stock here

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

Dr. Vernon Coleman: How My Dad Died (A Horror Story)

“… This is the extraordinary, astonishing, almost unbelievable story of his death and of what followed.”

Lioness of Judah MinistryOct 27

READ IN APP

Exposing The Darkness is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Upgrade to paid

One-time or recurring donations can be made through Ko-Fi:

By Dr. Vernon Coleman

My father was an inventor, company director and World War II naval veteran. He died on February 28th 2008. He was 87-years-old. The inquest into his death was held in Exeter. Although the inquest was held at my request I did not attend. This is the extraordinary, astonishing, almost unbelievable story of his death and of what followed.

At around 4.00 a.m. on the morning of 5th February 2008 my father got up out of bed and made himself a drink. The pain in his back was terrible and he was having trouble breathing. It wasn’t a new pain. He’d had it before. This time the pain seemed to be mainly referred to his lower ribs at the front of his chest. Knowing that if he rang too soon he would get the emergency medical service and probably be told to take two aspirin and ring his doctor in the morning, he waited until around 9.00 a.m. to telephone his doctor. (The fact that he waited five hours before calling a doctor suggested to me that the pain couldn’t have been too bad and that, maybe, a home visit might have been more appropriate.) He told me that he had a bad night because he had got himself into an uncomfortable position. He needed to see the doctor but didn’t feel up to driving to the surgery. He had a long-standing problem with his back: as the GP should have known, he had chronic osteoporotic spine pain which caused pains all around his chest.

My father telephoned Dr Benjamin Hallmark at Budleigh Salterton Medical Centre. My father was, according to Dr Hallmark, complaining of excruciating pain. But instead of visiting, Dr Hallmark simply told my father (who was in excruciating pain, remember) to dial 999 and arrange for himself to be taken to hospital in an ambulance. The doctor didn’t even bother to make the telephone call.

I believe that if Dr Hallmark had visited, my father might still be alive today – largely because he almost certainly would have decided that my dad did not require hospitalisation. I’m old-fashioned and still believe that a GP has a duty to visit patients who call for help. (Even if an ambulance is also considered necessary.) And my father might still be alive today because it was the sequence of events which followed which led, I believe, to his death. It was, in retrospect, the first of many unfortunate decisions. And it was the beginning of a sequence of disastrous events which would lead to his death just over three weeks later.

My father was taken to Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital where he was given extensive tests. The doctors looking after him confirmed that there was no heart problem. No serious or new problems were found. This wasn’t very surprising. At no point had my father ever had any symptoms of a heart attack. My father still had some pain and asked if he could have more morphine. The ambulance crew had given him some and he had, he said, rather liked the feeling. The doctors with him (a consultant and a junior hospital doctor) instantly said that he didn’t need morphine. They told him that paracetamol or codeine would control his pain. The consultant said that he could go home the following day. My father seemed quite well. He was very alert. At one point I remember him asking the consultant to fetch him a telephone directory. The admitting consultant considered sending my father home again. He decided, however, to keep him in overnight. I know all this because as soon as I heard what had happened I drove to Exeter and I was standing by my father’s bedside at the time. My father was quite well, sitting up in bed taking a very active interest in what was happening. He was most concerned that I should get in touch with a friend with whom he had a luncheon appointment.

The following day my dad asked the doctors if they could do anything about his breathing problems. More investigations were ordered. He was expected to be in hospital no more than another day or possibly two. And then the ward was infected with a diarrhoea and vomiting bug and was closed. My father was effectively imprisoned in the hospital. Because the ward was closed there were no physiotherapists, no occupational therapists and no visitors. I tried to get him moved to a nearby private hospital. But they wouldn’t take him because he was on an infected ward. The nursing home wouldn’t take him for the same reason.

In the next ten days or so he was (I believe) twice infected with a diarrhoea and vomiting bug. He also contracted a chest infection and a urinary tract infection. (The latter developed after he was catheterised. He was catheterised because, like most 87-year-old men, he had been getting up at night to pass urine. Unfortunately, he got an infection and they had to take the catheter out. In my view, anyone who gets a urinary infection from a simple catheterisation has been catheterised by a nincompoop.) The staff insisted that the diarrhoea and vomiting bug was airborne (so it wasn’t their poor hygiene which caused the persistent spread). I didn’t believe them then and I don’t believe them now. Such bugs are largely spread through poor hygiene practices. If the staff really believed the bug was airborne why weren’t they wearing masks? And why were the doors to the ward left wide open? A doctor said the bug was spread by projectile vomiting and this can be true. But that doesn’t make it an airborne infection – unless, of course, one patient vomits directly into the mouth of another. It didn’t seem surprising to me that they were having difficulty controlling the infection. One `expert’ told me that such bugs behave differently in hospitals though they couldn’t explain how the bugs know they are in a hospital. The real problem is: if you don’t know how an infection is transmitted how do you stop it? (The staff suffer from these bugs less than the patients because they don’t eat on the ward and don’t use the same lavatories.)

I wasn’t impressed by the quality of care provided. I was told by one member of staff that my dad had diarrhoea because of the codeine he was taking. (Codeine is more likely to cause constipation). I heard a doctor ask another patient how his bowels were. When told that they were runny the doctor said she would prescribe a laxative.

Although the ward was closed I visited my dad on 15th February. I was allowed to visit because he had suddenly become very ill. When I visited him I found that he was very pink, confused and twitching. When he did wake up he had difficulty in seeing. He was on oxygen and it seemed pretty clear to me that he was getting too much of the stuff and was suffering from oxygen poisoning. These are all classic symptoms of this problem. I asked for the oxygen to be stopped. The oxygen was stopped and the following morning my father was fine.

I spent much of the following week struggling to get my dad out of the hospital. I spoke to him and the staff several times a day, every day. His pain was controlled and he was bored and fed up. I spoke countless times to doctors and nurses on the ward. Eventually, after a flurry of calls on Friday 22nd February, I managed to arrange for my dad (who no longer had the virus and was now safely in a side room) to be moved to the Cranford Nursing Home near to his home to convalesce. He was told that the additional tests they had not been able to do (because of the ward closure) would be conducted as an outpatient. By this time my father wasn’t fit enough to go to his own home. He needed physiotherapy to help him walk again. After two weeks in hospital he had become very weak, though he was still mobile. His spare pyjamas went with him to the nursing home, in a bag. When the bag was opened the pyjamas were thickly stained with the diarrhoea he had suffered on the ward. Not the best way to stop infections spreading.

The hospital had prescribed a regime to control my father’s pain and given him an outpatient appointment for further investigations of his long-term respiratory problem. I was told that after admission to the nursing home he was laughing and joking with the nurses.

I had influenza and was too ill to visit him that weekend (I didn’t want to give him the infection I’d acquired) but I spoke to him several times and he seemed well enough. I thought he was safe now that he was out of the hospital. He received visitors and had his television set moved across from his house. He walked about in the nursing home (he walked so much he made himself tired – he told me that he thought he had overdone things) and I asked him if he thought he would still be able to come away with us for a few days in Sidmouth to celebrate his birthday (3rd March). He said he would and that he was looking forward to it.

My dad wasn’t ready to die. He was looking forward to all sorts of things. We’d just brought him a new printer and fax machine for his birthday and a new gadget-packed mobile phone. Before going into hospital he still drove himself and went out to lunch several times a week.

