I visited the town of Frederick, Maryland, which
is just outside of Washington DC, and met
a lot of people
who were suffering or had family members who
had died from rare illnesses.
And one thing they all had in common
was a theory
that the source of these rare illnesses
was a local army base called Fort Detrick
and some of the secret activities that have
been going on there for decades.
I lived on Elm Street and on the
side of the road that I lived on,
just counting the 6 houses,
everyone had cancer. So my daughter,
at the age of 28 years old, was
diagnosed with brain cancer. Then my second daughter
gets sick
and has
tumors in her womb,
and he said that this was not genetic,
but environmental.
About a year after that, my wife then
gets renal cell carcinoma
and dies a year later after that.
We have over 1300
documented
cancer victims right now just in a one
mile radius. I'll be quite honest with you.
It's changed my life so radically. Sometimes I
don't even know who I am.
1300
people in a 1 mile radius.
And what's causing so much sickness?
It turns out all these victims have one
thing in common. They live next to a
military base called Fort Detrick.
In historic Frederick, Maryland
are the biological warfare laboratories.
The volunteers have been positioned on the outside
of the test sphere in which a cloud
of biological warfare agent can be generated. In
2009,
Fort Detrick was added to the EPA's Superfund
priority list, making area b located here, one
of the most polluted places in the nation,
just across the street from this crowded neighborhood.
Right. We don't drink our tap water. Who
told you, that you couldn't drink? Nobody said
you're not allowed to, but it's kind of
just a general,
like, known thing in my neighborhood that we
don't drink the tap water. And why is
that?
For because we know there's chemicals there.
Welcome to the daily wrap up, a concise
show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant
independent news as we see it from the
last 24 hours.
Sunday, November 17, 2024.
Thank you for joining me today.
I know I said I was gonna get
in some foreign policy on the next show,
and I absolutely will continue to cover all
of these stories.
As I was thinking before I was going
live, I don't think I'll ever stop covering
the story that exists around Israel and Palestine
because I don't think this will ever be
a story that stops being relevant to what
we're living through in the world today.
I may be proven wrong with that. I
hope I am, but I think that's where
we are. My point is that's not gonna
be what I discussed today. I pride myself
over the years of trusting my gut,
especially when it's something that just I just
can't get out of my whether it's about
the nanotechnology
discussion we've had, which I still stand by
that being way ahead of its time and
something which we'll be looking to as we
go further, possibly even in the next 4
years.
But today, something stuck in my mind around
the docs and conversation.
One of many,
I'm just as seems there always are examples
of fires. There's another recent fire in Bakersfield
over the last week, California.
And it's not that story in particular that
made me dive into this today. It was
really this
this I just can't get this out, this
deeper connective point to this story.
Today, what we're gonna cover is that story,
the overlapping with Georgia,
tie tie back to East Palestine, and a
larger conversation around how I think this fits
in with a lot of what's going on.
Now that's actually why I decided to start
with that clip that as you remember, that's
a clip that talks about Fort Detrick in
not even really it it it the and
even the documentary doesn't get into,
like, provable specifics about, like, let's say, what
are the chemicals in the water or what
is it exactly. But more so just the
idea that the experimentation,
whether that's with pathogens
or just byproducts of the of the industrial
or just the the
military uses,
burn pits, and whatever else we've talked it's
a very common thing to see around military
bases that there's pollution like this.
We don't hear that often, and there's obvious
reasons for that.
So think about that in a different context.
Obviously, that was played around the COVID 19
conversation because Fort Detrick is a central BSL
4 lab where they work on things like
coronaviruses
and Ebola and many diff I think the
the statistic, if I remember correctly, was
once I don't I'm gonna say it wrong.
I'm sure. Off the top of my head,
it was something ridiculous, and this is coming
directly from Fort Detrick information.
It was something like once every so, like,
many, many I don't I don't wanna misquote
it. But do you guys remember that with
it it was so it was leaks or
or disasters or things that got let out
somehow once every so many weeks for so
many years straight? And, I mean, it's mind
blowing to think about when you're talking about
high level things. BSO 4, if you remember
the conversation during COVID 19, being the highest
level lab they have working on the most
dangerous pathogens
or whatever you wanna discuss them working on.
And I think it's it's alarming to think
that that happens so frequently.
Even to the conversation around the, the, anthrax
and and that the our argument about how
that happened and ultimately tying it back to
the the base itself or the swine flu
conversation, I play that clip often, that ties
back to for dicks. All these different conversations.
Now that's that's a that is important to
consider, and I do think there's a relevant
point around that. But what I'm pointing at
today is just to consider it a different
light.
That we're talking about them knowingly, kinda almost
in a casual conversation, they just don't drink
the water around this base. Or what about
just
military bases? I'm willing to bet you if
you if you look into the surrounding areas
to a lot of these bases that you're
gonna find a lot of these byproducts.
And so what we're gonna focus on today
is something that if you follow on this
platform, this channel, that we've talked about a
lot. And that is the very, very obvious,
unquestionable risk of dioxins
and how it has been something that they've
been
highlighting,
discussing, how they're gonna deal with it, the
rising problem that just kind of vanished in
the conversation.
And there are some things that have been
done, Remediation,
direction. But as I understand it, as you
if you've been following along since East Palestine,
which is really what opened my mind to
this conversation, it's very clear that they got
to a point where it became obvious that
they don't really know how to deal with
this. That even the incineration,
which most is around, I think, a 1000
to 1100 degrees, does not actually deal with
dioxins. And there's arguments that say the highest
we can get with these incinerators
do not actually remove dioxins. Now, that that's
debated between different levels. But I'm gonna show
you today
an interesting evolution of this conversation. We've talked
about the CNN article from 1995, which I'll
point to again today. But going to one
before that,
a conversation from 1994 and before,
highlighting this weird debate that was going on
between the New York Times and different, where
all of a sudden,
despite it being acknowledged this was a real
problem that we all acknowledge as a risk
that we have to deal with, suddenly you
got mainstream articles that came out and said,
wait a minute.
It's not dangerous at all. Turns out it's
just like sunbathing a little bit more.
Now we know for a fact that's not
true today. And even the person that wrote
those articles and you know, we'll go through
all this. Turns out they were sort of
admitted that wasn't true. The bottom line is
where did that come from? As this is
the point of the article we'll get to,
they're going where did that come from? Who
either pressured or influenced
the New York Times to put this out
to causing this debate going forward? Now, again,
1995,
the expert speaking to CNN made it clear
that this was 100 of times the the
the safe level in your food today, in
the big macs, in KFC you're eating, let
alone the soil and in your body, which
is also part of this problem.
But the point is that even then, they
were going, but the chlorine company said that
it wasn't that dangerous, or we need to
research it. We can't just blame one thing
and remove all of them. And I can
prove to you that since that point, this
has only got worse. And I'll show you
the studies that make that exact statement, that
in the US and Europe, this problem has
only gotten worse. And I'll show you an
article we covered during East Palestine from Stephen
Leshur during
from The Guardian,
where he makes the explicit point, and this
is the same thing I'm saying today, that
the reason that they were refusing to test
for dioxins, which I'm gonna show you a
statement from Scott C. Smith today where I
reached out to him this morning and asked
him for any update on the the studies,
and the main thing he says is that
the EPA is refusing
to test for dioxins,
just like he's Palestine.
Now why would that be? Knowing that and
I'll prove to you for the umpteenth time
that EPA is aware of this, knowing that
this is the most dangerous thing that will
absolutely be a byproduct of exactly what they're
dealing with, and yet not only not acknowledging
it, not testing for it, not doing anything
to keep people safe. Why is that? Again,
Steve, unless you're making the point that this
is because they know it's there,
they know it's damn near ubiquitous, and they
don't know what to do about it. Now
really think about what that means.
If you're an even just administrate like, let's
look at it from a first political dynamic.
If you wanna look at it like that,
I tend to see them all as the
government but left right kind of idea where
you change administration. Now whether it's left or
right or just the government, you do change
people and positions. Right? So as the new
people come in and the old people go
out, you step into what the problem the
problem. So a new EPA head steps in
and goes, okay. Wait a minute. Look at
all this dangerous stuff. And it turns out
we don't even know what to do about
it. Now are you gonna jump in and
go, guess what? Here's a huge problem you're
all suffering from. You didn't even know, and
I don't know what to do about it.
Do you really think your government's gonna do
that? Now, I don't know the in in
the
I can't prove that's what's exactly happening, the
logic of why. But I can prove the
problem exists. I can prove they know about
it. I can prove that nobody is even
choosing to bring it up when you know
and they know it is the main problem
that we're talking about.
I it's it's alarming to me. Now the
standing back point is how does this interconnect
with everything else? Because I've been really racking
my brain about what this means.
Is this something that's just a random byproduct
like I just kind of described but they
just don't know what to do and they're
like a glyphosate which, again, I kinda see
these things all interconnecting but that maybe it's
just a side thing. They don't know what
to do with and they don't wanna take
the brunt from letting you know they screwed
you over. It's too bad. We don't want
to do. Now it's too late, and so
now it's just your life.
But I'm starting to see more and more
how this interconnects with different things. Now I'm
not even talking about, like, a level one
conversation about
reaping the profit from creating illness that they
can then you know how that goes. Now,
that's more abstract. We're talking about big pharma
and different layers of government. It's not just
the government.
But deeper than that, even more so, talking
about the way that this can be used
for experimentation,
for any number of different things. Now, the
where we're going to today
is a clip that was shared with share
Shannon Joy and Catherine Austin Fitts, something she
actually discussed in an interview we recently had
in the studio, which is that this is
there is a conversation to be had about
whether or not certain power structures are trying
to
subtly reduce the lifespan
of the population
for the interest of purely financial benefit, but
also a lot darker conversations. Now I'm not
gonna say that I think that's exactly what
this is. Maybe one part of it. But
I just wanted to throw out something new
to the conversation for you to consider.
Knowing that we don't know for exactly why
this is being ignored,
one of the re one of the many
possibilities from somebody that I highly respect of
why any number of these things might be
happening, Whether it is and, again, I don't
it doesn't have to be a deliberate,
willful action to make this hurt people, but
more so that it's something that has been
allowed to get worse, to fester because of
our corrupted system. And now it's going, okay.
Well, maybe we can lean into this. And
we've seen the burning of food supply chain
discussions of meat factories. There's all sorts of
different things that tie around to this. But
today is just to focus on these recent
events and the docs themselves.
And we're gonna go over some studies that
make it very clear that they know about
it, that they know how seriously damaging this
is, and that what it ultimately creates is
a circumstance where nobody can really point a
finger at anybody. Or you you end up
with cancer and immune issues and deformities and
all sorts of things that dramatically lead to
the lessening of your lifespan and your children
and your children's children. We're talking about a
long term
lifespan. Because realize, in
the body, the half life is much longer
in women, by the way, but 7 years
or so for men. I think it was
something like 17 or I will get to
it in the in the articles for women.
But in the soil,
it lasts decades.
Half life.
Meaning that this stuff continues to be and
we've gone over the the air
transfer from from the United States and Canada
and North America into the Arctic Canada locations.
And we're talking about long term transition of
these dioxins in the air traveling thousands of
miles as even seen and acknowledged
and having a dangerous level in the breast
milk of women in Arctic Canada. And we're
not gonna consider what that source that can
make them suffer is doing to the people
that live in the town next to it.
I just don't know how it's possible we
can't have these conversations
unless this is being willfully covered up, and
then you can decide why that might be.
So let's go through all this information today,
and, hopefully, this can trigger a conversation.
More people can start talking about this and
start holding their feet to the fire until
more honest people that have that see the
problem, but they have bigger things on their
plate start going, okay. Wait a minute. I'm
I'm at the lower rung of the EPA,
and I can recognize this being more. Speak
up.
Call it out. Acknowledge that this is not
being dealt with and acknowledge the long term
consequences of doing that. And even more so,
if you know why that might be done,
if it's more than just simple malfeasance, then
say something. It's important that we start finding
the courage to call these things out because
whether it's that your job is in this
or that you're in a partisan side of
this, people are willing more than I've ever
seen to kind of ignore dangerous things right
now because they think that it's somehow I
mean, really, we're like living in a embodiment
of the lesser of evils dynamic. Everything everyone's
doing is somehow like, well, it's bad but
this might be worse. So it it just
kills me how often that happens. Now there's
one more thing I'll say to start, and
that is that
one thing I keep seeing a lot of
is that we see these problems, whether that's
the vaccination conversation, whether that is the dioxin
issue, whether that's glyphosate, whether that's any number
of things, whether that's foreign policy, Zionism,
that what's what's crazy is we've gotten this
weird kind of partisan dynamic, and I see
it in this country more than anything, where
we can point out a problem. Objectively, all
agree that a problem is present. Yes. We
see it. That's happening. And until somebody can
go, well, here's the solution for it, it's
as if we have to ignore the problem.
And we all bump up against this. So
we go, okay. Well, this is an issue.
Lesser of evils, for example, during the election.
We all can acknowledge that doesn't really make
sense.
And then what do we do then? Well,
I you can decide. I'm not sure. And
the point is that mindset becomes, oh, okay.
Well, then if there's nothing you can provide,
then I'm gonna go back to square 1.
And this is some sort of mental construct
that I can't it's,
I don't know, brainwashing?
