absolutely not natural RNA, it's designed to be immunosuppressive. It's designed to be resistant to degradation.
(29:43):
We don't even know how long it lasts in the body, even in humans, because they never did the studies properly, but almost daily we learn more and more, as people are applying more sensitive techniques we're finding out that it's lasting in the body for certainly weeks to months.
(30:01):
So and, "It stays localized." Well, that was a lie. It goes all over the body. It goes to the spleen, it goes to the bone marrow, it goes to the reproductive organs, it goes to the brain, it goes to your nervous system. It triggers autoimmune diseases. I mean, you could just go on and on and on.
Dr. Brooke Miller (30:20):
Something that I'm seeing as a clinical physician all the time is everything Robert is talking about. And it was supposed to be safe and effective when it came out and there were supposed to be regulatory agencies that were making sure it was safe and effective, but unfortunately they're captured and they're captured in the livestock industry. And it has to be verified. Any technology has to be verified by independent sources without any monetary or other…
Dr. Robert Malone (30:51):
Conflicts of interest.
Dr. Brooke Miller (30:52):
Conflicts of interest. Yeah, it was more conflicts with that.
Dr. Robert Malone (30:54):
Conflicts of interest. Yeah.
Dr. Brooke Miller (30:54):
Conflicts of interest. And so it has to be completely transparent, something that it has not been in the human side of medicine. It's not been so far in the cattle side of medicine. None of the vaccine companies are even talking about this, but you're hearing these other organizations talk about it and try to promote it with a bunch of propaganda. And we just got to push back on that.
Dr. Robert Malone (31:15):
Yeah, the propaganda is thick and hard. And I'll just add a little salt to the wound. How much do y'all trust the USDA to be independent and not compromised by Big Ag interests? The history is clear. Can you really rely on these people to make decisions that are in the interests of the independent beef producer?
(31:47):
And I don't see any evidence that they really can be relied upon, but I see a whole lot of evidence that there is a massive propaganda campaign going on to try to sell these products, sell it to legislatures, sell it to the big farm operations, probably sell it to the feedlots, I suspect.
(32:15):
And Wall Street, who is controlling Big Ag these days, likes this logic. They like the tech. They don't have to deal with the daily reality of it, whether it's with treating patients like Brooke does or managing cattle like Brooke does.
Dr. Brooke Miller (32:34):
And if it was so safe and great, what problem would they have with labeling? And they have fought that every step of the way in the state legislatures to prevent labeling, a labeling law requiring labeling of anything that uses this technology.
p7
Dr. Robert Malone (32:51):
Yep. And also fighting testing of the actual vials to see what's in them and are they reproducible?
(32:59):
So bottom line is this has all kind of been jammed through the system without adequate testing by a bunch of bureaucrats that believe that this is the second coming for vaccines and it's going to solve all the world's problems in terms of infectious disease and engineered pathogens.
(33:17):
And it all needs to be deployed in the context of One Health, right? This is the new mantra that ties together the livestock industry and companion animals and humans, and they really want to reach out into the animal reservoirs. This is crazy talk. Remember, a lot of these pathogens exist in animal reservoirs, and you're never going to clean that out.
(33:44):
So I just, again, in closure, my general recommendation is just say no and make it clear to your local legislators that this is not something that the beef industry needs at this point in time. They have adequate coverage with vaccines for the major pathogens that they're concerned about. And consumers are likely to become much more hesitant about your product if you are forced to use this. And that's how this will come down.
(34:22):
It's not going to be your veterinarian trolling along saying, "Oh, I got this new jab and you ought to use that and it's only going to cost you 10 bucks a cow or whatever." No, they're going to come at you with mandates just like they did with the humans saying you got to vaccinate all your critters as part of their animal tracking, and you know how all that's been going. So I think I've said my piece.
Dr. Brooke Miller (34:50):
Great. Thank you very much. So there you've heard it. Probably one of the world's foremost authorities on this mRNA technology, the original inventor of mRNA technology. I'm proud to call him my friend. I'm proud to call him a new member of the United States Cattlemen's Association. And I will see you all live in Fort Worth. Thank you very much, Robert.
Dr. Robert Malone (35:11):
Thanks a lot, Brooke.
