If you think of asteroids, meteors and comets as potentially destructive and life-threatening forces, you're correct. After all, the arrivals of these celestial bodies are typically associated with catastrophic impacts on earth, profound environmental changes, impact winters, plagues and famines. But that's not all. Over the last century, a number of scientists have speculated that they might also bring life to the barren outreaches of the galaxy, such as our solar system. Not only that, they may even have positive evolutionary effects on existing flora and fauna.

This week on MindMatters we continue our discussion of near-earth objects as symbolized and alluded to in the Grail legends. Further to this warning from the past - that has been encoded for understanding by future generations - we'll be examining such ideas as directed panspermia, or the "creative" dimension of space rocks. Biological material and other life-seeding elements are the surprise feature of these death-dealing amalgamations.


Running Time: 01:12:07

Download: MP3 — 66 MB

Not only are the coronavirus models being used by WHO and most national health agencies based on highly dubious methodologies - and not only are the tests of wildly different quality, only confirming indirectly antibodies suggesting possible COVID-19 illness - now the actual designations of deaths related to coronavirus are being revealed to be equally problematic for a variety of reasons. It gives alarming food for thought as to the wisdom of deliberately putting most of the world's people - and with it the world economy - into Gulag-style lockdown on the argument it is necessary to contain deaths and prevent overloading of hospital emergency services.

When we take a closer look at the definitions used in various countries for "death related to COVID-19" we get a very different picture than what is claimed to be the deadliest plague to threaten mankind since the 1918 'Spanish Flu'.

The USA and CDC definitions

As of today the US is said to be the nation with by far the largest number of COVID-19 deaths, with US media reporting some 68,000 "Covid-19" deaths. Here is where it gets very dodgy. The government agency responsible for making the cause-of-death tally for the country, the the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, is making huge changes in how they count those deaths.

"The things we were worried would happen are happening." — Angus Johnston, professor at the City University of New York

No one is safe.

No one is immune.

No one gets spared the anguish, fear and heartache of living under the shadow of an authoritarian police state.

That's the message being broadcast 24/7 with every new piece of government propaganda, every new law that criminalizes otherwise lawful activity, every new policeman on the beat, every new surveillance camera casting a watchful eye, every sensationalist news story that titillates and distracts, every new prison or detention center built to house troublemakers and other undesirables, every new court ruling that gives government agents a green light to strip and steal and rape and ravage the citizenry, every school that opts to indoctrinate rather than educate, and every new justification for why Americans should comply with the government's attempts to trample the Constitution underfoot.

Yes, COVID-19 has taken a significant toll on the nation emotionally, physically, and economically, but there are still greater dangers on the horizon.

As long as "we the people" continue to allow the government to trample our rights in the name of so-called national security, things will get worse, not better.

It's already worse.

Now there's talk of mass testing for COVID-19 antibodies, screening checkpoints, contact tracing, immunity passports to allow those who have recovered from the virus to move around more freely, and snitch tip lines for reporting "rule breakers" to the authorities.

If you can't read the writing on the wall, you need to pay better attention.

Ever since the UK entered "lockdown", those pushing for it to end have been labelled "callous" or "selfish" or accused of putting profits before people. Meanwhile millions are unemployed and a global famine is on the horizon. The lockdown will kill more people than the virus, and needs to be ended.

The lockdown has been "eased". Apparently. Some people should go back to work, schools might be opening a bit. You can see one person at a time. You'd be forgiven for not noticing any tangible difference. You'd be more forgiven for thinking it's a contrived mess designed to confuse and distract people.

Essentially: We are very much still under lockdown, and likely to be so for the foreseeable future. And it is still, very much, a destructive policy which will ruin many more lives than the virus.

Nevertheless, the usual "liberal" media suspects are up in arms about Boris "putting profits before people". And, as per usual these days, even alt-media types (who should know better) are buying that line. So is Jeremy Corbyn.

In what is perhaps the greatest example of gaslighting in human history, we have "champions of the working class" arguing for mass unemployment, the shutting down of small businesses and the self-employed, and draconian police powers.