When he was discharged from the hospital my father’s pain was controlled with a Fentanyl patch. He was, I believe, on a relatively low dose of this. Much stronger patches could have been tried. But on 25th February the nursing home staff called his doctor, Dr Hallmark, because he was again complaining of pain.

The doctor who called on Dr Hallmark’s behalf, was a GP registrar, Dr Stuart Livingston. He overruled the regime which had been carefully prepared by the hospital doctors who had looked after my dad for two weeks and prescribed Oramorph (morphine). The manufacturers of Oramorph state clearly that the drug should not be given to patients with severe respiratory problems. It’s a serious hazard. The drug is a version of morphine and it depresses respiration. Michael Jackson is said to have died of an opiate induced respiratory arrest. And my dad was 87-years-old. In old age drug effects can be dramatically enhanced. Two days later – after several doses of Oramorph – my father was dead. Dr Livingston stated in his report to the coroner, Dr Elizabeth Earland, in support of his action, that he believed the contraindication to be a relative rather than an absolute one. The manufacturer of the drug, however, makes it clear that the contradiction is absolute. To be precise, the company making Oramorph told me: `…the use of Oramorph is contraindicated in any patients with respiratory depression or obstructive airways disease regardless of age.’ My father had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease – a serious respiratory problem. Dr Livingston also suggested that prescribing Oramorph is acceptable in `end stage’ respiratory disease. But my father was not `end stage’ anything. I don’t believe that Dr Livingston had ever met my father before he prescribed Oramorph for him. My father didn’t even think of himself as old. A few weeks earlier he had gone to a club for pensioners and had complained bitterly about it. `It’s full of old people,’ he muttered sourly. He had been driving his car the day before he was admitted to hospital.

When I telephoned him at 9.00 a.m. on Wednesday morning (27th February) my dad was very sleepy and kept falling asleep during our conversation. I put the telephone down and rang a little later. He was still very drowsy, seemed drugged, and had difficulty in breathing. I had spoken to him virtually every day for four years and I had never heard him have as much trouble with his breathing as he had after that day. I guessed that his medication had been changed and asked him what new drug he was on. He told me that he had seen a GP on Monday who had given him morphine. I spoke immediately to a senior member of staff and asked him not to give my father any more of the morphine. I was told that the morphine had been prescribed four times a day and as required. I was horrified and pointed out that since morphine is a respiratory depressant and my father was suffering from severe respiratory problems the morphine would kill him. The staff member agreed that no more morphine would be given. I said I would take responsibility for stopping the morphine and he accepted this. I said I would visit the following day (Thursday).

I telephoned my Father on the Wednesday afternoon at 2.51 p.m. hoping that he would have woken up a little. He had. He was much better. I told him the dangers of morphine and asked him not to take any more. I told him that the drug would kill him if he continued with it. Apart from ‘Goodbye, I love you dad,’ my last words to him were: `If you take any more of that drug it will kill you.’ They haunt me. But he wasn’t very keen on hearing what I had so say. My dad could be incredibly patient. But when it came to medical matters he always wanted immediate solutions. When he started having a little prostate trouble I recommended that he try eating a handful of pumpkin seeds once a day. Twenty four hours after I made this suggestion he telephoned and rather grumpily told me that my suggestion hadn’t worked. Sadly my dad believed that there was a pill for every problem. He liked pills. And GPs like prescribing them. When we cleared out my dad’s house we filled one and a half black dustbin liners with bottles and packets of pills. I went once with him to see a specialist, shortly before his death, because he was finding it difficult to walk as far as he used to be able. `I can’t walk uphill as fast as I could,’ he said. `What are you going to do about it?’ he demanded, staring rather belligerently at the consultant.

My dad agreed that the Oramorph made his breathing worse but said he liked it. He said he wanted to see documentary evidence showing that the drug was dangerous for patients in his condition. I said I would bring him the evidence the following day. My wife did a Web search that evening and printed out some suitable evidence to add to the textbooks I’d picked out.

I was telephoned at around 8.30 p.m. that evening (Wednesday 27th February) by the night nurse. She said my father was a bad colour and was having difficulty breathing. She admitted that he had been given another dose of morphine at 8.00 p.m. and told me that he had subsequently developed serious breathing problems. She told me that his condition had deteriorated alarmingly after he had been given the drug. I said I was planning to visit the following morning and repeated my request that he be given no more of the drug. I told her that in my view morphine would kill him. I said I would be in to see him the following day but hours later he was dead.

On my way down to Exmouth I received a telephone call from the nursing home to say that my dad had died.

Why wouldn’t he listen to me and stop taking the drug? Simple. Some months earlier I had questioned another prescription which had been written for him. (After taking it he developed an irregular heart beat.) When my father had passed on my concerns to his doctor, the doctor had dismissed my worry; reportedly telling my father that, because I wasn’t in practice, I was out of touch and out of date.

When I had seen my dad I asked to see the nursing home’s drug records. The nurse I spoke to immediately said: `It’s about the Oramorph isn’t it?’

After a post-mortem a pathologist concluded that my father had died of his respiratory problem. There was a small amount of Oramorph left in his blood. Could the morphine have helped kill my father by exacerbating his respiratory problems? Would he have been alive today if he hadn’t had that last dose? We will, of course never know any of the answers.

But the doctors at the hospital (where he had been for over two weeks) did not think he needed morphine (or, maybe, thought that it would not be safe for him to take it). The hospital did not regard him as terminal. (He was sent an outpatient appointment for March 13th). He did not complain that his pain had got worse after he had left the hospital. And he went from weak but relatively healthy to dead in less than 24 hours – after being given a drug which the manufacture states he should not have been given.

If he had needed a stronger painkiller why didn’t the GP try a higher dose of the Fentanyl patch instead of prescribing morphine for an 87-year-old man with severe respiratory problems?

An article in Pharmacology advises that the most dangerous side effect of morphine is `respiratory depression’. MIMS magazine for doctors warns that the two first disorders listed as contradictions for Oramorph are respiratory depression and obstructive airways disease. All GPs receive, and should read, MIMS. And according to a leading medical website: `Respiratory depression (with morphine preparations) occurs more frequently in the elderly and debilitated patients, as well as in those suffering from conditions accompanied by hypoxia or hypercapnia when even moderate therapeutic doses may dangerously decrease pulmonary ventilation’. The West Midland Ambulance Service has warned that Oramorph should not be given to patients with respiratory depression or inadequate tidal volume. Oramorph, like all drugs, is particularly likely to be potent when given to elderly patients. Older patients tend to respond more dramatically to drugs than younger ones.

In the end, I decided there was no point in attending Dr Earland’s inquest because the coroner informed me that she had already decided (before the inquest) that Oramorph did not cause my father’s death. She agreed to accept witnesses but suggested that they wouldn’t make any difference to her decision. And she decided not to have witnesses whom I considered vital at the inquest. It seemed to me that if you don’t ask the right people the right questions you aren’t ever likely to come up with the right answers. I felt it had become the sort of inquest where Kafka would have felt at home.