8 of 8
Drivers would pay $15 to enter busiest part of Manhattan under plan to raise funds for mass transit
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/drivers-would-pay-15-to-enter-busiest-part-of-manhattan-under-plan-to-raise-funds-for-mass-transit-e831c079
Passenger car drivers entering Manhattan south of 60th Street during daytime hours would be charged $15 electronically; trucks would be charged more
Traffic traverses 42nd Street near Grand Central Terminal in New York City.
Associated Press
NEW YORK — Most drivers would pay $15 to enter Manhattan’s central business district under a plan released by New York officials Thursday. The congestion pricing plan, which neighboring New Jersey has filed a lawsuit over, will be the first such program in the United States if it is approved by transportation officials early next year.
Under the plan, passenger car drivers entering Manhattan south of 60th Street during daytime hours would be charged $15 electronically, while the fee for small trucks would be $24 and large trucks would be charged $36.
Cities such as London and Stockholm have similar programs in place, but New York City is poised to become the first in the U.S.
Revenue from the tolls, projected to be roughly $1 billion annually, would be used to finance borrowing to upgrade the city’s mass transit systems.
The proposal from the Traffic Mobility Review Board, a New York state body charged with advising the Metropolitan Transportation Authority on the tolls, includes discounts for travel between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m. and for frequent low-income drivers. Government vehicles such as municipal garbage trucks would be exempt.
Taxi drivers would pass a $1.25 surcharge onto their passengers for entering the congestion zone, while app-based ride-hail passengers would see a $2.50 surcharge.
Officials say that in addition to funding needed transit improvements, congestion pricing will result in improved air quality and reduced traffic.
“Absent this we’re going to choking in our own traffic for a long time to come and the MTA is not going to have the funds necessary to provide quality service,” Carl Weisbrod, chair of the traffic review board, said in presenting the report to MTA officials.
Opponents include taxi drivers, who had pushed for a full exemption.
“The city has already decimated the taxi industry with years of unregulated, unchecked competition from Uber and Lyft, and the MTA seems poised to land a final blow to the prospect of stability and modest survival,” Bhairavi Desai, executive director of the New York City Taxi Workers Alliance, said in a news release. “If this proposal is implemented, thousands of driver families will get dragged back into crisis-level poverty with no relief in sight.”
New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy criticized the traffic mobility board’s proposal after some news organizations reported on it Wednesday ahead of its official release.
“The Traffic Mobility Review Board’s recommended credit structure is wholly inadequate, especially the total lack of toll credits for the George Washington Bridge, which will lead to toll shopping, increased congestion in underserved communities, and excessive tolling at New Jersey crossings into Manhattan,” Murphy, who filed a federal lawsuit over congestion pricing in July, said in a statement.
The MTA board will vote on the plan after a series of public hearings scheduled for February 2024.
Israel knew Hamas’ attack plan more than a year ago
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/israel-knew-hamas-attack-plan-more-than-a-year-ago/
TEL AVIV, Israel — Israeli officials obtained Hamas’ battle plan for the Oct. 7 terrorist attack more than a year before it happened, documents, emails and interviews show. But Israeli military and intelligence officials dismissed the plan as aspirational, considering it too difficult for Hamas to carry out.
The approximately 40-page document, which Israeli authorities code-named “Jericho Wall,” outlined, point by point, exactly the kind of devastating invasion that led to the deaths of about 1,200 people.
The translated document, which was reviewed by The New York Times, did not set a date for the attack, but described a methodical assault designed to overwhelm the fortifications around the Gaza Strip, take over Israeli cities and storm key military bases, including a division headquarters.
Hamas followed the blueprint with shocking precision. The document called for a barrage of rockets at the outset of the attack, drones to knock out the security cameras and automated machine guns along the border, and gunmen to pour into Israel en masse in paragliders, on motorcycles and on foot — all of which happened Oct. 7.
The plan also included details about the location and size of Israeli military forces, communication hubs and other sensitive information, raising questions about how Hamas gathered its intelligence and whether there were leaks inside the Israeli security establishment.
The document circulated widely among Israeli military and intelligence leaders, but experts determined that an attack of that scale and ambition was beyond Hamas’ capabilities, according to documents and officials. It is unclear whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or other top political leaders saw the document, as well.