I don't understand how we can remove ourselves
from the problem. And this is what I
see in this kind of conversation, is that
we're almost kind of overwhelmed with how much
is going on that we don't wanna address
the problem.
Step 1 is acknowledging it exists before we
even begin to try to solve it. Just
because someone does not have a solving
a a solution to a problem being presented
does not mean that you should disregard the
problem. I think that sounds pretty simple and
obvious, but it's happening a lot today. So
before we get into everything else, actually, I
I I think I showed this the other
day.
I can't remember. Either way, if I didn't,
I just there's a new shirt on our
big frog side of the of the,
clothings. We have a few things on the
big frog and still the some are remnants
on the true clothing before that goes away,
which more will end up on this site.
But we just added this one, which is
Vincent Umina Veritas, which means
oh, I I do remember now that I
did bring this up, but truth conquers all
things. And I think it's just a cool
idea for, you know, where we're going right
now in the world. And I think this
is it's almost like the, you know, irritating
objectivity, like, the idea of being that truth
and principles and found a you know, and
holding true to that and not letting it
waver based on anything else, I think, is
a pair an important thing for today. So
I'll include that link for you. Now, before
we get into the main point, which is
the only thing we're getting into today is
dioxins, is the I wanna highlight something about
fluoride that kind of overlaps with this.
This was 2 days ago or 3 days
ago, and it says haver Winter Haven Commissioners.
So I'm it just, this is in
Florida. Is that what it's
it FLA Florida?
Yeah.
That's interesting. I feel like I should know
that, but I feel like FLA doesn't make
sense. Anyway, there's some weird abbreviations in the
in the states and everything else. But anyway,
so the point is in Winter Haven in
Florida, commissioners vote to remove fluoride from water,
citing RFK Junior. Now, 1st and foremost, guys,
that's a good thing,
obviously.
Like, no matter what else is going on,
no matter what whether this one thing is
some massive scam to get you to believe
everything else, which part of me thinks there's
more to that than we know. It is
still an objectively good thing. That that they're
ultimately doing that, whoever they cite, that they're
recognizing that fluoride is dangerous whether or not
it's only because RFK said so or not,
that they're choosing to remove it. This is
a positive thing even if it's on the
back of something negative. And I just wanna
point that out that this is something we
should be very proud about,
not because RFK said so, whether or not
he has good intentions, but because people like
you are the reason this is being discussed.
Not because RFK brought it up. It's It's
because of people like Michael Conant and the
fluoride action network and people like Derrick Brose
and the long term
relentless effort over years and multiple reviews of
the National National Toxicology Program report, which has
been there for a decade, but we know
is dangerous. Remember, the main point that I
was making in this discussion is the government
has been fighting well more than a decade,
but since this has been public, since the
NTP has their report that says dangerous,
your government from multiple agencies, pretty much all
of them, CDC, EPA, FDA, they're fighting to
maintain, to keep something that they know is
a neurotoxin in your water.
That's just earth shattering. That should wake everybody
up.
There's no way to misunderstand that story. They're
still, at this point, fighting to sort of
maneuver to keep this in your water. Anyway,
the point is you are responsible for this.
Everybody out there that's been fighting to force
corporate media, everybody else to acknowledge this story,
that's a win for you. But the one
thing irks me about this
is remember and, again, that's why I kinda
think that this is a government. This is
just the opportunism of the government, which is
usually how I chalk up most of the
positive steps. I know I'm a pessimist when
it comes to government. My point is that
why wouldn't they what does it take RFK
Junior saying this out loud for commissioners that
have no better to do this?
Which whatever the reason, yes, I'm still saying
that's a good thing regardless of why, but
it it frustrates me when you can have
peer reviewed science going back decades.
These people are supposed to be looking at
this stuff. They're not supposed to just blindly
follow orders from their above their whether CDC
or not. They're supposed to be making choices
that are in the health in the direction
of the health for their their their constituents.
So it is kind of frustrating that it
takes RFK just saying it or them citing
him saying it for them to acknowledge what
has been transparently evident, which RFK points to,
for decades. You see my point in that?
So it's kinda frustrating. This is the society
we live in where the actual facts are
less important than an icon that says them.
You see my point? And I think that's
important that we try to change that, and
I think we're all doing that. Either way,
fantastic,
important, and good news that people are beginning
to make these changes. But so fluoride has
been in your water your entire life,
and it is a neurotoxin.
Now I'll cite the fluoride trial link that
we have that Derek has been just doing
great work going back a year plus. More
than that, if you look at his his,
conscious resistance as well. And this is the
very last one.
This is from September 26, 2024.
Federal judge rules fluoride is a neurotoxin
in historic lawsuit. Very simple. There's no misinformation
there. It's very easy. The links are all
in there for you. And there there's a
whole bunch going back where he's been covering
this. I've been interviewing about it. Going back
a long way.
So if you wanna get caught up I
mean, so you can see down here, there
are
5 pages of of just this topic for
the fluoride trial.
Get caught up in what's been happening, very
least check out the last one so you
know, and that's why it's happening. Even still,
you've got ridiculous corporate media
coming out there making fun of this like
he's a conspiracy theorist. Like, obviously, we should
get fluoride out of our water when we
know that it's dangerous, or obviously, we should
be discussing the risks of vaccination that we
know about and the obvious peer reviewed science
that show links to autism. Yes. This is
all very easy and obvious despite the ridiculous
reflexive dismissal of white people on CNN talking
to Howard Ludvig. Vaccines don't cause autism. Rate
journalism, guys. Despite the fact that there is
obviously a link, we can dispute. You get
it. The point is
information is present that shows that we know
these things are something to be discussed. I
would argue much more than that, but just
to make it objective for everybody.
And these are all good things that are
happening because of things he's saying, but we
should already be doing this stuff because the
evidence has been there.
But speaking of fluoride in general, we're talking
about something that has been put in your
water
and that is a neurotoxin.
So consider this on the bigger discussion. So
if we can recognize
that the US government has made conscious decisions
to make to make it happen, which remember
the joke, which is horrifying,
is that if they weren't
you putting it in your water, the people
that have the who produce that, which is
a byproduct
of all sorts of things, industrial and otherwise,
that they would have to pay to dispose
of it. Instead,
they get paid to put this in your
water, or rather they buy and put it
in your water. That's wild to think about.
So your government made a conscious choice to
put something dangerous in your water, and you
can get into there's all sorts of conversations
to have about the penile gland and what
it does to this and the deeper modulation
of consciousness. These are not fake conversations,
but they're deep for some people. The bottom
line
is that this is something you have to
factor in when we're talking about the docs
and conversation.
The willingness to ignore a problem, the willingness
to use it against you. Now you it
may be that they first thought, floral, I
was right for you. I don't think that.
But in the context of today's story, the
point is that it doesn't have to always
be a planned long term. It could be
something that turned out to be something they
discovered, realized they couldn't deal with it. Instead
of being an honest entity and saying, we
have a problem. Let's get the best minds
in the country to not know. They just
sweep it under the rug and kick it
down to the next administration or however you
wanna look at it.
Same thing.
So there's a precedent right here for fluoride
for why this is not that hard to
wrap your mind around in allowing this to
be such a problem that it's just there's
no going back. I make the point about
glyphosate all the time.
If you truly understand the depths,
the breadth of what glyph
imagine the world being dipped in a vat
of glyphosate. I mean, that's a little bit
extreme, but that's where we are. There's no
going back for what has happened in my
opinion other than very long term I mean,
because realize this stuff is in everything and
that these studies are there. I've done many
shows on this. And the clothes you're wearing,
in the air, in the food you're eating,
they did a urine test in the UK
a while ago and every one of them
had glyphosate in their urine. They tested organic
wines in Napa Valley and every one of
them had glyphosate. That's not organic anymore. But
they just, of course, moved the needle so
we can pretend they're still organic. This is
the cons this is the fake reality that
we live in. So keeping all of this
in mind, again, with the idea about the
the problem,
right, where we're highlighting a very clear problem.
So whether or not we can immediately decide
how to solve that problem, we have to
be clear that it's important to understand that
it exists.
Now I'll include some of the recent conversations.
Oh, it's weird.
Forgot to line this up. For those in
the podcast, doesn't matter.
So this is the show from 13th August
October, excuse me, Conyers, Georgia, BioLab fire. And
remember, for those who don't remember, this is
BioLab is the company's name, not necessarily a
biological laboratory at least as we're told. It
makes most mainly chlorinated products.
The fire, as according to Scott c Smith,
could be the greatest acts of disaster in
history. Again, to wrap that up quickly, the
point is that there were,
around £2,000,000
of chlorinated compounds that were burned in East
Palestine.
And to this day, that is an undeniable
dioxin. Even the EPA was forced to acknowledge
that
after dragging their feet, barely wanting to test,
refusing to test until finally we got multiple
independent tests showing dioxins were the issue there.
The point is that in Conyers, Georgia, the
lowest estimate is 12,500,000
chlorine compounds,
possibly over 20.
That's why his point is it could be
the worst. And he still as I spoke
to him today, waiting for the
the test results from the I'm wondering why
that's taking so long. Who know? I don't
know why he's getting it through, but I've
just I'm suspicious about how this is going
because right in his policy, and remember, they
were being refused dioxin testing. 1 of the
nurses on video even got caught saying that
they were told they weren't allowed to give
them. Something's going on here. And this adds
to my point. Why would they not want
you to test to find it? I'm willing
to bet you not only because they would've
been shockingly high, but because I bet you
all of us have a problem with this.
That's the thing I'm trying to talk about
today.
Now this is the one I follow-up on
the 10th. Conyers, Georgia resident suffering prolonged illness.
Now this is from the 10th. This was
a CNN article discussing how they were still
dealing with these issues. The main thing that
I highlighted was the chloracne overlap. The women,
the people having rashes, the woman in this
specific discussion had all of her legs were
covered in rashes and overlapping with the Cebeso
disaster, which is
the Italy example of a dioxin release,
which we'll get we'll get to in a
minute. I believe that's right here. A look
at 40 years of health and research and
beyond.
The time Time Magazine called this one of
the top 10 environmental disasters in history to
this day.
And it's a dioxin disaster. That's what it
was. You can read about it, and we'll
go over it in a second. And this,
I argue, is less than what we're dealing
with today. But that I'm I'm not gonna
I'm not the expert. I'm waiting for the
full results to come back on the exact
amount, but we'll go through this and I'll
show you what I mean.
So this is
still happening. And the oh, and the point
was the chloracne was what Cveso's study was
basing it on. That when you have the
acne that that's based on chlorine,
that is what they argue the definitive example
of acute exposure. And people were studied 20,
40 years after this based on whether they
had chloracne, and the ones that did, overwhelmed
with problems.
So we're seeing the same thing just like
east Palestine. We spoke to many people that
had chloracne.
I'll also include this if you wanna watch.
It's an 8 minute clip. Grace is always
doing amazing work. She goes over some of
the interesting ins and outs of this. One
of the points she brings out actually, which
I'm glad you just remembered, it's called Something
Strange Is Happening in Georgia. This is from
the 2nd October. She makes a point I
I I kind of fear
I thought out loud about this in the
last show I did around chlorine gas. Remember,
if you remember, I just kinda thought out
loud. I'm like, is chlorine gas the same?
Is is that just dioxins or is it
something different? No. She makes a good point
about it. Apparently, and I looked it up
more in-depth after I did that show, chlorine
gas is not the same. It's it's dioxins,
as we talked about, dioxins is a byproduct
of burning chlorinated products and specifically chlorine.
But the chlorine gas is another weaponized version
of using chlorine. The reason I brought that
up in the past show was about whether
or not what they were suffering from was
because they kept calling it chlorine gas.
My point is I don't believe that's what
this was. I believe they were referring to
the byproducts of burning that chlorine. Because if
it was chlorine gas, that would have been
just the remnants of what didn't get burned
in the massive fire.
So I think they're conflating those two things.
Anyway, she makes a good point about it
in here in regard to what it was,
how it's been used as a weapon.
I'll also include this. It's an ongoing discussion
from, specifically, Conyers Georgia about shutting down the
BioLab company. Because if you remember, this has
gone back
decades. They've had, I think, 3 or 4,
if I remember correctly, different fires
because of this plant. And every time, I'm
talking at least the 3 that I've just
went into in-depth in myself.
Every time they've had this, it's been the
same company with the same exact problem.
Remember, the issue here is that they have
sprinkler systems with water over chemicals that chemically
react with water.
That's not a joke.
The the there this should be a criminal
investigation for things just like that, but it
doesn't seem to be going that way.
And every time in the past, it's been
the same thing. So either they do this
on purpose or they should be charged with
such extreme
incompetence malfeasance because they've allowed the sprinklers to
remain. And they because it's a chemical reaction
which causes a massive dioxin release. It's the
same exact thing as the Cebeso disaster in
Italy.
To me, just like the guy who died
right after giving testimony as a whistleblower,
he argued this was deliberate.
He died right after giving testimony that this
company was doing this.
Now here's what he said what Scott c
Smith said to me when I asked him.
I simply reached out and I said, you
know, what's the what's the status of the
upcoming reports, and what do you think about
this current disaster as well that we're gonna
talk about? And he simply said, although I
still don't have the docs and results, this
is important, from Georgia, he says the corrupt
EPA
pulled their playbook from East Palestine to Conyers,
Georgia is unfortunately alive and well as the
EPA has refused
to test for dioxins.
