News

Nurses send open letter to NHS Foundation Trust

A group of 26 nurses in the United Kingdom have filed a lawsuit against the National Health Service (NHS) for siding with a transgender employee who allegedly harassed female staff in the women’s changing room.

The lawsuit, which stems from the policy of the County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, accused the hospital of sexual harassment and sex discrimination for allowing staff members who identify with a gender that differs from their biological sex to use facilities – including changing rooms, toilets and showers – that align with their chosen gender identity. In line with this policy, the changing facilities in the hospital are designated as single-sex, with open spaces reserved for seating and lockers but no individual cubicles. This policy has reportedly led to several uncomfortable encounters with the transgender employee.

According to the female nurses, the transgender colleague often spends time in the female changing room in revealing attire, sometimes with the person’s male genitalia visible. The employee would also allegedly stare at and initiate conversations with the biologically female nurses while they were changing. This behavior has reportedly caused significant distress among the nurses, some of whom have had histories of sexual assault by men. 

(Related: Female student RAPED in trans-inclusive restroom at New Mexico school.)

“It’s been really difficult for all of us,” the nurse said. “Some girls have had traumatic pasts; they’ve been abused by men. Some of them who have PTSD don’t want to be in a room getting undressed in front of a male. It’s had nurses on the ward crying.”

Another nurse, who was sexually abused as a child, recounted a particularly distressing encounter where the transgender colleague, half-naked, repeatedly asked her why she wasn’t getting changed. Meanwhile, an international nurse on the team has started wearing a vest and leggings to maintain modesty around the transgender colleague. The secure nature of the changing room, which requires a key press and code for access, adds to their fears. They worry that in the event of an incident, no one will hear them calling for help.

Furthermore, the nurses revealed that the transgender worker claimed to have stopped taking female hormones so that the employee’s girlfriend could get pregnant.

The female nurses first raised their concerns with their respective human resources departments in August 2023, but no action was taken.

Nurses send open letter to NHS Foundation Trust

In March 2024, the 26 female nurses signed a letter to the NHS Foundation Trust’s director of workforce, detailing their discomfort and the inappropriateness of the situation. They expressed that having a sexually active biological male in the female changing facilities was “intimidating” and “upsetting.”

The letter received no response, but a subsequent meeting was held with their head of human resources. During the meeting, the nurses were informed that the hospital fully supported their transgender colleague and suggested that they needed to “attend training,” “be educated” and “broaden their mindset.”

“[My manager] was basically told that we needed to be more inclusive, broaden our mindset,” one of the nurses who works for the hospital system said. “The Trust are backing this individual. We need to be educated, which is just, I find that absolutely insulting. Totally insulting. And we needed to compromise.”

In response, Andrea Williams, the chief executive of Christian Legal Center, an organization supporting the lawsuit, criticized the hospital for failing to balance the rights of all staff members.

“This NHS trust is putting a dangerous and discredited transgender ideology ahead of staff and patient safety, not to mention biological reality. We are concerned that what the nurses here are experiencing is just the tip of the iceberg. How many more people across the NHS, in other professions and in public places are having to go through similar experiences?” Williams said.

“Telling educated, qualified and caring women that they need to be ‘re-educated’ and be more ‘inclusive’ for raising concerns about what is happening is deeply troubling,” she continued. “Instead of giving in to the climate of fear surrounding speaking out against transgender ideology, these nurses are now refusing to be silenced and are taking a courageous stand. We will support them at every step.”

---

Lara Logan Destroys The New World Order In Epic Alex Jones Interview 

---

The disgraced defender of the abortion-tainted COVID shots made unfounded accusations while appearing before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.

(LifeSiteNews) — During his Monday appearance at the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, disgraced Dr. Anthony Fauci claimed that Americans who refused the abortion-tainted COVID shot were likely responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens.

Monday was Fauci’s first public testimony on Capitol Hill since he resigned his post in 2022. At one point, he was told by Georgia GOP Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene that he deserves to be in jail for committing “crimes against humanity.”

Fauci made his allegation after Democrat Rep. Robert Garcia of California asked him if Americans should “listen to America’s brightest and best doctors and scientists, or instead listen to podcasters conspiracy theorists and unhinged Facebook memes.”

Garcia did not provide specific names of those who he had in mind.

