Globalists May Release New Bird Flu Strain in Attempt to Stop Trump, Warns Edward Dowd
During his Monday show, Alex Jones interviewed Edward Dowd about the possible new ‘plandemic’ of avian influenza interrupting the 2024 election.
“They’re going to use fear to control the populations,” Dowd said.
Don’t miss:
AI Has Been Attacking Americans Longer Than You Think
UK: Record Illegal Migration Shows Rwanda Plan Isn’t Working
Rishi Sunak’s ‘Rwanda plan’—meant to deter Channel crossings by sending asylum seekers to the East African nation to have their claims processed—will not work. Sunak himself has always known this, despite his persistent claim that “the plan is working.” Illegal migrants know this too, and are so undeterred that they are still crossing the English Channel into Britain, now in record numbers.
It was revealed on Friday, May 17th, that 9,681 migrants made the perilous journey in the first five months of this year. This is higher than the total for the first five months of any previous year since records began. And officials reckon the figure will top 10,000 this week.
It is no wonder that migrants continue to pay people smugglers to get them across the Channel; they know that once inside, the chance of them being deported to Rwanda is not just slim but almost non-existent. In turn, it is clear that the smugglers are the main customers for a thriving market in custom-made ‘small boats,’ commissioned to make a single trip across the English Channel. Everyone involved in the process exudes confidence―except for the UK electorate.
This was made all the more clear when The Independent revealed over the weekend that the Home Office has begun freeing people it detained for Rwanda flights. These have been released after a court granted them freedom of movement amid (yet more) legal challenges to the government.
According to the newspaper, government officials plan to continue detaining more illegal migrants to fill allocated detention spaces. But this task will surely have been made more difficult by the decision just last week to downsize the Home Office department tasked with detaining migrants ahead of planned Rwanda flights.
It is now feared that those granted release could simply abscond, joining the thousands of other migrants set for deportation who are simply “missing.”
All of this heaps humiliation on the ever-failing Safety of Rwanda Act, which UK Home Secretary James Cleverly still brazenly describes as “robust,” regardless of its misfortunes. In fact, it is about as robust as the small dinghies which continue to (more by luck than design) to bring in migrants ignoring Sunak’s alleged deterrent, leaving the safe country of France to come to Great Britain. And as the growing number of deaths in the Channel shows, that’s not very robust at all.
Readers should expect a further, repetitive-sounding update shortly on the Rwanda plan and its latest failure, scheduled for tomorrow―if not later today.
Globalists May Release New Bird Flu Strain In Attempt To Stop Trump, Warns Edward Dowd
VENOM NATION: Shocking Number of Americans Have Tried Gila Monster Venom-Based Weight Loss Drugs
A new poll reveals that a shocking percentage of Americans are taking risky Gila monster venom-based weight loss drugs.
According to the latest KFF Health Tracking Poll, one out of every eight adults in the U.S. has used one of the trendy GLP-1 agonist weight loss and diabetes drugs, such as Ozempic and Wegovy.
This class of drugs is based on compounds in the venom of Gila monsters, a type of small Southwestern lizard that happens to be the only venomous type of lizard found in America. Researchers discovered in the early 1990s that they have a special hormone in their venom that can control hunger and slow digestion.
GLP-1 agonists work by imitating a hormone known as GLP-1 that is naturally produced by the body and secreted from the small intestine to trigger the release of insulin while slowing stomach emptying and blocking glucagon secretion. It can also help people feel fuller after eating by impacting the parts of the brain responsible for processing satiety and hunger signals.
The poll found that roughly 6% of all American adults are currently taking one of these medications, which amounts to 15 million people.
When it comes to motivation, 39% of Americans are taking these drugs for a chronic condition such as diabetes, while 38% are taking them to lose weight. The other 23% are taking them for both weight management and chronic condition management.
According to the poll, one out of every five adults in the 50-to-64 age range said they have taken a GLP-1 drug at some point, making this the age group with the highest proportion of individuals who has done so. Among younger adults taking these drugs, a higher share is doing it for weight loss purposes compared to those in the older age bracket.