With the advent of the so-called COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen a number of medical practices that have little or no scientific support as regards reducing the spread of this infection. One of these measures is the wearing of facial masks, either a surgical-type mask, bandana or N95 respirator mask. When this pandemic began and we knew little about the virus itself or its epidemiologic behavior, it was assumed that it would behave, in terms of spread among communities, like other respiratory viruses. Little has presented itself after intense study of this virus and its behavior to change this perception.

This is somewhat of an unusual virus in that for the vast majority of people infected by the virus, one experiences either no illness (asymptomatic) or very little sickness. Only a very small number of people are at risk of a potentially serious outcome from the infection — mainly those with underlying serious medical conditions in conjunction with advanced age and frailty, those with immune compromising conditions and nursing home patients near the end of their lives. There is growing evidence that the treatment protocol issued to treating doctors by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), mainly intubation and use of a ventilator (respirator), may have contributed significantly to the high death rate in these select individuals.

Planet of the Humans, the new documentary produced by Michael Moore and narrated/directed by Jeff Gibbs, exposes the corporate takeover the 'green movement' and lays bare the exponentially WORSE environmental destruction the 'green solutions' have wreaked on both people and planet. Published for free on YouTube, it has generated over 7 million views since late April, and been panned by arch-ideologues like The Guardian's George Monbiot, who described it as "oxygen for climate deniers."

The narrator - and presumably Moore by proxy - are something like 'original greenies': they once really believed that 'if we just mandate X', then 'something could be done' to 'make the world a better place'. But as Gibbs takes us through his 'identity crisis' as a greenie, he shows how that 'revolutionary dream' was coopted by bad actors whose vision of 'greening the economy' was actualized as a flood of greenbacks into their corporate bank accounts.

The peak insanity of the whole scam - which is not even fully realized by Gibbs because he continues to believe in other false axioms like 'oil bad' and 'humans control climate' - is that it's founded on the unproven 19th century theory that fossil fuels like oil are 'really old, partly decomposed trees'. And because combusting them for energy produces the side-effect of emitting CO₂, it must be that CO₂ which is being observed to increase in the atmosphere. And so it must be that which is causing global temperatures to rise. And so it must be that which is causing the increase in extreme weather phenomena and seismic upheaval.

On this episode of Objective:Health we're joined by Sott.net lead editor Joe Quinn to talk about the world's exasperating and mind-bogglingly stupid reaction to the SARS-cov-2 virus. Through careful analysis of data, Joe expertly expresses the frustration at the fact that people seem unable, or unwilling, to see what is directly in front of them, to come to the obvious conclusion that the planet is having the wool pulled over its collective eyes.

Joe also shares some of his personal theories which you are unlikely to find anywhere else on video sharing platforms!

Join us for this can't miss interview on Objective:Health!


And check us out on Brighteon!


For other health-related news and more, you can find us on:

♥Twitter: https://twitter.com/objecthealth
♥Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/objecthealth/
♥Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channel/objectivehealth

♥And you can check out all of our previous shows (pre YouTube) here.

Running Time: 01:08:40

Download: MP3 — 62.3 MB

When it comes to the so-called Corona crisis, everyone seems to be talking about numbers. Isn't the virus not much worse than the flu? If so, why didn't we have a lockdown during the flu season? And even if Covid-19 is worse - aren't the lockdown measures actually killing more people than the virus itself?

While these are valid and important arguments, they still operate on a simplistic utilitarian understanding of ethics: it's all about calculating the best outcome, counting the dead, maximizing humanity's well-being by weighing one thing (the virus) against another (the measures). The dispute is just about the variables.

But I think most of us who are critical of the current madness feel it in our bones that there is something deeply wrong here, and it has little to do with the numbers.

Suppose that this virus really was a deadly killer and we could reasonably expect it to kill off, let's say, 10% of the population in every country. Would you accept the current measures then? Would you find it okay that the state takes away your freedom and responsibility to come to the right decisions in your life? To visit your friend in trouble, to hug your father, to attend church, or to sell your products and services to those still willing to buy them?

