Anna von Reitz: a cautionary tale

Updated 5/9/2022

I have followed the website annavonreitz.com since there were under 300 numbered postings there. (Now there are over 2500.) I came to trust her info, have filed the paperwork she recommended, and have used it in "court." Result: "Case Dismissed." (See https://everythingiknewwaswrong.blogspot.com/2019/10/my-recent-court-appearance-and-what-it.html/

However, I have found logical and factual flaws in almost half of her recent Facebook posts, and don't recommend them to others, although I do post links on Facebook to the accurate ones individually. Specifically, of the most recent 29 posts on her website, I can only recommend 15. The others have errors that she should not have let slip by; they are not worthy of her previous high-level "Shinola sensor," namely, numbers 2549, 2553, 2556-58, 2560, 2564-67, 2569, 2570, 2573, 2575, and 2576-78.

I usually enjoy Anna's writing style, though she has a few idiosyncrasies which probably bother only a semipro editor like myself; she consistently reverses the proper uses of it's and its, strings various numbers of hyphens together to stand in for a dash and uses "script" instead of "scrip" (for a provisional certificate of money). She also uses the phrase "usurp upon" instead of simply "usurped." If these were her only errors, I would not be writing this.

Some of Anna's recent failings may result from a workflow that overpowers her ability to fact check, but as her audience has grown immensely, she has a much greater responsibility to ensure the accuracy of her assertions. Too often, she seems to assume that people or sources she trusts will be correct, without checking for herself. I have learned the hard way that for every question of fact, there's at least one answer that's probable, logical, and completely wrong.

Like other iconoclasts I respect and have followed, such as the late Robert David Steele,* she is not immune to the error of assuming the falsity of statements of people who have a demonstrated history of spreading misinformation and disinformation, assuming that any position they take must be the opposite of the truth, and automatically denying credence to anything promulgated by anyone with a trusted pedigree in the mass media or the academic world. I understand this failing; as a younger man, I have succumbed to it myself. I have counted myself as a member of a series of "tribes" over time, including those labeled Republican, Conservative, Libertarian, Green, and even Democrat (when Bernie Sanders was running in a primary). 

The tribes you think of as "political parties" are, and have always been, political lobbying groups organized as, and functioning as, private corporations (as Anna will remind you). You probably regard "Conservative" and "Libertarian" as ideologies, but that characterization is also off the mark. They are more like the Rotarians/Kiwanis/Elks/Moose...private clubs that function as tribes and are mostly manipulated at their "higher levels" by unseen cliques, not unlike the Masons.

Tribes always have allies and opponents, friends and enemies. In post 2564, Why Do I Support President Trump? http://annavonreitz.com/supporttrump.pdf Anna states, "I don’t care (about) and I am sick of the so-called intelligentsia trashing this man, and saying that he is “not credible” and “not acceptable.” Donald Trump is the only President in my lifetime who has kept — to the best of his ability— every campaign promise he made. Every single one.” She was “surrounded at dinner” by “elegant and well-educated people” who were trashing Trump for all the wrong reasons (please see her post above for details), and proceeded to defend him. Her take on Trump is at odds with the reality that most others see easily. For example, she says Trump’s record “speaks for itself…I trust and respect this man…(He has) the Spirit of Truth in his heart…he always tells the truth as he sees it…Donald Trump is the most “credible” man I have seen in the Oval Office in a long, long time…” 

On my planet...(well, see my commentary on her post number 2566, below).

Here are a few examples of how Anna has, like me, succumbed to tribal loyalty instead of following her usual analytical rigor in her recent postings. She recently shared an anonymous set of pro-Trump talking points with this post on her website, number 2566: "Here's What I Am Talking About and What You Need to See." It was borrowed from an "anonymous source." http://annavonreitz.com/hereiswhatiamtalkingabout.pdf

Someone on Reddit posted the same list, asking for fact-checking of the list. Here was my response:

"This is a list of “accomplishments we should thank Trump for," mostly bills (written by others) and executive orders signed, intended to counteract the implied anti-Trump media bias. Many items seem targeted to surprise "the left." My search on DuckDuckGo (they don't track you like Google) hit pay dirt. I found the “anonymous source” for the list, and a blog of someone who did his own fact-checking. It saved me the trouble of doing it myself; many thanks to “The Grey Zone:” https://debaumer.wordpress.com/2020/05/18/trumps-truths-and-the-bigger-story-part-1/ and https://debaumer.wordpress.com/2020/05/18/trumps-truths-and-the-bigger-story-part-2/

Of course, what we should look at is what Trump has DONE, not talking points from his supporters. What he's done to the country mirrors what he did, for example, to Atlantic City: use other people's money to build his wealth, stiff his contractors, extract all the value from the fruits of the borrowed money, enrich himself, his friends, benefactors and family (a constitutional violation), bankrupt his businesses, then blame everyone but himself for the results. He "drained the swamp," then refilled it, placing lobbyists pledged to destroy federal agencies in charge of those agencies, rolling back environmental protections, and hobbling America's economy with his tariffs, spending a huge proportion of his time tweeting and golfing (after a campaign promise not to take vacations or golf). He has enriched himself through massive weekly junkets to his own golf courses at Federal expense, putting up his massive entourage (including Secret Service agents) in his own hotels, and set new records for lies-per-day by a single politician. 