Last year, shortly after the document was obtained, officials in the Israeli military’s Gaza division, which is responsible for defending the border with Gaza, said Hamas’ intentions were unclear.
“It is not yet possible to determine whether the plan has been fully accepted and how it will be manifested,” read a military assessment reviewed by the Times.
Then, in July, just three months before the attacks, a veteran analyst with Unit 8200, Israel’s signals intelligence agency, warned that Hamas had conducted an intense, daylong training exercise that appeared similar to what was outlined in the blueprint.
But a colonel in the Gaza division brushed off her concerns, according to encrypted emails viewed by the Times.
“I utterly refute that the scenario is imaginary,” the analyst wrote in the email exchanges. The Hamas training exercise, she said, fully matched “the content of Jericho Wall.”
“It is a plan designed to start a war,” she added. “It’s not just a raid on a village.”
Officials privately concede that, had the military taken these warnings seriously and redirected significant reinforcements to the south, where Hamas attacked, Israel could have blunted the attacks or possibly even prevented them.
Instead, the Israeli military was unprepared as terrorists streamed out of the Gaza Strip. It was the deadliest day in Israel’s history.
Israeli security officials have already acknowledged that they failed to protect the country, and the government is expected to assemble a commission to study the events leading up to the attacks. The Jericho Wall document lays bare a yearslong cascade of missteps that culminated in what officials now regard as the worst Israeli intelligence failure since the surprise attack that led to the Arab-Israeli war of 1973.
p1
Underpinning all these failures was a single, fatally inaccurate belief that Hamas lacked the capability to attack and would not dare to do so. That belief was so ingrained in the Israeli government, officials said, that they disregarded growing evidence to the contrary.
The Israeli military and the Israeli Security Agency, which is in charge of counterterrorism in Gaza, declined to comment.
Officials would not say how they obtained the Jericho Wall document, but it was among several versions of attack plans collected over the years. A 2016 Defense Ministry memorandum viewed by the Times, for example, says, “Hamas intends to move the next confrontation into Israeli territory.”
Such an attack would most likely involve hostage-taking and “occupying an Israeli community (and perhaps even a number of communities),” the memo reads.
The Jericho Wall document, named for the ancient fortifications in the modern-day West Bank, was even more explicit. It detailed rocket attacks to distract Israeli soldiers and send them hurrying into bunkers, and drones to disable the elaborate security measures along the border fence separating Israel and Gaza.
Hamas fighters would then break through 60 points in the wall, storming across the border into Israel. The document begins with a quote from the Quran: “Surprise them through the gate. If you do, you will certainly prevail.”
The same phrase has been widely used by Hamas in its videos and statements since Oct. 7.
One of the most important objectives outlined in the document was to overrun the Israeli military base in Re’im, which is home to the Gaza division responsible for protecting the region. Other bases that fell under the division’s command were also listed.
Hamas carried out that objective Oct. 7, rampaging through Re’im and overrunning parts of the base.
The audacity of the blueprint, officials said, made it easy to underestimate. All militaries write plans that they never use, and Israeli officials assessed that, even if Hamas invaded, it might muster a force of a few dozen, not the hundreds who ultimately attacked.
Israel had also misread Hamas’ actions. The group had negotiated for permits to allow Palestinians to work in Israel, which Israeli officials took as a sign that Hamas was not looking for a war.
But Hamas had been drafting attack plans for many years, and Israeli officials had gotten hold of previous iterations of them. What could have been an intelligence coup turned into one of the worst miscalculations in Israel’s 75-year history.
In September 2016, the defense minister’s office compiled a top-secret memorandum based on a much earlier iteration of a Hamas attack plan. The memorandum, which was signed by the defense minister at the time, Avigdor Lieberman, said that an invasion and hostage-taking would “lead to severe damage to the consciousness and morale of the citizens of Israel.”
The memo, which was viewed by the Times, said Hamas had purchased sophisticated weapons, GPS jammers and drones. It also said Hamas had increased its fighting force to 27,000 people — having added 6,000 to its ranks in a two-year period. Hamas had hoped to reach 40,000 by 2020, the memo determined.
Last year, after Israel obtained the Jericho Wall document, the military’s Gaza division drafted its own intelligence assessment of this latest invasion plan.