The poll also found that more than half of adults who have taken these drugs struggle to pay for them., with one out of every five saying that it was “very difficult” to afford them. Novo Nordisk’s Ozempic has a list price of $935 per monthly injection, while a 28-day supply of Wegovy costs $1349 without health insurance.
The popularity of the drugs among celebrities has caused a surge in interest in them, with 32% of American adults reporting that they have heard “a lot” about them – a significant rise over the 19% who said the same last July.
GLP-1 agonists have some scary potential side effects
The drugs are raking in the profits as many Americans look for a quick fix to their weight problems, and while some argue that weight loss brings with it a reduction in weight-related health issues, the tradeoff can be quite high as some people are experiencing serious side effects from these drugs.
Although the packaging warns of common issues like nausea and vomiting, more serious complications are being reported as more and more people start taking these medications. These include pancreatitis, a type of inflammation of the pancreas that can be painful and chronic, and intestinal blockage, which is serious and sometimes fatal.
Another side effect many people have been experiencing is stomach paralysis, also known as gastroparesis. It occurs when the stomach takes too long to empty and can be lifelong. Some patients have already started filing lawsuits against the drug makers for failing to warn about these serious adverse effects.
The FDA is also looking into reports of side effects such as suicidal thoughts and hair loss. The American Society of Anesthesiologists issued an official recommendation that people stop using these drugs for a week before undergoing surgery due to the higher risk of pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents while under deep sedation or general anesthesia. European regulators are also investigating the risk of suicidal thoughts in patients taking these medications.
Globalists May Release New Bird Flu Strain In Attempt To Stop Trump, Warns Edward Dowd
EU Approves Sending Russian Money to Ukraine – Czech FM
The EU has agreed to use the proceeds from Russian assets that the bloc has frozen to aid Ukraine, Czech Foreign Minister Jan Lipavsky has said. The annual revenue from these funds is expected to be around $3 billion.
After the start of Moscow’s military campaign against Kiev in February 2022, Western states blocked around $300 billion in Russian state assets, the bulk of which is concentrated in EU countries. Moscow has denounced this latest move as “theft” and has warned of retaliation if the funds are seized or used in any way to help Ukraine.
Western officials have floated various ideas for using the funds, ranging from outright seizure to using them as collateral to secure loans for Kiev. Another idea was to use profits from Russian assets to support Ukraine’s procurement of weapons.
Writing on on X (formerly Twitter) on Tuesday, Lipavsky said that 90% of the proceeds from the frozen Russian funds “will go to military support” of Ukraine, in line with a proposal by EU’s top diplomat Josep Borrell in March. He added that “for this year alone, it can be up to 74 billion Czech crowns ($3.5 billion).”
READ MORE: IMF warns West against seizing Russia’s money
According to the Czech Permanent Representation to the EU, the annual revenue is expected to be around €2.5 to €3 billion ($2.7 to $3.26 billion). It noted that the remaining 10% of the interest income will go to Ukraine’s reconstruction.
Under the EU’s plan, Ukraine will receive the net profits accruing from February 15 onwards, according to Bloomberg. The money gained before this date will be retained by the Belgium-based depository and clearing house Euroclear to mitigate any risks associated with a possibility of legal action in Russia.
The decision came after several EU members, including Germany and France, resisted pressure from the US and UK to outright confiscate the Russian assets, citing concerns that such a drastic move would have no legal basis.
However, according to Bloomberg’s sources, they were more positively predisposed towards the idea of using the profits generated by the frozen Russian assets. The agency previously reported that Germany was ready to back the US plan on the matter, which would involve offering Kiev a loan of up to $50 billion based on those funds.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has warned the West of dire ramifications if it taps into Moscow’s assets. Such a move will create “a dangerous precedent” that “will be a solid nail in the future coffin of the entire Western economic coordinate system,” he said in April, noting that foreign investors would think twice before putting their money in countries that confiscate Russian funds.
Globalists May Release New Bird Flu Strain In Attempt To Stop Trump, Warns Edward Dowd
Euthanasia: France Could Have the Most Permissive Law in the World
Members in the French National Assembly are currently debating a bill on euthanasia. A worrying momentum has been building over the last few days, causing widespread alarm both in public opinion and among the medical profession. One by one, ethical barriers are being removed, making this proposed law one of the most permissive in the world.