He minimized the danger of covid-19, claiming it would magically disappear, and has threatened State Governors who seek to (prudently) delay "reopening" the country. Pence claimed that "we've flattened the curve," on the very day when new cases and deaths reached new peaks; the US now leads the world in new cases and total deaths (over a million deaths as of May 1, 2022), while countries that compelled mask use and social distancing at the start of the crisis are now able to reopen. The US is now a country from which other countries are restricting travel, for their own safety. He has motivated mental health professionals to form a campaign to remove him for being unstable and putting the nation and planet in danger. While this is just a partial list of his incompetence and malfeasance in office, it should be enough to scare the crap out of any sane person. (By the way, I did not vote for Hillary.)"

Another instance of Anna's lack of research on topics outside her areas of expertise is her claim that no atomic bombs were dropped on Japan in 1945 because if they had been, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would still be uninhabitable today (which is not the case). See her post number 2423, Face the Liars -- And the Truth http://annavonreitz.com/facetheliarsandthetruth.pdf

"...it is complete --- and obvious --- bunk. If atomic bombs had been dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki, those cities would still be uninhabitable today and would remain uninhabitable for thousands of years beyond today."

Anna recommends, when fact-checking her assertions, that we do our own research. I did so, and found the explanation for the lack of persistent radioactivity simple, straightforward and logical. Try a search for "current levels of radioactivity in Hiroshima and Nagasaki." One result: https://gizmodo.com/why-can-people-live-in-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-now-but-1451250877. Here's the gist of it: 

"Little Boy was a uranium-fueled bomb about 10 feet long and just over two feet across, that held 140 pounds of uranium and weighed nearly 10,000 pounds.

"When it exploded as planned, nearly 2000 feet above Hiroshima, about two pounds of uranium underwent nuclear fission as it released nearly 16 kilotons of explosive force. Since Hiroshima was on a plain, Little Boy caused immense damage. Estimates vary but it is believed that approximately 70,000 people were killed and an equal number were injured on that day, and nearly 70% of the city’s buildings were destroyed. Since then, approximately 1,900 people, or about 0.5% of the post-bombing population, are believed to have died from cancers attributable to Little Boy’s radiation release."

Anna asserts (without proof) that "The plain and simple truth is that what was used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a new kind of "dirty" incendiary bomb. Oh, it's terrible, no doubt about that--- but it's not an "atomic" bomb. The governments of the world lied through their teeth and kept right on lying, anyway. They still teach this lie in public schools all over the world."

Incendiary bombs don't produce radiation. The firebombing of Dresden destroyed that city as thoroughly as did our atomic bombs, but it took thousands of them to do the job, not two. Deaths from radiation from "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" are well-documented—direct radiation from the blasts, not delayed radiation from fallout. Equally well-documented are the then-secret development of those bombs by the Manhattan Project, and films of their testing in Nevada. (How absurd is it to claim that these were "not atomic bombs?")

So, how can the relatively-rapid return of radioactivity levels to near-normal be explained? At another link, https://cebudailynews.inquirer.net/150776/radiation-hiroshima-nagasaki, we read: 

"The radioactive particles from the atomic bombs 72 years ago were supposed to render both cities uninhabitable for thousands, and millions, of years.

“Today, the background radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the same as the average amount of natural radiation present anywhere on Earth. It is not enough to affect human health,” according to scientific reports. But why? What happened? Why are these two cities in Japan safe again, so soon?

"Uranium-235 was used for the bomb over Hiroshima and Plutonium-239 over Nagasaki. The half-life of U-235 is 700 million years, the Pu-239, 24,000 years, if they had...exploded on the ground. Information from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Peace Museums provided the answer to the mystery.

"Both bombs exploded high up in the air, 1,968 feet for Hiroshima and 1,800 feet for Nagasaki. They never hit the ground. The 139 pounds of U-235 and the 12 pounds of Pu-239 were pulverized into particles and the plume dissipated by the wind over land and mostly to the sea."

Mystery solved. So, what could have been Anna's purpose in writing this post? No mystery there.

"I am going to prove to you," Anna states, "that the commercial corporations that have been serving "as" our government, are Liars. I am going to do this using one fantastically famous example.

"The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, never happened.

"This Chestnut was so widely distributed and so universally believed, that it traumatized two generations of people and continues to haunt us today --- but it is complete --- and obvious --- bunk. If atomic bombs had been dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki, those cities would still be uninhabitable today and would remain uninhabitable for thousands of years beyond today...if they would lie about such a centerpiece of "world history" as the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even seven-plus decades afterward, what else do you think they have lied about?"

I don't disagree that we have been, and continue to be, lied to by our so-called leaders, but accusing them of fabricating a "big lie" that turns out to be true does nothing but hurt her credibility, with no upside whatsoever.

The Covid-19 crisis has also put her set of trusted sources at odds with reality. Suffice it to say that she has given credence to the anti-mask crowd, supporting Trump's reactions to the Covid-19 crisis, blaming China for the problem, and at first denying, then minimizing, the scope of the problem. Result: Americans are being flagged as unwelcome plague carriers in other countries, some of which had early and effective responses which now allow their economies to reopen. Pence claimed that "we've flattened the curve" on the same day that new cases and deaths reached new peaks. Some of Trump's supporters, Republican legislators among them, have actually said that we must accept more deaths as the cost of preventing "economic disaster." Anna knows the cause of that disaster, and it's not the "rising expenses" of Social Security, Medicare, and other falsely-labeled "entitlements" as McConnell asserts; nor has it anything to do with viruses, or "fake" vaccines. It's the kleptocrat controllers who have, as managers of our current de facto system of corporate feudalism, usurping what was once a government of We the People, who have replaced our actual government with government-services corporations.