Hamas had “decided to plan a new raid, unprecedented in its scope,” analysts wrote in the assessment reviewed by the Times. It said that Hamas intended to carry out a deception operation followed by a “large-scale maneuver” with the aim of overwhelming the division.
But the Gaza division referred to the plan as a “compass.” In other words, the division determined that Hamas knew where it wanted to go but had not arrived there yet.
On July 6, 2023, the veteran Unit 8200 analyst wrote to a group of other intelligence experts that dozens of Hamas commandos had recently conducted training exercises, with senior Hamas commanders observing.
The training included a dry run of shooting down Israeli aircraft and taking over a kibbutz and a military training base, killing all the cadets. During the exercise, Hamas fighters used the same phrase from the Quran that appeared at the top of the Jericho Wall attack plan, she wrote in the email exchanges viewed by the Times.
p2
The analyst warned that the drill closely followed the Jericho Wall plan, and that Hamas was building the capacity to carry it out.
The colonel in the Gaza division applauded the analysis but said the exercise was part of a “totally imaginative” scenario, not an indication of Hamas’ ability to pull it off.
“In short, let’s wait patiently,” the colonel wrote.
The back-and-forth continued, with some colleagues supporting the analyst’s original conclusion. Soon, she invoked the lessons of the 1973 war, in which Syrian and Egyptian armies overran Israeli defenses. Israeli forces regrouped and repelled the invasion, but the intelligence failure has long served as a lesson for Israeli security officials.
“We already underwent a similar experience 50 years ago on the southern front in connection with a scenario that seemed imaginary, and history may repeat itself if we are not careful,” the analyst wrote to her colleagues.
While ominous, none of the emails predicted that war was imminent. Nor did the analyst challenge the conventional wisdom among Israeli intelligence officials that Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas, was not interested in war with Israel. But she correctly assessed that Hamas’ capabilities had drastically improved. The gap between the possible and the aspirational had narrowed significantly.
The failures to connect the dots echoed another analytical failure more than two decades ago, when American authorities also had multiple indications that the terrorist group al-Qaida was preparing an assault. The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were largely a failure of analysis and imagination, a government commission concluded.
“The Israeli intelligence failure on Oct. 7 is sounding more and more like our 9/11,” said Ted Singer, a recently retired senior CIA official who worked extensively in the Middle East. “The failure will be a gap in analysis to paint a convincing picture to military and political leadership that Hamas had the intention to launch the attack when it did.”
This story was originally published at nytimes.com.
3 of 3
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1730402566096187829
Visegrád 24
@visegrad24
BREAKING:
A high-ranking member of Argentine President-Elect Javier Milei’s transition team officially announces that Argentina under Milei will reject the previous government’s agreement to join BRICS in January.
🇦🇷
7:44 PM · Nov 30, 2023
·
Vision4theBlind
@Vision4theBlind
Fitness guru Doug Brignole 'dies suddenly'
Back in 2021 he said:
"Those of you who think the vaccine kills people can use me as a test. If I die, you were right".
10:57 AM · Nov 30, 2023
·
https://twitter.com/Vision4theBlind/status/1730269809689161790>>20009513
The thyroid-poisoning additive in popular drinks
https://easyhealthoptions.com/brominated-vegetable-oil-ditch-these-drinks-linked-to-thyroid-toxicity/
When it comes to keeping consumers safe from potentially harmful food additives, Europe is way ahead of the United States.
As soon as an additive is linked to health issues, European regulators tend to err on the side of caution.
For example, you may remember when I wrote about five food additives they’ve banned across the pond and beyond, but are still being fed to us in America — chemicals linked to cancer, endocrine disruption and type 2 diabetes.
Well, it looks like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is finally coming around on at least one of those additives found in drinks enjoyed by almost 65 percent of Americans daily — and linked to thyroid toxicity…
The additive that makes sodas toxic
In November 2023, the FDA proposed a measure that would ban the use of brominated vegetable oil (BVO) in the U.S.
Used to keep the citrus flavoring in beverages from separating, until now the FDA has considered its use in small quantities as safe.
But the agency was prompted to revisit this safety classification after scientific evidence from toxicology studies conducted in collaboration with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) found that an accumulation of BVO is toxic to the thyroid.