The members of parliament are currently meeting in a special committee before the general debate due to take place in the chamber on May 27th. Since work began on examining the law, there has been a dramatic surge of amendments and new provisions aimed at getting rid of all the safeguards initially proposed in the government’s plan to limit recourse to ‘aid in dying.’
In recent months, President Emmanuel Macron had called for “caution,” while health minister Catherine Vautrin wanted to “maintain the balance.” These calls for vigilance may have been insincere, but at least they were said. They were, however, not heeded.
The first significant shift was the introduction of assisted dying into the public health code. This choice, apparently purely formal, is very important. It implies that euthanasia will henceforth be considered as “care.” A few months ago, some left-wing MPs were already using this term to describe abortion.
A second serious shift concerns the eligibility criteria for aid in dying. The initial wording referred to “a short or medium-term life-threatening condition”. Against the government’s advice, the members of the Special Committee voted to replace the wording with the notion of an “advanced or terminal phase” of the illness. Yannick Neuder, a Les Républicains MP and doctor, expressed his alarm at this serious change in terminology on X: “There are hundreds of cases of illnesses that are curable even though they are terminal.” In these cases, patients run the risk of inappropriately being pushed towards aid in dying.
The heart of the law is Article 5, which defines the term “aid in dying,” i.e., the administration of a lethal substance by the person concerned. Euthanasia, in which the lethal act is carried out by a carer or a third party, was initially intended to be an exception for patients who were “physically unable to carry it out.” Here again, the debates in committee changed the initial draft. An amendment removed the criterion of physical impossibility, leaving the patient freer to decide between these two methods of aid in dying. Euthanasia is therefore no longer an ‘exception.’ In countries that had planned to allow the two methods to coexist, euthanasia is ultimately carried out in the overwhelming majority of cases. The 48-hour period for patients to consider whether they wish to receive aid in dying has been relaxed: it can now be shortened on the advice of a doctor.
Catholic lawyer and columnist Erwan Le Morhedec, a volunteer in palliative care, whistleblower, and author of a book on the march towards euthanasia in France, follows the changes in the legislation on a daily basis and reports on all the abuses that have been recorded and are well known in countries that are ‘ahead’ of France on the issue of euthanasia. Drawing parallels with the laws in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Canada, he concludes that the French proposal will go much further, and that the remedies available to oppose mass recourse to euthanasia will be woefully inadequate.
Far-left LFI MP Danielle Simonnet is campaigning “for it to be possible to access aid in dying if you are no longer fully conscious.” Le Morhedec points out that in the Netherlands and Canada, this approach has made it possible to euthanise Alzheimer’s patients, once the ‘end of life’ criterion has been removed.
In the latest provisions to be ratified by the MEPs, we learn that it will be possible to challenge the decision to refuse euthanasia, but that it will not be possible for a relative to challenge the decision to grant it. On the model of what exists for abortion, an “offence of hindering assisted dying” was created, while the creation of an “offence of inciting assisted suicide” was rejected. The parallel between abortion and euthanasia is perfectly obvious:
#DirectAN Amendement 1918 propose d’établir un délit d’entrave à l’aide à mourir, sur le modèle de celui pour l’IVG. La ministre donne un avis favorable. “Il faut anticiper” avance @SimonnetDeputee et soutient un parallélisme entre aide à mourir et IVG. pic.twitter.com/bmREnFE1Nf
— Gènéthique (@Genethique) May 17, 2024
Also rejected was the ban on third parties requesting assistance in dying taking out death insurance—a ban initially included to avoid abuse of weakness. It’s easy to imagine the sordid scenarios that would ensue from such a situation.
Many MPs, both Left and Right, are concerned about the direction the debate is taking. Centre-right LR MP Annie Genevard believes that a “Pandora’s box” has been opened, while Communist Pierre Dharréville speaks of a “tipping point” with “dizzying anthropological dimensions.” The chair of the committee, Agnès Firmin Le Bodo, from the governing Renaissance party, also feels worried: “We’re no longer working under the same law. This is not the balance of the law that was intended.”
