Study: 28,187 Plant Species Used as Medicines throughout the World

Study: 28,187 Plant Species Used as Medicines throughout the World
Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Sayer Ji, Founder
May 28, 2017

A powerful new study reminds us that natural medicine was once, and still is, the default medical system on this planet…  

In fact, the use of synthetically produced patent medicines (pharmaceuticals) is a relatively recent development (circa 1870), and should really be called the “alternative medicine” vis-a-vis time-tested, far safer approaches that rely on food, spices, and carefully prepared and administered plant extracts.

A powerful new report released by the Kew Gardens in the United Kingdom reveals that there are currently 28,187 plant species recorded as being of medicinal use throughout the world. In addition, the report revealed that fewer than 16% (4,478) of the species used in plant-based medicines are cited in a medicinal regulatory publication.

While the lesser developed countries are the primary users of plant medicines, they are used in great abundance throughout the world. Even in countries like Germany where conventional, drug-based medicine is the default approach, about 90% of their population also uses herbal medicines. Even the most pharmaceutically obsessed country in the world, the United States, spent 17 billion dollars on traditional herbal medicines in 2000 alone, and the number has grown steadily since then.

[An interesting side note: Even Insects Use ‘Natural Medicine’ Because It Works!]

It should be noted that mixing plant-based medicines with pharmaceuticals can be dangerous, and as the report points out, many of these plants contain compounds that can cause harm if taken incorrectly. There is also a problem with misnaming or multiple names for the same plant-based medicines::

“143 DATABASES AND PUBLICATIONS CITE 415,180 UNIQUE NAMES FOR PLANT-BASED MEDICINES– AN AVERAGE OF 15 ALTERNATIVE NAMES FOR EACH SPECIES.”

The report also pointed out that plants still provide the majority of lead compounds for drug development, with many still being directly extracted from medicinal plants:

“Since 1981, 1,130 new therapeutic agents have been approved for use as pharmaceutical drugs, of which 593 are based on compounds from natural sources. Thirty-eight are derived from medicinal plants [40,41] . Fifteen of the 56 natural drugs registered for the treatment of cancer since 1980 are derived from medicinal plants with a long history of traditional use. For example drugs based on Paclitaxel have been isolated from the yew tree (Taxus spp.), Camptothecin from the happy tree, (Camptotheca acuminata) and Podophyllotoxin from the May apple (Podophyllum hexandrum and P. peltatum).”

In some sense, then, one can consider pharmaceutical medicine “plant-based,” with the difference that their patent-based model almost invariably amplifies the toxic side effects to the patient.

The report also points out that presently, of the 5 drugs developmental specifically to treat the symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease, two are derived from plants:

“Galantamine, from Galanthus (snowdrops), Leucojum (snowflakes) and Narcissus (daffodils), was the first natural product drug to treat dementia symptoms. The second was Rivastigmine, which is chemically derived from physostigmine, an alkaloid from Physostigma venenosum (calabar bean).”

Another study mentioned in the report found that there are a staggering 656 flowering plant species used traditionally for diabetes, representing 437 genera and 111 families. For instance, Metformin, probably the most well known drug for diabetes, was modeled after the anti-diabetic properties of Galega officinalis (goat’s rue). Unfortunately, even when a compound is isolated from a natural plant, it can lose…

Read more At: GreenMedInfo.com

Advertisements

How Facebook is Helping China Become a Dystopian Nightmare

Source: TheDailyBell.com
May 31, 2017

A bad credit score can be quite the hardship in America. But can you imagine a bad social credit score? China is implementing social credit scores that will influence the types of schooling, jobs, and housing available to citizens.

The population will also have the chance to review and affect their neighbors’ and acquaintances’ scores. They will be ranked in order to decide who gets what privileges, and who must remain on the outer periphery of society. What citizens of China say on the internet and in relation to the Chinese government will influence the scores, creating a stratified society with the “perfect citizen” on top, decided of course by the ruling Chinese Communist Party.

The score will be contained in information found on ID cards citizens must carry. Some citizens who renew their ID’s are finding that they must submit a sample of their DNA to the central database that China is building to keep further track of their citizens. Over 44 million samples have already been collected. The Chinese government claims it is for crime fighting purposes, however, the people forced to give samples have often committed no crime.