It was suggested by the coroner that if I wanted justice I should take action in the civil courts. I didn’t want damages. What good are damages? The idea of suing in the civil courts reduced my father’s death to the level of a faulty ladder on an uneven pavement. I was, I confess, reminded of Conan Doyle’s remark that `some of these country coroners do think they are tin pot gods’. Conan Doyle was, of course, himself a doctor. He knew of which he spoke. A coroner is a medium level state functionary but one who has a great deal of power over his or her tiny domain, like a local VAT inspector, or a traffic warden. I found the whole inquest experience cold, unhelpful and traumatic. I’ve had friendlier encounters with HMRC. The whole thing was managed with all the subtlety and compassion of an MOT test. I didn’t understand why the inquest wasn’t being held in front of a jury. According to the leaflet I was given at the start of the proceedings, inquests are held with a jury: `if further deaths may occur in similar circumstances’. This was clearly the case in my father’s death. My father’s GP has not admitted that the drug was prescribed inappropriately and has, presumably, not changed his prescribing practices. Other doctors may well be prescribing the drug under similarly inappropriate circumstances. Ergo, there should have been a jury. There wasn’t.

On 3.00 p.m. on 20th August 2008 I met a policeman, the coroner’s representative, at a police station in Devon. He told me that the impression was that I was a bit of a nutter, that the coroner was aiming for `natural causes’ and that the death was not taken very seriously because my dad was 87-years-old when he died. He said none of the other witnesses had been interviewed and weren’t likely to be. We talked for some time. I explained exactly what had happened and he agreed with me that it would perhaps be surprising if the coroner didn’t agree with me that the Oramorph was probably the cause of my father’s death and that negligence was involved. `If he’d been a young child things might have been different,’ said the policeman. `The feeling is that your dad was old and had a long life so what are you going on about?’

I felt his theory explained the curious nature of the coroner who didn’t bark. You don’t get many rights these days if you’re old.

Eventually, after it finally became clear that the coroner had already decided that the Oramorph had nothing to do with my father’s death. I sent her this letter:

`When I started this long and tiring journey I hoped for two things: justice for my father (in the hope, perhaps, of a simple acknowledgement that an error had been made) and an opportunity to prevent the same thing happening again. The second of these was actually the most important. Nothing can change the fact of my father’s death. But it is now abundantly clear that neither objective will be reached. More people will die in exactly the same way as my father died and the judicial system is not going to prevent this happening. What a missed opportunity! There was, here, a clear opportunity to warn doctors of the danger of prescribing inappropriate drugs (particularly to the elderly) with a specific example illustrating the consequences.

Your list of witnesses is disappointing, to say the least. I can think of two specific individuals from the nursing home who should be there. A senior member of staff agreed with me that Oramorph was making my father ill and agreed with me that the drug would kill him and that he should have no more of it. In addition, the nurse who gave the final dose would be able to describe my father’s reaction to the drug and to tell us the time of his death. We know the time he was certified dead but I certainly don’t know the time of his death.

On 7th August you wrote and told me that you intended to call the nurse who `allegedly agreed with you that Oramorph was seriously affecting your father’s condition’ and `the nurse who was on duty when your father died’. But your list now merely includes `a representative from the Cranford Nursing Home’. That could be an administrator. Both the relevant nurses are easily identified and, presumably, traced.

In addition you have no expert representative from the drug company which warns doctors not to give Oramorph to patients with my father’s condition.

My lack of faith in your inquest is increased by the knowledge that you have, quite inexplicably in my view, already decided (before the inquest) that the drug which I am quite certain killed my father played no part in his death. (`Oramorph does not feature as the cause of your father’s death’ – your letter dated 7th August 2009.) The drug company insists that Oramorph should never be given to patients with my father’s condition. (In my experience drug companies do not usually limit their market without good reason.) The theoretical medical evidence suggests that a normal dose of the drug could kill him. Hospital doctors refused to give him a similar drug just days beforehand. The clinical evidence shows that the first dose of the drug affected him adversely. And yet somehow you `know’ that the final dose of the drug, inappropriately prescribed, did not kill him. I have studied the pathologist’s report but I still have no idea how you reached this conclusion.

I would now like to withdraw from the process completely so that I can, at last, begin to mourn and to remember my father rather than fighting over the manner of his death. It has been enormously stressful to see a close relative killed by an inappropriately prescribed drug and to be denied anything remotely resembling proper justice.’

I did not know then how the coroner came to her conclusion. I still do not know.

I made a formal complaint to the General Medical Council (GMC) about Dr Hallmark and Dr Livingston. To my astonishment the GMC agreed with my father’s GPs that any contradiction for the use of Oramorph in COPD patients is relative rather than absolute. They apparently ignored the fact that the drug company which makes Oramorph has an absolute ban on the use of the drug with COPD patients. The drug company stated that Oramorph is contraindicated in any patients with obstructive airways disease. I asked the GMC to explain why the defending GPs’ views were considered more relevant than the manufacturer’s advice. They refused to answer. And they refused to consider evidence from the professional witnesses who observed the effect the Oramorph had on my father.

If I was astonished by that judgement I was utterly dumbstruck by the GMC’s decision that it is acceptable practice for GPs to advise patients living alone, and in excruciating chest pain, to be told to call their own ambulance and then just wait for the ambulance to arrive.

That’s medical care in Britain in the 21st century.

And I think it stinks.

I wrote to the GMC saying that I wanted to complain about their decision. I said I wanted to make a formal complaint about the GMC and the two employees who decided that a clear contraindication to the prescribing of a drug is of no consequence. `Under the Freedom of Information Act, would you please let me have the names and qualifications of the two GMC employees who decided that it is perfectly acceptable for a doctor to ignore a drug company warning not to give a drug.’

I didn’t hear from them again.

The hospital weakened my father. They were, if you like, the picadors. I believe the GP then did the matador’s work by prescribing an unsuitable drug.

In the end, nothing happened. No one was disciplined. No one apologised. Nothing changed.

The hospital believe they did nothing wrong.

Two GPs claimed they did nothing wrong.

The coroner said no one did anything wrong.

The General Medical Council agreed that no one did anything wrong.

I wrote to the police but they didn’t bother to respond to my letter.

But everything you have read is the truth. So, now you decide.

Remember: my dad was given a drug the manufacturer said he should not have been given. Within minutes his condition had deteriorated. He then recovered but was given another dose of the same drug. Within hours he was dead. Neither the coroner nor the GMC thought there was a link between the two events and neither made any attempt to investigate any relationship between the two.

If it had all happened to a child, an asylum seeker or the wife of a minister would the result have been the same? Does being white, male and over 80 diminish the significance of a death? The case seemed very simple to me. A doctor prescribed a banned drug. Abundant evidence shows that the drug made the patient ill. The patient died soon afterwards.

Why should you care? Because you could be next.

I have spent my entire medical career exposing the dishonesties and incompetences of doctors. There is, therefore, no little irony in the fact that I believe that incompetent doctors killed both my parents.

But the fact is I know that my parents were killed only because I know what to look for. I’ve described how and why they died, and how the system did its best to cover up what had happened, not to point a finger but to draw attention to the extent of institutionalised incompetence within the world of medicine.

This wasn’t a case of a patient being given the wrong dose of a drug. It was a case of a patient being given an entirely inappropriate drug. No one has ever apologised, expressed remorse or regret or admitted they made a mistake. So, one has to assume, the same thing will happen again. And again. And again. Prescribed drugs are one of the top killers in Britain today. The wrong drug can kill a patient just as surely as a bullet. How many other deaths are officially dismissed as natural causes? Is this through incompetence or a lack of caring or is it deliberate policy? How many deaths which should be investigated are never reported to the coroner? How many coroners refuse to investigate such cases?

Just how big is the iceberg?

NOTE
The essay above is taken from Vernon Coleman’s book entitled `Why and how doctors kill more people than cancer’. The book is available via the bookshop on www.vernoncoleman.com

Copyright Vernon Coleman October 2025

stock here: Mandy is one of the best.