And many other compounds like PAHs, which he
mentioned, I'll read off what that is in
a second, that are known to be generated
when chlorine compounds burn. Now it's one of
the main things I'm gonna get into in
the studies right after this, that they know
this. There's no arguing I mean, other than
a shocking,
shocking level of incompetence, which might even make
sense with the continual downgrade of the, you
know, the lesser of evil's game that gets
dumber and dumber people in power, which then
they appoint worse and worse people? Maybe. Either
way, it's their responsibility.
And the point is that they know that
burning chlorine chlorinated products, let alone chlorine itself,
which is what the BioLab location had chlorine
specifically and other chlorinated products on plastic pallets
full of plastic. I mean, this is like
a dioxin perfect storm,
and that they're refusing to test for them.
Why would that be?
I mean, I mean, I think that point
alone
makes this clear.
This is my opinion, but think about this.
If they know that, which I can prove
they do, it's easy to see, why would
they refuse to test it? Why, when he's
Palestine, would they drag their feet for months
until finally, due to even corporate media asking
about dioxins in the press conferences, that they
were forced to acknowledge it? That sounds to
me like they're doing everything to avoid even
talking about what they know is there.
Doesn't that sound like a problem that they
know they can't handle or that they want
there? To me, it does.
Now here is the, PAH list. It's chlorinated
polycyclical
aromatic hydrocarbons.
And this is what's important. It's another aspect
of the same problem, which is that if
you look at the health concerns,
they're chlorinated, first of all. So when those
are those are the byproducts as well, but
even if those were burned, they would create
dioxins. And it says have been linked to
potential health hazards, including
mutagenicity
and carcinogenicity.
Right? So we're gonna get into how the
obvious one of the big issues with this
is this these are endocrine disrupting chemicals
as well as carcinogenic.
And it says toxicity to aquatic organisms and
humans,
bioaccumulation
and bio magnification
in food chains. That's a huge part of
this because these these are PAHs.
This is less dangerous, objectively,
than dioxin, specifically TCDD,
which is the most dangerous chemical anywhere.
Now the point is that this is also
accumulating in the food supply and the soil.
How long has that been happening?
Longer than you know.
Now here's a clip of play because I
wanna set this in your mind. Now the
High Impact Flix shared this saying, take 4
minutes to watch this and be sure to
follow Shannon Joy Radio. I agree. This is
a true slice of independent journalism.
Now sensor
a sense receptor shared this, tagging Doge, the
Department of Government Efficiency or whatever you wanna
call this weird thing, however that works out.
Apparently, co headed by 2 people, which seems
embarrassing to me either way. The point is
that she's highlighting if they really wanna care
about this efficiency conversation, we should be discussing
the 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars that are missing, which
I doubt they will.
But the point she makes in this is
really interesting about and this is the same
thing she one of the points many that
she makes in this excellent interview we had
in the studio on September 8, see beyond
the duopoly and take responsibility for a future,
which she discusses the interesting point about whether
they might be trying to lower the lifespan
of the average person.
1, on the surface for a financial financial
like, basically, I'll let her explain it better
than I will, but the idea of tapping
into all of the which is why people
tell you your Social Security won't be there,
all these different retirement elements that they're just
tapping into for all sorts of things. And
if they can lower that lifespan, well, there's
more to tap into there. But I argue
there's much more going on here.
But I'll I'll let her speak for herself.
Really wanted to reform the deep state. I'd
say, okay. Who's got the 21,000,000,000,000, and how
do we get it back?
Can you explain that 21,000,000,000,000
if you can?
Yeah. So the Department of Defense from
so in
in in 1995,
we had a budget,
we had a a big budget confrontation,
and it was later described to me by
the head of the largest pension fund in
the country. He said, they've given up on
the country. They're moving all the money out
starting in the fall.
And that was the beginning of the financial
coup. And in in fiscal 1998,
HUD was missing $59,000,000,000
in the 1st year. And then by
911,
the federal government, mostly DOD, was missing missing
approximately $4,000,000,000,000.
Okay?
And and then when 911 happened, the day
before 911, Donna Rumsfeld got up and confessed
that DOD was missing 2,300,000,000,000.
Unbelievable.
Okay.
And and then 911 happened, and everybody sort
of forgot about the missing money.
And and Solari kept publishing it and publishing
it. And I kept saying,
we've got to pay attention to the missing
money because,
essentially,
most of this is being being financed out
of our pension funds and retirement funds. Jeez.
And if we don't address this,
we won't have enough money to meet our
obligations under the retirement system
unless we lower, like, life expectancy.
And in fact,
the a lot of the great poising started
at the same time. And if you look
at US life expectancy
Just so it's clear, because she says it
very fast, she talks about the great poisoning.
I think that's important.
Because, guys, this this it's not just dioxins,
but this is the point I'm hyping I'm
hype I'm focusing on for today's show. But
we you guys are well aware of all
the rest of the conversations that we her
and I have had, that she's had with
many other people, that she's had on her
own shows, the conversations about the many different
ways we are being we and you don't
have to feel that it's being deliberately poisoned,
but that nonetheless is the byproduct of it.
I do agree with her. I think it's
deliberate about whether we're talking about
our endocrine disrupting chemicals or glyphosate, right, or
PFAS or any number of the things that
are deliberately, I think, adding to
exactly what she's discussing that lead to reproductive
issues, immune problems, which then are also catalysts
for the other things that we've discussed.
When the financial coup started, life expectancy started
to fall and diverge with the other 19
industrial top industrial company countries
and, and that accelerated with the pandemic. And
what we are watching is a systematic
lowering of life expectancies,
which is part of dealing with this financial
problem. So
So the the surface point is that simply
that they have a financial issue and that
they find by lowering your life expectancy that
they can reap the benefits financially, which will
fill that gap.
I mean, that's pretty logical. Right? I'm no
I don't tell anybody well, other than the
idea that they wouldn't be willing to lower
your lifespan in a slow, steady way that
nobody would notice. I mean, really? Is any
I mean, I know that sounds sinister because
it is.
But how
I mean, there are wars conducted in so
many there are silent wars happening all over
the world. We know our government, our governments
in general,
are very capable of this. I also just
think it's much deeper than that. But just
recognize that should be a point that's not
hard to digest. We have plenty of precedent
that the US government alone is absolutely capable
of that capable of that,
especially to foreign governments, but more to foreign
populations, but provably to you as well.
If you can't balance the books with full
funding, you balance the books by
lowering the drain that the population is taking
out of the out of the retirement system.
So
so this is part and parcel of
of our financial
situation.
Now,
you have not seen the new or the
incoming administration
talk about the money that's missing from the
federal government.
If that money went missing, guess And I
don't think they will, by the way.
Where it went missing. Who runs the federal
bank account?
Federal Reserve? I don't know. I mean, federal
The New York the New York Fed. Okay.
So, yeah, it is a division of the
Federal Reserve. Right?
So so if 21 trillion is missing from
federal accounts, then the New York Fed implemented
those transactions.
And remember, the fed is not a part
of the federal government. It's they call it
that. I deliberately, I argue, which is not
hard to wrap your mind around in order
to manipulate people into thinking that. It is
an end it isn't it's a separate entity,
guys. And that's that's where you get into
this whole conversation about Trump firing Powell and
and, I I mean, I've already seen I
think it was
was it Mike Rogers? I forget. Somebody was
out there, like, I think deliberately trying to
conflate trying to convince you without saying it
that it was part of the government, rather
under the control of the executive branch. Now
you can make an argument that that would
be the case even if it wasn't part
of the government, but my point is the
way they were describing it was trying to
keep you thinking that, which that's a very
nefarious agenda.
I just think we need to realize whether
by accident or not, if I wanna give
you that bone, that we're going in the
same direction.
Right? Little New York state. Right?
Damn. Right. Well, it's very funny when Bobbie
Ann Cox told me about her litigation.
Yeah. I said I said, Bobbie, that has
nothing to do with health. That has to
do with you're the New York Fed, and
you need to make sure that every financial
person and hedge fund manager
does what you tell them to do. And
if they don't, you need to be able
to kidnap them. This Is this why New
York is so corrupt? I'm in New York.
Is this why New York is so
corrupt?
New York New York needs to assert complete
control of any individual that they need to
implement the financial system.
Now it shouldn't be hard to wrap your
to see the overlap of the influence of
Israel in New York, but that shouldn't be
the only point if at all. These points
are relevant regardless of that. But I think
with how relevant that is to the global
conversation,
it's you know, what's funny is people almost
at least more it used to be more
so would, like, shy away from ever highlighting
connections to Israel because you're called racist. But
the point is we can all hopefully clearly
see there's a far far more going on
that has anything to do with Jews or
Christians that has to do with what Israel
is trying to do around the world.
That's what that that's what that health regulation
is about.
You need to be able to kidnap and
court you know? No. You can't afford
the 1 hedge fund manager to implode the
entire international financial system.
Right?
No. You can't.
That's wild. Do you really want a hedge
fund managers,
you know, standing up
and on the Solari show or the Shanna
Joy show and talking about how, you know,
they've just laundered out another trillion through the
BIS, and they're stealing it.
Really?
That's wild.
So check out this interview we did or
any others we've had because she gets into
something like this and here we go. It
gets it's it's fascinating. And she's got a
lot of interesting insight. Either way, the larger
point to bring this into today
is the question of whether or not that
might be part of what's happening. And, really,
this addresses the larger, as she's saying, the
the great poisoning,
not just dioxins.
But I I can't stop seeing how this
overlaps with a lot of different things. Let's
not forget that dioxins in the past have
been used by the US government to try
to assassinate a foreign president that's on the
record.
It was used with agent orange. They pretend
like it was a byproduct, but it was
not. I believe it was a chemical weapon
that was used.
I I don't think that's a hard I
think that's pretty obvious when you look at
the information
that this has been something that's been used.
So this goes back as far as you
can look where they know this.
So it's also not hard to start thinking
that this was a slow, deliberate effort for
exactly what she's talking about. But you can
decide for yourselves. All I want you to
recognize today is that it is a problem
that exists, pretty damn ubiquitous, and that they're
not doing anything about it. Everything else on
top of that is just for
further investigation and discussion.
So let's start real with this recent one
in Bakersfield, California.
This is from November 9th.
Now this is just to quickly point out,
and this is what the the image from
today.
Multiple fire departments race to smother the flames
of a massive fire that erupted in Southeast
Bakersfield warehouse Saturday morning. Now, of course, it
doesn't have to be something we could be
random, organic, could happen. You know? The point
is how clear the byproduct is of any
of these. And I'm gonna prove it to
you yet again with what burned in here,
and you'll never hear them addressed. I mean,
think about it like in any other context
where you have something that you know is
super dangerous, a cyanide plant or whatever.
And suddenly, there's a big massive release of
the plant. They rush in and they go,
don't worry. We're checking for for asbestos.
But what about the cyanide? That's
we're checking for asbestos and VOCs.
That's what Scott c is pointing to.
We're going, well, what the hell? What about
the thing you know is the most dangerous
chemical in the world that you know as
a matter of fact will be a for
certain byproduct of what we just know burned?
What?
Like with East Palestine, what? We like, almost
like even what? Dioxin? Like, they weren't even
sure, acting like it didn't even and maybe
they didn't, at least to the person with
the podium.
But we know for a fact that this
is something that they're willfully disregarding
because of the evidence that's at hand.
So down here, it says, first, business in
the area was able to continue as usual.
This is the point that really kills me.
The same thing that happened with Conyers, Georgia.
If we I mean, even dioxins aside, with
what we're talking about, that's a good point
that Grace makes in her video, just chlorine.
That she she references the overlap of the
chlorine bombs and used in in war, and
that's a chemical weapon. That's an attack. Right?
So even if it was an accident, which
I don't believe it was,
you're telling people to shelter in place when
there was basically the equivalent of a of
a chemical weapons attack?
That doesn't make any sense.
So in this case, the same thing. We
made sure business as usual before we even
addressed what was going on.
I mean, with all the examples we have,
that seems pretty crazy to me. But I'm
not I'm continually
not surprised by the shocking ineptitude of government
these days. But here's another article from the
9th. This is Bakersfield, California. This is from
the bakersfield.com
or belt Bakersfield, Californian.
Black smoke from 2 alarm, 2 warehouse fire
visible for miles.
Look at that. So here's the main points.
The ware 2 warehouses of about 10,000 square
feet. They're packed from floor to ceiling
with plastic drip irrigation material that produced the,
quote, ominous looking column of smoke. Now, obviously,
as Scott would point out, the black smoke
is what the that's the unburned material. That
is the that that is what that that
is what is the one of the necessary
parts to truly make the dioxin problem the
worst as well as just chlorine into products,
plastic being one of them.
Specifically,
the things that we can discuss in this.
So they're talking about plastic drip irrigation material.
Now I looked into what they would have,
and one of the main things we're discussing
is plaque black plastic mulch,
which is part of what the which is
one of the things that we're discussing burning
these plants.