LR MP Philippe Juvin denounced the “manipulation of words” surrounding the debates. He explained on X that “the words ‘euthanasia’ and ‘assisted suicide’ are totally absent from the text of a law that only talks about them.” The debates prefer to talk about “attractive ‘care and support homes’ presented as major advances.” Under these conditions, how can we fail to think of the famous “merciful death” extolled by the National Socialists in the Aktion T4 programme designed to implement the physical elimination of the disabled in the Third Reich in 1939?
Although still timidly, voices of protest are being raised in the public debate. Former centrist minister François Bayrou, interviewed on the LCI channel, explained that he was in favour of “another vision” which he believes “is much more generous and powerful as a society and civilisation.” Jeanne-Françoise Hutin, an 85-year-old campaigner for European integration, announced in the press that she would be giving up her Legion of Honour if the bill were to be adopted. She explains in the daily Ouest-France:
I would no longer be able to join this Order of the Legion of Honour—this order that has always defended the most vulnerable. The law would reintroduce into our legal arsenal a right that was withdrawn in 1981: the right to give death. The purpose of this law is to end life, to kill people who are in a very fragile situation, with, moreover, limits that are completely blurred … and we have seen in recent years what has happened when the limits are blurred!
For the moment, the voice of the Catholic Church in France remains very timid, as if the high clergy had not grasped the seriousness of what is happening. There has been no recent official communication on the subject.
Nevertheless, we can remain hopeful. These crazy measures were decided by a “special committee”—a small group of MPs. It will be up to the members of parliament, and then the senators in a full session, to change the course of this evil reform that seems to be taking shape by invalidating it. They have the power—but will they have the courage?
Globalists May Release New Bird Flu Strain In Attempt To Stop Trump, Warns Edward Dowd
Google’s AI Future: No More Sites, Only Google Answers
The internet’s most frequented page is on the verge of a transformation unlike any in its 25-year history.
Last week, at Google I/O 2024, as Liz Reid, Google’s head of Search, gushed on stage about their AI-powered future, one couldn’t help but feel a pang of irony. “Google will do the Googling for you,” she proclaimed, envisioning a future where Google’s AI sifts through the web’s content and spits out neatly packaged summaries, removing the need to visit any websites.
Google’s AI Overview feature, as shown at Google I/O
How convenient – for Google, that is.
An ideologically driven monopoly further inserting itself between people and content, filtering out what it thinks you should be allowed to see (and what you shouldn’t) at a level never seen before. What could possibly go wrong?
At the event, the tech behemoth unveiled its latest shiny toys – an AI agent named Astra, a potentially reincarnated Google Glass, and something called Gems. Amidst the fanfare, though, there was a glaring omission: any mention of the voices who populate the web with the very work that makes Google’s empire possible.
But the origins of Google’s powerful monopoly and control over much of the internet’s content came a couple of decades ago when publishers and website creators made a deal with a devil whose motto was, at the time, “Don’t be evil.”
The Early Days of Google
“Two decades ago, Google became the darling of Silicon Valley as a scrappy startup with an innovative way to search the emerging internet,” the Department of Justice wrote in its 2020 complaint. “That Google is long gone. The Google of today is a monopoly gatekeeper for the internet, and one of the wealthiest companies on the planet.”
There was a time when newspapers and magazines were kings, when people paid for their daily dose of information. The morning ritual of reading the paper was as sacred as the first cup of coffee. And as for publishers, those subscriptions allowed them to have a direct relationship with their readers and customers, without being influenced by an intermediary.
But as the internet dawned, this once-untouchable industry found itself on the brink of an existential crisis.
The transition was swift and brutal. In the early days of the web, news outlets and publishers thought they saw a digital gold rush, envisioning a future where their reach extended beyond the physical limitations of print. They rushed online, eager to embrace this new medium. Initially, some charged for access, mirroring their print subscription models.
However, it soon became clear that the internet of the time operated on a different set of economics. The vast expanse of free information available online made many people recoil at the idea of paying for original content.
The Fox News website 1997.