China also strictly limits its internet, creating a firewall that blocks whatever the government does not want people to see. Facebook, Instagram, and other social media websites have been blocked for years by the Chinese government, afraid the citizens will use the social media sites to organize protests and opposition to the communist party.

China maintains control through strict laws against freedom of the press and freedom of speech which helps them revise history in the minds of its citizens. China even went so far as to make it illegal to speak out against the “heroes and martyrs” of China and the communist party. 

Already, events like the massacre at Tiananmen Square are viewed with confusion and misunderstanding by younger generations. But now you could end up legally liable for just challenging the historical narrative told by the government.

And Facebook wants in on the action.

Facebook Wants to Impress the Repressive Regime

Zuckerberg has been sucking up to the Chinese government ever since they blocked Facebook in 2009. He has learned Mandarin in order to give some of his amazing speeches in China and even took a jog through a smog cloud last year for a photo op which included a Mao portrait in the background.

Zuckerberg has said, “You can’t have a mission to want to connect everyone in the world and leave out the biggest country.”

Zuckerberg also directly indicated his intentions by meeting with the Chinese Internet Czar and showing off his collection of Chinese propaganda and speeches by President Xi Jinping. Oh and he just happened to have JinPing’s book on his desk during the meeting, making him not just an insufferable kiss-ass but an obvious one too.

So should we really believe that Facebook made a mistake when they rejected a Hong Kong man’s controversial Facebook profile picture? (Facebook is not blocked in Hong Kong).

Facebook has apologised for “mistakenly” banning the use of a temporary profile picture frame commemorating the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre.

Facebook’s picture frame function allows users to change their profile photos in support of a cause. The frame in question carries messages calling for justice for Tiananmen protesters and an end to the “dictatorial regime” in China…

He said he received a notification within 24 hours saying that his design was rejected, on the basis that it fails to meet the company’s terms and policies. Facebook said the frame “belittles, threatens or attacks a particular person, legal entity, nationality or group.”

Fung then submitted on Saturday afternoon another frame showing a candle and the text “Don’t forget June 4,” hoping that Facebook would approve it. It was still under review at the time of publication.

Oops, Facebook later said, it was totally just a little mistake that they supported a murderous government over activists wishing to draw attention to horrible human rights abuses.

In fact, under strict censorship laws, the government does not allow any discussion of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre in books and blocks online searches and discussions of the brutal crackdown that killed an estimated 1,000 students protesting the ruling Communist Party’s human rights abuses.

And now, the Chinese government is preparing for the 28th anniversary of the massacre on June 4th by placing many activists under house arrest and warning others not to speak out.

Facebook seems only too happy to help them in the effort of stamping out that dark mark on China’s history.

Facebook is a Dictator’s Wet Dream

People may not entirely know the extent of Facebook’s data gathering on users. It is much more than simply advertising to you based on recent Google searches, and figuring out your social circles to suggest friends. Facebook has algorithms which put together entire files on people that can be tailored to sell to an insurance company, an employer, or perhaps even the government.

It seems that China is weary of Facebook being used as a tool to organize dissent, and protest their strict Orwellian rules. But perhaps Xi Jinping is just playing hard to get. Zuckerberg will clearly have no problem altering Facebook in China to benefit the communist regime. With just a few tweaks, it will fit right into the Chinese government’s plan to turn China into an exact replica of the society depicted in 1984.

Zuckerberg is likely busy right now planning out exactly how he can help the regime implement their social credit policy–there’s no one better for the job! He can open up citizenship Facebook reviews for each profile, to streamline the process of ratting out your neighbors to the government.

He will be able to hand deliver the files on every citizen who uses Facebook to the Chinese government, revealing everything about them. It will be in Zuckerberg’s hands which Chinese citizens are oppressed and ostracized from Chinese society, and which ones are rewarded.

All the interest Zuckerberg has shown in Chinese propaganda, speeches, and leaders is simply him doing the proper research to understand how to best offer his products and services to dictatorships.

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com

The Violence-Inducing Effects of Psychiatric Medication

The Violence-Inducing Effects of Psychiatric Medication
Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Kelly Brogan, M.D.
May 23, 2017

Originally published on KellyBroganMd.com

Psychiatric medications have some dangerous, often-overlooked side effects, which could include suicide and homicide.