Body Language – A look at Peter Thiel of Palantir | Bombards Body Language

stock here, it’s 14 minutes

stock here: its been downloading for over 40 minutes. Hard to imagine this data is opensource?

Gridded Bathymetry Data | GEBCO

Trump immediately stating that it was “bad fuel”, makes me think he is just downplaying the brute force show of technology by China.

I would be concerned thats its a warning from china, using a special energy weapon, to throw off all three flying computers in these craft, verify 3 computers voting like most spacecraft have

ChatGPT said:

Your concern that this could be a deliberate “energy-weapon” or electromagnetic disruption by South China Sea adversary is interesting — but from what is publicly known about the two aircraft (a MH‑60R Seahawk helicopter and a F/A‑18F Super Hornet jet) and their flight-control/avionics design, here’s how the technical situation stacks up — what we do know, what we don’t know, and how plausible your theory is in light of the public record.

---

✅ What we do know about their flight-control / computer redundancy

For the F/A-18F Super Hornet

• The Super Hornet uses a fly-by-wire (FBW) flight control system. According to general sources: a digital fly-by-wire system “virtually all … incorporate either redundant computers (triplex, quadruplex etc.) to prevent loss of signals in the case of failure.” Wikipedia+1
• A more specific release: BAE Systems was selected by Boeing to upgrade the “flight control computers (FCCs) … for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet” with “quad-redundant FBW flight control systems (FCS)” noted. PR Newswire+1
• Therefore, it is publicly acknowledged that the Super Hornet’s flight control system has at least quad-redundancy in its FBW architecture.
• Also: its “mission computers” or “advanced mission computers” (AMCs) handle sensor/mission processing, but these are separate from the flight control computers. (See for example the AMC for the Super Hornet) General Dynamics Mission Systems

For the MH-60R Seahawk

• The MH-60R is the U.S. Navy’s multi-mission maritime helicopter. U.S. Navy+1
• We have documents showing upgrades to its “Mission Computer / Flight Management Computer (MC/FMC)” modules: e.g., Curtiss‑Wright Corporation awarded a contract by Lockheed Martin to upgrade the MH-60R/S MC/FMC to improve resilience for “new battlefield threats / cyber-attacks”. curtisswright.com+1
• However, I did not locate publicly detailed information (in my quick scan) about the exact voting logic (triplex vs quadruplex vs other) inside the MH-60R’s flight-control computers.

---

⚠️ What we don’t know / what’s uncertain

• We do not have access in public records (at least easily found) to a full breakdown of the aircraft’s voting logic “3 computers voting” (i.e., triple redundancy) versus “4 computers” (quad redundancy) especially for the MH-60R.
• We aren’t sure how the MH-60R’s flight control computers are structured (how many independent channels, how voting logic is implemented). The public references tend to be about mission/management computers rather than detailed flight-control redundancy.
• We don’t have any authoritative public source indicating that the two crashes were caused by electromagnetic weaponry (directed-energy), hacking, or any malicious interference. Investigations are ongoing, per the news.
• The “30 minutes apart” coincidence does raise anomaly potential, but operationally there could be other explanations (mechanical, environmental, maintenance, fuel, human error) that may be more mundane.

---

🤔 How plausible is the “energy weapon / computer voting gone bad” scenario?

Let’s assess from a systems-engineering viewpoint:

• High level of redundancy: Both aircraft use advanced redundant systems (quad-redundant in Super Hornet’s case) for flight control. That means any one computer failing (or one channel) should not lead to catastrophic loss of control on its own — the system is designed to tolerate such failures.
• Voting logic: In a typical “triplex voting” system, three computers compute independently; the system compares results and if one deviates, it’s excluded, and the majority (2 of 3) remain. In “quadruplex” systems, there may be four independent channels or more, and some logic to exclude outliers. The BAE article for the F/A-18E/F references “quad-redundant FBW flight control systems” explicitly. PR Newswire+1
• Directed energy / electromagnetic interference (EMI) as attack vector: For an adversary to use a special energy weapon or EMI to cause both aircraft to lose multiple computers or channels, the attacker would need to:
  1. Be physically close enough or have sufficient energy projection to affect the aircraft’s flight control computers/actuators (which are in hardened military systems and likely shielded).
  2. Overcome the redundant channels (i.e., cause at least 2 or more channels to fail or produce invalid output) such that the system cannot maintain control.
  3. Do it in such a way that two different aircraft (with different platforms, although same carrier group) crashed within 30 minutes. That would imply a very coordinated, highly capable attack.
• Environmental / maintenance / mechanical factors: Meanwhile, common-cause failures (e.g., fuel contamination, maintenance lapses, software/hardware obsolescence, simultaneous system fault) may also explain two mishaps in a short time period, especially on a carrier where operations are intense.
• Probability and evidence: While the possibility cannot be fully dismissed given the opaque nature of military incident investigations, there is no public evidence so far to support a “directed-energy weapon” cause. Investigations normally look first at mechanical/human/maintenance/fuel causes.

---

🔍 My reasoned judgment based on available info

Given what we know:

• It is technically plausible that the aircraft have multi-channel redundant flight control computers (confirmed in the Super Hornet case).
• It is less likely (based purely on publicly-available evidence) that a directed-energy attack caused both crashes — mainly because the complexity of such an attack is very high, and there is no firm public indicator.
• It remains wise to keep this scenario as one of the hypotheses, not ruled out, but also not currently the most probable without further data.
• The fact that two aircraft were lost within ~30 minutes is unusual, and merits special investigation — including both standard causes (maintenance, fuel, mechanical) and less common ones (electromagnetic interference, software/hardware common mode failure) — especially since carrier-based operations involve specific stresses.

---

——————–

how likely is this to be bad fuel, do they even use the exact same fuel

ChatGPT said:

Good questions — let’s unpack what we do know about fuel use in the F/A‑18F Super Hornet and the MH‑60R Seahawk, and assess how plausible a “bad-fuel” scenario is in this case.

---

✅ What we know about fuel types and compatibility

1. Fuel type for carrier-based US Navy aircraft
   • The US Navy typically uses the jet fuel specification called JP‑5 for carrier-based fixed-wing aircraft. (JP-5 has a high flash point (~60 °C) and is therefore safer for shipboard operations). Wikipedia+1
   • The F/A-18 Super Hornet article notes that it “most commonly uses JP-5 jet fuel.” Wikipedia+1
   • For helicopters like the MH-60 series, aircraft also use jet fuel (turbine engines) with appropriate specifications; while I found fewer explicit statements for MH-60R use of JP-5 specifically, given that it is a US Navy ship-borne helicopter the expectation is that it uses the same shipboard aviation fuel type.
2. Fuel-system testing and alternative fuels
   • The MH-60S (a sibling variant of MH-60R) was flown in a test using a 50/50 bio-fuel blend with conventional naval jet fuel. Naval Air Systems Command
   • For the F/A-18E/F & EA-18G program, alternative fuels (50/50 blends of synthetic or bio-feedstock) were qualified and the JP-5 specification was revised to allow such blends. DENIX+1
3. Conclusion on “do they use the exact same fuel?”
   • Yes, very likely: both aircraft (the MH-60R helicopter and the F/A-18F jet) operating from a US Navy carrier should be using the same core shipboard jet aviation fuel (JP-5) or equivalent specification.
   • This means a single contaminated fuel batch (or poorly managed fuel supply) could plausibly affect multiple aircraft onboard or servicing from same source.