Even if all the anti-vax stories were true, they should not be echoed in Anna's writings, because they distract from her main mission. Will all the vaccinated be dead in two years from the hidden, planned effects of the "faux vaccines?" If so, unless she can find and communicate an antidote for this outcome, all she will have accomplished is to spread fear and despair. Vaccines have already saved many more lives than they have harmed. 

Please, Anna, stop shooting yourself (and your loyal supporters) in the foot by stepping outside your areas of expertise and spreading misinformation. We need you laser-focused on the goals of your movement, exemplified on your other main site, https://tasa.americanstatenationals.org.

* Robert David Steele fell victim to the anti-vaxxers who painted the Covid-19 pandemic as a "Plandemic," declined to be vaccinated and died of the virus in a hospital. Some continue to support the positions of those who portray Fauci and Big Pharma as evil, murderous villains, killing their victims for profit. (Full disclosure: I'm vaccinated. I'm also partly immunocompromised by chemotherapy for non-Hodgkins Lymphoma last year.) One of the websites he hosted now has posts like this one: https://robertdavidsteele.com/q-robert-david-steele-has-been-executed/

The man was much more than what your initial impression of him might be. He was once in the CIA and has said that he believes there are, indeed, CIA false-flag ops because he once created one (thankfully, no one died as a result). He had an operation to "unrig" our electoral system in partnership with Cynthia Mckinney, and had a modest (ahem) proposal to extend the concept of open-source computer code to "everything." It would be a worldwide economic and humanitarian boon to mankind if someone else takes up the mantle of his work on the project.

Do you believe the Earth is flat? (Here's why I don't.)

I’ve heard complaints that “people these days” (including kids) aren’t able to use reason, logic and just plain clear thinking to solve problems and discern truth. Celebrities like Neil DeGrasse Tyson, like Carl Sagan before him, are famous for making such complaints. So, I’ve decided to make my own modest contribution to the cause of lessening this problem, not by attacking specific dumb theories and beliefs, but by guiding the “misguided” to improve their aim at the bullseye of truth.

This quest began after reading online material posted by adherents of the “Flat Earth Theory.” Adherents have a checkered history, and contemporary “believers” fall into several categories, among them religious fundamentalists who wish to reconcile their literal interpretation of scriptures with some semblance of science, and others who have come to distrust All authorities who they’re convinced have agendas which include fooling the public to conceal secrets. Some of this group go to the extreme of believing that Everything that All authorities say are lies; what should be an obvious fallacy, pursued perhaps because of emotions of betrayal and anger.

My posts on “flat earth” websites and YouTube channels, I quickly realized from responses to these posts, were unlikely to convince any “true believers” of the errors of their ways. (As Mark Twain observed, “you can’t reason someone out of a belief that they weren’t reasoned into.”) I resolved to abandon such efforts as futile.

Recently, however, I encountered some flat-earth beliefs being promulgated by a smart person in the public eye who I greatly admired and respected. (I subsequently learned that, in response to negative feedback, he stopped speaking and writing publicly of this belief, without abandoning it.) “What’s going on here?” I wondered to myself. “How could this intelligent man go so far astray?” I set out to solve this puzzle, and I think I have found the key. It’s perhaps the primary argument of typical flat-earth proponents: the Earth looks flat. “Round-Earth theories” contradict the “common-sense” of our everyday perceptions, that we stand on a stationary earth, around which everything else moves. When a theory requires us to discard common perceptions, it seems (to “flat-earthers”) that it’s the theory which must yield, not our perceptions.

Apparently, many people of substantial intellect and sophistication are unwilling or unable to expand their conception of what’s real and true beyond the limitations of their perceptions. These limitations must not be allowed to become barriers to rational thought. Rather than a direct assault on the specific fallacies inherent in flat-earth theories, I decided to expose the limitations of our perceptions in general ways.

First, observe that while our “common senses tell us” that we perceive the world directly through our senses, this is provably not so. We do not really see with our eyes; they only project images on our retinas, which transmit signals to our brains, which decode them and form a mental construct of what we see. In the same manner, when we “touch” an object, we do not “feel” it with our fingers, we form a mental impression of the nature and locationof what we “touch,” through both visual interpretation and “mental mapping” of the spatial locations of our body parts relative to the object. (An excellent book by the late Michael Talbot, The Holographic Universe, posits, among other things, that we perceive our own bodies in a holographic manner—which is how our finger can find our nose in the dark, and why amputees can sometimes feel itches in their missing limbs.)

Further, it cannot be said that we actually “touch” anything at all, in the sense of one solid object contacting another. On a submicroscopic scale, our nerve endings sense the proximity of “objects,” which are surrounded by electromagnetic fields which are repelled by corresponding electromagnetic fields outside our skin. Said another way, we neither touch nor see solid objects, because they do not exist as such; what we perceive as solid through our senses is, on a micro scale, almost entirely “empty space.”

An online search for “optical illusions” will quickly demonstrate how our visual apparatus can be completely deceived into seeing things that contradict our “common sense.” In a similar way, powerful microscopes or telescopes which permit us to see far beyond the limited scales of our unaided eyes reveal different aspects of reality that we could scarcely imagine without them. As an exercise in grasping the effects of scale, please view a video such as the one below, which allows us to travel in our imaginations to the very limits of the cosmos, both outwards to the edge of the observable universe and inwards to the smallest measurable distance (the “Planck length”): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfSNxVqprvM

In this video, our virtual viewpoint moves “outward and upward” away from human scale, in powers of ten. As we zoom outward, our virtual speed also increases by powers of ten. (Morgan Freeman narrates the journey.) At the limit of the observable universe (a limit imposed by the speed of light, not the ultimate size of the universe itself), the journey reverses to reveal the smallest currently-conceived building blocks of all matter, Quarks. However, the journey inward actually continues to the smallest distance in quantum theory, the Planck length, far smaller than quarks.