Your thyroid produces hormones that are instrumental in helping control blood pressure, body temperature, metabolism and response to other hormones. Disrupting the function of the thyroid means throwing these key processes out of whack.
And that’s not all. Brominated vegetable oil has also been linked with skin and mucous membrane irritation, fatigue, loss of muscle coordination and memory problems.
BVO was given the “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) designation by the FDA in the 1970s. However, as a result of these recent findings, the FDA now deems the continued use of BVO in food as unsafe.
Peak Liver Support™
All toxic chemicals disrupt the endocrine system, which negatively impacts your hormones. But toxins don’t just cause hormones to go haywire. They change your metabolism so your body becomes a storage unit for toxin-filled fat cells that… MORE⟩⟩
«SPONSORED»
Some beverage manufacturers jumped ahead of the game to remove BVO from product formulations a few years ago when questions first began to arise about its safety. One prominent example is PepsiCo, which removed BVO from its citrus-flavored Gatorade in 2013 because consumers perceived the product in a negative light.
But according to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), up to at least 90 products common on your grocer’s shelves contain BVO — mostly sodas, sports drinks and juice-like drinks with a citrusy flavor, including regional and store brands. You can view EWG’s complete list here.
The state of California has already made moves to ban the use of BVO and three other food ingredients within its borders: potassium bromate, propylparaben and FD&C Red No. 3, or red dye No. 3. By 2027, manufacturers will no longer be able to use these four ingredients in food sold in California.
The FDA says it continues to assess the safety of various chemicals in food based on the latest scientific findings and legal requirements, including the recent California law. In fact, the agency is in the process of reviewing FD&C Red No. 3 and says a decision on the chemical is forthcoming.
Going forward, the FDA plans to streamline the process of evaluating chemicals in the food supply by creating an “Office of Food Chemical Safety, Dietary Supplements, and Innovation.” This office is part of the agency’s proposed Human Foods Program (HFP) transformation to enhance its review of food chemical safety.
Dodging brominated vegetable oil
While the FDA’s announcement about BVO is good news, it could take a while for its proposed ban to take effect.
Until then, you’ll want to check your beverage labels to make sure BVO isn’t an ingredient.
Of course, one surefire way to reduce the danger of accidentally ingesting BVO is to ditch sodas —and it’s far from the only reason you should…
A large study found that postmenopausal women who drank one or more sugar-sweetened beverages per day were 78 percent more likely to develop liver cancer, compared with women who didn’t (or consumed less than three servings per month). The researchers also concluded that even consuming just one a day increased the likelihood of liver cancer by 73 percent!
And of course, aspartame, the most commonly used artificial sweetener in sodas has been listed as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization.
It looks like giving them up altogether is the wise thing to do.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/nov/30/china-defense-report-links-high-altitude-spy-ballo/
China defense report links high-altitude spy balloons to hypersonic missile program
New Beijing command looks to dominate 'near-space' – domain the U.S. says does not exist
In this photo provided by the U.S. Navy, sailors assigned to Explosive Ordnance Disposal Group 2 recover a high-altitude surveillance balloon off the coast of Myrtle Beach, S.C., Feb. 5, 2023. A missile fired on Feb. 5 by a U.S. F-22 off the Carolina coast ended the days-long flight of what the Biden administration says was a surveillance operation that took the Chinese balloon near U.S. military sites. It was an unprecedented incursion across U.S. territory for recent decades, and raised concerns among Americans about a possible escalation in spying and other challenges from rival China. (U.S. Navy via AP) FILE
In this photo provided by the U.S. Navy, sailors assigned to Explosive Ordnance Disposal Group 2 recover a high-altitude surveillance balloon off the coast of Myrtle Beach, S.C., Feb. 5, 2023. A missile fired on Feb. 5 by a U.S. … In this photo provided by the … more >
China’s high-altitude balloon program is linked to the military’s hypersonic missile program, and a new command for both systems is prepared to conduct “merciless” attacks in a conflict with the United States, according to a Chinese defense research report.
The report by a group of researchers at the National University of Defense Technology states that the military set up a command for hypersonic missiles and high-altitude balloons, such as the suspected surveillance balloon shot down in February off the South Carolina coast by an Air Force jet fighter after traversing much of the continental U.S.