On May 17, 2017, we learned that Chris Cornell of Soundgarden had reportedly committed suicide by hanging. His family reports knowing a different Chris than one who would make this fatal decision, and suspect his anti-anxiety prescription in the altered state he was witnessed to be in the night he died. Perhaps an “addict turned psychiatric patient”, like so many, Chris Cornell seemed to have left the frying pan of substance abuse for the fire of psychiatric medication risks.

For reasons that remain mysterious, those under the influence of psychiatric medication often specifically choose to hang themselves in their moment of peak impulsivity. Some, like Kim’s husband Woody who was never depressed a day in his life but prescribed Zoloft by his internist, even verbalize a felt experience of his head coming apart from his body in the days before he was found hanged in his garage.

Then there’s 14 year old Naika, a foster child in Florida who hanged herself on a FB livestream after being treated with 50mg of Vyvanse, a drug treatment for ADHD that leads to a domino effect of diagnoses and psychiatric meds including a 13 fold increase in likelihood of being prescribed an antipsychotic medication and 4 fold increase in antidepressant medications than controls.[1]

Are these just rare anecdotes? Is this just the cost of treatment that is helpful for most? Are we blaming medication for what might have been severe mental illness that was undertreated and/or undiagnosed?

Informed consent: the premise of ethical medicine

I believe first and foremost in informed consent. If you are informed of the risks, benefits, and alternatives to a given treatment, you will be empowered to make the best decision for yourself based on your personal, family, philosophical, and religious life context. But the truth is that prescribers are not in a position to share the known risks of medications because we learn only of their purported benefits with a short-tagline of dismissively rare risks that are thought to be invariably outweighed by the presenting clinical concern.

But what about serious risks – including impulsive suicide and homicide – surely we are informing patients of that possibility, right?

Wrong.

In fact, the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry have gone to great lengths to conceal multiple signals of harm so we certainly can’t expect your average prescriber to have done the investigative work required to get at the truth.

In fact, from 1999-2013, psychiatric medication prescriptions have increased by a whopping 117% concurrent with a 240% increase in death rates from these medications[2]. So let’s review some of the evidence that suggests that it may not be in your best interest or the best interest of those around you for you to travel the path of medication-based psychiatry. Because, after all, if we don’t screen for risk factors – if we don’t know who will become the next victim of psych-med-induced violence – then how can we justify a single prescription? Are we at a point in the history of medicine where random acts of personal and public violence are defensible risks of treatment for stress, anxiety, depression, inattention, psychosocial distress, irritable bowel syndrome, chronic fatigue, and even stress incontinence?

Let the science speak

Suicide

Prescribed specifically to “prevent” suicide, antidepressants now come with a black box warning label of suicide risk since 2010. Multi-billion dollar lawsuits like the settlement of Study 329[3] have been necessary to unlock the cabinet drawers of an industry that cares more about profit than human lives. A reanalysis of study 329[4] which initially served as a landmark study in 2001 supporting the prescription of antidepressants to children, has now demonstrated that these medications are ineffective in this population and play a causal role in suicidal behavior. Concealing and manipulating data that shows this signal of harm, including a doubling of risk of suicide with antidepressant treatment,[5] [6] [7] has generated seeming confusion around this incomprehensibly unacceptable risk profile. In fact, a reanalysis[8] of an influential US National Institute of Mental Health 2007 study, revealed a four-fold increase in suicide despite the fact that the initial publication[9] claimed no increased risk relative to placebo.

According to available data – 3 large meta-analyses – more psychiatric treatment means more suicide.[10] [11] [12] Well, that might seem a hazard of the field, right? Where blaming medications for suicide would be like saying that umbrellas cause the rain.

That’s why studies in non-suicidal subjects[13] and even healthy volunteers who went on to experience suicidality after taking antidepressants are so compelling[14].

Benzodiazepines (like what Cornell was taking) and hypnotics (sleep and anxiety medications) also have a documented potential to increase risk of completed and attempted suicide[15] and have been implicated in impulsive self-harm including self-inflicted stab wounds during changes to dosage[16]. We also find the documented possibility that suicidality could emerge in patients who are treated with this class of medications even when they are not suicidal with recent research stating, “benzodiazepine receptor agonist hypnotics can cause parasomnias, which in rare cases may lead to suicidal ideation or suicidal behavior in persons who were not known to be suicidal”[17]. And, of course, these medications themselves provide the means and the method with a known lethal poisoning profile[18].