Fauci responded by arguing that listening to podcasters and others will result in people being harmed because “they will deprive themselves of life-saving interventions.”

LifeSiteNews has documented the many negative side effects and adverse reactions not only Americans but people across the world have suffered from the Big Pharma-backed COVID jab, which has been linked to sudden death, myocarditis, pregnancy complications, and blood clots, among scores of other ailments.

Fauci then claimed that “some” people “have done studies” on the impact the unvaccinated had on others.

“Peter Hotez has done an analysis of this and shows that in people who refuse to get vaccinated for any variety of reasons,” he stated. They are “probably responsible for an additional 200,000 to 300,000 deaths in this country.”

It is not clear which “analysis” Hotez conducted that Fauci was referring to.

Hotez is a propagandist for Big Pharma. In a video released on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) X account in December 2022, Hotez claimed that “anti-vaccine activism” is “anti-science aggression.”

Hotez currently serves as the Dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and co-director of the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development in Houston. In June 2023, he accused Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and podcaster Joe Rogan of spreading “vaccine misinformation.” Rogan invited Hotez to debate RFK on his show and offered to donate $100,000 to the charity of Hotez’s choice. X owner Elon Musk chimed in as well, saying that Hotez is “afraid of a public debate, because he knows he’s wrong.” Hotez is yet to accept Rogan’s offer.

Asked by Republican Chairman Brad Wenstrup of Ohio about the effectiveness of the jab, Fauci admitted it was a “complicated issue,” confessing that what “became evident as the months went by, is that the durability of protection, against infection and hence transmission was relatively limited.”

LifeSiteNews previously reported on Fauci’s closed door testimony to the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic in January. His comments shockingly revealed that he essentially had zero scientific evidence to support his recommendations.

“It sort of just appeared,” he said, when asked about where the six-foot social distancing ban came from. “I was not aware of studies” on that, he added. It was “an empiric decision that wasn’t based on data.”

Fauci shifted blame for those remarks Monday by alleging that the Centers for Disease Control came up with guidelines.

“It had little to do with me since I didn’t make the recommendation and my saying ‘there was no science behind it’ meant there was no clinical trial behind that,” he said.

---

Lara Logan Destroys The New World Order In Epic Alex Jones Interview 

---

A study showing that the spike protein from the COVID virus and shot can increase the risk of cancer was retracted after a scientist raised a storm about ‘anti-vaccine propaganda’ spreading as a result of the paper.

(LifeSiteNews) — The co-author of a study showing that the spike protein from both the COVID-19 virus and the COVID shots impairs DNA repair mechanisms, thereby contributing to cancer, claimed that the lead author was forced to retract the study.

Newly published emails now call into question the motives behind the retraction, showing vague reasons cited in the retraction request, as well as an uproar from one scientist over the “social relevance” of the study, complaining that it was “hacked by anti-vaccinationists.”

In October 2021, Dr. Hui Jiang of Stockholm University (the lead author) and Dr. Ya-Fang Mei of Umeå University published in the peer-reviewed journal MDPI Viruses a paper titled “SARS-CoV-2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In Vitro.” Independent journalist Rebekah Barnett has pointed outthat three days before an investigation into Jiang and Mei’s paper began on November 5, 2021, medical educator ‎Dr. Mobeen Syed, known as “Dr. Been,” posted to YouTube a video about the implications of Jiang and Mei’s paper for cancer development, which has since garnered over 1.4 million views.

“Any cell that has spike protein in it, if it needs its DNA repaired… then spike protein can reduce the DNA repair… Cancer cells are the cells where the DNA has escaped the repair,” Been explained.

In addition to showing backlash from one scientist over this video, email exchanges from Stockholm University released to Barnett under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests show concerns from another scientist that there was no evidence to support a retraction but merely concerns over “publicity.”

Furthermore, co-author Mei told Barnett that she never consented to the retraction, and that Stockholm University essentially forced the lead author, Jiang, to retract the paper.

“Stockholm University initially decided to retract the paper without the authors’ consent, a clear violation of academic ethics,” Mei said. “Stockholm University asked the first author, Hui Jiang, to retract it, and they began to formalize the process. This is an illegal retraction. I have reported to the editorial office that the retraction process is incorrect, and I strongly disagree with it.”

FOIA-released emails show that Mei firmly protested the retraction to co-author Jiang on February 1, 2022, just days before he formally submitted the retraction request:

“I absolutely not (sic) accept this retraction,” she wrote.

