Search Results

Watch the cinema here. Commentary “The Man Who Knew Too Much: Spies, Fake News, and Disinformation.” (NTD) An insightful documentary about the cloak and dagger world of intelligence agencies. There aren’t a lot of documentaries out there that reveal the inner workings of British intelligence operations in Northern Ireland during the Cold War. Directed by Michael Oswald, the 2020 film “The Man Who Knew Too Much: Spies, Fake News, and Disinformation” changes that trend with an excellent expose of that murky world through one particular British spy’s life—a man named Colin Wallace. The documentary begins in Northern Ireland, where long-running tensions had risen to a boiling point in 1969. Rampant violence broke out between Protestants loyal to the British Crown, and Catholics, as well as communists linked to the paramilitary organization known as the Irish Republican Army (IRA). As a response to this civil unrest, an information warfare department known officially as the Information Research Department, or IRD, was set up inside the British Army’s Northern Ireland headquarters at Lisburn. The IRD was a clandestine Cold War department within the British Foreign Office. Colin Wallace, a young British Army officer at the time, was tapped to join the IRD because of his extreme intelligence and dedication to duty. He became the Assistant Information Officer for the IRD’s new office at the Thiepval Barracks in Lisburn. The IRD had full access to the British press, including its various publications. Therefore, since Northern Ireland was one of the “most surveilled” areas in the world in the 1960s and 70s, the IRD, via the press, could report on suspected IRA members, as well as communist infiltrators. The communists were believed to have come over directly from the Soviet Union to aid the IRA in its various operations. However, the IRA was also adept at intelligence and counter-propaganda, and through various means, began to frame the IRD as being vicious thugs who tortured suspects that they’d detained. But Wallace, having grown up in Ireland and being familiar with the IRA’s various tricks, dismissed these allegations of brutality. Wallace goes on to say that the interrogation techniques utilized by the IRD were far less severe than those they used for training purposes on its own British Army personnel. According to Wallace, the IRD instead prioritized spreading propaganda about the IRA as a way of sowing dissension and confusion amongst its ranks. These psychological operations were also designed to drive wedges between the IRA and the communities that traditionally supported the latter—since the IRA had always depended on local communities in order to, as intelligence historian Rory Cormac states, “remain a viable organization.” Wallace also describes how the various journalists they worked with were both very professional and typically ethical. For instance, when he and other British intelligence personnel would meet with journalists, Wallace, and his cohorts would inform said journalists about certain bits of information, but these would be strictly off-record. Therefore, the journalists knew they actually couldn’t officially report on the information, and didn’t. Had they done so, Wallace and the rest of the IRD wouldn’t have trusted them with any further information. As the terroristic actions of the IRA ramped up over time, Wallace and the IRD began to intensify their psychological operations against the paramilitary group. This involved such things as Wallace and his cohorts faking ritualistic sacrifices throughout the countryside, which would lead to the IRA. These actions, in turn, made the protestant population even more fearful of the IRA. Wallace goes on to say that they engaged in these sorts of tactics because they weren’t fighting a conventional war—but one against terrorists. Therefore, unconventional means had to be applied by the IRD. Later, the IRD’s scope expanded to subjects beyond terrorists—such as politicians and other people of influence. It eventually began to culminate in smear campaigns against members of the three main political parties in Britain. As Wallace got deeper and deeper into this murky world of questionable psychological operations, he became the target of very powerful forces. I felt that this was a very well-produced documentary that accurately traces the formation of Britain’s Information Research Department, and the role it had, at least initially, in spreading propaganda and engaging in psychological operations against terrorist organizations. However, as the documentary reaches about the halfway point, things become a little confusing—maybe because of how quickly its scope suddenly expands. Some of the details of Wallace’s relations with various intelligence agencies and high-powered individuals also aren’t as clear as I would have liked them to be. But perhaps this is more due to the documentary’s short length than anything else, and hence, a limitation of time to properly detail many facets of the events that transpired. As it is, “The Man Who Knew Too Much: Spies, Fake News, and Disinformation,” is an informative expose about the inner workings of the cloak and dagger world of spies and disinformation, while also stressing the importance of ethics in journalism. ‘The Man Who Knew Too Much: Spies, Fake News, and Disinformation” Watch the trailer: Watch the cinema here.

Commentary Watch “Farmageddon” on Epoch Cinema here. An insightful expose on the war being waged on small farmers. With all of the recent news about murky organizations and individuals, including the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and Bill Gates, buying up millions of acres of farmland in North America (as well as all of the government-sponsored attacks on farmers), it’s interesting to come across a film that forecast the predicament we’re in a little over a decade ago. 2011’s “Farmageddon: The Unseen War on American Family Farms” marked the directorial debut of Kristin Canty, a Concord, Massachusetts, mother of four. The film’s catchy title is very prescient for the unfortunate, aforementioned happenings that seem to be intensifying year after year, as agencies such as the United States Department of Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration wage all-out war on North America’s small farmers, even when the latter can provide evidence that they are contributing healthy foods to the marketplace. Kristin begins by outlining the difference between the two main food sources in the United States—industrial-scale farming and local or artisanal farmers. The latter, which consist of farmers that provide such products as organic and sustainable foods, have been subjected to ridiculous harassment and seizures based on trumped-up violations, no matter how minor. The government frequently uses its multitudinous morass of regulations as tools designed to drive the smaller farmers out of business. One of the first examples that the film shows us is the case of a Vermont couple who owned over a dozen sheep, some that had been specially imported from New Zealand (worth a cool $5,000 per sheep) who had their entire herd confiscated and summarily slaughtered. This, despite the fact that the farming couple could have proven that their sheep weren’t infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease), as was claimed by the authorities. Canty describes similar horror stories of government overreach and abuse of powers—here, a Mennonite farmer in Pennsylvania; there, a dairy farmer in upstate New York—as well as various food co-ops in Georgia, Ohio, and of course, California. Canty’s capable filmmaking chops are on display as we get to see interviews with both farmers and agricultural experts from disparate backgrounds. Through these interviews, we soon learn that industrial food suppliers have access to more funding, which allows them to wield tremendous political power. This enables them to apply pressure on governmental regulation agencies to put the squeeze on small farming operations. The kicker is that the vast majority of food infections in the food supply chain occur within the big industrial food plants. Canty also provides some pretty alarming film footage of law enforcement raids being carried out on small farms and co-ops that have supposedly been violating various specious state or federal agricultural regulations. The scenes of numerous law enforcement agencies—local, state, and federal—treating these small farmers as if they are domestic terrorists are startling and somewhat infuriating. Canty isn’t just fighting as an advocate for the “little guy;” she has some personal experience with the subject matter in her film. When her son was 4 years old, he suffered from severe allergies and Asthma. Since conventional medicine wasn’t helping him, she did some research and discovered that raw (non-pasteurized, grass-fed) milk could be a remedy. As soon as she began giving her son raw milk, his health issues faded away. The governmental actions do seem rather illogical, petty, bullying, and absurd. Sending large groups of armed law enforcement officers to raid a poor dairy farmer at the edge of some small town doesn’t exactly seem restrained, let alone fair. I mean, you don’t exactly see these kinds of raids being carried out against Tyson Foods, the Archer Daniels Midlands Company, or other large industrial-scale food corporations. However, after watching this well-meaning documentary, I felt that there was one thing that detracted from it. A common mistake that many amateur documentary filmmakers make is that while they may be effective at calling attention to important topics and shedding light on lesser-known issues, discussions on what to do about these topics and issues aren’t usually discussed. In other words, it would have been nice to get more of an idea as to what we can all do to protect the rights of small farmers, or maybe feature discussions based on consumers’ rights to have easier access to healthful foods, wherever those foods come from. But as it stands, “Farmageddon” is an insightful expose about the war being waged on small farmers. Watch the trailer: Watch “Farmageddon” on Epoch Cinema here with EPOCHTV subscription. ($1 for 2 months trial available ) - Free Movies and Series: https://www.theepochtimes.com/c-watch-for-free Included with EPOCHTV: https://www.theepochtimes.com/c-free-for-subscribers