---

⚠️ How likely is “bad fuel” as a cause in this incident?

Given the above, here are factors that make “bad fuel” a possible cause — and also reasons why it may or may not be the leading suspect.

Supporting factors:

• If both aircraft used the same batch or source of fuel (on the same carrier ship), contamination or adulteration could be common-mode failure affecting multiple types of aircraft.
• The coincidence of two aircraft from the same carrier in roughly the same timeframe increases plausibility of a shared logistic/maintenance issue (fuel, servicing, environment) rather than completely independent failures.
• In carrier operations, fuel storage, distribution, bunkering operations are highly complex; possibility exists of cross-contamination, water ingress, microbial growth in fuel, incorrect additive mixing, or variable quality especially in deployed operations.

Mitigating factors / reasons to be cautious:

• Aircraft fuel systems (especially military) have multiple checks, filtration, quality assurance, and fuel supply chain standards. A fuel contamination event large enough to crash multiple aircraft would likely trigger immediate emergency flags earlier.
• A fuel fault typically causes degraded performance (engine power loss, flame-out, surging) rather than immediate catastrophic control failure (though depending on scenario it could lead to crash). The articles say “crash into the sea” but don’t provide details such as engine failure, flame-out, loss of flight control — so we don’t yet know if fuel fault matches the failure mode.
• A helicopter and a fighter jet have different flight profiles, usage, loads, systems so a single fuel defect would have to be severe or affect multiple subsystems to crash both aircraft nearly simultaneously.
• The investigation is ongoing, and until detailed incident data (fuel samples, engine data, maintenance logs) are released, fuel remains a hypothesis but not confirmed.

---

🔍 My estimate of probability

Putting it all together: given shared fuel type and the carrier context, I’d assign a moderate probability to fuel being a contributing factor (say 30-40% likelihood), depending on other facts (fuel age, supply chain logs, sample analyses).
However, I’d still consider other causes (mechanical failure, maintenance error, environment/weather, simultaneous software/hardware fault, or even deliberate interference) equally or more plausible unless fuel evidence emerges.

————————–

stock here: wow, from Miss Frill

Mind Control Missile Murder Madness: PERIMETER OF THE CLOUD MINDERS

wordman

October 8, 2025 at 11:58 PM

Mary Miss Frill weighing in with the fact that MJ recorded this and then he died:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6A33a7X0to

To which I’ll just say he recorded this right before too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtKIF5FUVOc

https://www.youtube.com/embed/CtKIF5FUVOc

Comm: this is actually the regular version in 109 countries.


Fun Fact: While Michael Jackson was dealing with child molestation charges, Jeffrey Epstein was enjoying his protection for child trafficking….
Beat me, hate me
You could never break me
Will me, thrill me
You can never kill me
Jew me, sue me
Everybody, do me
Kick me, kike me
Don’t you black or white me
All I wanna say is that they don’t really care about us

https://www.bitchute.com/video/CHNwWGm7uvYS

stock here: remember when Kyle Rittenhouse shot those ruffians at a George Floyd mostly peaceful burn down? The next day Wisconsin was pelted with chemtrails. I wonder the reason, it’s been super warm this fall except for a few days. My bird feeder had 3/4″ of ice on top. I pulled all my peppers and veggies yesterday, except the Kohlrabi and Brussel Sprouts.

That’s a Fire Pit with the Raised Bed Gardens behind it.

Taking out 3 Pines today, as 1 is dead, and 2 are encroaching on other pines. Winter is coming.

stock here: I see this as a totally harmful power play. “Care for Creation” is not care for Humans, it is manipulate the humans by pretending that climate change requires international agreements (Globalism).

A-Eye disagrees, that will be more common.

This is a very interesting development. Let’s unpack the recent event and assess whether it appears to be good change, just change, or has potentially disastrous implications — especially in light of the historical reference you gave about Henry VIII and the split of the Church of England from the Roman Catholic Church.

---

✅ What actually happened

• Charles III (king of the UK) and Pope Leo XIV publicly prayed together in the Sistine Chapel in Vatican City. This is the first time a British monarch has done so with a Pope since the Reformation (about 500 years after Henry VIII’s breakaway). Reuters+2The Washington Post+2
• The visit was framed as an ecumenical gesture of healing, unity and cooperation between Anglican (Church of England) and Catholic traditions — with a particular focus on shared concerns such as environmental protection (“care for creation”). The Guardian+1
• The historical significance cannot be overstated: the break in 1534 when Henry VIII declared himself head of the Church of England after the Pope refused an annulment, set off a long stream of religious conflict, division and identity issues. The Guardian+1

---

🤔 Why it matters

• Symbolic value: The gesture sends a strong message that centuries-old divisions might be softening, that past enemies (in religious institutional terms) might move toward cooperation rather than antagonism.
• Ecumenical momentum: For Christians in the UK and globally, this may boost inter-denominational dialogue, potentially reducing sectarian tension, promoting common causes (poverty, climate change, etc.).
• Institutional implications: Because Charles is Supreme Governor of the Church of England and the monarch still has certain symbolic religious duties in the UK, his engaging publicly with the Pope touches on questions of identity, authority, church-state relations.
• Public perception: Many in the UK will view this favorably (as a step toward reconciliation). Some may view it skeptically (for example fearing Jesus‐politics, or worried about loss of identity for Anglicanism, or that this is too worldly or politically influenced).

---

⚠️ Possible risks or “disastrous” potential

• Confusion of identity: The Church of England has its own distinct identity, theology, governance. Too much rapprochement with Rome could raise questions among Anglicans about doctrinal independence or compromise.
• Internal backlash: Within both Anglicanism and Catholicism there are factions wary of unity if they believe it might require concessions (on women clergy, sexual ethics, authority, etc.). This could stir conflict. For example, the Anglican Communion is already under strain over issues of gender and sexuality. Le Monde.fr
• Political or constitutional implications: In the UK the monarch’s role in the established Church is deeply embedded. If closer unity leads to changes in that arrangement (even indirectly) it might provoke constitutional or legal tensions.
• Symbolism vs substance: A strong symbolic gesture is good, but if nothing concrete follows (or if it is seen as PR) it may generate cynicism or disillusionment.
• Cultural or religious backlash: In a pluralist society such as the UK, some might see this as favouring Christian unity in a way that excludes other faiths or non-faith views. Moreover, those deeply Protestant might view it as too Catholic, and those Catholic might still see the schism as unresolved.

---

🧐 My assessment: Good change, but with caveats

On balance, I lean towards this being a good change. I think the gesture of public prayer and dialogue is positive: it opens doors, softens old wounds, creates opportunity for cooperation across churches, and reflects a mature willingness to transcend past hostilities.

However — it’s not automatically just or without risk. The justice dimension (in terms of right relationships, truth, transparency) depends on how institutions live out the gesture. If it’s merely symbolic without follow-through (or if it glosses over deeper issues of theology, governance, identity) then it could lead to disappointment or even new conflicts. So I’d say:

• ✔ Good change: because it promotes unity, reconciliation, shared action, and reflects a healthier religious-social environment.
• ⚠ Just change: yes — provided it respects each tradition’s integrity, addresses historical harms, involves meaningful cooperation rather than superficial symbolism.
• ❗ Potentially disastrous: if one or both sides ignore underlying issues of doctrine, power, identity, or if the move leads to unintended loss of autonomy, internal division, or backlash.

stock here: One of my go to guys for Ukraine. First time I saw his channel. Only 6.11K subscribers, now 1 more.

stock here.

stock here: HT Cuttlefish, what do you think of this look, 85% of them look like this.