A retraction notice dated May 2022 cited “an improper experimental design with the potential to significantly affect the integrity of the resultant experimental data.”

“Both the chosen construct of the spike plasmid that contained a C-terminal fused with 6xHis tag and use of a GFP reporter system under overexpression conditions in the protocol were identified as having the potential to introduce significant ambiguity regarding the nature of the reported observations,” the notice read. 

However, Mei objected to Barnett that these claims are “unfounded” and that “the retraction is unjustified.”

“I strongly disagree (with the retraction notice), because the experiments have a control sample: Nucleoprotein containing 6Histag and GFP report, which localizes in the cell plasmid rather than in the nucleus. Therefore, the notice contains incorrect information,” said Mei, adding, “I never signed the retraction notice.” 

‘Not clear if public pressure or scientific faults’ led to retraction

Email records show that MDPI (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute), which publishes open-access scientific journals, challenged the retraction days after a “generic” request letter was submitted to it on November 9, 2021.

“We have checked your retraction request… and feel the information provided is insufficient,” MDPI publishing manager Donna Virlan wrote on November 22.

MDPI assistant editor Gloria Gao seconded the objection that there was insufficient evidence to support a retraction request, noting that the apparent basis for it was “publicity.”

“At the moment, the Committee and editors have seen no evidence, and all we hear is that there is some publicity,” she wrote on November 24.

In the same email thread, academic editor Dr. Oliver Schildgen, who had first approved Jiang and Mei’s paper for publication, noted, “The retraction letter was rather generic, and for me it was not clear if the public pressure or scientific faults were the cause for the requests.” 

He went on to dismiss “Twitter s****storms as a reason for retracting the article: “If scientific misconduct took place, it is important for the readership to know explicitly what was wrong as also this has a learning effect in the self clearance process of science. However, I do not care about Twitter shitstorms as the guy who sent the e-mail below, we have to be neutral as scientists.”

Schildgen’s remarks came after German scientist Dr. Götz Schuck griped about the so-called “misinformation” spreading as a result of the paper.   

“I fully understand that after the publication has gone through a peer-review process with five reviewers, you think a detailed justification by the authors is required why the publication should be withdrawn. But it is also the case that unusual times call for unusual measures and that the source of scientific knowledge is instrumentalized as a source of misinformation.

The next day, Schuck treated the article’s consequences as an emergency matter, citing “anti-vaccine propaganda” and emphasizing public reaction to the paper rather than the paper itself. 

 “This is a real scientific scandal… the article is spread virally on the internet… You can’t just rely on a scientific investigation of the case. Every day they hesitate enables further dissemination of misinformation,” Schuck wrote to Stockholm University employees.

“I urge you to remove the article in question as soon as possible,” he added.

According to Barnett, Schildgen assured Schuck proper procedure was being followed and recommended that any further concerns be directed to the chief editor, NIH scientist Dr Eric Freed, “to whom he formally handed over the case.”

However, Schuck then protested relying on a “purely scientific argument” in favor of considering the “social relevance” of the article. 

“It can’t be that you’re just going back on a purely scientific argument here. What is the social relevance? I have seen questions on Twitter from a medical doctor who asks why his patients are asking him about this publication. Look at the reality. This publication was hacked by anti-vaccinationists. That’s what it looks like,” he wrote.

Retracting the paper ‘did not require evidence of scientific misconduct’

While Neus Visa (who?) wrote to the editors and Jiang to confirm that he carried out the study “without approval for lab’s resources and reagents,” Mei told Barnett that her lab “provided most chemicals, antibodies, plasmids, and the publication fee,” so Stockholm University resources used in the study would have been “minimal.” Barnett noted that even if that was not the case, it would not have sufficed for a study retraction. 

Schildgen pointed this out in an email, proposing that the paper be corrected while questioning whether it deserved a retraction.

“While I agree that the usage of ressources (sic) should have been properly acknowledged and should be subject to a correction, my main question to all of you is if there is substantial scientific misconduct, is there any proof that the data were falsified?” he replied.

Shortly after this email, Freed argued that a retraction “does not require evidence of scientific misconduct.”

Visa then maintained that despite lack of misconduct the authors showed “deviations from good research practice that should be sufficient to justify an immediate retraction of the article.”