(For a more-comprehensive view of the scale of the total universe, see the websites and videos of Nassim Haramein.)

You may also see, in the right-hand column of “related” YouTube videos, an occasional “flat earth” promo. I recommend you wait until you finish this article before exploring any of those.

Now that you have some perspective on the vast scale of objects in the universe (if, indeed, they can be considered “objects,” which poses a slightly different question), and seen that our senses don’t tell us what we usually think they do, let me show you a local example of some of the illusions we commonly think of as “real,” and some productive ways to view these illusions that, I hope, will give you a different view of “common sense” than you had before.

Stay with me as I guide you astray, then reveal my misdirections. As I live near the ocean, I aimed my iPhone (on the Ventnor boardwalk) South for the start of the video.* What do your eyes seem to tell you? How did you answer the questions I posed? (Incidentally, the way I phrased my first question, "Which side is darker, the side towards the ocean or the side towards the land?" is in the form of a sneaky misdirection known as "begging the question,"** wherein a question is phrased such that a foregone conclusion is embedded within it; the questioner hopes you will take that conclusion for granted.) In this case, the “foregone conclusion” I sneak in is: “One side IS darker than the other.”

With the second question, the deceptive conclusion is removed, and the answer (left or right) seems correct regardless of the direction faced by the observer, a logical impossibility. However, the phrasing is still deceptive. By saying "Which side IS darker?" I ask you to accept what your eyes tell you as something “real,” rather than merely observed. If ANYTHING you see is "real," how does the "dark side of the boardwalk" change sides depending on the direction in which you look?

The answer to my final question, "What's happening here?" should now be apparent. Neither side of the boardwalk IS darker at any time; it's only your perception of the boards which changes, without the boards themselves changing in any way.

Now, consider the skeptic who has learned the many times and ways our government officials have lied to us (deceiving us with false-flag operations to garner public support for offensive wars, for example). He's learned that our media and our schoolteachers have, knowingly or not, supported these lies, and that every major-media outlet is monitored and controlled by CIA operatives (at least in all matters relating to "national security"). Why not be skeptical that the moon landing was real, and that it might not even be possible to orbit the earth? Suppose all that footage from the moon was faked, shot in a studio by Stanley Kubrick?

(Note that it's also possible for both scenarios to be correct: could it not be that some of the moon footage WAS fake, shot in advance as a "plan B" if our brave Astronauts didn't succeed in landing on the moon and/or returning safely, but the mission WAS successful, so the footage wasn't needed.)

Imagine this skeptic observing a rocket launch. He expects to see the rocket rise straight up and disappear into space, but instead it gradually curves to horizontal flight, then appears to dive toward the ground! Without comprehending or taking into account scale or perspective, what his eyes tell him makes no sense to him--unless space travel really IS impossible, because the earth is flat, and he's being deceived again?

What he's seeing when it looks like the rocket is diving into the ground is, of course, the rocket disappearing "over the horizon." From the point of view of the person in the rocket, the "skeptic" disappears under their horizon, while the rocket’s passenger sees the earth "turning underneath him." An observer on the moon might see rocket man's capsule going into earth orbit. All three views are "correct," from those different points of view.

Our "reality" is that we are always being "deceived" by our senses, if we take our sensory input at face value. So, let's not, and get a little smarter.

Anyone care to solve the puzzle I posed in the video, that is, why some of those identical boards LOOK (not ARE) darker? Here's a clue. "Shadows."

Can a flat surface cast a shadow? Is the boardwalk flat? (Imagine a level placed on it.) Now, take a camera with a macro lens on it, lie on your belly and get very close to that boardwalk. (The resulting picture may look like a mud flat that's been attacked with a rake.) Now, is the boardwalk flat? It's a matter of scale. From an unaided humans-eye view, yes. From a baby mouse's perspective, no. Which view is "right," and which is "wrong?"

Is the earth "flat?" Depends. Are you a man or a mouse?

**In true Orwellian fashion, the phrase "begs the question" is now being used as synonymous with "raises the question." In 5 years, will anyone remember that the phrase once described a sly mask for semantic deceit.

*Here’s the video URL from my original Facebook post: https://www.facebook.com/macaddictjay/videos/10210359172998475/

My Cancer: where did it come from? How about yours?

Updated Oct. 7, 2020

When I raised this question with my personal physician (indirectly, with a leading question: "Have you heard about the lawsuits Monsanto has lost from plaintiffs claiming their Roundup gave them what I've got?) he pointed out that people were getting Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma decades before Roundup (with its chief component, Glyphosate), was invented.

I have had two experienced oncologists give me the same diagnosis, N-HL, Stage 4B, and both told me "We can cure you." (with chemotherapy, without radiation.) A good and hopeful sign. They've been curing patients with what I've got for years, and my PET scan came back negative for any solid masses except in my liver (which they had already determined with a needle biopsy, pieces sent to 3 labs including the Mayo Clinic). I feel I am in good hands, but the question remains: if Roundup/Glyphosate caused MY cancer, and the juries made a fair judgment that Roundup caused the cancer of the plaintiffs in 12 cases (so far), at least one of whom has no chance of recovery, is it reasonable to suspect that my personal exposure over the years caused MY NHL?