A Revealing Lens into the World of Truth-Seeking Journalism. Commentary With the recent advent of rampant cancel culture and the frenzied banning of conservatives (all across social media and media in general), and, for that matter, anyone who doesn’t bow to the globalist narrative, people are seeking out truth in journalism in increasing numbers. But for those honest and forthright intrepid journalists who are out in the world and who are interested in exposing hidden or otherwise lesser-known stories to the masses, matters can be challenging at best, and downright deadly in the worst of cases (see my review of “Jim: the James Foley Story” as an example). What’s interesting is that there were warning signs that accurately showcased (and warned about) the extreme dangers posed to truth-seeking journalists years ago—but they largely went unheeded. Such is the case with a fascinating documentary that flew under the radar back in 2013, titled “Killing the Messenger: The Deadly Cost of News.” This is a film that is more relevant than ever. If investigative journalists want to get to the heart of some of the murkier stories out there, they sometimes have to take enormous risks. That means risking kidnapping, torture, and death. Kidnapping is especially popular since it allows the kidnappers to fetch hefty ransoms for the safe return of the journalists they hold hostage. As the film describes the situation, murder is the number one work-related cause of death among journalists—especially as censorship rises each and every year. Death isn’t the only concern, however. Hundreds of journalists have been physically assaulted, received death threats, and/or snatched off the streets and imprisoned, in order to extort money from concerned parties. Places with shifting socio-political landscapes or extreme authoritarian governments, such as Russia, Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela, China, North Korea, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan—and even first-world countries such as Canada, and ANZAC (Australia and New Zealand), are particularly dangerous environments from which to report. In some cases, bravery and curiosity can work against those seeking to uncover shady enterprises and dastardly deeds. As investigative journalist Kimberly Dozier (who was critically wounded by a car bomb in Iraq) says, “if you want to get to some of these stories, you have to take the risks of the people who are living through the same thing. And sometimes that means risking torture, risking kidnapping … risking death.” Former editor-in-chief at Thomson Reuters, David Schlesinger is interviewed in the film. Schlesinger notes that the Geneva Convention is supposed to protect civilians from being attacked during wars. But in many cases, military, militia, and insurgent forces can’t tell the difference between embedded journalists and military personnel. Thus, journalists are often targeted just as much as military troops within various conflict zones. The documentary features the usual talking head interviews that are typical of these types of documentaries, interspersed with compelling footage. However, one thing I found confusing about this film was its use of unidentified footage: images of people being held captive or lying on the ground either dead or injured, with no information on who they were. For instance, I saw a striking image of three men in a desert environment—two Middle Eastern insurgent types pointing their AK rifles at a man seated on the dunes between them. Who was their captive? Why was he being held at gunpoint? Was he a journalist and did he survive? The audience is left to wonder. To its credit, however, the film features some great interviews with journalists who describe what it is like to report from dangerous conflict zones overseas. It’s a very fascinating look at what they experienced, and in some cases, reveals why they chose such a potentially deadly profession. In the end, this film does a good job of showing what journalists go through in order to cover important stories in dangerous, unstable environments. There are many brave people doing extraordinary reporting work around the world, unseen by the general public. Censorship continues to grow at an alarming pace throughout the world. As fearless information warriors are increasingly targeted, this documentary is more important than ever. “Killing the Messenger: The Deadly Cost of News” is an excellent look at dedicated, intrepid journalists and their refusal to back down from getting the truth out to the world—no matter how dangerous that job may be. Watch the trailer: RENT the movie: https://www.theepochtimes.com/killing-the-messenger-the-deadly-cost-of-news_4687352.html Free Movies and Series: https://www.theepochtimes.com/c-watch-for-free Included with EPOCHTV: https://www.theepochtimes.com/c-free-for-subscribers

Miles is an ordained minister and best-selling author. In this episode, he talks about how the church in America used to be a sacred place of refuge and safety, yet the political left has increasingly declared it open season on Christians, particularly pro-life institutions since the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Miles says the church has been invaded by the same ideology attacking our nation for some time—Marxism. He says it’s important for Christians to not have their heads in the sand and be unaware of the spiritual battle raging around them. America used to be the place where people could go to church without being worried about persecution, but the attacks against churches are increasing, and with it, so should Christian faith and vigilance. Why Does the Left Want to Destroy Christianity? Miles believes that Roe v. Wade being overturned was exactly what the left needed to justify attacks against the church. “If you understand Marxism, what you understand is that the church stands as an obstacle to the Marxist agenda,” says Miles. Unless the church is removed or converted to a Marxist way of thinking, Marxism cannot thrive in society. Miles says that the church and family are what has been needed to prevent a Marxist takeover of society in America so far. This is because the root tactic of Marxism is to destabilize society to the point where its own people essentially overthrow it, allowing Marxists to rebuild it according to their power agenda. Destabilizing a society requires tearing down faith in every institution, along with the values and morals of society as a whole. Once this is accomplished, people and the very structure of society are a blank slate to be used to serve the interests of the Marxist state. Religion not only provides a firm foundation of values that stabilize culture, but it also offers a higher power that governs people, which is in direct opposition to Marxism. The ruling party in a Marxist or communist state must establish itself as the ultimate authority. Anything that threatens to supersede the authority of the ruling party is a threat that cannot be tolerated. Miles believes that when Roe v. Wade was overturned, it gave the far left the fuel it needed to motivate the “useful idiots” of society to wage war against the church and the institutions that threaten the rise of Marxism in America. "The Triumph of the Church," after 1628, by a follower of follower of Peter Paul Rubens. Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland. (Public Domain) Should Christians Stand Against Religious Persecution? Miles said that as the church gets brighter, Christians, and especially church leaders, need to start expecting darkness to get darker, warning that more blatant protesting and acts against the church are going to increase. He shows clips of the hateful and sick attacks against Christians, from women stripping in church services screaming “my body my choice” to people taking a man’s bible and vandalizing it; kicking the bible around, ripping it, and eventually throwing it in a porta-potty. It is disturbing to watch the blatant hate crimes being committed against others, and although Americans aren’t being burned at the stake or tortured yet for their faith, Miles says this is where it all starts. Because of this reality, he believes American Christians should be outraged. “If we can’t look at this and say ‘this can’t happen, we’re not going to stand for this in America. We’re not going to stand for this in a place with religious freedom. We’re not going to stand for this in a place that was built and established on a Christian-Judeo framework.’ If we’re not going to get frustrated now, then we’re just going to continue to allow Marxists to just have more and more ground, until eventually what this leads to is persecution on a much broader scale.” He believes if Christians don’t start getting political, they aren’t going to be able to be spiritual. As long as Americans have rights and liberties in this nation, they should utilize those rights and freedoms to the fullest extent of the law to give place to the religious aspects that they want to share. Hollywood treats Christians as a group that is allowed to be marginalized and made fun of. How did it come to this point? Miles says America used to be comprised of people who cared about God and country. Now, our society seems to only care for statism. “Now it seems like the new God is just the leftist state and if you worship anything else it’s not accepted and you’re going to have to pay a price for it.” The EpochTV episode shows tweets saying burning churches is an acceptable way to protest Roe v. Wade, pointing out that Miles has had many tweets and videos removed for simply sharing Bible verses about political topics. Yet outright hatred and calls for violence against Christians are allowed to be circulated on social media. Fascism uses force and intimidation to suppress ideas and people groups. The left accuses the right of being fascist, yet it is the left who is operating in this way. Miles says America used to be comprised of Republicans and Democrats, but now he believes the Democrat party is a home for radicals and Marxists. “This is Biden’s America.” But it is not just displayed through statements on social media, it is translating into real actions of violence and harassment. Overcoming Evil With Good Miles encourages viewers not to allow the left to win by becoming fearful or backing off of their religious beliefs. He encourages Christians to do the opposite, doubling down on their faith, not out of spite, but because it will take a strong faith to get through these difficult times. “I don’t see any way to navigate this, in my opinion, without the peace that I have because of my faith in Jesus.” He also says that people of all religions should be equally appalled by what the Marxist agenda is doing. “If Christianity is not safe in the United States of America, then no religious belief is safe in the United States of America.” The episode calls on Christians to learn how to stand up for what is important, defend their faith, and also protect their churches and people during worship services. Now is the time to stand strong for religious freedom, because without it, we do not have freedom at all in this nation. Because of this, Miles believes Christianity and religious freedom should be central issues in today’s political discussions. As a Christian myself, I appreciated this episode and thought the host made very good points. He certainly understands the root threat of Marxism and how it is operating in our society. I believe Christians would benefit from a more in-depth conversation about why religious freedom is important to defend, particularly if you are a Christian. For example, the Bible calls Christians to stand up for those who cannot speak for themselves, to be bold, to speak the truth, and not to be overcome by evil but rather to overcome evil with good. The Bible also calls Christians to be aware and engaged in the spiritual battle going on around us and to be salt and light on the earth, advancing God’s kingdom. There is also the Biblical aspect of being a good steward of everything God has given us, and for Americans, God has given us freedom. Will we be lazy with our freedom, or use it to stand against evil? This episode is the first of a multiple-part EpochTV series regarding the left’s attack on the church. I would highly recommend any Christian who is just wading into the water of political activism to watch the series and become more aware of the spiritual battle being waged in our culture against Christianity, and use this knowledge to discern how to engage in it and stand for God’s truth. Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Watch the trailer: Watch the full video: https://www.theepochtimes.com/season-premieres-aug-31-the-lefts-not-so-subtle-attack-against-the-church-church-state_4689193.html with EPOCHTV subscription. ($1 for 2 months trial available )

A dramatic increase in myocarditis cases starting in 2021 has been seen. Studies and insurance companies’ records show that myocarditis reports found in the VAERS system, which is used by the CDC in its analysis, underestimate the number of myocarditis cases by somewhere between 300–400 percent. Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle that can be most commonly caused by a viral infection, and by various types of agents, such as drugs, medications, autoimmune diseases, and also vaccines. Inflammation in the heart can lead to actual muscle breakdown, cardiomaiopathy, which is the deterioration of function, and arrhythmias. All these can have fatal complications if they worsen, explains Dr. Sanjay Verma, an interventional cardiologist in Southern California, the guest of this Facts Matter episode. According to his expertise, there’s a very strong age factor in myocarditis, and it tends to peak in adolescents around 15-17 years old. Within the general population, myocarditis can occur in about eight per million for all age groups and about eighteen per million adolescents. It tends to have a bigger occurrence in males, where about 66% of all cases are men. Myocarditis as a side effect of COVID-19 Myocarditis depends on the agent causing it. Coxsackie virus and even influenza virus infection would cause direct viral damage. An immune reaction would be another instance, and Dr. Verma gives the example of the antibodies to the spike protein developed by a person’s body that is attacking the heart. When it comes to COVID-19 causing myocarditis, Dr. Verma explains how the Sars-Cov2’s spike protein has a direct toxic effect on the sarcomeres, which are the cells of the heart muscle. This can be mediated by an immune reaction, and also cytotoxic intracellular damage, specifically mitochondrial dysfunction. Since mid-2020, according to research, the spike protein had been known to cause “endothelial dysfunction.” This means that in addition to the damage to the heart muscle, it also causes endothelial dysfunction, which causes damage to the blood vessels, which can be related to stroke, blood clots, and also damage to the coronary arteries causing heart attacks or severe spasm. In mid-2020, around the time when vaccine development was in process, some published papers talked about “antigen mimicry.” This phenomenon refers to the spike protein having a morphology similar to antigens or parts of our own body where autoimmune reactions can be a concern. Early reports of vaccine associated myocarditis from Israel surfaced in April 2021, suggesting this reaction is common in one out of 3000 people. Myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination vs. Sars-CoV2 infection According to the CDC, the rate of myocarditis from natural infection is significantly greater than that from the vaccine, based on their analysis of data from the self-reporting system VAERS. A few studies coming from Ontario Canada, Hong Kong, Martina Patone’s study from the UK, and others from Israel look at incidence rates, especially for younger adults. They come with a preponderance of evidence suggesting that incidents of myocarditis after vaccination, especially in males older than 40, are in fact higher than after infection. Dr. Verma continues by mentioning that the cases are probably twice as many after vaccination vs. the ones after infection. In heterologous dosing, meaning getting the first dose of vaccine from Pfizer for example, and the second dose from Moderna, the rates go to three to four times greater than after infection. This is partially due to the dosing and interval of spike protein being different for each vaccine manufacturer. So, the amount of mRNA that is produced between each of them might be different, with some studies showing how the mRNA spike protein can be found in the blood circulation beyond the injection site for four weeks or even four months after injection. The CDC’s data is collected only for 7 days, and mostly up to 21 days after vaccination, while M. Patone’s study previously mentioned collected data up to 28 days after hospital discharge, finding even increased mortality. The study that came from Israel even went further up to 6 months and found that COVID infection did not have a statistically increased risk of causing myocarditis. Sudden Adult Death Syndrome Myocarditis presents an increased risk of sudden cardiac death for up to 6 months after diagnosis. Guidelines on myocarditis recommend three to six months of activity restriction from competitive sports. The exact mechanism of how sudden cardiac death occurs is not entirely known. One of the hypotheses is that myocarditis leads to scar formation, which can result in an increased risk of fatal ventricular arrhythmias. Sudden Adult Death Syndrome, or SADS, refers to the cases of patients who did not have a severe infection, or an accident, or a certain heart condition, and there was no use of drugs or other substances. So, without any precipitating cause, the patient has a sudden death that is not able to be explained otherwise. According to available data, from 1960 to the year 2004 there were around 23 sudden deaths per year in the athletes’ community, going up to 65-75 per year between 2005 and 2006. The collected number went up to 500 for the year of 2022 alone, according to Dr. Verma. The data from insurance companies also shows a spike in deaths in September 2021. Physicians who want to talk about this on social media experience a lot of censorship. Even more, the California legislature recently introduced an Assembly bill that will consider it to be unprofessional conduct if a physician says anything contrary to CDC recommendations on COVID-19 vaccination data will risk losing their medical license. Dr. Verma considers this as a huge discouragement for open discussions on risks and benefits, which is contrary to all notions of medical ethics that require informed consent and quantified discussion of risks and benefits. Dr. Verma’s research and experience brought forth a lot of information, especially regarding the sources of data that can be obtained, explaining each process of collecting the specific data, and preparing the statistics. It also makes it very easy to understand what myocarditis is, and how it can be diagnosed. Watch the trailer: Click to watch the full video with an EpochTV subscription. ($1 for 2 months trial available ) CDC Data Suggests Myocarditis Cases Could Be 2 Times Higher After Vaccination Than After Contracting COVID-19 | Facts Matter Dr. Sanjay Verma is an interventional cardiologist in Southern California. In this interview, he discusses several medical studies on myocarditis and sudden adult death syndrome (SADS) events that contradict the mainstream narrative on vaccine side effects, while interjecting his own experiences in which he’s seen a dramatic increase in myocarditis cases starting in 2021. Dr. Verma references a couple of studies that compared myocarditis reports in the VAERS system with insurance database records of myocarditis reports. The studies found that the VAERS system underestimates the number of myocarditis cases by somewhere between 300–400 percent.