Despite replying shortly after that he was surprised “about the entire history of this process,” Schildgen co-wrote with Freed on December 22, 2021, an expression of concern vaguely referring to the “methodology employed in the study, the conclusions drawn and the insufficient consideration of laboratory staff and resources.”

The paper was officially retracted on May 10, 2022, citing “improper experimental design with the potential to significantly affect the integrity of the resultant experimental data.”

Hui Jiang’s retraction request

Barnett obtained a copy of Jiang’s retraction request letter under FOIA, noting that Schildgen had described it as “rather generic.” In fact, it is quite vague in that it does not specify the reasons behind its core claim: that the paper’s data “haven’t been conducted to the highest scientific standard and the results are not properly interpreted.

Incredibly, while Mei is recorded as signing off on the decision, she told Barnett that she was “forced to do that,” adding, “Stockholm University issued an order. We were asked to submit the letter within 48 hours before checking the lab book and experiment protocols.” Mei shared that she never signed the formal retraction request.

Science blogger and whistleblower Dr. Ah Kahn Syed (known as “Arkmedic”) has rebutted each of the six reasons Jiang listed for requesting a retraction of his article, noting that several of them are not reasons for retraction, and arguing that “the interpretation of the results as described in the paper was correct.”

Barnett pointed out that the final retraction notice does not mention “most” of Jiang’s listed concerns, remarking that this “suggests that Jiang was unable to produce evidence to support most of his reasons for retraction.”

Implications for cancer and immune suppression

Dr. Syed summed up in a statement to Barnett the disturbing implications of Jiang and Mei’s findings for immune suppression and cancer:

The Jiang and Mei study showed that the spike protein has a suppressive effect on a protein called p53, which is commonly called ‘guardian of the genome’ for its role in repairing DNA, which in turn helps to prevent cancer formation.

“The very heavy (90%) suppression of p53 in the study shows that the main cancer repair mechanism in the body can be suppressed by the presence of spike protein which was found in the nucleus of cells consistent with the findings in the preclinical studies submitted to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (FOI 2389 document 6) following application of the mRNA product. 

“p53 suppression is a primary driver of a number of cancers but in particular pancreatic, breast, ovarian cancer and lymphoma. The biggest effect is seen in women’s cancer where BRCA mutation, which interferes with p53 production, is associated with a dramatic increase in the lifetime risk of breast cancer to around 70% (from 12%) and ovarian cancer to around 50% (from 1.5%). This was seen in Angelina Jolie, for example, whose hereditary BRCA mutation led to her having a double mastectomy to prevent her getting breast cancer.”

Syed pointed out that “the study implied that the presence of the COVID virus could have the same effect,” although viruses are not present in the body as long as the vaccine.

He estimates that, because of the paper’s retraction, “some 20%-30% of the population were deprived of access to information” that would have led to their refusing the COVID jab “even in the presence of vaccine mandates due to the potential carcinogenicity risk.”

“A further 20% of the population may have declined the product purely based on the existence of this risk. It could therefore be reasonably estimated that up to half of the excess cancers, as reported in the ABS provisional mortality reports… might have been prevented had appropriate due diligence and pharmacovigilance been applied,” Syed wrote.

Barnett remarked that Jiang and Mei’s paper has since been “vindicated,” since “multiple high-quality papers have now entered the scientific record confirming and building upon” their results, including a paper published last month by two cancer experts at Brown University, Professors Shengliang Zhang and Wafik El-Deiry, “showing that the spike protein has a suppressive effect on the tumor suppressor protein p53.”

When Barnett asked Stockholm University’s press office about Freed’s role in retracting the paper, a spokesperson responded:

Stockholm University does not have insight into the retraction process. According to Swedish legislation and academic practice, Swedish researchers are the only owners of their research results (”upphovsrättsliga lärarundantaget”). As a consequence, researchers decide themselves if (and when) results should be published or retracted.

Stockholm University did not take part in the retraction (and did not receive any pressure). The university’s research is truth-seeking, free and unbound. Stockholm University strives for an open scientific system, where everyone has free and open access to scholarly texts, research results and research data.

---

Lara Logan Destroys The New World Order In Epic Alex Jones Interview 

---

Service members leave the CAF due to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

Officials in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) were reportedly hesitant to lift its military Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine mandate for service members out of fear that doing so might impact their “credibility.”