‘Woke to blame for Louvre robbery’: Female museum security chief accused of being a ‘diversity hire’ comes under fire as politicians say heist has made France ‘the laughing stock of the world’ | Daily Mail Online

stock here: 1300 women in USA with brain tumors sue Pfizer for a birthcontrol injection.

I did do the Shingles injections, during COVID, but before the mRNA was foisted onto the public. But I think that is it. I had super high Anti-COVID anti-bodies so I was considering giving blood to help other people…and then I thought, do I really want them putting any needles into my arm on a fairly regular basis?

Killing Babies or Brain Tumors? Seems like we are being given less good choices. Old high school buddy is hopping on a plane today. Tonight, we’ll go out for some tap beer and then it’s fire pit season, with some 12 year old Rum, the leaves are starting to fall in earnest.

Tomorrow we to the funeral of our high school classmate, who was happy go lucky, and lauded on Facebook as a great man. He definitely would “take one for the team” and so he took the injections to protect others. He got a turbo brain cancer a year ago, they operated, but they didn’t get all of it, or his immune system was so damaged that it couldn’t fight off even a minor attack. Now he is DEAD!

Even so A-Eye seems almost like a cancer apologist….”it’s not all brain tumors, just one type”

There is some evidence connecting the contraceptive injection Depo‑Provera (manufactured by Pfizer Inc. (or previously its predecessor companies) to an increased risk of brain tumours — but not the exact claim in the article you shared, and not with the full extent as described. Here’s a summary of the facts and caveats:

---

✅ What we do know

• A 2024 study published in the The BMJ found that women who used progestogen-only injectable contraceptives (including Depo-Provera) for more than one year had a significantly higher risk of meningioma (a type of brain tumour) compared to non-users. King Law+3ABC+3The Times of India+3
• There is ongoing litigation in the U.S. (and elsewhere) in which Pfizer is a defendant, alleging that Depo-Provera’s label did not adequately warn about the risk of brain tumours (meningiomas) following prolonged use. Drugwatch.com+2Morris James LLP+2

---

⚠️ What the article claims vs what evidence supports

The article you shared states: “Pfizer’s Birth Control Injection Triggers Surge in Brain Tumors” — and implies a strong causal link, a “surge” of brain tumours and that the injection is a birth-control injection by Pfizer.

• While Depo-Provera is a birth-control injection and is linked to tumour risk, the evidence is largely about meningiomas (generally benign but serious) and with longer-term use, not a general “surge” or broad brain-tumour epidemic.
• The claim “triggers surge in brain tumors” is exaggerated compared to the scientific findings, which report increased risk (for a specific tumour type, under certain conditions) rather than a confirmed “surge” for all brain tumours.
• The article’s headline mentions “brain tumors” broadly — but the litigation and study evidence refer specifically to meningiomas.
• The article may mischaracterize or oversimplify the link. It may also fail to clarify that the association requires “long-term use” and is still under scientific and legal scrutiny (not conclusively settled for all use cases).

---

🔍 Additional context / things to check

• The meningioma risk appears tied to duration of use: e.g., more than a year of the injection. ABC+1
• The tumour type is generally meningioma (rather than all brain-tumours) — meningiomas are tumours of the meninges (the layers surrounding the brain) and are often slow-growing. Some are benign.
• Regulatory action: Some jurisdictions (e.g., EU, Australia) have updated warnings; U.S. label change has been resisted or declined by the FDA so far. Drugwatch.com+2Lawsuit Update Center+2
• The legal claims are still active. There is no publicly known mass settlement yet (as of date) that confirms the link as indisputable for all users.
• The article you provided appears to be from a site called “COVID Intel – by William Makis (McGill Medicine)”. This raises additional caution as it may not be peer-reviewed scientific literature but rather commentary or a paid subscription piece (the screenshot indicates “Paid”).
• It is always good to verify whether the article provides its own sources (study citations) or whether it is making claims without rigorous backing.

---

🧮 My verdict

The article isn’t entirely false — there is backing that Depo-Provera (Pfizer’s injection) has an association with increased risk of a specific brain-tumour type (meningioma) with long-term use. However, the article’s wording (“Triggers Surge in Brain Tumors”) is over-broad and sensational relative to the scientific evidence. It could mislead a reader into believing a broad, immediate causal link for all brain tumours and for typical use, which is not supported by the available scientific literature.

---

If you like, I can check peer-reviewed studies (not legal-advertising sites) to pull out the exact risk numbers, how strong the evidence is, and whether this applies to short-term users, different formulations, etc. Would you like that?

Recent litigation news on Depo‑Provera and brain tumour risk

theguardian.com

Pfizer sued in US over contraceptive that women say caused brain tumours

24 days ago

stock here: Musk posted “troubling”. Your truth is created by your belief system.

Troubling https://t.co/XglGF9Tlyo

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 20, 2025

stock here: ChatGPT refused to format this for me, tried 4 times. Hmmmm……

TexasTamie

@TexasTamieK

Oct 19

Obama’s accomplishments. The enemy within

1. First President to be photographed smoking a joint.

2. First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.

3. First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in. 4

. First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.

5. First President to violate the War Powers Act.

6. First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

7. First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

8. First President to spend a trillion dollars on “shovel-ready” jobs when there was no such thing as “shovel-ready” jobs.

9. First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.

10. First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.

11. First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.

12. First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

13. First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Chrysler) to resign.

14. First President to terminate America’s ability to put a man in space.

15. First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation.

16. First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.

17. First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.

18. First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases.

19. First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.

20. First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).

21. First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.

22. First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal).

23. First President to fire an inspector general of AmeriCorps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.

24. First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.

25. First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists.

26. First President to golf more than 150 separate times in his five years in office.

27. First President to hide his birth, medical, educational and travel records.

28. First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.

29. First President to go on multiple “global apology tours” and concurrent “insult our friends” tours.

30. First President to go on over 17 lavish vacations, in addition to date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayers.

31. First President to have personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.

32. First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.

33. First President to fly in a personal trainer from Chicago at least once a week at taxpayer expense.

34. First President to repeat the Quran and tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.

35. First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states (Mexico vs Arizona).

36. First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they “volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences.”

37. Then he was the First President to tell the members of the military that THEY were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion. I had been under the impression he hadn’t been doing ANYTHING… Such an accomplished individual…

stock here: most of my computers are Win 10, one is Win 11 and the admin absolutely hates it, although it improved after I pushed myself to do a bios update.

This is worth reviewing, and visit the authors site, there are many very astute comments also. I am glad i visited, I found out that Microsoft will continue to give you “security updates” on Win 10, it’s $30 for the first year.

—————— \

Good catch — yes, according to the official Windows 10 Extended Security Updates (ESU) webpage, the consumer version of ESU is offered as a one-time purchase of US $30 (or local equivalent + tax) for the first year.
Microsoft

Here are a few important details and caveats based on that page:

The $30 purchase covers up to 10 devices under the same Microsoft Account.
Microsoft

The offer is only for the consumer ESU program, not for commercial/enterprise devices.
Microsoft

It extends updates through October 13, 2026.
Microsoft

Devices must be on Windows 10 version 22H2 (Home/Pro/Pro Education/Workstations) and meet prerequisites.
Microsoft

———————

What Does Mandating Windows 11 Incur?