Homicide

Clearly murderers are mentally ill, right? What if I told you that the science supports the concern that we are medicating innocent civilians into states of murderous impulsivity?

When Andrew Thibault began to research the safety of a stimulant drug recommended to his son, he entered a rabbit hole he has yet to emerge from. After literally teaching himself code to decrypt the data on the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System website, he was able to cull 2000 pediatric fatalities from psychotropic medications, and 700 homicides. A Freedom of Information Act and a lawsuit later, he continues to struggle with redacted and suppressed information around 24 homicides directly connected to the use of psychotropics including the homicide by a 10 year old treated with Vyvanse of an infant. Another case, ultimately recovered, involved statements from a 35 year old perpetrator/patient, who murdered her own daughter, as directly implicating as “When I took nortriptyline, I immediately wanted to kill myself. I’d never had thoughts like that before”.

To begin to scientifically explore the risk of violence induced by psychotropic medication, a study sample needs to be representative, the reason for taking the drug needs to be taken into consideration, the effect needs to be controlled for, as do any other intoxicants. Professor Jari Tiihonen’s research group analysed the use of prescription drugs of 959 persons convicted of a homicide in Finland and found that pre-crime prescription of benzodiazepines and opiates resulted in the highest risk (223% increase) of committing homicide[19].

Relatedly, eleven antidepressants, six sedative/hypnotics and three drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder represented the bulk of 31 medications associated with violence reported to the FDA[20]. Now an international problem, a Swedish registry study identified a statistically significant increase in violence in males and females under 25 years old prescribed antidepressants[21].

Implicated in school shootings, stabbings, and even the Germanwings flight crash, prescribing of psychotropics prior to these incidences has been catalogued on https://ssristories.org/ leading me to suspect psychiatric prescribing as the most likely cause in any and all reports of unusually violent behavior in the public sphere.

Is Association Really Causation?

Beyond the cases where violence to self or others was induced in a non-violent, non-depressed, non-psychotic individual, what other evidence is there that speaks to how this could possibly be happening?

The most seminal paper in this regard, in my opinion, was published in 2011 by Lucire and Crotty[22]. Ten cases of extreme violence were committed by patients who were prescribed antidepressants – not for major mental illness or even for depression – but for psychosocial distress (ie work stress, dog died, divorce). What these authors identified was that these ten subjects had variants to liver enzymes responsible for drug metabolism exacerbated by co-administration of other drugs and substances including herbs. All returned to their baseline personalities when the antidepressant was discontinued.

Now referred to as akathisia-induced impulsivity[23], the genetic risk factors for this Russian Roulette of violence are not screened for prior to psychotropic prescribing. Akathisia is a state of severe restlessness associated with thoughts of suicide and homicide. Many patients describe it as a feeling-less state of apathy – and what I would describe as a disconnection from their own souls, their own experience of human connection, and any measure of self-reflection.

The genetic underpinnings of this kind of medication-induced vulnerability are just beginning to be explored[24] with identification of precursor symptoms to violence including severe agitation. In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, healthy volunteers exhibited an almost 2 fold increased risk of symptoms that can lead to violence[25]. A 4-5 fold increased risk was noted in patients prescribed a generic version of the antidepressant Cymbalta, off-label, for stress urinary incontinence (a non-psychiatric indication)[26].

There is another way

Perhaps it’s as if we are offering the blade edge of a knife to those falling off the cliff of struggle and suffering. Because the idea of managing a chemical imbalance with chemicals seems to make sense. But at what cost? The laundry list of acute and chronic adverse effects is growing, and the unpredictable risk of medication-induced violence should lead to an urgent cessation of all psychotropics. Because it takes 17 years[27] for physician practice to reflect published science, we need grassroots level information sharing. We need to inform ourselves before we consent to engage a system that regards you as an impersonal statistic.

We live in a cultural context that makes no room for the relevance, meaning, and significance of symptoms – symptoms are simply bad and scary and they must be managed. We don’t make room for patients to ask why they are not ok.