Enter Google. As the internet became the primary source of news, Google’s search engine emerged as the gateway to the web. With its innovative algorithms, Google quickly became the preferred tool for navigating the sprawling chaos of online information. Users could find articles, blogs, videos, and any other content they desired with just a few keystrokes. Google soon amassed a monopolistic 90+% market share in the United States.
United States Search Engine Market Share 2024
But Google’s rise wasn’t just about superior technology; it was also about a business model that would forever change the landscape of online publishing. Google offered a “free” service to users, including the email service Gmail, instead monetizing its platform through advertising, tracking people’s entire digital life, and harvesting people’s most personal data.
Its AdSense program allowed websites to host ads, earning revenue based on user clicks or impressions. For news outlets facing an audience that was, in those days, wanting to avoid putting their payment information online (something alien to today’s internet user) this seemed like a lifeline. Many abandoned subscription models in favor of the ad-supported approach powered by Google.
This shift had far-reaching consequences and we’re all still paying the price for it today. Publishers inadvertently handed over immense power to Google, allowing it to monopolize monetization on the web. As the aggregator of the world’s information, Google became the intermediary between content creators and their audiences. This middleman role allowed Google to amass vast amounts of data on user behavior, preferences, and habits. With this data, Google could offer highly targeted advertising, making it an indispensable tool for marketers and further cementing its monopoly.
As more publishers adopted Google’s ad model, the company’s dominance grew. Google’s invasive tracking ads became ubiquitous, following users across the web, and collecting data at every click.
This allowed Google to refine its ad targeting capabilities, making its platform even more attractive to advertisers. The more advertisers flocked to Google, the more dependent publishers became on the traffic and revenue generated by the search giant.
But this relationship came with its own set of handcuffs. As advertisers pumped money into Google’s ad machine, they began to wield significant influence over the content that was produced.
Advertisers, ever mindful of their brand image, were keen to avoid associating with controversial or sensitive topics. This led to a chilling effect on journalism and website content. Publishers, desperate for ad dollars to stay afloat, started self-censoring, avoiding stories that might spook advertisers. Publishers skirted around controversial topics to stay in business.
For example, publishers don’t want to be critical of Big Pharma if they want to still be paid for their work.
The content became increasingly vapid.
This advertiser-driven censorship wasn’t subtle. Entire sections of news sites were reshaped to be more “brand-safe,” a euphemism for bland and inoffensive. Investigative journalism took a hit, with fewer resources allocated to in-depth reporting that could ruffle feathers. The very essence of what journalism is supposed to be – a fearless pursuit of truth – was compromised in the name of ad dollars and appealing to the masses.
Meanwhile, Google’s power extended beyond just influencing content. With its monopoly over search traffic, Google had the ultimate say in who gets seen and who gets buried. A tweak in Google’s search algorithm could send a website’s traffic plummeting overnight. More insidiously, Google had the power to delist websites entirely, effectively erasing them from the internet for most users. This wasn’t just theoretical – it happened. Websites that ran afoul of Google’s ever-evolving content policies found themselves blacklisted, their lifeline to the public severed without appeal.
As publishers became increasingly reliant on Google’s traffic and ad revenue, many neglected to build direct relationships with their readers. Gone were the days of fostering loyal audiences through subscriptions and direct engagement. Instead, publishers relied on the fickle whims of search algorithms and social media trends to drive traffic. This detachment from their audience made them even more vulnerable to the whims of Google and corporate advertisers.
The consequences of this abandonment are stark. When Google decides to tweak its algorithm or enforce its content policies, publishers have little recourse. They can be cut off from their audience almost instantaneously. Independent sources, which often rely on niche audiences and controversial content, are particularly vulnerable. Online censorship, whether through de-indexing or ad demonetization, can sever the connection between these publishers and their readers, effectively silencing them.
Many mainstream publishers were happy to play by Google’s rules, as long as the tech giant kept sending them lots of traffic.
But all of that could be about to change. Last week, during the event, Google unveiled a sweeping redesign of its search results page, heavily incorporating artificial intelligence. This new format significantly alters how users interact with search results. Instead of the familiar “10 blue links” dominating the screen, these traditional results now make a fleeting appearance before being displaced by a vibrant AI-generated summary. This change relegates Google’s other links to the depths of the page, often making them nearly invisible.