Gender Ideology is another Marxist strategy meant to break down society’s main pillar – the family. It’s a new approach in the process of upturning the present order. In this Crossroads episode, host Joshua Philipp debates the incoherency of the “Gender Ideology” movement with the director of the Heritage Foundation’s DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family, Jay Richards. They start by defining gender ideology, which according to Richards is a philosophical movement that denies the sexual binary, the reality of male and female as a given biological category, and replaces it with an entirely internal and subjective category of gender identity. Looking at it philosophically, it’s not very hard to notice that even the word “transwoman” refers to a man that is transitioning to be a woman, and even the word “trans” refers to a sexual binary. They continue by mentioning that today even the word “trans” is made into something obsolete because now we have “asexual,” “agender,” “non-binary” and terms that want to deny the existence of the two main genders, supporting the idea that gender is on a spectrum. If that would be the case, then everyone should be non-binary, Richard continues, and there would be no such thing as binary. Even though this idea is unreasonable, it actually matters, because it affects people, especially children with regard to the perception of their own bodies. According to Richards, gender ideology is not a coherent thought system, such as Marxism, which has certain propositions that can be tested. Rather it is a “cultural wrecking ball meant to destroy the fundamental cell of society, the family,” and as a result destroy the present order. Besides the difficult thought process of combined notions from neo-Marxism, cultural Marxism, and some critical theories from the Frankfurt School, the core premise of its public policy is teaching children that they can be born in the wrong body. This is very toxic because it dissolves the categorizing of reality by a young child before they start to form differences in some of the most basic categories about the world, such as adult-child, boy–girl, good – bad. Josh considers this to be a very frightening concept, as it is not yet known how these ideas would affect a child in the future. According to Richards time will tell, as this is history’s first experiment with this radical ideology. Another threat to young children is that they will not be able to understand what a family is. They will also be turned against their parents, and against their own bodies. This can be achieved because it’s easy to reach them through social media and school without their parent’s knowledge. They can be taught that they are something else, and their parents are the main impediment in realizing who they really are inside. The pathway to gender change can be reached through this process of being told what social transition is, starting to get puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and eventually surgery. Neither Josh nor Richards understand how the gender ideology movement is benefitting the Democrats, as it turns some on the Left, such as feminists and gays, against them, and also against each other due to attacks by the trans community. Even for the Republicans, it’s difficult to approach the subject, not only because it’s uncomfortable, but because it’s also protected by the cancel mob. Here Richards gives the example of the people who openly talked about and criticized the Boston Children’s Hospital’s gender clinic that pioneered transition treatments, including surgeries on minors, and got accused of “stochastic terrorism.” We’re dealing with a “bizarro” world, Richard continues, as people who criticize the abuse of children are accused of terrorism. He feels that people need to wake up to the fact that a child shouldn’t be able to consent to her own sterilization. There are countries that got further than the U.S. with this radical ideology, such as Canada, UK, Sweden, and Finland. Now, they’re hitting the brakes, because of data on the psychological effects of gender transition procedures. The results showed that instead of achieving the so-called goal of helping kids with suicidal ideation, not only did it not improve their psychological condition, but it also sterilized them, according to Richards. Josh brings up the topic of medical malpractice in this case. Richards explains how there’s a clever way in dealing with this, and mentions the state of as Arkansas that passed a bill called the Save Adolescents From Experimentation (SAFE) Act, which prohibits the procedures, but does not criminalize them. On the other hand, parents and children have a right of action that allows them to sue the clinics and the doctors, extending the statute of limitation for 20 years after a child reaches the age of 18 or 20. Josh gives the example of a person that felt deceived by doctors when wanting to transition to a woman because the DNA would still show the person was a man after transition, as the medical procedure can’t change someone at that level. It’s not something new that official medical bodies support these kinds of ideas. Looking back in the 20th century there are many examples of ideas that were recommended by medical institutions which were actually not for the wellbeing of the individual. Hitler declared a medical emergency in Germany and used it to claim there was a sickness on the “body politic” that needed to be cured through genocide. People will very easily comply if a situation is framed as a medical crisis, the two continued. Though the gender ideology might seem to refer to trans people only, looking into it more it becomes clear that the agenda is going after children with the purpose of getting them to transition. Looking further into it, the broad political movement of upending the basic concept of what reality is can be observed, Josh points out. According to Richards, it is important for people to understand this because human nature is important. He believes a human being is a unique spiritual entity that involves both a spiritual element and a physical element, and the gender ideology is trying to destroy that by treating the human person as a disembodied psychological self. The method for the destruction of the family is more subtle and complicated than the ones used by Soviet Russia’s communism. Because today we’re dealing with a cultural phenomenon in which the categories of “oppressor” and “oppressed” have worked their ways in educational institutions. In its current application, gender ideology undermines the rights of the parents over their children, with the state or the school dictating the education of the children, making them assets of the system in the end, continuing the conversation. But there are ways in which parents can protect their children. There are plenty of resources for educating themselves on this matter. Richards gave the example of “When Harry Became Sally” by Ryan Anderson. Looking more into what is happening in schools, and insisting on parental rights and education bills, would help in keeping the primary responsibility for the education of the children with the parents. The conversation between Josh and Richards concludes with the realization that the fundamental argument is not about transitioning, but about what this means for society. Gender ideology isn’t something that simply comes down to a rare individual with a sexual development disorder, but rather “a cultural wrecking ball striking at the heart of the family.” The conversation emphasized very well the changes that we’re experiencing today in society, and they are certainly challenging. The question remains, how did we allow our moral values to come to this point, and how long can it go on like this? Watch the trailer: Watch the full video: https://www.theepochtimes.com/gender-ideology-is-a-cultural-wreckingball-meant-to-destroy-family-and-tradition-jay-richards_4777058.html with EPOCHTV subscription. ($1 for 2 months trial available )

A new film, “Under the Skin” explores how aluminum in the Gardasil vaccine can cause serious autoimmune conditions in girls and young women who receive it. Directed by Austrian science writer and filmmaker Bert Ehgartner, this film is both eye-opening and deeply disturbing. It is now available exclusively on EpochTV. What Is Gardasil? First approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2006, Gardasil was heavily touted and aggressively marketed as a vaccine to end cervical cancer. It was designed to protect against the human papillomavirus (HPV). HPV refers to a group of more than 200 related viruses. They are spread from human to human through anal, oral, and vaginal sex. Some HPV strains are “low-risk,” causing genital warts but are not associated with cancer. Other strains are associated with several types of cancer, including throat cancer, penile cancer, cancers of the vagina, and cervical cancer. Gardasil was originally designed to protect against just four sexually transmitted HPV strains. In 2016, the FDA approved Gardasil 9, a broader vaccine to protect against five additional strains of HPV, for both males and females. In 2018 its approved use was expanded to include people from the ages of 9 to 45 years old. In America, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend a two-dose series of this vaccine starting at age 11, given six to 12 months apart and a three-dose series given to people who get the first dose when they are 15 years old or older, as well as for people with immune-compromising conditions. The Gardasil Girls “Under the Skin” tells the story of several young women, in particular, two in Denmark, who have suffered from debilitating health issues after getting the Gardasil vaccine. Kesia Lyng and Sesilje Petersen both took part in the manufacturer’s vaccine trials in Denmark. They initially thought participating in a vaccine trial “sounded really awesome,” as Lyng put it. They were randomly assigned to one of two groups, a test group and a control group that would receive a saline placebo. The vaccine, they were told, had “already been carefully tested for safety.” Yet, it wasn’t long before both young women began to have disturbing symptoms, including overwhelming fatigue, chronic pain, fainting, and heart rate disturbances. In one particularly affecting story, Paula Aldea was given the vaccine as a teenager. Shortly afterward she called her father and told him she was at the bus stop and couldn’t feel her legs. Her condition rapidly progressed: within three hours, she was unable to move her legs at all. These severe and debilitating conditions are particularly concerning because they most commonly hit youngsters who are not only healthy to begin with but active as well. As Dr. Chris Exley, a professor at Keele University, put it in the film, “I don’t think it’s acceptable to have collateral damage in a vaccination program.” When Japanese young women started reporting similar side effects from the HPV vaccine, the program was halted. In 2013, Japan stopped recommending routine vaccination with Gardasil. At the same time, the symptoms that these young women in Denmark experienced were dismissed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), a regulatory agency that has as its mission to “foster scientific excellence in the evaluation and supervision of medicines, for the benefit of public and animal health in the European Union.” The EMA maintained that their symptoms “can in no way be related to the vaccination.” And several spokespeople connected to the EMA unequivocally dismiss any safety concerns about Gardasil. Instead, they maintain that the debilitating health problems are psychological in origin. A Danish Doctor Finds Evidence of Harm A Danish physician, Dr. Jesper Mehlsen—who is one of the most likable, articulate, and competent people in the film—uncovers irrefutable evidence of harm. He counters that the government mouthpieces who dismiss his patients’ symptoms are epidemiologists who study spreadsheets and have little, if any, clinical experience. In fact, Mehlsen says, none of those defending the safety record of Gardasil have ever seen a single patient. Mehlsen specializes in disturbances in the autonomic nervous system, the part of your body that controls automatic functions like your heartbeat and your breathing. He noticed a surge in young people with debilitating and inexplicable illnesses following vaccination with Gardasil. Some had been to 50 or more doctor visits before they found their way to him. By testing the autonomic nervous systems of his patients—something that is completely outside of our conscious power to control—Mehlsen confirmed that they were, indeed, extremely sick. Mehlsen hypothesized that something in the vaccine had caused the production of autoantibodies capable of attacking the central nervous system. He was later able to identify three particularly