If you knew that your symptoms were reversible, healable, transformable, you might consider walking that path instead of assuming this level of risk for placebo-level efficacy of psychotropic medication. We would only euthanize a “mental patient” if we felt their condition was lifelong and unremitting. In fact, every woman I have ever tapered off of psychiatric drugs into experiences of total vitality once believed that she would be a medicated psychiatric patient for life. If you knew that radical self-healing potential lies within each and every one of us, if you only knew that was possible, you might start that journey today. It’s side effect free…

Read More At: GreenMedInfo.com

References

[1] http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0706743716689055

[2] http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_stats/download_data_files_results.jsp?cboDataYear=All&cboDataTypeY=2%2CHousehold+Event+File&buttonYearandDataType=Search&cboPufNumber=All&SearchTitle=Prescribed+Medicines

[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11437014 

[4] http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4320

[5] http://www.bmj.com/content/330/7488/396

[6] http://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.i65?etoc=

[7] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12601224

[8] http://content.iospress.com/articles/international-journal-of-risk-and-safety-in-medicine/jrs0645

[9] http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=210055

[10] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15555028 

[11] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26713983_The_Relationship_Between_General_Population_Suicide_Rates_and_Mental_Health_Funding_Service_Provision_and_National_Policy_a_Cross-National_Study 

[12] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160252713000587 

[13] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2301661/

[14] http://davidhealy.org/articles/#Suicide_Articles

[15] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28257172

[16] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2047018/ 

[17] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27609243

[18] http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303061

[19] https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-06/uoef-fsa052515.php

[20] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002271/ 

[21] http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001875

[22] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3513220/ 

[23] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27138119 

[24] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27324805 

[25] http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0141076816666805

[26] http://www.cmaj.ca/content/189/5/E194 

[27] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22179294

Norway’s ‘CIA’ Pushes Plan To Unleash “Facebook Police”

Source: ZeroHedge.com
May 31, 2017

Kripos, Norway’s National Criminal Investigation Service, is reportedly examining the legal aspects of how police accounts could be given access to areas of Facebook that are not open to the public. It would mean police gaining access to closed groups and interacting with members as they search for evidence of criminal activity, the Norwegian newspaper Dagens Naeringsliv reported.

“We have looked into the possibility of creating ‘uniformed accounts’. But we have not decided whether it is something we should do,” communications officer Axel Wilhelm Due told Dagens Næringsliv, via the Local.

As The Telegraph reports, police in Norway and elsewhere have previously used fake Facebook profiles to investigate crimes including smuggling alcohol and tobacco.

Facebook has not given police profiles with enhanced access to private groups but they can apply for access to them in connection with criminal cases, Dagens Næringsliv reported.

Police superintendent Emil Jenssen of Kripos told Norwegian broadcaster NRK:

“We get lots of tips on areas where it is sold bootleg, drugs or other illegal things. Then we go inside these groups to preserve evidence for criminal cases.

If there is a criminal case we can go to court and get an injunction and send it to Facebook. They send us so the information we need.

We have the ability to do this in necessity as well if there is danger to life and health. When it goes very quickly, often under an hour. In other criminal cases it takes longer.”

The company’s Norwegian press office told the paper that it didn’t want to comment on whether it would permit officially verified police accounts.

But such a decision would be a step forward for Facebook in terms of how it handles transparency surrounding intelligence or law enforcement agencies operating on the site. As the Snowden leaks revealed, Facebook and other tech giants like Google, Microsoft and Apple are already compelled to share our data with the National Security Agency, when it’s asked for.

If police officers are allowed to patrol content on the site, maybe Facebook could abandon some of its convoluted policies for policing what its users can and cannot see.

It also begs the question: Would this officially make “fake news” a crime?

Read More At: ZeroHedge.com

CONFIRMED: Obama illegally spied on Americans… no one in the media calls for any investigation at all

Image: CONFIRMED: Obama illegally spied on Americans… no one in the media calls for any investigation at all
Source: NaturalNews.com
Jayson Veley
May 31, 2017

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that the people have a right to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” It was originally included in the Bill of Rights because at the time of the amendment’s ratification, the Founding Fathers were extremely fearful of the rise of tyranny in the new world. Warrantless searches and seizures were common under the rule of the king, and the framers included language about privacy protection in the Constitution to ensure that the same practice didn’t continue. Sadly, over two centuries of progressivism and corruption within the federal government has made the Fourth Amendment all but irrelevant.