Hell, yes. Key documentation from the trials from Monsanto's own files (obtained through legal discovery) convinced the juries that Monsanto knew the dangers decades ago, and chose to put profits above human life using any means possible to "prove" that "Roundup was safe and does not cause cancer in humans," despite conducting no data collection or analysis on humans.

Monsanto's documents showed not only that the 80 studies by "independent labs" Monsanto cites as proof of Roundup's safety were all sponsored by Monsanto, and that the conclusions of the reports were all ghostwritten by Monsanto employees, not by the labs.

A chief claim of Monsanto is that the EPA and FDA have approved (and recently renewed their approval) of continuing Roundup use, agreeing with Monsanto that Roundup poses no danger of cancer to humans. These are officials appointed in the Trump administration, some of whom actually worked for Monsanto before they accepted their posts, or were former lobbyists for the chemical industry.

Roundup is the best-selling herbicide ever, in use now for 50 years, and tests detect its presence everywhere they look—in our waterways, groundwater, tap water, food, soil and air. EPA standards of safe levels are just under these current environmental levels. See? Safe. However, the EU has set their maximum safe levels seven to ten times lower than the EPA's. Germany and Sri Lanka (among other countries) have determined that there is no safe level and have banned it entirely, since even trace amounts have effects on the endocrine systems and fetal development of test animals, and hormone levels as well. Does anyone remember Thalidomide, which was declared safe for pregnant women until babies were born without arms and legs? See https://www.momsacrossamerica.com which has found labs that will test for glyphosate (after initially finding no doctors who would prescribe, or labs which would do, such tests). They had the labs test for Roundup in mother's milk. ALL tests were positive. (In fairness, my sister pointed out that anything a mother ingests will show up in her milk.)

My personal exposure to Roundup was occasional use on my own property 10 and 20 years ago, so traces of that exposure is likely undetectable. however, many cancers take that long to develop. A $99 urine test is available, but it only detects exposure for the previous 6 days. I report my own test results below. Why did I bother being tested? I'm interested to see what my current, ongoing exposure is from my local environment. The last six days are likely representative of any 6-day period in the last 5 years, and might also be a good measure also of the exposure of my neighbors, especially the ones who are buying Roundup and spreading it on their lawns (along with weed 'n feed bags of seed/fertilizer/herbicides, many containing another chemical, 2/4-D, half of the "Agent Orange" we used to deny cover and food to "the enemy" in Vietnam (with whom we now trade) which notoriously caused birth defects.

If you get my diagnosis, and wish to join a mass-tort suit against Monsanto (no cost to you unless they win), visit https://www.weedkillercrisis.com and click on the Chat pop-up or look for a link. This site also contains a wealth of related information. UPDATE: many other websites will now put you on a list of potential plaintiffs in a mass-tort suit; get on one list, and you needn't get on any other. They (and you) will all share in the glory (and profit) from any legal victory, and getting on more than one list is counterproductive.

Do you wish, as I do, to avoid any exposure to Roundup (and like chemicals) in your personal environment? Foods labeled "GMO Free" may still contain roundup residue, because they may have undergone accelerated drying before harvest (crops that get ground up before processing into bread, cereal, animal feed, etc. by the time-saving method of being killed by Roundup at harvest time to accelerate the natural drying process. Time is money, you know. Instead, buy only ORGANIC products, which must be grown (and sold) without herbicides or pesticides. The food you eat and the water you drink every day are the chief sources of your current environmental exposure to Roundup and its metabolites, mostly "AMPA."

If you must buy bottled water, avoid the many, many brands controlled by Nestle, the Swiss multinational company whose CEO insists that people do not, and should not, have access to free water, while Nestle pays municipalities little or nothing to pump and bottle American groundwater (even in drought areas) so they can profit at our great expense. My personal choice for drinking water, above all others I've researched, is tap water filtered at home by technology from Clearly Filtered (clearlyfiltered.com). They have a batch system which filters out dozens of contaminants in 13 categories, including glyphosate and AMPA. It's about $75 for the batch pitcher and one filter, which needs periodic replacement. You can subscribe to automatic replacements for about $50 each. If this sounds expensive, think what it may cost you if you succumb (like me) to Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. It's good to know you're not putting your life at risk by what you're eating and drinking. (By the way, distilled water is a poor choice; glyphosate and AMPA can vaporize and re-condense into the water, and distillation removes minerals which are essential to good health.)

Regarding my test results: the first one (at the beginning of my treatments) put my Glyphosate/AMPA levels in the top 3/4 of all their tests, remarkable for someone with no direct exposure to Roundup for over 20 years. The second test, 6 months later, put me well below their average results, and below the typical level for European test subjects (where Roundup is widely banned). My chemo treatments had no influence on these results; the only thing that changed between the two tests was strict adherence to eating only certified-organic food and drinking only Clearly Filtered water (including in coffee). I will continue this regimen indefinitely (good for me, and cheaper than cancer).

UPDATE: my chemotherapy (six sessions, one every three weeks) was concluded on June 17. My second PET scan, a month later, showed nothing but the slowly-healing liver damage, as expected. Further occasional testing is scheduled. In five years, it's expected that I can be officially pronounced "cured."

What conclusions might be drawn from my experience? Because my exposure was typical of most Americans, we all may be on the cusp of a new and as-yet-unrecognized health crisis of unprecedented proportions. Or, perhaps I'm completely mistaken, and Monsanto (now owned by Bayer, who got so big partly by providing chemical weapons to Hitler) is telling the truth, and nothing but the truth, when they swear that "Roundup is safe, and does not cause cancer." And the FDA which agrees with them, has not become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer...and perhaps the Easter Bunny will put a winning lottery ticket under your pillow.