The report, “Near Space Operations Command,” made public during a Beijing conference on command and control in October, said the new operations command will direct hypersonic missiles against heavily protected targets, including communications equipment and hubs in the heartland of an adversary.
you respond to anon's sharing of livestock mrna poisoning in the food chain, but drink poisoning in the same food chain is spam?
interesting logic you have there.
indeed. you are not alone.
https://unctad.org/news/unrealized-potential-palestinian-oil-and-gas-reserves
The unrealized potential of Palestinian oil and gas reserves
Oil and natural gas resources in the occupied Palestinian territory could generate hundreds of billions of dollars for development.
News
© Shutterstock/Igal Vaisman | The platform of the Leviathan natural gas field in the Mediterranean Sea.
Geologists and resources economists have confirmed that the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) lies above sizeable reservoirs of oil and natural gas wealth, in Area C of the West Bank and the Mediterranean coast off the Gaza Strip, according to a recent UNCTAD study.
New discoveries of natural gas in the Levant Basin are in the range of 122 trillion cubic foot while recoverable oil is estimated at 1.7 billion barrels, according to the study, entitled “The Economic Cost of Occupation for the Palestinian People: The Unrealized Oil and Natural Gas Potential.”
This offers an opportunity to distribute and share about US$524 billion among the different parties in the region and promote peace and cooperation among old belligerents, the study notes.
These funds could finance socioeconomic development in the oPt as part of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
However, so far the Palestinian people have been prohibited from exploiting the oil and gas reserves in their own land and water to meet their energy needs and generate fiscal and export revenues.
This increases both the opportunity costs and the total costs borne by the Palestinian people as a result of occupation, the study states.
Assessing economic cost of occupation
In a number of UN General Assembly resolutions, UNCTAD has been asked to assess and report on the economic cost of occupation borne by the Palestinian people.
The study focuses on oil and natural gas due to their high value and critical importance in potentially meeting basic Palestinian needs for energy, and fiscal and export revenues.
It identifies and assesses existing and potential Palestinian oil and natural gas reserves that could be exploited.
Also critical are the new oil and natural gas finds in the Eastern Mediterranean that Israel has begun to exploit for its own benefit, while these resources may be considered shared resources, as the oil and natural gas exist in common pools.
“What could be a source of wealth and opportunities could prove disastrous if these common resources are exploited individually and exclusively, without due regard for international law and norms,” the study warns.
Costs enormous and escalating
Israel’s exploitation of Palestinian natural resources, including oil and natural gas, imposes on the Palestinian people enormous costs that escalate as the occupation remains in effect, the study cautions.
It highlights the peculiarities of oil and natural gas as non-renewable resources, arguing that current generations are not necessarily the only owners of these resources that straddle national borders and can thus be jointly owned by multiple states and generations.
It also recommends further detailed studies to clearly establish the Palestinian people’s right to their separate natural resources, as well as their rightful share in the common resources collectively owned by several neighbouring states in the region, including Israel.
The study comes ahead of the release of UNCTAD’s report on its assistance to the Palestinian people, slated for 10 September.
FDA and USDA are not 'good' for people, however, they are not the one's doing the poisoning. They are setting the maximum allowable ranges, makeups and ceilings of toxins present. If my business is publicly traded, I am either a board member or a C-suite exec., and I can source a 'mildly toxic' filler additive vs the more expensive inert base material, or a modified or drugged product that provides more ROI, not only must I do that because of my responsibility to maximize share value to the stock holders, but I also must assume that the FDA and USDA have set levels so that my actions are not deemed unacceptably dangerous.
The whole shitstem is FUBAR.
perhaps the Epstein, Maxwell, Nygard, etc client lists are not being exposed so that those under the yoke of that blackmail/extortion/puppetry as a result of their degeneracy are now being used by new puppet masters.
If ANY nation/leader wants to begin to gain support, EXPOSE The Epstein, Maxwell, adn nygard, etc client lists in full, even if they include your own people or intel orgs managing. Or be rightfully seen as accomplices to global human trafficking, money laundering, blackmail, extortion, wet work, etc…
pepe?