Earlier this week, Circa.com reported that the Obama administration violated its own surveillance guidelines by expanding Internet searches and essentially spying on millions of Americans for the past several years.

Since 2011, Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act has prohibited the practice of querying the results of upstream Internet collections. According to Circa, the Obama administration self-disclosed the NSA rule violations during a closed-door hearing on October 26, 2016, just days before Donald Trump was elected President of the United States. The court, which was usually supportive of the Obama administration, declared that the Obama administration’s failure to disclose the massive amount of personal information previously collected amounted to an “institutional lack of candor” and was a “very serious Fourth Amendment issue,” according to a court document from April 26 of this year.

Some officials that served in the Obama administration, such as National Security Adviser Susan Rice, have argued that the data collection was legal under the minimization rule changes that Barack Obama made in 2011. However, even the NSA’s own watchdog group says that this argument is simply not true. “Since 2011, NSA’s minimization procedures have prohibited use of U.S.-person identifiers to query the results of upstream Internet collections under Section 702,” the court ruling said. “The Oct. 26, 2016 notice informed the court that NSA analysts had been conducting such queries in violation of that prohibition, with much greater frequency than had been previously disclosed to the Court.”

The American Civil Liberties Union, or the ACLU, has recently expressed concern that the U.S. intelligence community may not have the ability to properly restrain itself and operate within the confines of their own laws. If this is true, then the further abuse of power is inevitable.

The Obama-era bombshell raises two legitimate concerns. First, it is abundantly obvious that the former administration had very little respect for the Constitution and the privacy rights of the American people. Once again, the Bill of Rights proved to be nothing more to the Obama administration than a bunch of words on a really old piece of paper; words that can be followed when its politically expedient and ignored when its not. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson would be ashamed that we have elected leaders today who put their hand on a bible, swear to uphold the Constitution, and then do the exact opposite upon stepping into a position of power.

Second, where is the mainstream media? Why aren’t television networks like CNN, MSNBC and NBC and publications like The Washington Post and Politico reporting on this? Furthermore, since liberals like Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren seem to believe so strongly in the use of special prosecutors to get to the bottom of scandals that occur within the federal government, where are the calls for a special prosecutor to investigate Barack Obama and his National Security Agency?

James Madison, considered by most to be the Father of the Bill of Rights, once said, “The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.” And today, it’s clear that abuse is exactly what we the people are experiencing.

Read more at: NaturalNews.com

Suppose Trump Had Hillary’s Incredible Russian Connection?

TruthFact

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
May 31, 2017

If Trump had Hillary’s Russian connection…

Trump would be curled up in a ball in a bunker a few hundred feet under the White House. And that’s on his best day.

The newspapers and television news would be citing nothing less than treason as the cause for his impeachment. They would claim he was, in fact, helping Putin win World War 3 against the US. A nuclear war.

Forget “Putin influenced the election on behalf of Trump.” Instead, mainstream attack dogs would be claiming Trump was a conscious agent who had been turned, years ago, against his home country. The dogs would be making up stories about how this happened.

“It was on a business trip that the world changed for a desperate real estate mogul named Donald Trump. Mr. Trump was on his way to Moscow, ostensibly to meet with several Russian oligarchs about a casino project he was hoping to launch. Instead, he huddled with a representative and close friend of Vladimir Putin at the Baltschug Kempinski Hotel, and that friend offered Mr. Trump a different kind of deal, one that would change his life forever and alter the future of America…”

This is what we would be seeing and hearing if Donald Trump had been involved in the 2013 Clinton business deal with Russia that everyone knows about—but no one is willing to prosecute or even cover (anymore) in the mainstream press.

I have written about the Clinton deal before, but it’s worth reviewing again, given the kind of heat Trump is dealing with for Phone Conversations. Conversations several of his people have had with Russians; even business deals that could have been consummated during those discussions.

So…here it is again. Imagine Hillary and Bill Clinton were not the wheelers and dealers. Imagine Trump was. Try to conceive what would be happening to him now vs. what is happening to Bill and Hillary: i.e., nothing.