More to the point, shouldn't you be able to decide whether you want to take the risk of visiting your fragile parents, if you don't have any symptoms for example, because this deep care outweighs the risk of transmitting the virus? Shouldn't the elderly decide for themselves whether they want to cuddle their grandchildren? Or shouldn't you be the one who decides whether to meet some friends to make some music or not, weighing between risk of death and the very thing that makes life worth living in the first place?

If your answer is no to any of those questions, then you are in trouble. Because in today's world, we seem to lack the knowledge to justify our gut feeling that some things just should never be prohibited, some freedoms never be curtailed, and some things never dictated by the state. If we say we want to attend church or hug our parents, or visit a friend who needs us, and somebody replies that this might kill people and surely, avoiding death is more important than hugging your dad, what are we to say? It leaves us speechless. We kind of see the point, but then again, we kind of don't.

And it's not enough to point to the constitution either. If we don't understand why something is in the constitution in the first place and can't defend it, if even just to ourselves, then why should anybody bother? People will just point out that saving lives is more important than some petty legal argument.

So let's take a step back and clear up a few things about the philosophical background of our Western constitutions and how this relates to the Corona measures.

"To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family tradition, national patriotism, and religious dogmas."

— Dr George Brock Chisholm, who served as the first Director-General of the World Health Organisation (WHO) from 1948 to 1953

In Part One of Who controls the British Government response to Covid-19?, I began an investigation into the individuals and entities that are, effectively, driving the UK Government response to Covid-19. In Part Two, I will expand upon the Big Pharma and Artificial Intelligence (AI) links already identified and will introduce new connections that appear to have considerable bearing upon the UK Government's Covid-19 strategy. I will expand upon the Bill Gates connections to the various organisations that are advocating global immunisation.

The UK Government chief medical adviser and Chief Medical Officer for England, Chris Whitty, is saying that a return to "normal" in the short-term is "wholly unrealistic". Whitty is telling us that the "highly disruptive" social distancing policy will be in place "for really quite a long period of time". "Highly disruptive" is a euphemism for the devastation of the world economy and the horrifying knock-on effect — an estimated 50% of the world workforce are at risk of losing their livelihood.

April 16th headline in Business Insider. Chris Whitty with UK Health Secretary, Matt Hancock.

For weeks, talking heads have been promoting the liability-free vaccine(s) that will save the world — so Bill Gates and Tony Fauci proclaim — from what Gates has now dubbed "Pandemic I." As Microsoft News peddles self-congratulatory stories about the Gates Foundation's reorientation of its priorities to devote "'total attention' to the pandemic," Fauci — making the rounds of talk shows — pledges that a vaccine will make its debut in January 2021. Not to be outdone, the White House has now unveiled "Operation Warp Speed" — a joint pharmaceutical-government-military effort aimed at "substantially shrinking the development time for a vaccine" — and President Trump promises one by the end of the year.

Planet-wide COVID-19 vaccination — the overt objective that has all of these players salivating in anticipation — ignores a number of irrefutable obstacles. For one, the RNA virus being targeted, SARS-CoV-2, already "has mutated into at least 30 different genetic variants." The variants include 19 never-seen-before as well as "rare changes that scientists had never imagined could happen." Knowledge about these mutations may prove useful to clinicians wanting to better tailor their COVID-19 treatments, but the proliferation of mutations makes the chances of developing an effective vaccine immensely more uncertain.

Not to worry, say the entities funded by Gates (and also the Pentagon). Scientists working in the burgeoning field of synthetic biology are confident that they can "outdo" and outsmart nature using next-generation vaccine technologies such as gene transfer and self-assembling nanoparticles — along with invasive new vaccine delivery and record-keeping mechanisms such as smartphone-readable quantum dot tattoos. Does it matter that the researchers who have been experimenting with these approaches have never been able to overcome "nasty side effects"? Apparently not. Aided and abetted by the generous Gates and military funding, high-fanfare COVID-19 vaccine planning is proceeding apace.