My Cancer, Part 3

Previously, on My Cancer: "Mr. Spencer, you have Stage 4B Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. Stage 4 means it has spread throughout your body from its origin in your Lymphatic System. The B part simply notes the symptom of soaking night sweats. The good news is, we can cure you."

A new week, a new adventure. Monday (March 20): in preparation for my chemotherapy, a "Port" is surgically installed in my chest. It's a necessity for the chemo "cocktail" I will be served for a total of six sessions, every third Wednesday; the last one will be on June 17, 2020, which will also be the 42nd anniversary for me and Debbie (what a coincidence!).

The necessity arises because of the caustic nature of one component of the cocktail, which is so corrosive it would attack the walls of my veins if delivered conventionally via an IV tube. The Port directs each of the chemo components (delivered separately, in sequence) through a tube to a vein junction where blood turbulence is high, reducing the corrosive effect to a safe level. (Bonus: the Port can be left in my body indefinitely, if I choose, so I'll never need another IV again. The port can be used for any injection, drawing blood, or donating blood.)

Tuesday: I get a long-awaited PET scan (Positron-emission Tomography). I'm injected with a radioisotope (half-life, 90 minutes) that attaches itself to any sugar-laden cells (a hallmark of cancer cells), but not others. My oncologist told me, "the scan will list up any solid mass in my body."

Wednesday: my first chemotherapy session. (By the way, there will be no radiation.) My port is accessed for the first time; it's covered by skin, so the needle has to pass through it but no vein is hit in the way in. I was told that subsequent access to the port would be less and less painful.

My oncologist visits at the start, and brings good news: the PET scan report has come in, he's read it, and Nothing. Lit. Up. (No solid masses were detected, except in the liver, which they already knew from the liver biopsy, prompted by the second CT scan. That's where the initial diagnosis came from.)

After several preliminary injections (through the Port, of course), the first chemo solution is administered. This one always takes longer than the rest (Rituxan, a monoclonal antibody, technically not in the "chemotherapy" category since it is targeted rather than "kill-em-all"). First speed bump encountered: I have a relatively rare adverse reaction (which my treatment team is well-prepared for)—I start shaking like Chuck Yeager fighting the stick during his first-ever, record setting flight where he broke the sound barrier. For a visual, see the classic movie "The Right Stuff." Bring a pack of Beaman's gum.

After they got me back under control, they continued the infusion at a much slower rate, and rescheduled the rest of my first session for today (March 5). I'm almost done: arrived at 9, should leave around 2.

Tomorrow (at 1:30 or 2), I will return for a shot to restore a good part of my white blood cells killed off by the chemo (it stimulates the bone marrow to make more). I have a regimen of pills to take to counter nausea, and other possible side-effects. Next wednesday, I will see my oncologist for a general checkup and Q&A session. I could not be happier with the quality and competence of my care team (Shore Medical and Shore Cancer Center in Somers Point, NJ.)

My Cancer, Part 2

So far, my diagnosis only tells me that it's everywhere in my body, because it's (Non-Hodgkins) Lymphoma, Stage 4B. Stage 4 means it's travelled everywhere in my body, via the lymphatic system, the one that produces white blood cells. Instead of fighting off whatever infection comes along, some of these lymphocytes (see https://www.healthline.com/health/lymphocytes#function) have gone over to the dark side, becoming enlarged and creating, rather than solving, problems. (Caution: underinformed, layperson, allegorical talk.)

The diagnosis came from an oncologist via lab analyses of about five bits of my liver via a needle biopsy. Like many with this diagnosis, my only symptoms have been excess fatigue and vague cold-like symptoms. A test for flu was negative. A week of Tamiflu did not help. Unknown: how long I've had it, where it came from, and if there are any solid masses lurking in my body. (A PET scan should reveal anything of that nature, yet to be scheduled.)

On Feb. 24, I will see a second oncologist, and may be immediately scheduled for the prescribed PET scan. This is being done through the VA; when services such as the ones I need are far from home or outside the VA's ability to handle directly, they authorize third parties in my community to take over my care (and fund most or all of it). When analysis of this scan is complete, my oncologist (at Shore Cancer Center, Somers Point, NJ) can put together a treatment plan. I will consider allocations available to me, and remain in control of my own care. I will avoid unproven or dodgy remedies.

As I mentioned in the last post, the first oncologist told me he thinks he can cure me. My sole reason for switching: that oncologist does not work with the VA, and PET scans can be quite expensive. 

A second, and secondary, matter is the question of how I got this lymphoma. I have joined a mass-tort action with thousands of others who suspect it may have started with exposure, years ago, to Monsanto's Roundup (and now, continuing exposure through environmental contamination). As my VA physician pointed out, people have been getting this disease since long before Roundup's invention in the early 70's. Monsanto, now faced with thousands of lawsuits from alleged victims, continues to assert that Roundup is safe for humans. However, at least 5 plaintiffs have been awarded large settlements by juries; one of them will not live to get any money. Monsanto will doubtless follow Exxon's game plan: appeal until all the plaintiffs are dead, and all their survivors are in nursing homes.

Some eye-opening links for the curious:
1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWM_PgnoAtA

2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JszHrMZ7dx4

3) https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/press_releases/foee_5_environmental_impacts_glyphosate.

pdf

4) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969717330279

5) https://www.weedkillercrisis.com/topics/the-link-between-non-hodgkin-lymphoma-cancer-and-roundup/

6) https://www.sott.net/article/328165-The-ubiquitous-presence-of-glyphosate-now-found-in-vaccines

7) https://www.momsacrossamerica.com/glyphosate_testing_results

...and many, many more.

