The newest painting in the Louvre. “The Girl with the Suicidal Empathy.” Oil on canvas. Go see it while the Louvre is still standing.

The entire covid saga summed up in less than 2.5 mins. Absolutely on the money, and hilarious AF 😭👌🏻⚡️

Who the hell was on wardrobe? #AFLGF

WTC 7 is the smoking gun. I’m a scientist by training. I will entertain a lot of wild ideas. What I will not do is suspend Newton’s third law so a government report can add up. A 47-story steel building fell at free-fall speed for 2.25 seconds. That means ~4,000 tons of structural steel offered zero resistance. Zero reaction force. That’s not a “progressive collapse.” That’s physics being asked to take the day off. The government's story is not just inadequate. It’s completely erroneous. Full report: peakprosperity.pulse.ly/7ojk…

Very disappointed at the High Court’s refusal to hear Sall Grover’s appeal. Of course there are only two genders and of course you can’t buck biology. And no one should be in legal trouble for stating the obvious.

mRNA Vaccines and Cancer. ianbrighthope.substack.com/p… The authors’ final position is that the platform’s long-term risks remain unresolved. Under the principle of primum non nocere—first, do no harm—these risks should be independently and transparently investigated before the technology is used more widely in the general population or in patients with residual cancer. My Opinion As a physician who has spent more than four decades concerned with prevention, immune resilience and the ethical practice of medicine, I regard this paper as a grave warning that cannot responsibly be dismissed. The study does not provide final proof that mRNA vaccines cause every cancer reported after vaccination, nor do the authors claim that every recipient is destined to develop cancer. What it does provide is something that should deeply concern every doctor, scientist and regulator: a coherent description of 35 possible cancer-promoting mechanisms, supported to varying degrees by laboratory research, clinical observations and population data. The significance lies not in any single mechanism considered in isolation. It lies in their convergence. The paper describes the simultaneous activation of cancer-promoting pathways, interference with p53 and DNA repair, inflammatory effects of lipid nanoparticles, residual plasmid DNA, abnormal protein production through frameshifting, impaired immune surveillance, cytotoxic T-cell exhaustion and the possible awakening of dormant malignant cells. These are not trivial theoretical matters. They involve some of the most fundamental biological systems protecting us from cancer. I am particularly concerned that the greatest danger may not be the creation of a completely new cancer in an otherwise healthy person. It may be the acceleration of a cancer that is already present but microscopic, dormant or controlled by the immune system. Many people unknowingly carry abnormal cells, dormant micrometastases or early malignant clones. Under normal circumstances, these may remain controlled for years. If several cancer-promoting pressures are applied at the same time, that period of control could conceivably be compressed from years into months, weeks or even days. That is the central meaning of what has become known as “turbo cancer”: unusually rapid progression, recurrence, reactivation or metastatic spread. The expression is not yet a formally accepted medical diagnosis, but the clinical pattern it describes deserves investigation rather than ridicule or censorship. The population findings are not conclusive, but they are troubling. The Italian and South Korean studies report associations between vaccination and several cancers. American cancer registries show increasing early-onset disease, while analyses of US mortality records identify a significant departure from previous cancer-death trends. These studies have limitations and cannot, by themselves, establish causation. Nevertheless, uncertainty must not be confused with reassurance. When biological mechanisms, clinical reports and population signals point in a similar direction, the proper scientific response is urgent investigation - not denial. The estimate of between approximately 119,000 and 197,000 excess American cancer deaths is especially serious. It must be independently audited using transparent methods and complete access to the underlying data. It should not be declared proven, but neither should it be ignored merely because it challenges the official narrative. If the estimate is substantially correct, it represents a public-health catastrophe. If it is incorrect, an independent analysis should demonstrate precisely why. I am also deeply concerned about the movement of this technology into cancer treatment. Patients with residual disease, genomic instability, previous chemotherapy or dormant micrometastases may be among the people most vulnerable to the mechanisms described in this paper. It is extraordinary that the same incompletely characterised platform is now being offered as a treatment to those who may be most susceptible to its unresolved risks. The termination of the BNT122-01 trial demands complete transparency. The treatment failed to outperform watchful waiting, and a numerical imbalance in overall survival was identified. The direction, size and causes of that imbalance have not been fully disclosed. Patients, doctors and the scientific community are entitled to see the complete arm-by-arm survival results. Commercial confidentiality cannot be allowed to conceal information concerning human life and death. The fundamental failure began when this technology was deployed on a global scale without adequate investigation of carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, systemic biodistribution, residual DNA, repeated dosing, abnormal protein production or long-term persistence. Short-term antibody measurements were treated as though they answered long-term safety questions. They did not. Passive surveillance was never capable of reliably identifying delayed, complex and multifactorial outcomes such as cancer acceleration. Informed consent was therefore seriously compromised. People cannot give genuine informed consent when important risks have not been investigated, when uncertainties are concealed or minimised, and when refusal is punished through mandates, employment restrictions, travel controls or social exclusion. Consent obtained under pressure is not freely given consent. I believe that the precautionary principle must now be applied. Broad preventive use of nucleoside-modified mRNA–LNP products should be suspended while these questions are independently investigated. Their expansion into patients with residual cancer should also be halted until convincing evidence demonstrates where the products travel, how long they persist, what proteins they produce and whether they influence recurrence, progression, metastasis or survival. Every cancer registry should record vaccination date, product, dose number and batch number. Researchers must be given access to the data needed to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated populations while properly accounting for infection, age, previous cancer, screening, smoking, environmental exposures and other confounding factors. Tumours developing after vaccination should be examined using genomic sequencing, circulating tumour DNA, proteomics, immune profiling, cancer stem-cell markers and testing for vaccine-derived material. These investigations must be conducted by genuinely independent scientists—not controlled by the manufacturers whose products are being examined or by institutions committed to defending earlier regulatory decisions. All protocols, data and results should be publicly available. I do not accept the proposition that we must wait for absolute proof while exposure continues and the technology is extended into new vaccines and cancer treatments. Medicine has never required certainty beyond all doubt before acting to prevent foreseeable harm. A credible safety signal requires investigation. Multiple converging signals require decisive precaution. The burden of proof now rests with those who manufacture, regulate and promote these products. They must demonstrate safety with transparent, independent and long-term evidence. The public should not be required to prove harm after being exposed. The first duty of medicine is not to defend a product, a corporation, a government or an institution. It is to protect the patient. Primum non nocere—first, do no harm—requires that these unresolved risks be investigated before further mass exposure occurs. Anything less would represent a profound abandonment of medical ethics, scientific responsibility and the public trust. Having stated the reasonable, I now wish to tell you the truth. These vaccines are truly carcinogenic. I cannot understand why I am the only person who has stated this fact in writing. Ian Brighthope