Obviously,
burning black plastic mulch can release dioxins, which
I shouldn't need to anything plastic for the
most part is gonna have these problems. But,
specifically,
specifically, one of the things with plastic drip
irrigation material is black plastic mulch. And, yes,
that is one of the obvious issues. Exposure
to dioxins have been linked with various health
issues we'll get into in a minute. On
top of that, plastic drip irrigation material,
which is black and then that's that's right
there. Oh, I think I'm almost out of
order. Black plastic mulch is widely accepted for
the ability to warm the soil. These are
all what what you would find. Drip tubes,
drip lines made of plastic and designed to
deliver water. Those are plastic, which will obviously
cause that.
And then mats and plastic molds and all
these all all these things are the same
conversation. Just wanna make sure that was clear.
That is what we're discussing.
So in a review, in searching for these
exact convert these exact
materials, specifically
plastic drip irrigation material, it led me to
this study from 2022.
A review of soil contamination with dioxins and
biodegradation
technologies.
Now one thing they highlight in here, the
main point of the article, the study, is
to highlight the efforts to clean.
Right? But what you could do to degrade
the dioxin. Now the point is obviously you'll
find the same thing we're talking about, that
it seems to be damn near impossible.
But I wanted to go over some of
the most important things that stood out to
me in this. Now if you're new to
this conversation, this will probably shock you because
dioxins are,
again, TCDD
being the the most is the most dangerous
chemical in existence according to all the experts.
Dioxins, that it writes, are dangerous
threats threat agents
even at low concentrations,
1 part per billion,
which are enough to wreak havoc on human
health and the environment. Now remember the numbers
because we're gonna go through all of these
examples. Now some of these are kind of
up in the air or using different comparative
methods. Either way, it gives you kind of
a general sense of what we're talking about.
The point, even at low very low concentrations.
Now in humans, dioxin exposure in human in
humans affects the endocrine glands and reproductive functions.
And we're gonna show you some of these
studies
even very, very low amounts in past studies
have shown very clear side effects.
And the point then is that you have
side effects, then it stays in your body
and you pass this down the line.
Causes diseases in the central and peripheral areas
of the nervous system
and impedes fetal development, especially in the nervous
system and joints.
Dioxins can be remain can be can remain
in the environment for a long time,
seeping deeply into soil and sediments.
Therefore, dioxins remaining in the soil and sediments
will seep into water sources and ecosystems,
including those that produce fish, shrimp, vegetables, crops,
posing a risk of poisoning for future generations.
This is 2022.
Now we're gonna come back to this at
the end, but I want you I wanna
remind you,
from East Palestine,
and I I'm willing to bet you it's
even more than this, but this is what
they admitted after the fact. This article came
out
in 2024.
East Palestine,
which was what? 2020
what was the exact well, give me the
exact date in the chat if you remember.
Years ago. We're talking about something that we
called when it happened.
We were talking about the reality
of when it was happening that we knew
this was going much further because of the
smoke, because of the and, of course, we
got pushed back on.
Conspiracy theorist, alarmists. The point is they've then
later, in June of 2024,
admitted
chemicals,
one of the one the one we know
for sure that even they had to admit,
which was the highest problem, the dioxins, which
by the way, we'll show you again in
a minute, travel thousands of miles.
When as dioxins become airborne, they travel thousands
of miles. We knew this then, as they
did too. This is from 1995.
The point was
spread to 16 states, dioxins and whatever else.
Sixteen states across. Remember, they had a couple
mile radius.
They shut it down real quick.
How did Ryan Christian know? How did Scott
c Smith know? Because Scott is an expert.
I look to their work because we care.
We research.
Your government chose to hide this from you.
So in this context today,
where were we? Here.
Here we go.
Let's recognize
that this,
whether any of these, is going very, very
far and is landing in the in the
ground. And the the point was all of
the sediment and all the bird ash was
landing
16 states across. That ends up in the
soil, in the sediment, in the water, in
the food.
It's not a joke. It's very easy to
prove, and that doesn't go away.
Now it says there are many studies on
airborne and food dioxins as the main sources
in different countries, but there are not many
general reports on dioxin contaminated soil,
especially for the bioremediation
of dioxins in soil. You know why? Because
they don't wanna they don't know how to
deal with this.
So, ultimately, they're not even trying to look
into it because we don't need to the
point, we don't know. So we don't need
more evidence showing us that we caused a
problem that we can't solve, or maybe it's
deeper than that.
Now it says depending on the number of
chlorine atoms, that this is the point actually,
I'll I'll grab that study too. I forgot
to grab that one.
And this is something that's very easy to
prove, but in case you wanted to see,
it's a it's a study from 2020,
or was it let me see. 20 2001,
excuse me, about specifically
chlorine combustion and dioxins. And the point simply
being that since every molecule of dioxin contains
2 or more atoms of chlorine, chlorine is
a necessity for dioxin formation. Therefore, when no
chlorine is present, no dioxins are formed. Chlorine
being the central dynamic in all of this.
Remember, in Georgia,
it literally was chlorine that burned. Not chlorine,
oxad, or chlorvinyl chloride, but just chlorine on
plastic pellets. So, like, the perfect storm is
the point,
which is why Scott himself said that this
could be the biggest disaster dioxin related in
history.
So that they're saying here, depending on the
number of chlorine atoms is ultimately the depend
the dependent on what gets worse all the
way to the the top example, which is
t c d d. Interestingly, in case this
it find this interesting as well, it points
to the idea being that they are highly
toxic because, specifically,
they have chlorine atoms at positions 2, 3,
7, and 8. That's why 2, 3, 7,
8 TCDD
is the general term for the most dangerous
dioxin formation,
and it's the most dangerous chemical we know
of.
Studies have shown, it says, that the emissions
of dioxins in the environment is mainly caused
by humans.
So this is it's not they love the
point that, like, for example, volcanoes release dioxins.
The there are natural examples.
But the the vast majority, according to every
study I've seen, is because of burn pits,
because of
incineration,
because of military activity. And we'll go over
that in a second. I think some of
them show right here. That's that's
human act action, and it's not because of
Joe with his trash can. It's because of
government stuff.
Now he they add to it backyard burn
piss. They the EPA has all sorts of
data about why backyard burn pits are the
dioxin problem. But when it comes to anything
central to the government or business, weirdly, they
forget what dioxins even mean.
That's the that's the main thing here. But
it says studies have shown that the emissions
of dioxins in the environment is mainly caused
by humans. The main anthropogenic
origins of dioxins are classified
into 3 sources,
incineration,
combustion, and industrial processes.
All high level corporate government overlaps.
The World Health Organization
in has recommended in 2005 that the standard
exposure levels of dioxins
as 1 to 4 pictograms,
TEQ being the, the toxic equivalency
factor
per kilogram of body weight per one day.
Now remember now the thing is there's also
using different
measurements from kilogram or pictogram or, you know,
the or rather specifically, it would be, parts
per billion, parts per trillion. The point is,
generally speaking, we're talking about the at least
the WHO is saying 1 to 4 pictograms
toxicity
equivalency
per kilogram of body weight per day, or
point 0 7
0.07
parts per trillion in the blood. Think about
that.
0.07
parts per trillion
just ending up in your blood.
Now let's be very clear. What was happening
in East Palestine
was more than that. They were I know
I I mean, we can show you the
examples of, for ex where was the one
right here
of Scott finding specifically in the filters and
homes
well past when this happened in East Palestine.
It's on July 2nd.
Up to 14,000
percent more dioxins
in their filters and their homes than compared
to a control somewhere else. So let's be
very clear that we're talking about the obvious
reality that there was more than this in
their
the reason this was a problem or even
compared, as we'll get to in a minute,
in the Cebeso disaster, still arguably one of,
according to Time Magazine, one of the top
10 environmental
disasters in the world. Now it says the
general environmental
limit in most countries is 1200
parts per trillion,
toxicology equivalent in soil and a 150 parts
per trillion in sediment.
So just think about that overlap and keep
these numbers in your mind as we go
into the next ones because the reality is
I'm pretty sure we're dealing with much higher
levels with what we're discussing today.
Now, again, these are my opinions. I'm not
the the I always refer
we should wait for the studies
coming from people like Scott or other independent
experts. Sadly, we're getting far less attention on
the Georgia discussion. In east Palestine, there was
Texas a and m, multiple, you know, independent
experts were there. I believe Steven Lesher was
even one of them, if I remember correctly.
But the point is that no less people
are paying attention to this one, and this
one seems to be objectively larger.
Dioxin, it says, as a dangerous threat agent
to the environment and humans are associated with
severe damage to human health, shortening the lives
of those exposed
and potentially shortening the lives of their children
in future generations. So to Catherine's point. And
the larger point of why I think this,
if it is deliberate, is a well planned
effort because it's not easily identified.
You other than the chloracne, which that's only
acute exposure. You don't need the acute exposure
to have the diminishing of your lifespan
or cancers or whatever that happened decade later
and no one knows what's you you don't
you don't notice it. You you may have
some nausea. You feel a little bit sick
that day, and then suddenly years later, you
have cancer and you have immune system problems.
You can't have a child. That's what this
is causing.
So if they wanted to pick something where
it would be impossible to identify, well, they
nailed it.
But it says when dioxin levels in humans
exceed the allowable threshold
of 0.0
or 0 0.0064
pictograms
per kilogram of the human body. Think of
how small that is.
Dark patches of skin appear quickly as a
result of cell death, mutated pigment cells, and
impaired liver and kidney liver and kidney function.
Guys, we've seen provable examples
of chloracne
of that woman, exactly what we're talking about
in the last the last show we did.
In fact, this this man's wife right here
in this show, showing you this wild rash
all over her body. We've shown you the
chloracne conversation from East Palestine. So they're saying
when it exceeds
point
0064 pictograms
per kilogram of human body weight that you
you get that response.
And they're referencing
the chloracne for the acute exposure for the
historic examples.
I mean, I think this all pretty obviously
adds up that we're dealing with something serious
here. And it says if long term exposure
to levels exceed the threshold, dioxins will affect
the immune system,
endocrine glands, and reproductive functions, leading to some
cancers, diseases of the central and peripheral nervous
systems, thyroid disorders, immune system damage, and endometrosis,
which is
a condition resulting from the appearance of endo
endometrial
tissue outside the uterus and causing pelvic pain,
diabetes, etcetera.
I mean, all of these things interestingly overlap
with I mean, you could overlap them with
the COVID 19 shot side byproducts. You could
overlap with it with other endocrine or something
chemicals. I mean, this is like a perfect
storm for exactly what we're discussing, whether it's
shortening the lifespan or just causing illness that
can reap benefits of big pharma. You can
decide what the what you think makes the
most sense. I just want people to acknowledge
this is happening.
Right? Acknowledge the problem so we can actually
solve this.
Now it says as a result, children of
exposed parents were born with many tragic deformities.
So think about that. So you're in East
Palestine,
or anywhere else we're talking about this, and
you got exposed,
the potential reality is you might already be
suffering from these problems. And that's one of
the reasons why I think they didn't want
you to be able to take a test
to show you had dioxins in your blood
right after the problem. Because you do it
today, well, they're gonna pretend, well, we don't
know. There's a background level. You may have
gotten it from that volcano, whatever. Or that
burning plant next to your house. The problem
is that when they kick it down the
road, it becomes very difficult to connect to
what just happened. So let me reiterate that
in case you missed the earlier point. There's
multiple videos that we've showed. In the shows
right there that I just left for you
the links of people in their
hospital speaking to somebody, and the nurse saying,
I'm not they were told not to give
these tests.
Even though they were being told by the
EPA to go get them.
There's an issue there, obviously.
And
having the children of the parents exposed having
tragic deformities. Some children lived in a vegetative
state from birth.
Now, we talk about things like autism and
all sorts of other things that were like,
was it the sudden infant death syndrome which
are you know, or really just this a
category for we don't know what happened, and
that's the truth of that. You look it
up, it's it's just a catch all for
what we don't know why we don't know
why they died. That and yet they diagnose
that.
This is their cell system is so broken.
So vegetative state from birth, of course, you
know, the the ideas that never gets related
to things they don't wanna talk about, like
vaccination, for example. The association between dioxins exposure
and 5 diseases,
such as soft tissue cancer,
benign lymphoma,
chronic lympho lymphocytic
leukemia,
hairy leukemia cancer, and,
cholosis
was also noted. Some diseases associated with dioxin
exposure, such as acute chronic and subacute
peripheral neuropathy,
chlorosis,
type 2 diabetes, liver cancer, lipid
metabolism
disorders,
reproductive
abnormalities
and birth defects such as cleft lip and
palate. See these things, they would never associate
with this.
Congenital malformities of the legs,
hydrocephalus,
neural tube defects,
adhesions, sticky fingers or toes. I don't even
know what that means. Muscle malformations
and paralysis have also been observed as direct
byproducts of dioxin exposure.
None of those things are related. But you
you see these things happen, they just go,
that's just part of life.
Probably not.
What I think is interesting, I the thought
about, like so we're gonna point out as
we have many times about the the the
fat accumulation.
So, ultimately, 7 year for men. I'll I
forget the we'll get to it in a
second. I think it's 17 or higher for
women. That's the half life in your body.
But it's interesting that they send they seem
to focus on lipids.
And I just thought that was an interesting
overlap because this could be something else going
on around any number of things where lipids
are used in previous conversations. But it says
the half life of dioxins in the soil
is from 60 to 80 years.