I’ll go one step further. Wherever Bill or Hillary’s name, or the name of their Foundation, appears in the NY Times story I’m about to quote, I’ll substitute a Trump name (in CAPS), so you get the full effect:

Consider this plot line. Follow the bouncing ball.

Putin wants 20% of uranium on US soil. That 20% is owned by a Canadian mining company.

The Canadian executives want to sell it to Putin.

But because uranium is a US “national security” product, various US federal agencies have to OK the deal. One of those agencies is the US State Department.

The State Department is headed up by MELANIA TRUMP. Her Department says yes to the uranium deal.

The kicker? Those Canadian mining executives, who wanted the sale to Putin to go through, donated millions to the TRUMP FAMILY FOUNDATION.

Memory is short. On April 23, 2015, the NY Times ran a story under the headline: Cash Flowed to TRUMP Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal.

The bare bones of the story: a Canadian company called Uranium One controlled a great deal of uranium production in the US. It was sold to Russia (meaning Putin and his minions). So Putin now controls 20% of US uranium production.

From the Times: “…the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.”

From the Times: “The [Pravda] article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company [Uranium One] with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.”

“At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of DONALD TRUMP and his family. Members of that [mining] group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.”

“Frank Giustra…a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by DONALD TRUMP…”

“Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal [to sell Uranium One to Putin] had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. TRUMP’S wife, MELANIA TRUMP.”

“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the TRUMP Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the TRUMPS, despite an agreement Mrs. TRUMP had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.”

“And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. TRUMP received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

Got the picture?

Circumstantial case, you say?

Well, imagine the case applied to Donald Trump and his wife.

Where would we be now?

What hell would be unleashed from the press corps?

What venom would be spewed from the Arctic Circle to Tierra del Fuego?

Page one: THE GREATEST TRAITOR IN AMERICAN HISTORY IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

And that headline would run on a mild slow news day.

But Hillary and Bill Clinton, the actual players in the Russia/Putin/uranium deal…

Roam free.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

While Trump Was In Riyadh Dancing & Selling Arms, This Was Happening…


Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
May 31, 2017

Normally I do not use or go to this source, but in this case I make an exception, since it highlights the fundamental problem with the US Empire’s foreign policy: it is ossified, and completely backward looking. Indeed, by tying it to a regressive and backward looking country like Suadi Arabia, Mr. Trump may have committed a strategic error that will affect Americans, Saudis, and for that matter, Arabs elsewhere, for generations to come. My thoughts about the implications of his trip, and the ambiguous long term rationale behind it, were expressed, albeit somewhat clumsily, in last Thursday’s News and Views from the Nefarium.

This piece, however, which was shared by Mr. H.B., highlights the problem: while Mr. Trump was dancing with a few backward Saudi tribesmen, Mr. Xi was hosting a large gathering of nations in Beijing to expand the economic cooperation of the BRICSA bloc, and to work out details of building out China’s New Silk Road project:

https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2017/05/21/world-leaders-gather-beijing-us-sinks-irrelevancy/

Note, the following:

Even countries that are cool on the Chinese initiative, including India and Japan, sent representatives to the summit that carried a bit more clout than the pathetic representation of the United States, Matt Pottinger, a little-known special assistant to Trump and the senior director for East Asia of National Security Council. In fact, the only reason Trump sent anyone to represent the United States at the Beijing gathering was because of a special request made by President Xi during his recent meeting with Trump at the president’s private Mar-a-Lago Club resort in Palm Beach, Florida.

South Korea, which saw relations with China sour over America’s placement of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile system in South Korea, sent a delegation to Beijing after a phone call between South Korea’s new liberal president, Moon Jae-in, and President Xi. Moon responded to the phone call by sending a delegation led by his Democratic Party’s veteran legislator to Beijing.

Even North Korea, which rankled South Korea, Japan, and the United States by firing a ballistic missile into waters near Russia, sent a delegation to the Beijing meeting headed by Kim Yong Jae, the North’s Minister of External Economic Relations. The Trump administration, which sent a virtual unknown to Beijing, complained loudly about North Korea’s representation at the Silk Road summit. But Washington’s complaint was conveyed by someone as unknown as Mr. Pottinger, Anna Richey-Allen, a low-level spokesperson for the U.S. State Department’s East Asia Bureau. The reason why the United States is being spoken for by middle-grade bureaucrats is that the nation that still believes it is the world’s only remaining «superpower» is now governed by an administration rife with top-level vacancies, inter-agency squabbling, and amateur league players.