As another man who once worked with me declares himself saddened by my beliefs on gender and sex, I thought it might be useful to compile a list for handy reference. Which of the following do you imagine makes actors and directors who aren’t involved with the HBO reboot of Harry Potter so miserable? Is it my belief that women and girls should have their own public changing rooms and bathrooms? That women should retain female-only rape crisis centres? That men don’t belong in women’s sport? That female prisoners shouldn’t be incarcerated with violent men and male sex offenders? That women should remain a protected class in law, because they have sex-specific needs and issues? That language should reflect reality rather than ideological jargon, especially in a medical context? That women shouldn’t be harassed, persecuted or fired for refusing to pretend humans can change sex? That women should not be threatened with violence and rape when they assert their rights? That freedom of speech and belief are essential to a pluralistic democratic society? That troubled minors, especially those who are gay, autistic and trauma-experienced, should be given mental health support instead of irreversible surgeries and drug treatments on non-existent evidence of benefit? That gay people shouldn’t be pressured to include the opposite sex in their dating pools, nor should they be smeared as ‘genital fetishists’ when they don’t? That cross-dressing heterosexual male fetishists aren’t actually oppressed, but having the time of their lives piggybacking off gender identity ideology? That said ideology, and the privileged, blinkered fools pushing it because they suffer zero consequences themselves, have done more damage to the political left’s credibility than Trump and Farage could have achieved in a century? Let me have your thoughts.

Yes, ALL THIS was said On SEINFELD…… Join: t.me/Awekened_USA🇺🇸 I found a hidden channel: "Banned Truth" check it out before it disappears!