Link #1above and several others contain an interview with a Monsanto spokesman* who asserts that "Roundup is so safe you could drink a quart of it and it wouldn't hurt you." The interviewer, being prepared for this statement somehow (or just calling his bluff) says "We have some here. Would you like to drink some? Answers: 1) I'd be happy to...not really. I know it's safe." 2) "I'm not stupid." 3) I'm not an idiot." It's a must-see.

If you seek to avoid glyphosate by avoiding all GMO foods, beware: some non-GMO foods are deliberately killed by Roundup before harvest. Why? to accelerate the natural drying process for crops that must be dried before harvest (animal feed comes to mind). Yet another reason to go vegan; there's no regulation requiring food producers to reveal their use of Roundup.

Monsanto claims that "over 800 studies" have proven Roundup to be safe. What they don't reveal is a) all these studies were financed by Monsanto, and b) substantial evidence exists (via the legal discovery process) that the studies themselves were ghostwritten by Monsanto employees.

I asked oncologist #1 if one of my liver biopsy samples still out in the field could also be tested for glyphosate contamination. His answer: No Can Do. "I can't order any test (such as a test for glyphosate)  which is not medically indicated." When I persisted, asking if such a test could be done if I thought I'd been poisoned and knew that I'd been exposed to glyphosate (true), his tone changed. "Contact a lawyer." I took his advice, in the form of joining a mass-tort suit to that end. (you can join if you've been exposed. https://www.weedkillercrisis.com will take your info, as will many other sites. Many, many law firms are eager to be part of  the action. There is no cost to any plaintiff; if they win, you will get some share of the settlement. (Depending on the number of participants, it may be quite small.)

While I will persist in my quest to bring justice to Bayer/Monsanto, I will not let this sidetrack me from getting cured. 

What would justice look like? No amount of compensation will bring back the dead. I propose the "nuclear option:" revoke the Bayer/Monsanto corporate charters, liquidate their assets, and use these funds to heal the surviving victims and remediate the global environmental damage these monsters in nice suits have caused, in their depraved indifference to anything other than enhancing their profits. Those executives not sent to prison must be enjoined from holding any corporate or public office forever, and fined for their complicity in their employers' crimes.

Prosecution should extend to those in "our government" (actually government-services corporations, complete with D&B registrations), such as the FDA official who recently presided over the EPA's decision to reapprove glyphosate for use in the U.S. The decision was accompanied by public comments by Assistant Administrator for the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Alexandra Dunn, who stated, "There's no risk to public health from the application of glyphosate." Have a quart, Alexandra.

*Update: the interviewee is unidentified in the linked videos. He has been revealed to be 

Anna, Steele, and Trump (Part 2)

Note: see Anna, Steele, and Trump (Part 1) here.

Last year, I wrote an email to Robert David Steele after seeing the video I referenced in "Part 1." Not only did he kindly answer, but asked my permission to post it on his blog, with my name and humble visage!

Sadly, his reply got lost in my overloaded email, and he published it anyway, as an anonymous "alert reader."

My pride has overwhelmed my immense humility, and I post it here for you to appreciate (or not).

Update: after a note to Robert, he updated the post, de-anonymized me, and added n update about my cancer and the Monsanto suit.

2019/12/19 

 (Original URL: https://phibetaiota.net/2019/12/mongoose-alert-reader-on-anna-von-reitz/)

Mongoose: Alert Reader on Anna von Reitz

Corruption, Cultural Intelligence, Government, Law Enforcement

Alert Reader writes in:

I just saw the YouTube interview you did with Anna, and am glad that you have now “addressed her work,” as well as given your readers links to her books.

I agree with your comments near the end of the video that:

“I absolutely respect your knowledge, and even though I don’t understand it, I have a gut-level appreciation for your intelligence, integrity and imagination, and your voice needs to be heard.”

I felt your pain when you said “…my head hurts. Anna von Reitz, let me say, with absolute clarity, I think you are a very important person, you have done some very important research, and somewhere in our future we need to factor in everything you’ve brought to the table.”

From self-reflection, I think the source of that pain is cognitive dissonance. The core of the knowledge Anna seeks to impart to the public is not technically difficult to understand, but it has been masterfully obscured by the most powerful tools available to the architects of the multi-generational fraud she has helped to uncover: semantic fraud and deception. Beyond the tower of Babel, where multiple languages made communication near-impossible, these architects have corrupted the meanings of words withinlanguages, and given entirely different meanings to words and phrases simply by changes in capitalization. Thus, we are led up blind alleys and into brick walls with signs saying “No Left Turn,” “No Right Turn,” “No U-Turns,” and “No Stopping, Standing or Parking.”

We can walk into what we think are “our” courtrooms, stand before judges, and  lose before the trial begins when we “state our names”—because , by doing so, we unknowingly allow the judge to make the legal presumption that we are consenting to “represent” the Trojan-horse names we were “gifted” with shortly after our births, which were registered, trademarked, patented and traded as securities as various kinds of legal-fiction trusts, legally dead and treated by the Queen as “disregarded entities,” unprotected by any of the three Constitutions protections because those entities “are not a party” to any of them. We might learn later that all of our present “courts” are actually military district tribunals still persisting 150 years after our “civil war.”