Think about that.
The half life. So if this like, with
East Palestine, 16 states across, that means that
it is in the soil
for 60 to 80 years as the half
life.
I don't know. The the that's exactly why
I don't think people wanna acknowledge this.
And it says, and at the same time,
it persists for a long time in the
environment.
Seeps into the soil and sediments
and mid and migrates into vegetation and aquatic
life, leading to bioaccumulation
in the soil, in the food chain, and
in your body
when you consume those things.
Environmental pollution, it goes on in general, and
dioxin pollution in the soil in particular
are markedly on the rise. This is in
2022.
So as we'll go through again and go
back to the earlier points where they're discussing
in 1995 about why this is such a
big problem, and my key my point is
that they didn't do anything. Well, we can
see that.
Despite the conversations of the small actions of
potentially
bio remediation of certain locations. The point is
the regulations whether again now, again, this is
a good point to make about, like, the
Elon Musk in removing regulations.
I'm of the mind that we don't need
a state in general
Because I would argue if the state didn't
exist, things like this wouldn't exist. You think
the biolab plant's gonna last very long in
that county when the state's not protecting them?
The people would have run them out of
town. My point is that
with no state, there wouldn't be regulation, but
I might that was a point I just
made. But if you're gonna have a state,
which obviously we will under Trump's administration, but
then remove the regulation from business, all you're
doing is this. You're allowing these businesses to
do whatever they want like they kind of
already are, but now there's not even a
semblance of or an illusion of accountability or
in in,
enforcement.
I think that's an important point to make.
So as we can see, whether or not
they're taking small actions here and there, it
it's
continually
increased
on the rise markedly.
And it says the main sources of dioxin
emissions are industrial activities
such as combustion.
Now it says dioxin emissions from g 20
industrial activities account for more than 80% of
the estimated annual emissions. Don't you love that?
So all these high minded countries out there
preaching to the rest of the world about
how they have to save the planet are
80%
of release of the most dangerous thing we
know about.
Weird, Heather. We don't talk about that. Right?
Because it's all a big scam. Now we
are clearly destroying this planet in a hundred
different ways, but it's you more than not
the people pointing at everybody else that are
doing it. And not with carbon.
This is about all the other things we're
dealing with. But I think it kills me
that we're talking about specifically these countries that
are 80% of the emissions of what is
causing a lot of these problems.
According to Miguel,
dip DuPico
and Al and Alberto Gomez, a study from
2015,
annual global dioxide emissions
were 17,226
kilograms, equivalent to
287 kilograms
of the,
toxin equivalency.
So we're talking about remember, we're talking about
point 007
parts per trillion in the blood.
I just think it's very important to think
about. And it says the main sources of
antioxidants in the soil environment are fuel combustion.
And by the way, I I'm of the
mind that it's much much more than that,
quite frankly, but that's the point for you
to decide.
The main sources of dioxins in the soil
in the soil environment are fuel combustion,
metal production, pesticide
production, and use,
of course, waste incineration,
accidental fires, landfill disposal, combustion, and herbicide runoff
in agricultural uses. So every single one of
those things, I would argue we can build
a world where that's not necessary,
not in the way they're doing them. But,
of course, when we you know, that's a
whole conversation. But, obviously,
all of these things we discussed in their
own right as problematic.
Because all of them are being done in
ways that aren't considerate of whether they're actually
causing a bigger problem. And frankly, I think
a lot of cases doing it on purpose.
Like, for example, in East Palestine, the land
landfill disposal, that was the reason these things
got spread across these states other than the
fire itself
because they shipped them across country. And, ultimately,
I and there was even the example of
the of the dump truck that spilled on
the way. Remember that? It dumped all the
contaminated soil all over this area. That was
chock full of dioxins and PFAS, we we
highlighted the time, neither of which they could
deal with but didn't care. They shipped it
across other states and buried it or tried
to burn it in one of the locations,
which we could prove then wasn't even hot
enough. I called them on the phone. I
talked to them.
Of course, that doesn't get any good coverage
because that's real journalism, guys. We don't get
the we're gonna talk anyway, the point is
that shit in any other real world, that
kind of conversation where I have on the
phone evidence of them admitting they couldn't deal
with what we knew was there, that would
should've been a bombshell. But, of course, not
TLav.
Dioxin concentrations have not decreased in Europe in
recent years, but instead
have increased significantly
due to new dioxin emission sources. So not
only, and this is my point about that,
are they not really doing anything to stop
what's there, there's more emission sources popping up
every day.
So not only are they trying to hide
the problem they created, they're not even trying
to stop it continually growing.
And this is Europe, but the same thing's
happening in the United States.
That is crazy to me because of how
clearly we can see what this is doing.
Now it says similar to the results of
search searching for research documents on the situation
of dioxin pollution in the soils of European
countries.
There are few data on the situation of
soil research in America in recent years. Gee,
I wonder why. In general, across the United
States, dioxin concentrations
in urban soil are generally higher than in
rural, which makes sense because more out in
the open, there's less sources of this, which
shows you that it's not backyard burn pits.
It is government processes
with maximum concentrations reaching a 186
n g per kilogram according to the toxin
equivalency in urban areas.
And it says the main source of dioxin
contaminated soil in industrial production activities
is industrial
production activities
followed by the consequences of war.
But look at that. Producing high dioxin concentrations
and widespread infection.
Of course, one of the main reasons they
don't wanna hide the problem is because, well,
we can't stop the war state. Otherwise, this
country would collapse or, specifically, the government would
collapse. Maybe we should want that.
How about we should want that? The point
is that this is
another clear example of something they will never
decouple from. Sort of like we talked about
the ESG thing, which none of us should
wanna support because of how clearly corrupted even
even the idea that we should act anyway,
the no. The point is
they tried to pretend like, no. We we
we know nuclear power or, rather, nuclear
weapons or oil use or whatever else are
ESG compliant because we use them to fight
for freedom. And so it showed you that
even their game, they didn't they didn't even
apply it to themselves because they just gave
themselves a pass because we use those bad
things to fight for freedom, so it's a
net positive. It's, like, just absolutely ridiculous.
The point is that war being a leading
cause of these releases makes perfect sense why
they wouldn't wanna address it.
You have to understand, like I've said many
times, this government runs on the blood of
other nations.
And if not, what American people want, hardly.
But that is the way it is. And
if they the war state goes away, this
country is propped up by that ongoing merchant
of death. I mean, everything we've talked about
around the world.
Ultimately, it says current knowledge is insufficient to
achieve an optimal set of values
for the treatment of soils contaminated with dioxins
on a laboratory scale, pilot scale, and field
scale. So end point,
we don't have enough information. Why? Because they
refuse to look into this, and studies like
this are left going, this is a big
deal, and we don't know what to do
about it, which is exactly my point.
Now, the Cebeso disaster only a couple points
I wanna make. Make sure you read through
this because it's crazy.
And this is this study was done in
2018.
K? So the and the 4 look at
40 years of health research.
So, again, they went back to what we
still Time Magazine still calls one of the
top 10 environmental disasters in history, and it
was specifically
a dioxin
disaster. That's what it's called even on Time
Magazine. Dioxin is a known carcinogen. The point
is just like before, there was a chemical
reaction
that caused this chemical to release massive dioxins.
And
people got chloracne. There was all sorts of
terrible the point is they looked at it
40 years away
and said the people who had chloracne are
the ones that had acute exposure. They mapped
out what they looked at, what they dealt
with, and compared it to those that didn't
have chloracne. And the results were shocking.
And the point is you can look through
what we talked about in the last show
about immune suppression, all basically everything we just
read off in that study.
Now in this location,
it was an estimated 15 to 30 kilograms
of TCDD
over an 18 kilometer squared area. Now look
at what we just talked about. And especially
with Scott telling us that we're talking about
a minimum 12,500,000
chlorinated compounds in Georgia.
Now I know we're kind of going back
at the the Bakersfield point, which is to
highlight another example of more of these fires
that I can prove to you are at
some level releasing dioxins. The Georgia example, I'm
worried about because of how large it seems.
So if we know all the numbers we
just went through and this in the in
what is still regarded as one of the
top 10 environmental disasters, they had an estimated
15 to 30 kilograms, that's it, of dioxin
TCDD over an 18 kilometer squared area.
And today, we can't acknowledge that these objectively
larger disasters are you see the point? That's
why either
we have completely lost ourselves over the many
lesser of evil cycles or we are being
lied to deliberately, possibly both.
The other point,
it says the TCDD
level in and this is, again, going back
to Cebeso
from 1979,
I believe, remember correctly.
Yeah. 19 oh, excuse me. 1976.
Now as it says,
the TCD level the TCDD
level, that's the worst does that the most
dangerous thing in the world, dioxin,
in blood
averaged 20.2
parts per trillion,
and the levels of other dioxin like compounds
averaged 80.2 parts per trillion, resulting in an
average total dioxin equivalency
of a 100.4
parts per trillion.
So we're talking about and this, I think,
was
make sure I'm not getting the
timing. I thought that was in there. So
I I'll make sure I was gonna say
this was 20 years after, unless I'm misremembering
from the other post. So it says the
samples collected under 6 76 from female residents.
The levels okay. So it's at the time.
I think there's one coming up, I think
it's in the future. So just thinking about
the comparative point.
20.2. So again, coming back to this,
only 15 to 30 kilograms over an 18
kilometer squared area. That's all with how many
we already show or released in these past
examples?
And they're saying that back then, right after
that, with a lesser amount, they had 20.2
parts per trillion of of
of other dioxin like compounds,
an average of 80.2.
And the total equivalency was a 100.4 parts
per trillion. I mean, guys, I think this
is pretty objectively obvious.
Down here, it says also, TCDD levels were
measured in serum and blood collected almost 20
years. Oh, that okay. That's what it was.
20 years after the accident. For 62 different
people,
the geometric's
average blood TCD levels were significantly
higher in women. Oh, and this is the
point I was gonna make right here. Look
at this.
20 years later,
and they have 17.6 part per trillion for
women and 6.7 part per trillion than men
in their blood. So you realize right there,
that's higher,
shockingly higher, than what people are supposed to
have safe level from the WHO in a
general sense. And this is 20 years later.
And this is, I think, objectively smaller than
what we're dealing with over here. But remember,
these people didn't drop dead.
They were the ones that went on to
have reproductive issues, deformities, immune suppression, cancers,
because that's what we're really talking about.
So here, it's just an an article from
May 2020,
5 facts about dioxins, one of the most
toxic compounds on earth. And the reason they
frame it like that is because there's a
scale, TCDD being the most at the top.
But that's the point. That one is the
most. The rest of them are some of
the most in the world. And you can
read through this. This one included for you
to check out the fact that this is
just a public and known discussion that yet
people are don't care about, or some in
the government don't care most anyway. And this
goes back to to 1994.
The truth about dioxin.
National Wildlife Federation.
Now this is this is an important post
because what he's highlighting here
or she, Vicky Monks, is highlighting here
is the back and forth about this. So
let's be clear. Right now, it's not up
for debate.
The the even from the government, the reality
is dioxins are the are shockingly dangerous, specifically
that one we keep mentioning, t c d
d.
So keeping that in mind,
at this point, 1994, a year before that
CNN article, they're going they're talking about how
the New York Times will start trying to
muddy the waters.
Feels like they were serving the same purpose
back then. Coming out trying to go, no
worry. It's no worse than sunbathing.
And the point they make in here is
where'd that come from?
Clearly, we now know that's not true. And
even in the article, it turns out that
they later kind of admitted that. So where
did that come from? I think my point
here is that it shows you all the
way back then there was an effort to
try to ignore that. Now that, you know,
that could've just come from the companies that
were making chlorinated products. That's certainly possible.
But consider
that it whatever however you look at it,
that we're talking about an effort through The
New York Times and other media platforms that
did the same to downplay something that we
now know is the most dangerous thing in
existence. I mean, that is a shocking thing
to think about. 1994,
the subtitle, despite a slew of reassuring newspaper
art stories about dioxin,
scientific studies are finding that the chemical is
even worse than once thought.
So it says it says imagine a family
of toxic chemicals so widespread
that no one can escape exposure.
Industrial compounds that at low doses can disable
the immune system, promote cancer and other diseases,
and even cross the placental barrier to disrupt
embryonic
development.
Now consider that these chemicals are real
and that the US environmental the EPA is
releasing this summer a draft of a reassessment
of their measurable effects with results so worrisome
that the agency is expected to recommend tight
future controls on the chemicals. Remember, a year
later,
we'll show you this discussion with CNN where
they kicked the can down the road. Well,
they were going super dangerous, but chlorine companies
were pushing back, so we have to do
some more studies.
And we know what happened.
So what's important to highlight here is that
even this point, it was already feigning action.
EPA was already going, don't, but we have
a better report. It shows it's dangerous, but
we have to you know?
Showing how long they've known about this
and continue to either cover it up or
been told to continue doing it. However you
wanna look at it or allowing it rather.
Given given all that it says, the EPA's
expected tough stance would seem to be reassuring
news.
Yet convincing the public of a need for
costly controls may not be easy. That's because
during the past 3 years,
newspapers and magazines around the country published numerous
stories
overlooking the science involved and discounting the danger
of exposure to the most toxic substance in
the group, specifically TCDD,
commonly known as dioxin.