The screen shot is from The Green Mile (1999), about people on death row. I guess, all people have something in common; life is a condition from which nobody gets out alive.

---

A few tips for those who cannot circumvent using Windows 11:

1. Install Win 11 without an internet connection and an e-mail or MS account attached.
2. Stop auto updates permanently.
3. Disable AI.
4. I have also found that disabling device drivers in Device Manager in Windows 11 can be overridden by websites that require login. Not registering to such websites is the only remedy.
5. Disabling your microphone or your camera in Device Manager can be overridden by sites in which you are logged in. That can be your Microsoft, your Google account, an employer’s, or just about any other entity’s.
6. Even if you cover your camera, 5G, your home Wi-Fi, and proximity sensors can still ID you and even locate you within the room.
7. Your computer/camera/phone speakers can also be used as microphones by a remote party.
8. Virus checkers create a list of everything on your computer/phone, and the generated data can be sold and/or used against you. Disabling the one built into Windows and not using anything else must be accompanied by you not clicking on any picture or attachment in e-mails/text messages.

---

Just how many people can still remember when Bill Gates said the convid “vaccines” were the “operating system” that would need occasional “updates”? Once a techie, always a techie…1 Of course, AI has changed the records by now, which is why my pen name, originally meant to be a joke, has become possibly essential. These days, you can’t find much more about that declaration than “refutations” from not-exactly-reputable, but extremely powerful sources…

Who remembers him and his one-time wife bragging and giggling that “next time, people would notice”?

By now, it has become quite clear that people, that is, those who will be allowed to survive by the central AI, must become part of the IoT, the Internet of Things (and the crap has its own variations, but it makes no difference). Previously, I wrote about people being openly replaced with their deepfakes, and pointed out that the last stage of compiling the humanoid AI is in effect. This time, I am filling out a few blanks that are not exactly advertised, but omnipresent.

Privacy?

As long as you appear in cyberspace (cell phones included, even the oldest ones), don’t delude yourself about privacy2. The technology of the Internet itself, after several years of military application and testing, was made available for the public as a data-collection and control device on January 1, 1983. Believe me or not, even old systems were able to devise your personality, attitude, and most likely reactions simply from your list of contacts. The only defense against that is to have thousands of them, but keeping in touch with them also counts, so you must send them antisocial-media, e-mail, or text messages on a regular basis, AND receive non-automated responses, so good luck.

My “privacy solution” is that I am using various operating systems on 15-20-year-old laptops, tablets, and computers (none of them costing more than $150 at the time, but these days, I could buy them for less than $100), each assigned to specific tasks, behind double or triple firewalls and either two routers daisy-chained or at least a decent Ethernet switch. As each device has different IP addresses, fingerprinting me becomes difficult, because my wife is also on my internet. Each device functions independently: no network and, of course, no Wi-Fi, and no identifiers with the exception of the one(s) where some details (accurate or not) are needed for the apps to work.

However, during all these years, with the emergence of new technology, the volumes of data-collection have been rising exponentially, and with the introduction of 5G (not only in cell phones, but also in “smart” devices/meters, and home Wi-Fi that turns the local electric grid into an antenna3) even personal targeting became possible.

Oh, did I mention that once you start using a lot of “security” features, it “raises a red flag”?

Windows 11

Microsoft published its last “security” update for Windows 10 on October 15, 2025, and is trying to mandate a switch to Windows 11. Don’t take me wrong, all versions of Windows have always been spyware. After all, globalist-errand-boy Gates belongs to the same cesspool of CIA brats from which the founders of Fakebook and comparable s(h)ites also cropped up4.

Windows 11 does it all!

What’s new in Windows 11?

The requirements:

1. Fast multi-threaded processors (obviously, that’s needed to serve the data throughput);
2. Unless you employ a trick during installation, the operating system will keep identifying you and follow every move you make, even when not online (data collection can happen as long as a laptop or a cell phone is “turned off” and the collected data is transmitted after the device is on5;
3. TPM 2.0 is supposed to secure data transmission by advanced encryption, and it does, mainly from you;
4. Sufficient memory and bandwidth to transfer data, “as needed.”

While Windows has always been spyware, using back doors for easy intrusion into its users’ devices6, in the last 10-12 years (probably gradually introduced since the introduction of TPM 1.1b in 2003), hard disks sold in the US have also included technology to forward user data to who-knows-whom. Speeding them up and combining them with ever-increasing internet bandwidth (“speed”) has made the data collection and the surveillance a lot easier and less noticeable.7

AI is now built into the hardware of the most recent PC and Apple products8. Disabling it has become nearly impossible as long as one is using a browser.

Operating systems

Remember Blackberry? Its phones were the gold standard for data security. US government employees were using them, and lots of people liked the physical keyboards. It had its own OS, which used its unique encryption, making it difficult to crack. Allegedly, it went down, because it lacked the apps and games Android devices offered, but that would have meant the demise of Apple (well, Bill Gates saved his buddy’s enterprise, when it was about to go bankrupt). It may have been more about taking risks: its owners were not under US law, so in order to keep their market share, they had to either migrate to Android, which they did too late, and the company was sold to Japanese investors who have been fully compliant ever since. Of course, the original owners must have divulged to source code to US “authorities,” just like Kaspersky before it was forced out of the US9.

There have been, and still are, a number of mobile operating systems. MS itself issued its own mobile OS, but by then, cells phones were mostly toys, and nobody could compete with Androids. For “national security” (aka. to simplify surveillance and data collection), standardized data formats were desirable, which saves resources by eliminating data conversion.

Chrome as an operating system10 succeeded only because its junk laptops have been distributed in American schools, which resulted in some serious revenue for the globalist front, Google. Notably, Chrome is based on Linux, which brings up the question of using open source.

There are other small mobile OSs, and you can take your pick, if you like. Notice that whatever goes through your phone/internet provider11 will never be a secret. Even if the source code were not available for your OS (which interprets the apps you are using), which I doubt, AI can probably decrypt most forms of encryption by now.

Switching to open source: Linux

It looks like Microsoft’s push for total control and AI-centralization may be a bit premature, unless the predictable glitches have already been ironed out, and all consumer choices are reduced to imaginary ones. Personally, I would say, it’s the latter.

Open-source means transparent pieces of software. While transparency is good, the it comes with the bad: anyone can mess with it. Who knows which version of Linux you will install on your computer?

On Linux, most of the applications people tend to use in Windows have equivalents, that is, programs that perform the same tasks as their siblings for Windows. They are also open-source, and most of them are free, so you must be careful what you do and which programs you run on them.

For Windows users, who don’t care to “upgrade” to Win 11, Mint is the simplest version. It operates pretty much like Windows, and doesn’t require memorizing scripts like Ubuntu. Red Hat is not free, but I’m not sure you get what you pay for. If someone profits, they can profit from a lot more than just your buying the product. That reminds me of encrypted e-mail services, but that’s something for another day.

Linux is faster and a lot less resource-hungry than windows12. Moreover, it can be run from a USB pen drive or even a copy-protected (“finalized”) DVD13, making it impossible to alter it for an intruder. That, however, doesn’t protect anyone from a skilled intruder.

Experimenting with Linux in the last 20 years led me to the conclusion that sometimes it has only rudimentary device drivers, which can be especially disconcerting, when it comes to sound and video cards14. Moreover, some device drivers might not even exist for Linux, so before switching, you must check out if you are going to be satisfied with the results.