Yes, that’s right: Japan, India, North and South Korea, all sent high level delegations.

So did eastern Europe:

These EU member state leaders included Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni, Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, Polish Prime Minister Beata Szydlo, Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, Czech President Milos Zeman, and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. Moreover, had British Prime Minister Theresa May not been in the middle of a general election campaign, she would have been in Beijing. Nevertheless, she sent British Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond in her place.

As did the following institutions and other countries:

The United Nations Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, was there, along with the President of the World Bank Jim Yong Kim and International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde. Also present in Beijing were the presidents of Turkey, Philippines, Argentina, Chile, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Switzerland, Kenya, Uzbekistan, and Laos, as well as the prime ministers of Vietnam, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Serbia, Malaysia, Mongolia, Fiji, Ethiopia, Cambodia, and Myanmar.

Ministerial delegations from Afghanistan, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Brazil, Egypt, Finland, Iran, Kuwait, Lebanon, Maldives, Romania, Nepal, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Tunisia, Uganda, and the United Arab Emirates were at the Beijing summit. Japan was represented by the senior adviser to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Secretary General of the Liberal Democratic Party, Toshihiro Nikai. France, which was experiencing a change of presidents, sent former Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin.

The Silk Road initiative has projects planned in all the nations whose governments were represented in Beijing, except for the United States and Israel. In addition to the nations represented by their government heads of state and ministers, Silk Road agreements were signed between China and Palestine, Georgia, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Albania, Tajikistan, Brunei, Croatia, and East Timor.

But, hey, according to former House Speaker Newt Gangrene…er… Gingrich, the USA can herald the new foreign policy triumph of Mr. Trump selling one hundred billion plus dollars to the (out)house of Saud as a major foreign policy shift and breakthrough.

Have we really lost our collective minds to this degree? Granted the regime of China leaves much much to be desired, as do the regimes of many of the countries represented in Beijing. But they are agreed, it seems – even the Japanese and North and South Koreans, heck, even the Saudis smelled the coffee and sent a delegation – on one thing, and that’s getting something done that will benefit everyone, like building railroads and highways and so on.

While the USSA is selling arms, and the means to manufacture them.

I don’t think for a moment that Mr. Xi is so naive to believe that all of these countries get along with each other, or don’t have competing interests.Nor do I think Mr. Xi is so naive as to believe that a conference this large, with this many in attendance, will really accomplish anything, much less bring everyone together in a group hug and kumbaya moment. We’ve all been to those “required meetings”. They do nothing but waste time, solve or settle little, and accomplish even less. But they do do one thing, and that is they simply get people talking about and thinking about certain things, and then, when enough of a critical mass of thought congeals, about doing and accomplishing them. That, it seems, is part of his – and China’s – cultural and economic strategy: simply generate excitement about accomplishing something and getting it done. Already in the past few months we’ve seen the first freight train from China arrive in London, and return to China. Turn the clock back just ten years, and this would have been unthinkable. Now translate that into highways running from, say, Beijing to Berlin(dwarfing the Kaiser’s old Berlin-to-Baghdad railway), and you get the idea.

Meanwhile, we’re concerned about the peanuts of a mere one hundred billion of arms sales to the Saudis.

And that’s the point: Mr. Xi is offering the world a vision. We may not like Mr. Xi. We may not even like (I certainly don’t) Communism in any form, even the modern “benign” Chinese form (benign if one compares it to Mao, or Stalin). But Mr. Xi is offering a vision nonetheless. (Heck, being a [much out of practice] organist, I find it very interesting that China seems to be on a pipe-organ-building spree and the Chinese appear to be enjoying what, for them, is an [increasingly less] rare instrument. Translation: China is also trying to become a bridge or unifying culture.)

Now compare that to what the USSA is offering (which is what, exactly? Drones? Surveillance? Tanks? Bombs? bad refrigerators? shoddy computer software operating systems? pay for play bottomlessly corrupt politicians? pedophilia?) and you get the idea. We’re fast becoming as irrelevant and unwanted as the Yugo, the latest in Serbo-Croatian technology.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.