Gotta say, this is pretty accurate 🤣 Writer: Ian

In 1973, eight perfectly healthy people walked into different psychiatric hospitals across the United States. They were not ill. Yet no one inside those walls was able to see it. It was an experiment. One of the most disturbing experiments in the history of psychiatry. Designed by psychologist David Rosenhan, it began with a simple yet unsettling question: is it really possible to reliably distinguish mental health from mental illness? To find out, Rosenhan recruited eight pseudopatients. They were ordinary people: a painter, a housewife, a pediatrician, a graduate student. They lied about only one thing—they claimed to hear voices. Nothing more. No bizarre behavior, no crises, just three words heard in their minds: “empty,” “hollow,” “thud.” All of them were admitted. And immediately afterward, they stopped pretending. They behaved normally. They cooperated. They asked to be discharged. It wasn’t possible. The staff no longer saw people, but diagnoses. Every action was reinterpreted through the lens of illness: writing notes? Obsessive behavior. Standing in the hallway? Pathological attention-seeking. Being polite? Controlled behavior consistent with the disorder. Seven of them were labeled schizophrenic. One was diagnosed as manic-depressive. Not a single one was recognized as healthy. Not one. But the real patients noticed. Some approached and whispered, “You’re not like the others. You don’t belong here.” They saw what the experts could not recognize. The average length of hospitalization was 19 days. One person remained hospitalized for 52 days. Each passing day confirmed the same truth: the label was more powerful than reality. When Rosenhan published his study—On Being Sane in Insane Places—it caused an earthquake. The psychiatric community erupted in outrage. One hospital challenged Rosenhan to send new pseudopatients, confident they would expose them. He accepted. In the following months, the hospital identified 41 supposed impostors. But Rosenhan had sent no one. No one at all. The truth was now undeniable: diagnoses were not always based on facts, but on context. Once labeled, a person became a prisoner of that narrative. Even if they were sane. Even if they protested the truth. This experiment shattered blind trust in clinical labels. It led to major reforms in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness. But above all, it left a haunting and still relevant lesson: Perception can distort reality more than madness itself. And often, the most dangerous illusion is not that of those considered insane, but of those who believe they are always right. Eight healthy people entered psychiatric hospitals in 1973. They came out carrying a truth the world could no longer ignore.

I think about this clip all the time.

Exactly 6 years ago today, on March 11, 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic, and our world was changed forever. On this anniversary, my book 3/11 Viral Takeover is officially out in Kindle, paperback, and hardback!🔥 This investigative deep dive uncovers the coordinated narrative behind lockdowns, flawed testing, rushed authorizations, censorship machinery, and the shift toward permanent biosecurity controls and digital surveillance. If you've ever asked "what really happened?" or demanded real accountability, this is the uncensored record. Available now: amazon.com/dp/B0GQ47RQL5

True that.

The Pelican - Please Explain The government flies in an ageing national treasure to shoot a new tourism ad — one that sells Australia to the world by the boatload. Paul gets his big bag of money. Then he tries to spend it. What follows is a guided tour of where it all went: Snowy Hydro 2.0, the NDIS, a Rugby League team for Papua New Guinea, and a trillion dollars of debt — narrated by a red-headed pelican from Ipswich.

CERN Scientist Goes Viral After Exposing the Illusion We Live In Dr. Bernardo Kastrup worked at CERN. He spent years deep inside the world of high-level science and technology. But something didn’t add up. Today, he’s one of the few respected voices claiming that reality is not made of matter — it’s made of mind. According to him, everything we experience is a projection of consciousness, and the physical world is just a mental illusion. His ideas are shaking the foundations of science — and revealing truths many still refuse to accept.

🚨 SHOCKING VIDEO BOMBSHELL from Prof. Angus Dalgleish (World-Renowned Oncologist): “People cleared of Cancer FOR YEARS start relapsing — they ALL had been given the COVID Boosters.” “It’s simple — Boosters repress T-Cells and CANCERS go up with each VACCINE.” T-cell exhaustion is the mechanism. Young patients suddenly presenting with aggressive “turbo” cancers? Every single one had the boosters. Pfizer & Moderna mRNA shots aren’t just failing to protect — they’re actively sabotaging the immune system that keeps cancer in check. Long-term remission patients crashing hard after repeated doses. Cancer rates climbing shot after shot. This isn’t theory. This is what a leading cancer immunologist is seeing in real patients right now. The video is brutal. Watch it. Share it.

One of the most thought provoking speeches I've seen in a while. @Miss_Snuffy on how raising a generation to see the world through oppressors and the oppressed is changing the West. If you don't have time, bookmark it. It's worth every second. WATCH:

Oregon’s public health authority had their MD dress up like a clown and announce COVID deaths.

Former caddy 🤣

This is what we’re up against !! A top oncologist testifying before the Senate is unaware that the Pfizer shot doesn’t stay in the arm. When so many of us ordinary folk knew this years ago. Dr John Campbell’s priceless reaction says it all 🤭