According to notes obtained by the Epoch Times from a Strategic Operations Planning Group meeting in June 2022, the CAF’s Director of Military Careers Administration (DMCA) initially proposed three options: maintaining the mandate, suspending it with the possibility of future reinstatement or rescinding it altogether. At the time, the DMCA warned against hastiness, highlighting the need to consider “many second and third-order effects.”

Moreover, the DMCA voiced their concerns about the public perception of the military if they would follow the Trudeau government’s lead to end its federal workplace vaccine mandate.

“If we rescind the CDS [Chief of the Defense Staff’s] Directive, the credibility of the institution is weakened, particularly the relationship between the strategic and tactical levels,” the minutes of the meeting read.

The minutes of the meeting, which occurred a day after the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ended its COVID-19 vaccine mandate for workplaces, were circulated via email through CAF Col. Krystle Connerty, a director of the Strategic Joint Staff, who noted that front-line military staff were defending the mandate despite receiving numerous complaints and insults, including accusations of “war crimes.” 

(Related: Over 200 servicemembers demand accountability for how COVID-19 vaccine mandates violated their rights.)

After some reconsideration and hesitancy, the CAF finally lifted its COVID-19 vaccine mandate in October 2022, several months after the Trudeau administration rescinded its federal mandate.

But despite the removal, CAF members are still “strongly encouraged” to receive the vaccine. In other words, the mandate remains for those in operational roles or those on short-notice deployments to locations with limited medical access or where vaccination is required for entry.

Service members leave the CAF due to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate

In 2021, Chief of the Defense Staff Gen. Wayne Eyre issued a CDS directive requiring all service members to receive COVID-19 vaccines.

However, LifeSiteNews revealed that CAF lost more personnel than it gained since the COVID-19 outbreak. The Blacklock’s Reporter, an Ottawa-based, government affairs-focused publication, disclosed that only 12,793 Canadians have enlisted in the CAF over the past three years, while 15,176 members have been released. The federal requirement to provide proof of vaccination of 275,983 employees from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the military and major federal departments in November 2021, almost certainly contributed to this drastic decline.

A CAF member, speaking anonymously, stated that there are multiple reasons for the declining numbers, with the vaccine mandates being a significant factor. The military lost hundreds of experienced soldiers due to these mandates, losing valuable institutional knowledge. The member criticized the strict enforcement of the vaccine rule, which allowed few exemptions and devalued long-serving veterans who refused the vaccine.

“And when you think of those hundreds and hundreds of people, you have to think in the corporate knowledge we lost, the trainers, the institutional knowledge, the corporate knowledge,” the source said. “We’re talking about hundreds and hundreds of years of collective corporate knowledge (that) has gone in months.”

But instead of prioritizing its declining population and addressing underlying issues, the CAF chose to worry about its credibility.

---

Lara Logan Destroys The New World Order In Epic Alex Jones Interview 

---

This was the second politically motivated knife attack against right-wing figures in Mannheim in less than a week.

A candidate for the right-wing Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) was stabbed in the German city of Mannheim late Tuesday evening, just days after the city witnessed a similar attack by an Islamist who killed a policeman.

Local AfD politician Heinrich Koch caught a group of people tearing down his party’s election posters and was stabbed in the abdomen when he challenged them—a confrontation he captured on film.

Koch is currently in hospital. Mannheim police have confirmed that the perpetrator has been arrested, but have thus far not given any details about his identity.

The AfD claims that the perpetrator had a left-wing extremist motive.

On X, Alice Weidel, co-chair of the AfD in the German Parliament, commented on the video, saying that “by agitating against the opposition, [German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’] traffic light coalition government and the media are creating a climate in which even extreme physical attacks are no longer shied away from. We condemn this violence and call on people to finally return to basic democratic practices!”

Tino Chrupalla, Weidel’s co-chair and lead spokesman for the AfD, said that “our members and representatives are the most frequent victims of political violence and vandalism. That cannot stop us.”

Anton Baron, a member of the AfD’s parliamentary constituency of Wahlkreis Hohenlohe in the state of Baden-Württemberg, where Mannheim is situated, said: 

This attack is an expression of totalitarian power fantasies. Whether Islamism or left-wing extremism—whoever does not accept freedom of expression or is without reasonable arguments, is now reaching for a knife. This is disheartening and shows how deep the divide in our society has become.