problematic antibodies that can attack the autonomic nervous system. Both Lyng and Petersen tested positive for all three. The Problem With HPV At the time the vaccine was approved, virtually every sexually active adult was exposed to HPV at some point in their lifetime. However, more than 90 percent of women clear it from the body within two years without any intervention. What’s more, cervical cancers generally grow slowly over decades; this cancer is highly detectable (via pap smears), and also highly treatable. Simple lifestyle changes (like not smoking, and using condoms) can also greatly reduce your risk. Cervical cancer is one of the more treatable forms of cancer, but black women are the most likely to die from it. However, Gardasil 9 does not cover the most common type of HPV found in cervical cancers in black women: genotype 35. The Problem With the HPV Vaccines For any vaccine to be effective, the body must recognize the components in the vaccine as foreign and mount an immune response against them. For this reason, adjuvants are sometimes used in vaccines. These adjuvants are substances that stimulate a stronger response to the vaccine antigen. In the United States, some form of aluminum is usually used in inactivated vaccines, most commonly aluminum hydroxide and aluminum phosphate. As the film explores, these aluminum salts have been used for almost a hundred years in vaccines. They are generally regarded as safe. However, not a single safety study has been done using modern scientific methods. There is no interest on the part of industry or government agencies in studying the safety of aluminum, despite a growing body of scientific research that shows that aluminum is neurotoxic and cytotoxic (damaging to the cells). Some research indicates that the aluminum can be engulfed by white blood cells called macrophages and carried to vulnerable areas of the body. There, the macrophages may dump their aluminum and damage the already vulnerable tissue. Immune Overstimulation Courtesy of Aluminum Aluminum has no known purpose in the body and is known to be toxic to human cells. So when an aluminum-containing vaccine is injected into the body, the damaged cells send out a dangerous signal, calling inflammatory cells to the injection site. As the film explores, “fierce battles take place.” This battle can result in immune recognition of the vaccine antigen and the production of protective antibodies. This works well for many people, but no two people have identical immune responses. And therein lies the rub. While a weak immune system may require exposure to aluminum to produce any sort of response, a robust immune system can be overstimulated by the addition of aluminum. Interestingly, as Ehgartner explores in the film, most common chronic illnesses are characterized by hyperactivation of the immune system. This is especially true of autoimmune conditions where the body begins producing autoantibodies—antibodies that target human body cells. Aluminum in Gardasil The company that makes Gardasil, Merck, is using a novel adjuvant in their HPV vaccine: amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate, or AAHS. This adjuvant has also never been tested for safety. Enrica Alteri, who worked for the EMA for eight years, insisted it would only be “scientifically justified to investigate” individual components of vaccines if the component were capable of causing harm. But, as the film shows, there is an excellent reason to suspect this novel aluminum adjuvant of causing harm. When Merck’s safety testing was unblinded, Kesia Lyng was told she was part of the test group that received the Gardasil vaccine. Petersen, however, was part of the control group. How can that be? Further investigation revealed that this control group did not receive an inert saline placebo. Instead, Merck gave the control group injections of their aluminum compound without the antigen. Petersen already knew she was sensitive to aluminum in deodorants. Had she been told that she would be injected with aluminum, she would not have participated. Lyng is exhausted all the time. She cannot work and she barely has enough energy to make it through the day. Ten years later, she told Ehgartner that participating in the vaccine trials was a mistake. “I feel it’s the worst decision that I’ve ever done in my life,” she said. Bert Ehgartner made this film to begin a conversation about vaccines and vaccine safety. “Vaccinations are the Holy Grail of science,” he told us, “and no one is allowed to discuss them.” He is on a mission to change that. At 59 years old, Ehgartner, who lives in Austria, has worked as a science writer and filmmaker for almost 30 years. “I want to open the discussion. I want to encourage scientists to ask questions and do studies and to think about answers,” he explained. Safer HPV Vaccines, Remedies for Side Effects Are Possible As Dr. Christopher Exley explained in the film, although aluminum has been used in medicine for decades, we don’t have a complete understanding of how it works. More research on aluminum could help scientists develop aluminum-containing vaccines that are both safer and more effective. Dr. Jesper Mehlsen, who discovered the problematic antibodies in Lyng and Petersen’s blood, is trying to find ways to neutralize these harmful antibodies. Although retired, Mehlsen remains committed to finding a way to reverse the adverse effects these patients have been suffering from for years. Watch the film “Under the Skin” that PREMIERING on Sept. 23 at 9 PM ET. It is now available exclusively with an EpochTV subscription. ($1 for 2 months trial available ) - Free Movies and Series: https://www.theepochtimes.com/c-watch-for-free Included with EPOCHTV: https://www.theepochtimes.com/c-free-for-subscribers

The new police offices established worldwide by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) are just a continuation of other programs that have been going on for years, and all this is happening with governments’ collaboration. A report released by the human rights group, Safeguard Defenders, shows how 30 overseas police service stations in 21 countries were set up by the Public Security Bureau in Fuzhou, China, from the beginning of 2018. According to Dongnan News, a media outlet backed by the Fujian provincial government, the first Chinese police center in New York, called Fuzhou Police Overseas Service Station, was opened on February 16. The Epoch Times noted how Safeguard Defenders identified 54 overseas police service stations across five continents. But how is this possible? How can the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) have police offices outside of China? In this Crossroads episode, host Joshua Philipp, with the help of Alex Newman, author and award-winning international journalist, will give the facts on how was this allowed to happen. Newman starts by mentioning that this is actually not something new, as it has been practiced since at least 2011. He gives the example of the chief national security prosecutor Thomas Lindstrom in Sweden, who one year previously prosecuted a Chinese Communist spy who was convicted of “aggravated illegal espionage” against the Uyghur refugee community in Sweden. We can say the difference now is that the CCP is institutionalizing what they were already doing. Astonished by their boldness, the independent journalist emphasizes how this would not have been possible without the collaboration of Western governments. According to him, the US State Department has the means to shut down the CCP Police Station in a New York minute. It’s only that the holdovers from the Obama Administration were in many cases “cheerleaders for Communist China, and the CCP’s growing role in international affairs.” Philipp adds how this all may have started with Zhou Yongkang, the former czar of China’s security services, who initiated a lot of these programs back in 2007. He further adds how CCP’s Operation Fox Hunt, that took place under the Obama administration and was meant to deploy agents on American soil to arrest Chinese dissidents, was also allowed to take place. Newman continues by mentioning that the Trump administration had a very difficult time with the Obama holdovers who were insisting that Communist China is great and encouraged its penetration of the international institutions. Now, with the Biden administration, the very same people are back on their posts at the State Department. We’re not dealing with naivety, but a deliberate omission on behalf of U.S. officials in doing their jobs, and tacitly approving of such things to happen, according to Newman. It’s hard to say they don’t have an idea about what is going on, when all over the Western world Chinese “consular officials” have a task of handing out flyers discriminating against Falun Gong—a spiritual practice rooted in Buddhist tradition, with 5 gentle exercises, and a moral code based on the universal principles of truthfulness, compassion, and forbearance—against the Uyghurs, Tibetans, Taiwanese, and intimidating and harassing people. Newman gives the example of two resolutions passed by the U.S. Congress, one in 2004 and the other in 2010, which stated that “Chinese diplomats were actively harassing and persecuting Chinese dissidents into the United States,” breaking into the homes of activists, pressuring U.S. officials with threats, and spreading misinformation. These resolutions also mention how “the Chinese Government attempted to silence the Falun Gong and Chinese pro-democracy groups inside the United States.” When it comes to the CCP’s co-opting of international organizations, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the Human Rights Council, the United Nations (UN), or the Interpol, Newman mentions that the Interpol doesn’t have much authority. They’re mostly a mechanism of governments collaborating to catch offenders that need to be prosecuted for their crimes. The problem is it has always been a mechanism used for abuse by totalitarians, and he gives the example of the institution falling into Nazi’s hands during WWII, and becoming its tool. Today, from 2016 to 2018, we had Meng Hongwei, a Communist Chinese agent, as the president of the Interpol. Hongwei is currently facing a 13 year jail sentence. The Communist Chinese Government openly and publicly said that one of the reasons he was arrested was because he wasn’t faithfully obeying party orders, according to Newman. Newman moves on to the United Nations, mentioning how the Communist Chinese espionage machine, which is more massive than any other governments’, has leverage over many of the people that would be able to go out and talk about all this, and the UN is infiltrated with the CCP’s minions. Not all of these members need to be CCP members or Chinese nationals, many of them may be members of communist parties of other countries. This contributes a lot to maintaining a state of paranoia in order for others to remain quiet out of fear of being reported. Everybody should know that the CCP members working for the UN are first and foremost loyal to Beijing, and not to the UN, despite their oath to serve the interests of the international organization. The conversation between the two continued with the giving to the World Health Organization global control of pandemics, and giving the Director General of the WHO, Tedros Ghebreyesus, an Ethiopian communist put in power by the CCP, the sole authority to declare in a public health emergency of international concern. They also emphasized the end goal of making the UN accumulate more power to centralize more and more with the purpose of achieving global governance, with the creation of a World Federation. This episode came as a reminder and wake-up call for all of us that stopped seeing the Chinese Government as a communist regime, due to its reformed market economy after the fall of the Soviet Union. The CCP brought trickery, malevolence, and struggle, the essential characteristics of communism, to everywhere around the world. The CCP is still the world’s major communist power, remaining faithful to its founding ideological principles. Click to watch the full video with an EpochTV subscription. ($1 for 2 months trial available ) Obama Holdovers Allowed the Chinese Communist Party's Subversion of America: Alex Newman The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has established police offices on American soil, and this is a continuation of other programs the regime has been pushing to extend its tyrannical policies beyond its borders. According to Alex Newman, author and award-winning international journalist, much of this exported abuse has been allowed to happen through Obama holdovers in the U.S. government. We speak with Alex Newman about the CCP's overseas police forces, how they target and abuse anyone who opposes the regime, and how individuals still working in the U.S. government have allowed this to happen.