Google’s AI Overview feature, as shown at Google I/O
While Google’s current search results page is far from perfect—cluttered with links from sites that have mastered optimization trickery—the new format represents a radical shift in information retrieval. Some might see these changes as improvements, but they also come with considerable drawbacks.
Google’s idea is that it’s just giving people directly what they want. Liz Reid’s comments underscore Google’s stance: “People’s time is valuable, right? They deal with hard things,” she remarked to Wired. “If you have an opportunity with technology to help people get answers to their questions, to take more of the work out of it, why wouldn’t we want to go after that?”
Google’s trajectory towards this AI-centric model has been evident for years. These tools are convenient for straightforward queries, such as time conversions and quick math, delivering quick answers at the expense of pushing traditional links further down the page. The company has progressively introduced features like the Knowledge Graph and featured snippets, designed to keep users within Google’s ecosystem rather than directing them to external sources. Increasingly, the company has tried to not only keep more of the traffic for itself but also influence more of the conversation surrounding a topic. This was noticeable during the COVID era when Google’s “authoritative sources” messaging was presented to YouTube users when they searched for a related topic. The company forced sources such as The World Health Organization, even when some of that information turned out to be untrue. Those that contradicted the WHO’s claims were buried or deleted.
While some might find comfort in these changes, those who prefer to sift through sources themselves are likely to be dismayed by the relegation of these links.
Google is making it difficult for people to consider investing time, money, and effort in sharing their expertise if their contributions are hidden from those actively seeking information.
When their posts, filled with valuable insights and knowledge, don’t reach an audience, it diminishes the incentive to contribute. Instead of serving their intended purpose of educating and informing others, these posts risk becoming mere fodder for AI.
The situation worsens when ads are added to the mix as the traditional links get pushed further down the page.
Google champions AI’s transformative power in searches, arguing that it justifies the new format. “With this powerful new technology, we can unlock entirely new types of questions you never thought Search could answer, and transform the way information is organized, to help you sort through and make sense of what’s out there,” wrote Elizabeth Reid, VP and GM of Search at Google when the early ideas of this were first unveiled last year. While AI summaries may indeed be useful for some queries, their reliability is questionable.
AI language models are notorious for confidently presenting false information, and the AI Overview feature could exacerbate this issue on a large scale. Google’s current search accuracy is already suspect.
Google has already shown its immense bias within its AI, allowing its particular Silicon Valley ideological bent to show across its AI system Gemini.
Tech research company Gartner estimated that traffic to the web from search engines will fall around 25 percent by 2026.
Raptive, a company offering digital media, audience engagement, and advertising services warns that upcoming changes to search could spell substantial financial losses for content creators, particularly independents. The company estimates that creators might face a staggering $2 billion in losses, with certain websites potentially seeing their traffic plummet by up to 66%.
This cycle raises concerns about the future of the internet. Google scraped everyone’s content on the open web, monetized it, and is now using it to serve answers to its users with reduced publisher involvement.
Google’s push for “efficiency” could lead to a diluted version of the web, dominated by biased and ideologically-driven AI-generated summaries, devoid of in-depth exploration.
Those most at risk are those independent publishers that were late to the game in building up email subscriptions and direct relationships with readers. More and more publishers could increasingly have to lock up their content just to survive, let alone flourish. The open web is at risk.
The shift towards AI-dominated search results is more than just a technological evolution; it’s a power grab. Google’s transformation from a simple search engine into the ultimate gatekeeper and filterer of information has profound implications. This isn’t just about making searches more efficient; it’s also about control. By prioritizing AI-generated summaries over traditional links, Google is further tightening its grip on what information gets visibility and what gets buried in the digital abyss. It’s a shift that threatens to further undermine independent publishers and erode the diversity of information available to the public. The need for a resilient, independent media ecosystem and independent voices has never been more critical.
Globalists May Release New Bird Flu Strain In Attempt To Stop Trump, Warns Edward Dowd