Is it that no matter what, users end up like those targeted by the KGB: falling out of the “window” from the 20th floor and closing the window behind them? I’m sure you can do these, including paying Microsoft extra in the next three years for Win 10 “upgrades” that double every year, and they don’t start cheap. You can also install Win 11 on “unsupported” computers, but “upgrades” tend not to work, in which case the back doors in your system will remain the same, making it easier to hack. Even when they work, only the designers of Windows might know what kind of vulnerabilities your choice can bring along15.

1

Still, mRNA is still most likely a cover-up for alternative methods (for one, I don’t read anything with a title that has mRNA in it), just like “vaccinations” can be completely “forbidden” by now, because there are so many other ways to poison the people, which has been more than obvious in the last three years. Anyone telling you that you are free from “vaccines” is a liar and a fraud…

2

With all those “security cameras” all over the place (even a doorbell with a camera collects information about your surroundings, but so do “smart” devices and their kin.

3

Towers are still left up (some on private property), because they are also efficient control and extermination devices, and with their backup power, they can be utilized even during electric blackouts. Considering that Blackrock and its kind started buying up power companies, allegedly in order to secure enough power for their AI operations, but as they already control that part, the most likely cause is to have the ability to create year-long blackouts whose outcomes would be devastating (no potable water, transportation, production and distribution, just to mention a few corollaries).

4

It’s time for people to realize that whenever something is free, they are the products, which is often spiced up by the “provider” being sponsored by the taxpayer.

5

Even desktop computers can contain the technology by now. For several years, the RAM kept much of its contents as long as the computer was turned off, but plugged in (a slow memory test at startup cleared the memory, a feature that is rarely available by now, but Windows doesn’t like that sort of thing, anyway, and the user often ends up having to reinstall it). Unplugging worked after about 24 hours, but these days, micro- or even nanochips can be installed into computers that hold their contents a lot longer, if not indefinitely.

6

“Updates” mostly protected the clandestine operation, although they also provided some protection from third-party intruders by changing the back doors and preventing zero-day vulnerabilities that may be there intentionally for some time, and perhaps, caused a major data leak in one of the three credit-rating agencies, Equifax, in 2017: social Security numbers, birth dates and home addresses — for up to 143 million Americans, which allowed for a further twist on the SSN that was designed to be vulnerable already at its introduction in 1936, forecasting what one can expect from the Ditigal ID.

7

Haven’t you also always kept wondering why it took Windows forever to boot?

8

Apple has always been more rigorous about identifying the user, and offered more reliable devices in return, but how much of that is a fact?

9

Russians are making Kaspersky, but in Germany, complying with German/EU laws, so the circus around its being banned by Diaper Joe’s administration was more about validating the theater in Ukraine. Anyway all brands of “security” software spy for the “authorities” (whoever those might be), and don’t tell me Germany is not a US puppet state.

10

Using the Chrome browser is another story: it collects just about everything you do and forwards it to whomever, and if you were asked (you are not), you probably wouldn’t give your consent to it.

11

Best to keep your cell phone and your internet provider at two different companies, owned by different global investment firms, because that makes coordination a bit more complex, which can still cause delays in processing and evaluating your data.

12

On a fast computer with sufficient memory, you can still run a Windows emulation on Linux, but I usually don’t care for data that goes through too many hands.

13

You probably want to avoid dual-boot systems on which you can select between Linux and Windows, because re-installation can mean you must start over, unless you have backups that work on your computer (such backups are either “free” or not, but in both cases, they report to the manufacturer and who-knows whom else.

14

On my Nvidia Geforce GTX 1650 Super video card, the picture quality (image, text, and video) on Windows 10 is far superior to the one I can get on Linux, which can be extremely bothersome on my 65” screen.

15

Unless you go to places that most people would deny visiting, your card information is much more likely to be stolen in a store by someone walking by and activating the NFC (near-field-communication) chip in it (shielding cards in your wallet is generally a good idea, although the thief must be extremely close to it, when stealing your information to pay for something that you didn’t order), taking pictures, or the security-camera operator (or anyone else who can see the recordings at checkout); you must always hide the back of the card, where the security code is.

stock here: this was fascinating. The US Feds could do a study on this castle, and the grant process to great the scope of work to do the study would cost $2M.

stock here, quite a bit there, there.

transhumanism – Search / X

stock here: this site hosted the longest version of Laura Aboli’s incredible speech on transhumanism.

Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry (SEDM) – “Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord and He will lift you up [above your government].” [James 4:30, Bible, NKJV]

This is one resource, of this stated religious site.

WinningInTrafficCourt.pdf

Our ministry accomplishes the above goals by emphasizing:

1. Legal education focused on both God’s law and man’s law.
2. Religious liberty, faith and worship.
3. Law enforcement and legal activism.
4. Self government: Internal rather than external government.
5. Personal responsibility, good citizenship, human sovereignty (as an agent of the only sovereign, who is God).
6. Nonviolent, lawful exercise of non-partisan activism in pursuit of ONLY religious goals.
7. A return of a lawful, limited, accountable, and Constitutional government which is God’s servant, rather than His enemy or His competitor for the allegiance, obedience, affections and worship of the Sovereign People, “We the People”
8. Exposing, publicizing, and opposing socialism, corruption, and violations of the Constitution and the law by government employees and officials.
9. Exercising our First Amendment right of self-government exclusively under the civil laws of our God.
10. Protecting and expanding the separation of powers doctrine, and especially the separation of church, which is believers, from state, which is the unbelieving people and governments around them.  The separation between church and state is the essence of what “sanctification” means in a religious context.
11. Emphasizing and restoring the role of PRIVATE property in the freedom of each individual and its use as a defense against government oppression or corruption.
12. The pursuit of legal “justice” (Form #05.050), which means absolutely owned private property (Form #10.002), and equality of TREATMENT and OPPORTUNITY (Form #05.033) under REAL LAW (Form #05.048).  The following would be INJUSTICE, not JUSTICE:
    • 12.1 Outlawing or refusing to recognize or enforce absolutely owned private property (Form #12.025).
    • 12.2 Imposing equality of OUTCOME by law, such as by abusing taxing powers to redistribute wealth.  See Form #11.302.
    • 12.3 Any attempt by government to use judicial process or administrative enforcement to enforce any civil obligation derived from any source OTHER than express written consent or to an injury against the equal rights of others demonstrated with court admissible evidence.  See Form #09.073 and  Form #12.040.
    • 12.4 Offering, implementing, or enforcing any civil franchise (Form #05.030).  This enforces superior powers on the part of the government as a form of inequality and results in religious idolatry.  This includes making justice into a civil public privilege (Form #05.050, Section 5.3) or turning  CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVATE citizens into STATUTORY PUBLIC citizens engaged in a public office and a franchise (Form #05.006).
    Not only would the above be INJUSTICE, it would outlaw HAPPINESS, because the right to absolutely own private property is equated with “the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence, according to the U.S. Supreme Court.  See Form #05.050 for the definition of “justice”.  Click here to view a video on why all franchises produce selfishness, unhappiness, inequality, and ingratitude.

President Obama summarized the SEDM Mission Statement in the following video.

stock here: this one has 2.9M views and over 10,000 comments. I am not promoting this person or channel, I am not sure how I feel about it, it almost feels like an apologist for transhumanism, by expressly stating that from the get go, the use of fire by early man was the start of “transhumanism”. And the long segways to the female tech developer using Amazon Web Services for facial recognition and “lie detecting”.