Commentary Christians who want to understand the political issues of today from a Biblical perspective can tune in to the EpochTV series “Church and State,” presented by Lucas Miles, an ordained minister, and best-selling author. In episode four, “LGBT versus Church,” Miles exposes the recent wave of LGBT gender ideology permeating the church. The Transgender and Drag Queen Agenda Gender ideology has waged a full assault on society in recent years and months. From LGBT propaganda in children’s movies and books to sexually explicit materials taught in schools, to drag queen story hours hosted at libraries. It’s disturbing enough that children are being groomed and exposed to this type of sexual content, but it becomes even more concerning when churches participate in these events. Miles shows several examples of drag and Pride events hosted in churches. Many of the events are explicitly directed at children or youth. Given the cultural trend, some topics relating to the LGBT movement may be necessary to discuss within the church, if done from a biblical perspective. However, what we see many churches doing today is distorting who God is and making a mockery of the gospel. Miles clarifies that Christianity does not stand for false ideologies on gender, nor does it condone sexual immorality. The gender ideology seen today stems directly from Marxism and is designed to aid the Marxist agenda of deconstructing religion and destroying Western society. Miles notes that although God wins in the end, that doesn’t mean these heretical views don’t impact society, the church, and individual Christians—especially those who may be new to the faith. Diversity in Christian Thought The Christian faith does allow for diversity in ideology to an extent. There are specific issues that theologians and pastors have come to varying conclusions on, but these are not explicit commands of Christ or tenets of the Christian faith. The gender movement has exposed pastors who openly abandon God and spew woke propaganda that is anti-God and non-biblical. Not only are their views heretical, but they also could not be further from the truth of the gospel, revealing a profound lack of understanding about God and Jesus Christ. Making a Mockery of the Church Church-hosted drag events are a blatant assault on Christianity and demonstrate a disturbing disrespect for the sanctity of the church itself. These events are wrong no matter where they occur, but celebrating sin in the house of God is deeply repugnant to true believers. In addition, Miles believes that parents and religious leaders who willingly expose, teach, and encourage children to experience and explore distorted sexuality are engaging in grooming. “I don’t know what else to call it. Oh wait, I do know what else to call it—child abuse,” he states, saying that the adults involved in such activities need to be held accountable. Is This Happening Everywhere? The EpochTV episode examines whether this progressive gender ideology is limited primarily to far-left churches that have been off the biblical path for many years, or if it is permeating the church culture as a whole. Miles cites examples of pastors who are unwilling to define what a woman is. We know what a woman is: a grown biological female with two X chromosomes (XX) and female genitalia. “It’s not that hard,” says Miles. So why do these simple concepts seemingly stump some pastors? Miles says the woke left knows how to define men and women, and they understand the reality of gender. But to define it would be to sabotage their agenda, which is to tear down family values and destroy the Judeo-Christian framework. The reality is that gender ideology is not a complex moral issue. Although the left tries to frame it as a social construct and change definitions to perpetuate their narrative, gender, and sex boil down to basic biological facts. If pastors can’t be trusted regarding basic biological facts, they can’t be relied on for any spiritual guidance. What Does the Bible Say? God’s stance regarding homosexuality and sexual immorality is crystal clear. It is a sin, and it is not to be accepted. Miles says progressive pastors want the church to affirm sin and make people believe God made them this way. Not only this, but they want to celebrate and spread sin throughout the church. The Bible says that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). All Christians have sinned. The church should not reject LGBT people, but it also should never affirm or perpetuate their sin. “We are commanded to call people out of the kingdom of darkness and into the kingdom of our God,” says Miles. “That requires repentance. We do not reject those who have sinned, but we also do not reject God’s design for marriage or sexuality. Furthermore, we should never encourage children to sin.” Miles concludes the EpochTV episode by saying that no one has fallen too far from God’s grace to repent and experience God’s love. However, celebrating sin in God’s house “is wrong and should not be tolerated.” He encourages his viewers to be beacons of light that stand for truth in the face of this shameful ideology. Watch “LGBT versus Church” on Epoch Cinema here. ($1 for 2 months trial available ) Trailer:

A high degree of consensus among climate scientists on man-made global warming is needed to force ambitious climate policies as an urgent matter. This is corrupting the scientific debate and freedom, hindering scientific progress in the end, and it was obtained through an absurd methodology. The “hockey stick” graph was the result of the first comprehensive attempt to show the rise in temperature in the Northern Hemisphere, from the year 1000 to the year 1980. The first part of the graph, which would represent the hokey stick’s shaft, shows the temperature from the year 1000 to the year 1900, and suggest climate was stable during this period. The blade of the hokey stick represents the quick rise of temperature starting with the year 1900. Many people think that the “blade” represents the most important part, as it coincides with the start of fossil fuel use. For most climate scientists, though, the “shaft” is the most intriguing part, as it does not include events such as the Medieval Warm Period during which the Vikings temporarily occupied Greenland due to its warm temperatures, according to this episode’s guest of Facts Matter, Marcel Crok, a Dutch scientist. He further adds that apparently, the draft was never verified until 2003 when Professor McKitrick and his fellow Canadian engineer, Steve McIntyre, debunked the draft’s statistics. Cork mentions how before 1850 there were no direct measurements of temperature. Proxies were used for this, such as the tree rings through which one could tell if summer was good or bad. The “hockey stick” draft was based on proxy data gathered from around the Northern Hemisphere, which McIntyre mentioned is not very accurate data for measuring temperature. Instead, regional signals should be taken into consideration. Cork gives the example of glaciers shrinking, and under the melted glaciers tree remains can be found, which can be dated again. He further emphasizes that regional signals seem to be more reliable than making an effort’s temperature for the whole globe. Until 1850 glaciers were expanding all around the world. Since 1850 we’re experiencing warmer weather called the “modern warmer period.” This coincides with the period when we started using fossil fuels. While today the climate community supports the idea that the warming is caused by the use of fossil fuels and the rise of CO2 levels, it still remains the question of what caused the warming of the Medieval Warm Period, as it seems Greenland had higher temperatures back then than what we’re experiencing today. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) claims that the current warming is both unique and unprecedented. After 20 years of research, Cork considers it still debatable, as many indications show how the high Northern Hemisphere area was warmer 8000 years ago. Since then, the temperatures over there have been declining, and not in linear regression, but with ups and downs. The Paris Agreement is driving all the climate policies going on right now, using as a reference the year 1850. According to many scientists, this was a natural cold starting point, and not the average weather of our current geological epoch, or Holocene. All these issues are not openly discussed, Cork pointed out. He continues by explaining how the CO2 was way higher in the past than it is now, and gives the example of trees evolving in a period when the CO2 concentration was a few thousand PPM, while currently is only 420 PPM, and 280 PPM before the start of the industrial revolution. The Ice Age experienced a concentration of only 180 PPM, which Cork further points out that the lower the level, the more dangerous it is for plants, as they die at a concentration under 150 PPM. When it comes to human-caused global warming, it is said that there’s a 97% consensus between scientists, but to reach this percentage, an absurd methodology was used, according to Cork. The Cook et al. published in 2013 a synthesis of consensus, for which 12.000 papers on “global climate change” were selected. Based on their abstracts or summaries they categorized each of them on seven levels of endorsement. Level 1 explicitly endorses man-made climate change. Levels 2 and 3 were presentment also as an explicit endorsement of this theory, even though their endorsement is weaker, and presented together with Level 1. Further, it turned out that 8000 out of those 12.000 papers belonged to Level 4 which expresses a position of uncertainty in human activity in global warming, and all of these 8000 papers were discarded, according to Cork. From the 4000 remaining papers it was said that 97% were qualifying on Levels 1, 2, or 3, when in actuality, Cork continues, only 64 papers qualified in their abstracts for Level 1, which makes up less than 1% of the initial 12.000 selected papers. “The paper is a ridiculous exercise but it is being used as the ultimate proof that there is some sort of consensus among climate scientists,” he concludes. Cork’s concern is how far will these climate policies