So the point they're making is that even
those who are coming out, there was corporate
media
that was sticking its finger into this and
trying to downplay the risks.
As, you know, Sarban, if you wanna look,
I think that's the role that these platforms
have played.
Now it says, where have those stories come
from? And who's right?
The answers serve as a wake up call
to journalists and editors.
You could change the way you read the
newspaper.
And could change the way you read the
newspaper, which I think we're all there today.
Nearly everyone living in industrialized society has been
exposed to dioxin.
It's important to think about. It's the truth.
And we don't wanna acknowledge that today, it
seems.
Until the summer of 1991, news stories generally
referred to dioxin as the most dangerous of
man made chemicals.
That's the case. It and this again so
that's clear to point out that before this
weird pushback, it was already pretty acknowledged how
dangerous this was. Now it says its discovery,
and this is an old story we've mentioned
in the past that you can look up,
on it discovered dioxins, specifically TCDD, on local
roads in Missouri.
They completely closed down the town of Times
Beach because of this.
So think about the difference today. And this
is a a far smaller example of this
problem compared to even East Palestine or the
others.
Now it says its detection in rivers and
fish had been cause for alarm.
When 1988
tests found dioxin in Florida's,
Fen Holloway, for example,
activists posted a warning sign, and it says
dioxin is no longer detectable in the water.
In the laboratory, dioxin had induced cancer in
animals
at far smaller doses than any other chemical
cancer causing chemical, and it had proved to
be more than 11,000
times
more potent than the deadly poison sodium cyanide
in killing guinea pigs.
Think about how crazy obvious this is before
they pushed back from the New York Times.
Now it says then on oct August 15th
90 9 August 15th 1991,
New York Times reporter Keith Schneider
wrote a front page story with the assertion
that exposure to dioxin, quote,
is now considered by some experts to be
no more risky than spreading spending a week
sunbathing.
Think about that. Now again, remember, we know
that's not true today. And even that's the
that's the ultimate point at the end of
the article.
So this guy came out
and just,
excuse me, pushed this story. Now, you could
argue he didn't know he's wrong, but the
point is he gets to the point where
he can prove at the end that he
did but didn't follow-up on it.
So where did it come from?
Is it as simple to point out that
chlorine companies push them or influence somebody to
get certainly possible?
But I want you to ask if it
could be bigger than that, which is usually
an indication when something like the New York
Times comes out and pushes a completely false
story.
It says other papers ran their own similar
reports and editorials that lambasted scientists for encouraging
the government to waste money on dealing with
dioxins.
Now this is the point of how the
propaganda multiplier works. We've talked about that before.
Let me see if I can get that
to pop up.
Yep. Doesn't look like it.
I'll look at it later. I I have
a story, a a I think a clip
we did where I discussed what's called the
propaganda multiplier. And it simply talks about the
groups like Reuters and AP and how they
just dump out like newswire stuff and then
the corporate media just gobbles it up, puts
it back out. Most of the time, they
don't even look at it. They don't not
half the time, they even don't even point
out that it came from them.
And it just it just trickles down and
then from them or, like, the New York
Times run something from them and then the
smaller platforms do it and we see how
that works today. And that's the point they
make in this, that ultimately, all these smaller
papers, at least 20 major newspapers around the
country, just reprinted the New York Times story,
which which shows you everything right there. It's
a false story. We can prove that. They
just repeated it because they knew they could.
Despite the flurry of attention, Schneider's conclusions about
dioxin risk then and in order store in
in other stories for nearly 3 years
had a major flaw.
They were wrong.
Many experts in and outside of the federal
government have said all along that there has
been no scientific basis for suggesting that dioxin
is less dangerous than previously thought. It says,
quote, I don't think we have any indication
right now that the risk would be lower
than we believed,
said William Farland from one of the EPA
officials in charge of the reassessment of dioxin
in 1992.
But Schneider continued to downplay dioxin's dangers and
overlooked research until a May 11, 1994
story about an EPA reassessment.
Now again, this is a good point to
make about why not every individual within these
entities are always I mean, who knows for
sure? Maybe that's he was playing a role
to keep it obfuscated. But usually, you find
the examples of EPA or CDC people that
are more lower down that don't realize they're
part of a corrupt organization.
And that's who I'm speaking to when I
talk about this. Say something. If you see
a problem, speak up.
Because I hope you start to realize that
they're not in the interest of trying to
find out the solution. You may be, so
make a difference.
Now it says Newsday's
Earl Lane reported that the panel, which reviews
drafts of the EPA re EPA reassessment of
dachshund, which the only reason like, why would
he even need the reassessment? Like, this is
what's so funny about it, is that ultimately,
they already had the argument that it was
bad. Then you get this random article from
New York Times which trickles through all the
media, which triggers a reassessment. It just doesn't
it's the same thing as the fluoride dynamic.
We don't need
why we get driven by propaganda that what
I guess here's the best way to put
it. It shows you what drives the conversation.
Not the fact based research that they've claimed
they've done, but the propaganda that they respond
to, which is exactly the point.
But it says,
the report, which reviewed drafts of the EPA
reassessment of dioxin, had found, quote, that the
chemical's effects may be broader and more troubling
than previously thought, which is the truth.
Schneider's September 26th story also was also picked
up by other newspapers, including the Kansas City
Star, which put it on the front page
under the headline, quote, scientists say dioxin is
no big threat. Think about that.
4 days later, a correction acknowledged that the
headline might have been understated.
It might have understated the potential effects of
the vaccine.
So think about how crazy that is that
you could put that headline out and then
quietly put out a retraction or a correction,
and most people don't see that. All because
the Kansas City Star did not have the
wherewithal to recognize that they couldn't just blindly
follow what the New York Times said or
didn't care.
In 1982,
the CDC found some of the highest levels
of dioxin in the region in Times Beach
in Missouri. The federal government bought out the
town's property owners,
which by the way is another point to
make. Maybe that was used then for a
land grab. Certainly possible.
More than 2,000 people moved and the town
closed down in early 1983 at a cost
of approximately $30,000,000.
So think about that kind of an action
for something that was objectively smaller than East
Palestine, and yet you don't even hear the
word dioxin mentioned till they're forced to acknowledge
it.
Does that sound like a cover up to
you? It does to me. The point
is that we have to consider, like, I
I I'm curious if you're out there and
you have any more insight on this. Right?
What is there any more that we should
know about Times Beach? Is there something the
government did there after the fact? Let us
know.
Vernon Ho Hooke, or h o u k,
is the name. I'll say Hooke.
Then an assistant surgeon general at the CDC
was one of the federal officials who recommended
the buyout. In May 1991,
however, Houk had told a Columbia, Missouri conference
on environmental health that he believed Times Beach
residents
never should have moved.
This is what's get this now this is
very interesting. Because one, you can show that
he was aware of this before, then something
happened. Some influence happened, and then he pushed
back. Well, they that was a mistake to
make them move.
But you'll see where this ends up.
So what the the common denominator here is
that you can see a threat,
and then somebody pulls a string and gets
people in positions of power or the New
York Times or somebody to push back on
that and lie. Now we know today that
they were wrong. But so where that that's
the point he makes earlier. Who did that?
Who's pulling strings?
Is it just your government? Is it corporate
is the lobbyist group? I don't know.
Somebody had the interest of trying to hide
this then just like they are now, and,
clearly, they succeeded today. People don't even know
what this is, and still, despite all this
coverage.
Now it
says, who told the, the writer
told this writer, the person writing this article,
in early 1993
that new research was showing dioxin to be,
quote, not especially harmful to man.
In April 1991,
1 month before HOOQ's speech, the EPA announced
it would reevaluate dioxin's risks.
Months later on December 3rd, another New York
Times reporter covering a lawsuit wrote that, quote,
some experts now say the ex that exposure
to the chemical is no more risky than
a week of tanning.
And more than a year later, on October
14, 1992,
Financial Times reporter Peter Knight wrote that, quote,
last year, a US report described the danger
from dioxins as no more harmful than a
week of Sunday. So it just trickles down.
It says, quote, it was my metaphor, Schneider
said in 1992 interview with his with the
writer of this article.
He says, quote, I still think it's absurd,
says Richard Clapp, a professor of at Boston
University School of Public Health, who has studied
dioxin and other health risks. He says even
Hooke,
who recently retired from the CDC,
said the analogy is inappropriate.
So you get older, you retire, and you
kinda walk it back. Something was driving this.
While there is legitimate debate over the exact
degree of risk of the risk dioxin poses,
no scientist contend that dioxins are safe.
Cancer is still a major concern.
But even more troubling are new studies, this
is 1994,
showing that adverse showing other adverse effects. Researchers
at the EPA and the university laboratories in
several countries have found persuasive
evidence in animals
and humans
that even tiny amounts of dioxin
can skew
critical chemical balances that are necessary for normal
growth, especially in developing
embryos,
even tiny amounts. So think about it from
the again, back to Katherine's point.
So this is even more indiscernible. So you
take you take a tiny release or something
that nobody even notices. You have a chemical
plant that burns, and then somehow within 100
of miles around this area,
anybody that was pregnant, anybody
embryos are suddenly
in some way hurt.
They were it it skews the chemical balance
that are necessary for normal growth.
So how that can very clearly amount to
a reduction in lifespan for that embryo, for
the woman holding them, for their children after
that.
So you can disregard that that's the connection.
My point is simply to show how obvious
it is that this continues to line up
in that direction.
And why why no one wants to acknowledge
this today?
Even tiny amounts
can have these effects.
EPA's chief researcher on the dioxin reassessment, toxicologist
Linda,
Birnbaum,
explains that cells respond to dioxin as if
it were a hormone
sending wrong messages. Funny how many things like
that line up in the same direction.
The confused cells keep dividing when they should
stop,
Fail to grow when they should continue or
turn into different types of cells altogether.
That sounds pretty crazy. Mutagenic or mutinogenic.
Dioxin is a very potent growth dysregulator,
says this expert.
She's a toxicologist.
A Dutch study published in November 1993
found that infants exposed to dioxin from their
mother's breast milk
produced excess thyroid hormones,
which could retard development of the central nervous
system and cause
psychomotor
problems.
2 years earlier, the same group of researchers
at the University of Amsterdam discovered a relationship
between intracranial bleeding in newborn babies and high
levels of dioxin exposure before birth.
The researchers think the mothers were exposed to
dioxin in much the same way everyone in
industrialized countries are exposed
primarily
through contamination in food. Again, reiterating this article
from 1994.
Now recognize
this, which we'll come back to in a
minute again,
important study that shows you long range air
transport of dioxins from North American sources, that's
Canada and the United States,
into vulnerable receptors in Nunavut Arctic Canada.
And again and by the way, I'm I'm
I'm I've been saying around 200 miles. The
point is in this study, the people in
this location don't have a dioxin a source,
a a a prominent source within 200 miles.
It's actually 313 miles. It's 500 kilometers.
And the point is that with despite having
no serious dioxin sources within 313 miles, if
I remember the exact number correctly,
specifically 500 kilometers,
they are still getting
dangerous levels in their breast milk from North
American sources. What about the people that live
right next to these sources in North America?
Guess we don't talk about that.
That's that's crazy to me. And so that,
where were we? Right here, is what we're
talking about. Is that they're simply talking about
low levels of this. And and what these
these women
who are having
intracranial bleeding in newborn babies and high levels
of vaccine exposure before birth are dealing with
the same
amount
that everybody industrialized countries are exposed to.
Do you get do you begin to see
why they don't want to acknowledge this problem?
I mean, they're not this is talk about
a class action lawsuit. This is earth shattering.
It says in 1993, University of Heidelberg study
reported that people who ingested
high doses of dioxin in vegetables grown on
contaminated soil
suffered verbal and psychomotor
problems.
Irritability, emotional instability. Kinda sounds like an autism
overlap. Not to say that that's the same
thing. My point is that these things get
conflated.
Children that are, you know, just in some
way suppressed like this, they just chalk it
up to some kind of emotional behavior problem,
and this is where one huge overlap is
coming from that nobody even talks about. You
bring up dioxins to your doctor, they don't
even know what you're talking about.
The symptoms mere cognitive deficits
found in dioxin exposed monkeys and other animals.
See, it's so obvious the there's science that
backs up the connection point to these being
done and these exact byproducts
to the levels that we experience right now,
not even the big disasters.
Other studies also find evidence that humans and
study animals
react to dioxins in similar ways. The EPA's
burn bomb points to an ongoing National Institute
of Occupational Safety and Health study of workers
exposed to high levels of dioxin.
Men in that study and rats in other
research show comparable decreases in levels of circulate
circulating testosterone
in response to dioxin, specifically.
Increases in cancer found that the NIOSH,
again, that's the National Institute of Occupational Safety
and Health,
the study therein are also very close to
the rate of cancer
among animals exposed to comparable levels of toxins.
What a coincidence.
So we have the same comparable amounts. I
wonder if it's because, I don't know, we're
confronted with the same problem.
Nah, that's crazy talk, Ryan. The obvious, provable
thing that we know is there is totally
not causing the thing other studies show it
can cause because that'd be crazy conspiracy theory.
Right?
It says in Taiwan,
make sure I missed that last part. Yeah.