Markus Frohnmaier, an AfD member sitting in the German federal parliament, commented: 

We are frightened and disturbed that another brutal knife attack in Mannheim has hit one of our election candidates. We wish Heinrich Koch a speedy and complete recovery. Democracy in Germany is in a catastrophic state when besides Islam critics, AfD members now have to fear being attacked with a knife. Islamism and left-wing extremism are the greatest threat to our democracy, but this is sadly still ignored. [Interior Minister] Nancy Faeser and Thomas Strobl [Deputy prime minister of Baden-Württemberg] carry a political responsibility for Homeland Security and are failing in this completely!

In addition to the alarming nature of the incident itself, some anomalies have been observed in German media’s reporting on it.

For instance, at time of writing, Zeit Online, despite several updates having been made to the original story, still has not mentioned Heinrich Koch’s name, nor provided a picture.

The supposedly ‘conservative’ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung also doesn’t care to mention the name, nor provide a picture.

Germany’s most popular newspaper, Bild, does name him, but for some reason pixelated his face at first, but then later, updated the story with his face unpixelated.

---

Lara Logan Destroys The New World Order In Epic Alex Jones Interview 

---

The everything bubble will eventually pop.

For the first time since the 2008 financial crisis, investors who hold top-rated debt backed by commercial real estate (CRE) are suffering losses as the economy continues its downward spiral into oblivion.

The Federal Reserve’s ongoing interest rate hikes coupled with plummeting office tower values nationwide have created a situation in which there is really no safe haven in the conventional markets.

Debt backed by CRE is a derivative instrument that comes with considerable risk, especially in the lower tiers. The fact that the highest tier, AAA, is also heading downward generating just 74 cents on the dollar shows just how bad things are getting.

“Now that we’ve seen the first commercial mortgage-backed securities get hit, other AAA bonds are bound to see losses,” warns Lea Overby, a CMBS strategist at Barclays. “These losses may be a sign that the commercial real estate market is starting to hit rock bottom.”

(Related: The collapse of CRE will bring with it a wave of bank failures.)

The everything bubble will eventually pop

For years, financial experts have been warning that the bubble known as the financial system is going to collapse. Some people call it the everything bubble because, well, it includes and affects everything.

With so much money leveraged in high-risk derivatives, and all of it sitting on the backs of banks, one falling domino will eventually topple all the rest of the dominoes, which is what we are now starting to see happen.

“When you take the hot air out that inflated the balloon, the balloon has to deflate and fall out of the sky,” writes David Haggith of The Daily Doom.

“Bubbles never stay inflation when you suck the cheap money back out of them. Part of that, I’ve warned, would include a huge real-estate implosion in mortgage-backed securities again, except that this time it would happen first and foremost in commercial real-estate, rather than housing.”

Like a volcano that is continually building pressure, the Fed’s interest rate hikes are killing what remains of the CRE market. Think empty strip malls and office buildings coupled with ever-worsening bank losses due to upside-down loans. The system can only take so much of this before it collapses.

“With about $700 billion of non-agency CMBS (commercial mortgage-backed securities) outstanding and another $3 trillion of commercial mortgages on bank balance sheets, even a modest uptick in losses could weigh on the financial system for years,” Bloomberg reported.

“To be clear, no one is predicting a repeat of 2008, when bad mortgages, mostly residential, nearly brought down the financial system.”

The latest Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) minutes indicate much the same in describing a “deterioration in conditions in domestic CRE markets or a sharp tightening in financial conditions.” Is it really going to just blow over like Bloomberg seems to be suggesting?

“A little tip like that from the Fed, which sounds almost sanguine, can have volumes hidden behind it,” Haggith writes. “That is how the Great Recession came about. First nothing, then one bank, then a second, then many all over the place.”

Haggith predicted that 2024 would be the year when top-tier CRE bonds started to see losses. Next comes a much larger debt explosion, especially after it becomes clear that all these promises about rate cuts are empty and not going to happen anytime soon.

Housing prices also continue to rise despite very few actual Americans being able to afford them. Unless you already own a house, your chances of ever being a homeowner are getting slimmer and slimmer the longer this trainwreck takes to materialize.

The global financial system is built on a house of cards. Learn more at Collapse.news.

---

Lara Logan Destroys The New World Order In Epic Alex Jones Interview 

---