go. Ideas that might have sounded idiotic 10 years ago are now seriously taken into consideration. He gives the example of a bank in Holland that took into consideration implementing a personal carbon budget for every Dutch citizen, with the possibility of selling personal CO2 credits to other people to earn some money. The big issue right now is the crazy increase in energy price, he continues, which will leave many households in the impossibility of paying their energy bills this winter. While it wasn’t mentioned directly, the main message of this episode’s conversation felt more like a constant journey of discovering the course of nature. Science is continually developing and discovering new conceptions. Cork’s 20 years of experience put into perspective how we will never be able to understand ecological development, and how to live well and in balance with nature if we chose to stubbornly remain stuck on certain theories. Watch the trailer: Click to watch the full video with an EpochTV subscription. ($1 for 2 months trial available ) 97 Percent of Scientists Don't Agree About Humans' Role in 'Climate Change': Truth Behind the Stats | Facts Matter Marcel Crok is a Dutch science journalist who spent years researching and writing on the topic of global climate change science. In this interview, Crok breaks down several blatant inconsistencies propped up by supporters of climate change initiatives despite the scientific evidence suggesting otherwise. Crok then reveals the absurd methodology used by the climate science community to reach their “97 percent consensus” figure that is the linchpin to the entire climate change argument. The conversation shifts to the rising sea levels debate, where Crok suggests that if CO2 were truly the cause of rising sea levels, we would have expected to see a dramatic increase in water levels after 1950 when global CO2 emissions spiked. The science simply doesn’t support this. Crok concludes the conversation by discussing how faulty climate science is directly impacting his country, as recent evidence suggests as many as 1.2 million households in Holland will not be able to pay their energy bills this winter due to high energy prices that are a direct result of misguided climate policies.

Commentary In late July 2016, FBI Director James Comey notified certain members of the Obama White House, along with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper about the FBI’s opening of the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation into the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. CIA Director John Brennan was already aware, since he was the one who had been providing the FBI with information regarding the Trump campaign. Brennan testified to Congress in May 2017, “I was aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons that raised concerns in my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the Russians, either in a witting or unwitting fashion, and it served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion—cooperation occurred.” We also know that Brennan was in contact with UK Intelligence—at the very highest of levels. Robert Hannigan, the head of the UK’s Government Communications Headquarters (also known as GCHQ), flew to the United States in the summer of 2016 to personally brief Brennan. The matter was deemed so important that it was handled at the “director level,” face-to-face between the two agency chiefs. Clapper later confirmed during congressional testimony the “sensitive” stream of intelligence from Europe. He told Congress it was accurate that “Over the spring of 2016, multiple European allies passed on additional information to the United States about contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians.” But here’s the thing. The Intelligence Community (IC), the Obama administration, and the political establishment never expected Trump to win. And when he did win, the IC was suddenly faced with a very real problem. How do they properly cover up their actions? And how do they hobble the new Trump administration? As it turns out, the timeline of their actions in the first few months of 2017 tells a story; It’s one of an establishment response to the very real threat that the young Trump administration presented to the long-standing—and corrupt—the political structure of our nation. On Jan. 5, 2017, “following a briefing by IC leadership on alleged Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election, President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office.” Then-Vice President Biden and senior foreign policy adviser Susan Rice also were present. “That meeting reportedly included a discussion of the Steele dossier and the FBI’s investigation of its claims.” According to an email written by Rice, Obama asked Comey “to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team.” Comey said he would. Note Obama’s concern over the sharing of classified information with the incoming Trump team. That concern would shape the events of the next several months. On Jan. 10, 2017, Comey testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) had refused access to its servers. Comey claimed that the FBI made “multiple requests,” but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a private company, Crowdstrike, would get access and share what it found with investigators. In other words, Comey told Congress that the information from the DNC servers was now walled off from oversight. During that same hearing, Comey was asked by Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) if the FBI had investigated relationships between associates of Trump and the Russian government. Comey told Congress that he couldn’t confirm or deny an active investigation, thereby triggering a media onslaught that triggered doubt among millions of Americans. Comey said he couldn’t comment in public on a possible investigation into allegations of links between Russia and the Trump campaign. “I would never comment on investigations—whether we have one or not—in an open forum like this, so I really can’t answer one way or another.” The Senate hearing had been organized to specifically look into the US intelligence agencies conclusion that Russia intervened in the election to benefit Trump. In a matter of no small coincidence, it was the same day that the Steele dossier was released by BuzzFeed and reported by CNN. On Jan. 11, 2017, Trump, no doubt concerned by the flood of leaks from the intelligence community, conducted his first sting. In order to identify the people leaking classified information to the press, Trump very specifically didn’t tell his staff that the IC was about to brief him. After that briefing, the news was leaked to the press, leading Trump to conclude the leaks were coming from the IC. “I have many meetings with intelligence,” Trump said. “And every time I meet, people are reading about it.” Later that day, Clapper was forced to put out a formal statement decrying the leaks from the intelligence community. “I expressed my profound dismay at the leaks that have been appearing in the press, and we both agreed that they are extremely corrosive and damaging to our national security.” But in his statement, Clapper also referenced the Steele dossier, stating that he and President Trump also “discussed the private security company document, which was widely circulated in recent months among the media, members of Congress and Congressional staff even before the IC became aware of it.” Clapper said that he “emphasized that this document is not a U.S. Intelligence Community product” and that he did not believe the leaks came from within the intelligence community.” He stated that the IC “has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions.” He also claimed that “part of our obligation is to ensure that policymakers are provided with the fullest possible picture of any matters that might affect national security.” However, a House Intelligence report later found that when Clapper was initially asked about leaks related to the IC assessment in July 2017, Clapper flatly denied discussing the Steele dossier or any other intelligence related to alleged Russian hacking of the 2016 election with journalists. But under subsequent questioning, Clapper suddenly acknowledged discussing the “dossier with CNN journalist Jake Tapper,” and acknowledged that he might have spoken with other journalists about the same topic. The next day, on Jan. 12th, Department of Justice Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz announced his initiation of a review of actions taken by the FBI in the leadup to the 2016 presidential election. This announcement wasn’t publicized and only became public knowledge almost a year later, in December 2017, when a New York Times article on the removal of then-FBI agent Peter Strzok from Robert Mueller’s inquiry disclosed Horowitz’s investigation. The NY Times noted that Horowitz was leading a “broad examination of how the F.B.I. handled the Clinton email investigation.” The article also noted that “Horowitz declined to characterize his findings but said that he hoped to have a copy of his report released by March or April” of 2018. At the time, the news of Horowitz’s investigation was received with a large degree of optimism, but in hindsight, one can see that what that investigation did was effectively tie up any outside investigations into the FBI for two years. Also of note is that the IG’s investigation was virtually all-encompassing, he was “looking” at everything. That also meant that almost everything the FBI and the IC had done fell under the umbrella of Horowitz’s supposed investigation. Horowitz’s report wouldn’t be released until December 2019. Horowitz would later call Trump’s presidency “a challenging time … particularly in the last year” during a Feb. 10, 2021, online discussion hosted by Harvard Law School and moderated by Jack Goldsmith and Bob Woodward. At one point during the discussion, Goldsmith noted that the Trump administration represented a “most extraordinary and unprecedented assault” on our norms and our institutions. Goldsmith then asked Horowitz, “what happens when a president is elected precisely to break norms.” Horowitz responded, saying, “I agree