In Taiwan,
women who ate rice oil
contaminated with PCBs
or PCDS, which is lower levels of the
same problem, in 1979
gave birth to children who suffered developmental
delays and growth retardation.
Their IQs averaged 5 points below normal. Researchers
are finding that many of the boys who
are just reaching sexual maturity
have abnormally small penises.
This is exactly what we're talking about.
Suppression of all sorts of things. And these
are lower levels, guys.
It says and again, we're talking about rice
contaminated. You have to realize,
16 states across, you just got high levels
of dioxins that are in the soil now.
Now that may not re translate ultimately to
very high levels in this food, but you
are having some Passover and it accumulates.
So when you just have a generally I
mean, any number of these things to a
lesser degree.
The weird the the hormonal issues that cause
all things we just discussed, or the mental
issues, not being able to speak properly, not
being able to all of these things. Nobody
would associate that with these problems.
EPA's Dioxin Reassessment
Panel
has concluded that the combined effects of all
dioxin like chemicals
must be considered in evaluating dioxin's risk. So
even that makes it even crazier, because we're
talking about the lower level aspects, but also
what they call dioxin like chemicals, which are
kind of a in the same ballpark, and
that's the point they make. Is those are
when you do the assessment, those have to
be included
to find the full risk.
So not only are they not talking about
dioxins in general,
but obviously then that means they're not including
the other ones that are also supposed to
be included when actually sussing out the risk.
So do we think the EPA that refused
to have acknowledged the actions in East Palestine
once finally pointed to them, then actually brought
that out to of course not.
Despite it coming from the EPA.
Now it says even the small amounts of
these chemicals that most people have in their
bodies
may be enough to trigger developmental or immunological
effects. Make sure you just heard that.
In
1994, and this is all the all the
source material, the links, it's all in the
show.
Even the small amounts that we all have
in our bodies,
or rather most people, I would argue is
pretty ubiquitous today,
are enough to trigger developmental or immunological effects.
According to Birnbaum, the current dietary intake of
dioxin and closely related compounds may be, quote,
very close to the danger zone in 1994.
And remember, we just showed you, it's been
expend it's been increasing ever since. And right
now, are markedly on the rise.
And so they're saying back then, the current
amount may be very close to the danger
zone. So we're if that's the case, we're
over that by now, without question.
If current human levels are at or near
the point where effects are occurring,
that means we don't have any kind of
margin of safety,
especially now that we're beyond that point. Right?
And there certainly are people in the population
who are way above that level.
Wouldn't it seem like something Americans should know
about?
Especially from a group that's claims to be
working out for your environmental protection?
Quote, we've never said in the New York
Times that dioxin is not dangerous,
Schneider told a group of journalists last fall.
So a couple years later, he's going, I
know. I didn't say that. Well, you did,
though, and it's very easy to prove. He
told this writer, the person writing this article
in spring of 1993, that his conclusion in
March of 1993
was that, quote, new research indicates that dioxin
may not be so dangerous after
all. And that apparently only refers to dioxin
cancer causing potential, not other health effects. Quite
the sidestep.
So just so it's clear, even in his
follow-up, he has to admit that they are
very dangerous and tries to dispute or dis
differentiate between specific things.
Now, it was pretty clear they were saying
not dangerous after all. Not not as bad
as sunbathing.
And it says, the article, however, fails to
make that point.
On May 11, 1994,
Schneider reported in The Times that he had
obtained a draft of the EPA reassessment.
And for the first time, he detailed studies
showing dioxin's effects on developing embryos and on
the immune and reproductive systems. So for years,
many people went along with this not being
a problem because they said so in the
New York Times. Now here's the same writer
admitting that there is a problem. It says,
but as for cancer, this is crazy. He
wrote that the draft called into question Jackson's
reputation as a deadly killer of people.
According to Lynn Goldman, EPA assistant administrator for
prevention,
pest, pesticides and toxic substances,
nothing in the draft supported the observation.
So even after this, they're still trying to
kind of sidestep some of these problems. So
so something
is driving this. Why would these random people
have this interest in trying to hide the
facts?
It says it's not in there, she said
in May. The report reaffirms that dioxin is
a probable cause of cancer in humans. Now
it says whether or not its cancer risk
is less than once thought, according to CDC
health scientist Mark McClanahan,
dioxin
is the most potent
cancer causing chemical ever tested.
That's from a CDC health scientist
in 1994.
I'm willing to bet you won't hear that
from them today.
It is the
most potent cancer causing chemical ever tested, at
least in 1994.
It is 1,000, he says, of times more
powerful than most other chemicals that cause cancers
in animals.
Even the lowest cancer risk estimates for rats
suggested by industry studies rate dioxin, get this,
nearly 2,000,000
times stronger than benzene.
One of a handful of known human carcinogens.
2,000,000
times more
dangerous in a cancer causing sense, according to
a CDC health scientist.
But we're all crazy. Right? Vernon Houck, whose
views on dioxin to have been controversial since
the early 19 eighties when the CDC began
investigating Agent Orange health claims,
once wrote that dioxin again, I argue that
was a test, both the use of a
chemical weapon for their own purposes under the
guise of removing
foliage,
but then also wanting to know what it
did.
So that's your government has done this
at every opportunity, it seems, if you look
back in history. To you as well.
But it says they wrote that dioxin, quote,
may be without consequence,
even in very high dose exposure to humans.
You know why? Because that's not what they
found. We can prove what actually happened to
people that suffered this in Vietnam. They did
this because they had just used it on
a bunch of civilians.
That's my opinion, obviously. But my point is
you can prove that wasn't the case now.
Now it says during a 1990 congressional investigation,
Houk acknowledged under oath that he had written
those words in a letter urging Canada to
relax dioxin standards.
Why?
Who drove him to do that?
Now it says he is now too ill
for interviews.
But he told this writer last year, quote,
no one in their right mind would make
that statement. I clearly believe that dioxin is
harmful at high levels, and it is at
every level, guys.
But think about that shift. So what he's
dying and now he changes tune? Who was
driving this?
That's very important to think about.
Hooks views apparently were the basis for a
New York Times editorial claiming that, quote, federal
officials now believe they have overreacted
in setting extremely low exposure limits for dioxins
and in prematurely evacuating all the residents of
Times Beach. All of that's fake. We know
that for a fact today. Not fake, which
incorrect.
But my point is that even after this,
they were still going back and forth trying
to downplay the information. It's this is ongoing
today as far as I can tell.
Now it says,
he has also shaken their he he has
also shaken the reporting community.
And this the the going this is now
the point is that they've today, Schreiter specifically
or Schneider,
admits that they made a mistake.
Now it says in the same newsletter, USA
Today environmental editor, Ray Tyson,
pointed out that healthy skepticism has always been
a part of good journalism.
It's like saying 1 +1 equals 2. It's
like, obviously, objectivity. But it says, but he
wrote, quote, I think Schneider messed up. Oh,
this the quote it's it's hold on. Let
me read all the way through. And not
because he questioned a time honored premise, but
because he relied on some questionable science to
prove his point. Therein lies a lesson for
all who strive to understand the real environmental
hazards of our world. So maybe the doctrine
confusion, that's a very generous word right there,
can serve a purpose after all for journalists
and readers alike, to recognize how easy it
is to be misled by fake information in
the media.
Now, I I guess I didn't grab it.
The point is is you could read through
this because we obviously know that wasn't true
today. That's a fact. You can prove it.
And in this, as you even saw one
already, Schneider essentially walks this back as he
as he continues to talk about this.
So here
is the CNN article, 1 year later.
K. Despite all of that, here's what CNN
reported in 1995.
Dioxins may be creating a larger problem down
the road.
And the point again is to show that
dioxins are become airborne
and travel 1,000 of miles away. So whether
it's Bakersfield, whether it is East Palestine or
Conyers, Georgia,
that's what's happening with things just like this.
It's ease easily proven. It's not true because
CNN said so. It's true because it is
true. And that today, they wouldn't say it.
Like, I mean, they have they have this
background. They know it's there. Why aren't they
saying it today?
Same reason New York Times tried to lie
about it, in my opinion. Now it says
a Big Mac or Pizza Hut personal pan
pizza
or 3 pieces of Kentucky chicken gave us
about 8 to a 150 times more dioxins
than the EPA feels would be safe. Now
we just went over those levels.
8 times what we're talking about with all
we just saw is shocking. But a 150
times the safe level? Well, we just read
what that can do.
That's crazy to me. And that's in the
food you're eating. Back in 1995.
And the point is, he goes on to
highlight, the restaurants can't help it. Dioxins have
had years to build up in the food
chain. Yeah. That's what we just pointed out.
And I just made clear, they know about
that. And they've just done nothing to stop
it.
That's why the EPA wants to change the
standards, but they did not as far as
I can tell.
It says, it recently said even lower levels
of dioxins can hurt us by weakening our
immunities or attacking our reproductive system.
But even though they just said that, even
in this report, it says the EPA's review
board thinks that they might be too restrictive.
Think about that. As we're acknowledging the problems,
we're going, but, well, we don't wanna restrict
it too much. Clearly, they care about your
health.
Now you could there's more read this whole
interview. I've gone over it many times. One
of the main points at the end is
simply the idea that they highlight that, well,
the chlorine companies push back.
Where it says, right here. It says, and
the chlorine industry believes that each one should
be tested and judged separately.
Right? So we recognize from a comp from
a from an industry standpoint or rather an
institution standpoint, your only job being the may
the environmental protection and and health.
And you find a problem that is acutely
dangerous, you can prove it, and you bow
to the corporate interests that say, well, let's
let's test them individually and come down to
well, there's just logic to that that you
shouldn't just buy the point is it's not
about individual products, it's about chlorine, which they
knew then.
And guess what? Because they pushed back and
bowed to corporate interest, nothing happened. As we
can see today, it's getting markedly worse.
Now last few points. It's important for us
to remember what Steven Lesher said Lester, excuse
me,
said
over a year ago about east Palestine.
Here's the real reason the EPA doesn't wanna
test for toxins, specifically dioxins, at east Palestine.
He says it's well documented that burning chlorinated
chemicals like vinyl chloride or just chlorine
will generate dioxins.
Quote, dioxin is the name given to a
group of persistent, very toxic chemicals
that share similar similar chemical structures.
The most toxic form of dioxin, 2378,
or I'll just say TCDD because that's a
hard one to pronounce. TCDD
is more commonly recognized
as the toxic contaminant found in Agent Orange,
Love Canal, New York, and Times Beach, Missouri.
Both sites of 2
of the most tragic environmental catastrophes
in the US. And realize, again, you can
prove that some of these locations are objectively
smaller than what we're talking about today.
So there is a willful disregard right there.
A willful ignorance.
It says dioxin is I mean, even in
the Guardian, this guy's writing about it during
East Palestine saying they know it and they're
ignoring it. And he this guy is an
expert. He's this is what he does. We've
talked about the past, him testing.
Now it says, ted dioxin
is deliberate is not deliberately
manufactured. Well, that's up generally speaking, but I
would argue they've done this in the past
for weapons, which we've already proven. They've used
this to try to kill a president in
Ukraine in the past.
It is the unintended byproduct of industrial processes
that use or burn chlorine.
That's by and large. Right? 80% of which
come from specifically g 20 countries, most of
which comes to the United States and Canada
as far as I understand it.
And the point is that this is all
something as being that we could ultimately stop.
Now it says the organization I work for,
he writes, this is Steven, the Center For
Health, Environment, and Justice has worked for community
with communities affected by dioxins for already over
40 years.
We have seen the impact of exposure to
dioxins in communities from Love Canal to Times
Beach to Pensacola, Florida. And now we are
asking,
why isn't EPA testing for dioxins in East
Palestine?
And then this was on this is the
date March 2nd.
And he says, are dioxins present in the
soil downwind from the site of the accident?
Well, yeah, we know that now. Yes. 100%.
He says, one person who lived 15 miles
away described
burned ash material from the fire that settled
on her property.
Again, 16 states across, we now know.
Another who lived 3 miles away described how
the black cloud completely smothered his property.
These are important questions that deserve to be
answered. But it's just simply saying what's going
on with farm animals and so on, kids
playing. Today, there are no clear answers,
which is wild still, by the way.
He says why?
He answers his question, because no one has
done any testing for dioxins anywhere in his
Palestine, which eventually they they claimed they did.
The numbers they showed were embarrassingly small compared
to what every independent expert found. So I
they meet I argued they either didn't or
manipulated
it. But at this point, they hadn't, which
is wild to think about. Because they knew
it was there and didn't, which makes my
point. And he's backing that up.
And he says no one
No one is testing for dioxin in this
policy. No one. And it seems that the
EPA is uninterested in testing for dioxins, behaving
as though dioxin is no big deal. No.
I argued they were pretending it didn't exist,
acting like they didn't even know what it
was, telling the doctors at the hospital to
not give them those tests.
This makes no sense, he writes. Testing for
dioxin,
a highly toxic substance, should have been one
of the first things to look for,
especially in the air once the decision was
made to burn vinyl chloride to bullets. Remember,
that wasn't how that worked.
Wasn't a controlled burn. It wasn't a decision.
It was a railroading, no pun intended, of
the local fire chief. As he said himself,
as we'll highlight with this article,
investigation
found East Palestine, quote, controlled burn was unnecessary.