We have been taught to believe that all Americans are “United States Citizens,” so we are unaware that most of us have birthrights as “American State Nationals.” We are taught (by omission) that there is only one Constitution (not 3), and only one entity with the (partial) name “United States” (not 3), that our government services are (and must be) funded by taxes, that the stuff in our wallets and bank accounts is “money,” that “government” expenditures always come from “the budget,” that our “courts” are not really OUR courts, and many other misconceptions.

No wonder that most of us, most of the time, literally don’t know what we are talking about.

It will take a major paradigm shift (or two) before we can start talking sense to ourselves and others. We are being tripped up by our own cognitive dissonance.

I still have to remind myself of this fact in my own day-to-day internal dialogues. It’s always easier to see this dissonance in others than in oneself.

I see much of this dissonance in reading your blog (where you provide a venue for other writers), but also in your own writing and projects (like #UNRIG). On the one hand, you correctly portray our phony “2-party system” as “One bird, two wings, same shit.” This portrayal is correct, within the context of what goes on in “our government.” Nevertheless, many blog posts focus on which wing of that bird is telling the truth, or should prevail on this issue or that.

In my own political life, I have been a supporter at different times of Republicans, Conservatives, Berniecrats, and Greens for government offices. However, until I encountered Anna’s work, I did not know enough to ask the question, “which government?” The Municipal United States, the Territorial United States (both incorporated subcontractors), or the employer of each, The United States of America (unincorporated)? The new paradigm changes everything.

The latter (unincorporated) United States, The United States of America, while it never ceased to exist, has no elected officers until We The People finally do  the job of Reconstruction (promised, but never accomplished, after the illegal mercenary conflict which most Americans think of as the American Civil War).

A paradigm shift, indeed. This long-delayed “Reconstruction” is Anna’s final step in restoring the America of We The People to actual self-government. The prerequisite steps are 1) repopulating, in sufficient numbers, The United States of America (unincorporated) with American State Nationals (those who have completed the process outlined at https://theamericanstatesassembly.net), reconstituting our actual governments l(state, federal and local) via assemblies, and finally electing the first government of, by and for the people in over 150 years.

This paradigm shift will make many projects you and I have embraced in the past (to borrow a word from the Watergate era) “inoperative.” For example, #UNRIG. American State Nationals can volunteer to as American State Citizens, but neither qualify to vote in “elections” of the Municipal or Territorial United States, on any level (as “State” and “Local” “governments” were effectively turned into franchises of the Territorial US when they accepted “revenue sharing” contracts). As a consequence, I will not be voting again until I can vote for a candidate in the reconstructed governments.

I believe even Anna is not immune to cognitive dissonance. She hopes that “The Orange One” will do the right thing, and “choose to occupy the power position of President of The United States of America” (as opposed to mere CEO of the US, Inc.) since he, and the Congress, can and do wear more than one hat. Sadly, The Orange One only knows how to wear one hat (the red one that says “MAGA”). Likewise, you hope that 45 will pay attention to one of your “big ideas” (at https://robertdavidsteele.com/bigideas/) and “Triumph in 3 Moves,” even though you’ve observed that he’s an extremely poor listener (because he must pretend to himself and others that he already knows everything).

For my part, I will follow Anna’s master plan, detailed at

https://theamericanstatesassembly.net.

Ahh, politics without cognitive dissonance!

Repeating your quote from the fourth paragraph above,

“I absolutely respect your knowledge, and even though I don’t understand it, I have a gut-level appreciation for your intelligence, integrity and imagination, and your voice needs to be heard.”

You and I are more than smart enough to understand the core of Anna’s work. The problem she presents is that accepting the new paradigm requires, for anyone willing to do so, abandoning a tremendous investment in what turns out to have been in error. I look at all the work you have done to change the world for the better and can hardly imagine your anguish at this prospect.

Perhaps we should adopt the attitude of the monks who spend countless hours at crafting beautiful and intricate mandalas of sand, then brush that sand back into one small container (or let it be blown to the four winds). Such is life; such is progress. Admittedly, an UNRIG motor home is more costly than a handful of colored sand, but it could be rebranded and/or repurposed.

Referenced interview:

My Cancer, Part 1

What's it like to be diagnosed with stage 4 cancer? One week ago, after 6 days in the ER, an oncologist told me the bad news and the good news. Bad: "You have Stage 4B Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma." The good: "We can cure you." I hope he's right.

As you’d expect, I’ve spent some time since researching the problem. Most folks with this diagnosis have swollen and/or painful lymph glands. Not me. Like some, my only symptom so far has been the one we all get: low energy and recurring or constant fatigue. No pain anywhere, and no tumors showing up in CT scans or ultrasound.

The diagnosis came after a CT scan showed lesions in my liver; a  needle biopsy was distributed to at least 3 labs, including the Mayo Clinic. 

I await scheduling for a head-to-toe PET scan which should show everything that’s anything in my body. I’m hoping the VA will cover the cost. A treatment plan will come after the PET scan results.

In the meantime, my research continues. as a “fan” of Anna von Reitz, David Wilcock and others, I’m aware of many alternative cures being deliberately kept secret from the public at large, for a variety of reasons (none of them warranted or legitimate). The ultimate cure is to cure oneself through the power of the mind. I’m confident that such things are possible, not for religious reasons, but based on science.

Questions and comments are welcome from any and all sources. If you feel moved to pray for me, I’m OK with that. If the ultimate news is the worst-case scenario, I’m OK with that too. I’m the only “atheist” you’re likely to meet who believes (based on science) that reincarnation, and the strong possibility of “ascension,” is real. I’ve had a good life, and am ready for whatever comes my way.

A mass thank-you goes out to all those who have already wished me well, even before I finished this comment.