with Bob and I agree with you. That was what happened here, it was norm-breaking.” He continued, stating that “norms didn’t matter,” and telling Goldsmith that “it was certainly a challenging time” for the IG community. But several other crucial events also transpired on Jan. 12, 2017, the most important being the first renewal of the Carter Page FISA. It also marked the date that the Clinton Global Initiative announced that it would close on April 15 of that year, as donations continued to dry up as the Clintons no longer held true political power. It was also on that day that Washington Post reporter David Ignatius cited government “sources” regarding Michael Flynn’s calls with Russia’s Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Although Flynn would later be found to have engaged in nothing improper during his calls, he would resign a day later, on Jan. 13. The same day that Flynn resigned, the Senate Intelligence Committee opened what would prove to be a fatally flawed and politically driven investigation into Russia and U.S. political campaign officials. Then, on Jan/ 24-25, 2017, Christopher Steele’s supposed source for his dossier, Igor Danchenko, was interviewed by the FBI. Given Danchenko’s admissions, the FBI knew that the dossier’s major allegations were fabrications. Yet, instead of halting their investigation and withdrawing their FISA warrant on Trump 2016 campaign adviser Carter Page—a warrant that had been obtained on the basis of the dossier—the FBI forged on and even escalated the probe. Put simply, by Jan. 25, 2017, the FBI knew that the dossier’s major allegations were fabrications. Yet, instead of terminating the investigation and withdrawing their FISA warrant on Trump 2016 presidential campaign adviser Carter Page—a warrant that had been obtained on the basis of the dossier—the FBI not only moved forward, the bureau escalated its investigation. Two days later, during a private dinner meeting, Trump asked Comey if he was under investigation. Comey told him privately that he was not, but refused to say so publicly. During this same dinner meeting, Trump also told Comey that he was considering ordering the FBI to investigate the dossier, which Comey successfully talked him out of doing. Sometime in March 2017, likely just a few days later, the FBI provided Danchenko with confidential human source (CHS) status, which would successfully keep Danchenko under full protective cover—concealing him from congressional and public scrutiny. With the newfound CHS status, Danchenko’s name and the entirety of his connections to the FBI were fully redactable. Additionally, by paying Danchenko, the FBI may have found a way to ensure his silence. On March 2, 2017, during an MSNBC interview, Obama’s deputy assistant secretary of defense, Evelyn Farkas, stated that if “The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence.” Watch “Truth Over News” videos with an EPOCHTV.COM subscription. ($1 for 2 months trial available )

Commentary For anyone who needs to brush up on their knowledge of American history, particularly claims made in the “1619 Project,” I highly recommend watching one of the latest episodes on EpochTV “The Shortcomings of Jamestown” the second in a three-part series entitled “The American Story.” In this episode “The Shortcomings of Jamestown,” host Timothy Barton, president of WallBuilders; and Jonathan Richie, Assistant Director of the American Journey Experience; tell the true story of the colony at Jamestown. Most of what Columbus explored was in Central and South America, however, the colonies in North America are what would establish and eventually become the United States. Although Columbus discovers the New World in 1492, the Jamestown colony and the colonization by Englishmen were not founded until 1607, over a hundred years later. Richie reads interesting writings of the day which address this gap, citing that the Reformation in Europe resulted in the people who moved to America wanting to escape religious persecution. In large part, most of the colonies were founded on religious grounds for religious reasons. The idea was to create a religious colony where people could go and be tolerated and propagate the gospel of Jesus Christ. Jamestown was built with this intent. They wanted to provide a place where people could go and enjoy religious and civil labor on a larger scale. “We might look back and say they should have done more or expanded it further,” says Richie, “but for the time and the context of that world civilization, it’s a step in the right direction, where they’re expanding freedom to more people, in a more meaningful way than it had ever been done.” He says this was the entire idea behind what led to the colonization of Jamestown and eventually Plymouth. Jamestown, John Smith, and Pocahontas The EpochTV episode tells the fascinating story of John Smith and Pocahontas, who saved his life after his men were killed by natives and he was about to be killed as well. She negotiated his freedom and also led delegations to provide the Jamestown people with the resources they needed while they were trying to provide for themselves and learn how to navigate the new world. This treaty relationship is important to note. John Smith eventually becomes the governor of Jamestown, while the relationship between Jamestown and the natives was good. However, there were some issues among the English at Jamestown, many of whom starved and died. Due to a lack of work ethic, John Smith made new rules for the colony that those who did not work did not eat. There was an explosion shortly after these rules were established and John Smith was injured and sent back to England to recover. Many at the time thought it was an intentional event meant to kill Smith or get him out of the way. Leaving Jamestown without a leader, or at least a leader who kept them in check, Jamestown began digressing. Asking for too many resources from the native Americans, the natives eventually had to say no. The colonizers experienced starvation that winter and lost much of their numbers. They ate their livestock, pets, etc. and they even dug up the dead bodies of those who had died, and often turned on each other and ate one another. After this, some of the natives began raiding them, and there were some residents of Jamestown who were captured and held as prisoners of war in these native camps. The governor of Jamestown at the time decided they needed to get their people and resources back. To accomplish this, the governor paid a native American chief of another tribe to kidnap Pocahontas for them to hold as a prisoner and use for a prisoner exchange. The colonizers did use her to negotiate and get their people and goods back, however, this was not an honorable act for the people of Jamestown to do. What About the 1619 Project? Despite the many shortcomings of Jamestown, some positive things did come out of it as well. In 1619, the first legislative body of the new world meets in Jamestown, with some of the seeds of the American ideas growing. In recent years, what we know as the “1619 Project,” is what is being told as the beginning of America for a different reason entirely. In 1619, according to the New York Post article, a pirate ship lands in America and unloads what the article claims is the first African American people to land in North America as slaves. It’s important to note that the African northern slave trade started around the 1500s, and in North America, there were already Spanish and french colonies that both participated actively in the slave trade. “The whole idea behind the 1619 Project is just completely historically false because there were already African slaves in what later became the continental United States, prior to 1619,” explains Richie, saying you can go back to even 1526 to find examples. He shows primary source historical documents proving the 1619 narrative is false. The narrative is that America created and was built on slavery, America fought a revolution to keep the institution of slavery, among other accusations. “Historically, it’s not that America didn’t participate in the slave trade or slavery,” says Barton, “it’s just that the way the story is being told is not historically accurate given the context or even original documents.” It’s also important to note that chattel slavery wasn’t legal in America at the time. Slaves were sold as indentured servants, which is significantly different than slaves. Indentured servants were integrated into the colony with the same legal standing as white indentured servants, they would work for an allotted period of time and then be freed, oftentimes given land, property, clothes, and set up to have their own life in the colonies. Interestingly, one of the first historical figures credited for establishing chattel slavery in America was believed to have been one of those indentured servants and was himself an African American, Anthony Johnson. He landed with the ship in 1619 and eventually earned his freedom, became a landowner, and began purchasing indentured servants himself. In a civil suit, Johnson won the perpetual ownership of another African man in the 1650s. “This is a very seminal moment because it is the first time that we’ve been able to identify in the history of America that somebody is made a perpetual lifetime slave, not for committing an actual crime, it’s in a civil suit,” says Richie, emphasizing it was also over a black man owning another black man. Today we hear the Jamestown people were evil, and if looking at the facts, Barton says there are a lot of issues. However, to rewrite history to paint a people group as bad is simply lying to promote a specific agenda. The EpochTV episode also shows artifacts of weapons that Africans would use to capture other Africans and sell them into slavery. Referring to slavery, Barton says “This was something that was certainly an evil around the world, and today when people say that America is evil because of this, Americans certainly participated in some really bad and evil things, but America was not the originator or instigator of this moment that is portrayed in the 1619 project.” The series of "The American Story": https://www.theepochtimes.com/c-the-american-story