The no Norfolk lied.
Allan Shaw himself in this court proceeding, it
it came out that his expert admitted this
was treated vinyl chloride and most likely would
not explode.
And then they told the fire chief everything
but that. And then
pressured him to make a rapid decision without
knowing that, which ultimately decided to blow it
up. And that gain I think that was
exactly what they wanted.
Either way, as I just showed yesterday, they're
like, we've got 49 new people working with
us, so you were doing great. Seems like
they benefited in the long run,
which blows my mind.
Either way, whatever you think about how it
went down, the point was that this was
a deliberate choice that didn't need to happen.
Whether it was for greed or some other
larger cover up.
So as he's talking about this,
this says that they the air, decision was
made to burn the vinyl chloride. That didn't
have to happen. And that is where the
disaster truly came from. It says there is
no question that dioxins were formed in the
vinyl chloride fire. No question. That's my point.
You have to realize how undeniable that is.
That's why I'm saying it about the other.
When you burn chlorine in the fire, it's
not a question of if, it's about how
much.
That's what Scott is saying as well. And
so they chose to pretend it wasn't there.
Now it says they would have formed on
that particulate matter, the black soot, in the
cloud that was so clearly visible at the
time of the burn. Now the question is
how much is in the soil where people
live in and around East Palestine, which they're
not talking about today. That was the soil
that we're shipping all over the country.
Without testing, no one will know, and the
people who live there will remain in the
dark, uncertain about their fate.
Now, I'll grab these really quickly for you
as well.
Or at least just this one. I don't
wanna have to search for the rest of
them. Because this is an important one. Again,
doing doing my due diligence and actually calling
these places I've referenced earlier, have them on
the phone, on the record. The all the
links are in there. You can download it
for yourself, which I speak to Clean Harbors.
And this is entitled the Clean Harbors Waste
Disposal Ohio scandal.
And they admit on the record that they
did not have what was necessary for what
we knew was there.
So they spread this all over the place.
Whether it's and and even Scott alluded to
Clean Harbors being some sort of central part
and some larger manipulation.
Now it says, it is important because of
the adverse health effects associated with exposure to
dioxins, which he knows about, and they do
too.
Exposure to dioxins can cause cancer, reproductive damage,
developmental problems, type 2 diabetes,
ischemic heart disease, infertility in adults, impairment in
the immune system, and skin lesions.
The EPA is very familiar with dioxins.
For more than 25 years, the agency evaluated
and assessed and then reassessed the risk posed
by exposure to toxins, but somehow don't know
about it today.
They published multiple draft reports on the health
effects caused by exposure to dioxins.
They published an inventory of dioxin sources and
devoted an enormous amount of time to studying
dioxins.
The agency knows this chemical very well, but
yet somehow
didn't know to bring it up.
Hardly.
There's no way in my mind to overlook
this, guys. It was a willful choice to
keep it from the discussion. So that that
that doesn't have to mean they didn't do
it. Maybe they were trying to solve it.
I don't think that. But, you know, who
knows? Maybe behind the scenes, they were doing
everything they could. But it still means they
lied to you about it. Didn't let you
make your choices to keep your family safe.
That's really important to understand.
He says, so why is EPA unwilling to
test for dioxins in the soil?
He says, this is exactly what I think.
My guess, he says, is because they know
they will find it.
And if they find it,
they'll have to address the many questions people
are asking.
Largely, how did this start? Why didn't you
do anything before? Why haven't you been telling
of course, when you dig into this, you
find everything we're talking about. Wait a minute.
Here's a study you're talking about this 20
years ago. Why didn't this was why wasn't
this the first thing you brought up?
Uh-oh. See how this cascading problem begins? Suddenly
you find out the government has been doing
things that they know produce it, and not
telling you. Covering things up, hiding disasters, not
bringing it up when we know it's a
problem. There's something much bigger here.
He says the people who live there in
this East Palestine, but same with Conyers and
Bakersfield and wherever else, need to know so
they can make informed decisions about their future
for the safety of their families.
But if you think for one second the
government is more concerned about your child's safety
over their agenda, I don't know what country
you think you're living in. Frankly, I don't
know what government in the world you think
you're living under because they're all the same
in my opinion.
But I'll end here
with, again, the reality that we know that
from East Palestine, it went 16 states across.
So when you're looking at pictures like this,
which was, I mean, look look at how
far this goes.
This is from, really graceful's
clip.
Look at that smoke, guys. That's from Colliers,
Georgia.
Look at how far that is. How long
this I mean, again, as
Scott was saying, this very well could be
the worst in history.
I really, really hope it's not the case.
I just want people in these locations to
be able to make their own decisions and
not hope. I mean, look at this. Look
at the inform like, that that is so
wild.
Lastly,
I'll include a clip that Jason just put
up for us on on, on Twitter
about Georgia. And it's a clip that we
went over from that last show about the
prolonged illness that's continuing, which does I think
you might even know oops. I think you
might be able to see it in here.
If it shows it really quickly, maybe not.
I was hoping they've caught the image of
the of the woman with her rash. It's
in there. I mean, watch for yourself. Just
showing you exactly what we're seeing. All the
signs, all the telltale signs of a real
problem are there.
Analyze and optimize an account that I'm I'm
not familiar with. I just saw this today
looking through for stuff online.
It says, oh, and this is from
September 2024.
Obesity causing chemicals in the environment.
BPA?
PFAS. I think it's phthal what was it
again?
Phthalates?
Or is it phthalates? I forget it. The
this the p h t a l a
t e's.
Parabens, MSG, glyphosate, atrazine, PVCs, DDT,
particulate matter, p h a PAH, we just
talked about, p d p PBDEs,
dioxins, and more.
They say it's not just the it's it's
not just the food.
The point is simply to highlight, this stuff
is everywhere. It's not just the one thing.
There's some this is what as Catherine points
to the great poisoning. There's something very clear.
And I it's bigger than just one thing.
Now, look. I hope. I hope, like with
the Floyd point, even if it's a a
byproduct of the worst thing that we still
need to point out and fight against, I
hope that RFK Junior has an effect on
this. We all should no matter how this
goes because that's a positive net effect. Now,
before the lesser of evil's ploy, my point's
the same. Even with that net, I still
wouldn't argue you lean into something you don't
want. That's a game. That's a ploy. You're
being tricked. But now that we're here and,
again, you know my point. I don't think
any of that translated the way you think
it did. I think it's all a game.
It doesn't have to be in a real
representative government. But today, I think that's where
we are. The point is that now, yes,
we should hope for any positive benefit.
But very much beyond guard for how that
could hide larger things from you. Now, I'm
gonna get more into that in the pre
in the in cup coming shows and continue
to follow-up on the people that are being
put in position and foreign policy dynamic. But
I really do think this is important for
us to highlight for much larger reasons. Natural
immunity FTW
writes organic and non organic aren't good enough
anymore. We need a food testing program that
tests for PFAS,
phthalates or phthalates, PCBs, dioxins, heavy metals. I
mean, all this stuff
Not run by the government.
Thank you. I don't care whether it's the
government you like.
It's still the government, guys. And it's amazing
that we have to even make that point
today. How because we've digressed so many ways.
We need to make sure that this is
not done by the same entity that might
be influenced by lobbyists or their own personal
interests or whatever else, which is always where
we end up.
The point is that I'm glad to see
that more people are beginning to come away,
like, addressing whether seed oils.
Start there. Go in, but dive into how
dangerous and obvious and almost willful this all
seems to be.
And I'll end with this point, which I
should think is absurd. Same point we just
made about the other McDonald's thing.
Comrade Misty simply says, make America healthy again,
effing clown, s h I t. And this
is Donald Trump and Elon Musk. And I'm
just on a side point. Is it just
me or is almost everything I keep seeing
with RFK junior with this group?
It's like he's like a hostage.
Look at his face on these things, on
all of them. It looks like he's, like,
there against his will almost. I mean, not
just the way his face looks. It seems
strange. But here they are on a plane,
eating McDonald's. And RFK's face seems pained.
I don't know why Mike Johnson is there,
but the point is that they're all eating
McDonald's. And clearly, yeah, good. No one's saying
you can't go out and get bad food.
Okay? No one is saying that. But if
we're really pushing this idea that you're trying
to make America healthy again and lean I
personally,
I can eat plenty of bad things, and
I would never touch that stuff. When I
was younger, sure. But we have to realize
how shockingly bad these things are for you.
Whether it's the hormones, whether it's the seed
oils, whether there's god knows what else. Microplastics.
These things are really bad for you.
And look. My point is not that yeah.
We maybe make it better. Fine. How about
we just get rid of those things? Now
I'm not saying we shouldn't be allowed to
exist. Be there. But don't allow these things
to be leaned into by the government like
Trump during COVID 19 because there's a point
there about how that's being overlapped.
Let the market decide. Then, yeah, these things
will still exist, obviously. But the point is
that what we're leaning into is constantly showing
the wrong direction.
I just want you to stand back and
think about whether it's a small point or
not, the reality of whether this is truly
direction. Now maybe RFK wants the right direction,
but do the rest of them? Is that
gonna be allowed to happen? We have yet
to see. Nothing has truly happened yet until
we see these positions start, and what it
really looks like, and whether RFK has given
some data, and they, you know, whatever the
the game is played. Just because Trump doubled
down on the HHS doesn't mean it has
happened yet. So let's wait and see. And
hold our judgment. And, really, the main point
at the end is that even those that
support this administration were past the election
fervor, the psychotic nature of these election processes.
Now they're there.
So this game where we act like we
have to hold back criticism because it might
make why is that still happening? Because you
know what it shows you? That they don't
care about the truth.
They're arguing that anything bad against him, we
have to hide or push back on because
it hurts hurts what? They're in power already.
Anybody on us who actually cares about the
good of the country and not just team
sport politics would be holding them to account
more than anybody.
Because that's how it's supposed to work. Even
the one the ones that you believe in
should be held to a higher standard.
So when you see them continually taking bad
steps, call it out, which a lot of
Republicans and conservatives are starting to do. Thank
god.
So we will follow-up more. Graveyard pirates said,
in my opinion, there is zero chance this
wasn't a planned photo op to inspire a
response, and they knew 100%
what that response would be. He says this
is nothing short of mocking their supporters. They
will be mocking you all the way to
the biomet digital ID CBDC.
I happen to agree. But please decide for
yourself.
So I think it's important that we can
we
take time to really try to break this
stuff down. And, you know, don't take my
opinions on this stuff.
I mean, I'm I'm basing it on what
I believe the research shows.
But the only I mean, the core point
is just that it's happening, that we know
that.
From East Palestine to Georgia to Bakersfield or
any number of other examples we've already talked
about. Richmond, I think, was one as well.
These things are provable biopsies and releases. Now
just a small amount that we already highlighted
is very dangerous.
The fact that they're not even willing to
acknowledge that, let alone test for it. And
again, actually going back to what Scott said
in the beginning.
Remember, this is now happening now in Georgia.
He's saying again, they're not just not they're
refusing
to test for what we know as a
fact
was released.
And really,
more of a provable example than anything I've
ever seen. More than Cebeso, more than East
Palestine, literal chlorine burned in a plant
with plastic I mean, everything about this is
a perfect storm for one of the most
potentially the worst we've seen. If but at
the very least, is still a problem that
should be addressed, and no one's even talking
about that. And now they're refusing to do
it yet again.
I think there's something very, very dark happening
here. But all I want you guys to
see is that this is a problem that
needs to be acknowledged so we can deal
with it. It's as simple as that. The
rest of it, you can decide for yourselves.
But don't jump to conclusions. We need to
wait for facts to prove this. But in
my opinion, right now, there's enough on the
table.
Aside from whatever larger conspiracy may be driving
what you think is happening or what is
driving it.
Right now, we can see enough that should
be these people should be in charge there
should be accountability right now for what they've
allowed to happen. The willful disregard of the
health in just these three locations.
That's enough right now to get somebody,
hold somebody accountable.
But typically, we tend to look for the
bigger story, which we should. But let's not
miss the forest for the trees. Right here,
this needs to be solved.
So hopefully, we can get this momentum going.
Reach out to people. Talk about it. Make
some clips. Tag me in it. I'll share
it myself.
So thank you for tuning in today, guys.
I appreciate your time and your support. We
need your support as always. There's more coming
our way with all that's coming on. I
believe I've got my first date here coming
up next month,
which I'm gonna, you know, like, lawsuit stuff
and it's gonna be
overwhelmingly frustrating.
But that aside, I mean, honestly, I I
hate even bringing that. The point is that
if you want if you believe in what
we're doing,
what I do on this show, what Derek
writes about, what I mean, even in the
in the connective points, Whitney and Derek and
everybody else in their own play. Well, if
you believe in what the IMA is doing,
if you believe in what we're trying to
do here,
support all of us.
Support t lab support. Well, I mean, support
the people that you think are are acting
from an honest place. Even if they make
mistakes, which we all do, if we're honest,
but support the people that you think are
actually trying to build the world that you
want, not just pointing at things and taking
different steps. So I think it's an important
time not to choose sides as much as
that's always happening, but to acknowledge what you
can prove and
support the people that seem to be acting
with good intention, not just acting an agenda
in the interest of the larger political game.
So thank you for tuning in. I love
you all. As always, question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.