Dr. Russel Blaylock Speaks About Rockefeller’s Depopulation Project

depopulation 2

By Johan Van Dongen and Joel Savage

Despite the scientific evidence, many people still doubt today, if Ebola, Aids, Lassa fever, depopulation programs, experimentation with black people etc, did really happened or the disease were man-made and used as bio-weapons against mankind. People like Bill Gates and the Rockefellers, are known because they are rich, but the crime they have committed against humanity remains silent.

In this video, Dr. Russel Blaylock has taken the task to explain the significance of Rockefeller’s Foundation project named “Science Of Man Project” which they considered a lot of people in the society as undesirable. He defined the undesirable as people that have lower IQ, defect etc. Thus; the need to use eugenic to create ………………………..


Russell Blaylock is a trained neurosurgeon who considers himself an expert on nutrition and toxins in food, cookware, teeth, and vaccines. Contrary to the vast bulk of the scientific evidence, Blaylock maintains that vaccines such as the H1N1 vaccine are dangerous or ineffective; that dental amalgams and fluoridated water are harmful to our health; and that aluminum cookware, aspartame, and MSG are toxic substances causing brain damage.1, 2.

Ironically, Blaylock perpetuates the myth that science-based medicine is not interested in prevention, despite the fact that immunization, which he opposes, prevents more disease and saves more lives than just about any other medical activity.

Blaylock has retired from neurosurgery and has taken up a career opposing science-based medicine and promoting pseudoscience-based medicine and supplements that he sells under the label Brain Repair Formula. He suggests that his supplements can treat and prevent such diseases as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

He asserts that his formula “will maximize your brain’s ability to heal and reduce inflammation.” The rest of the scientific community seems oblivious to these claims, which are not based on large-scale clinical trials. Blaylock also sells hope to cancer patients by encouraging them to believe he has found the secret to prevention and cure.5.

Despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, Blaylock maintains that vaccines cause Lou Gehrig’s disease (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS, a disease of the nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord that control voluntary muscle movement), Parkinson’s, and autism. His website promotes his ideas through several kinds of media, including a newsletter he calls The Blaylock Wellness Report.

Despite the fact that the scientific evidence does not support his belief, Blaylock claims that giving children about two dozen vaccinations before they start school is dangerous. The experts at the Center for Disease Control disagree with Blaylock. According to the CDC:

Learn more: http://skepdic.com/blaylock.html


Amazon’s Lawsuit Against Fake Reviews


Original article posted on Amy Harrop’s Blog by Haya

Fake Amazon reviews. You know about them, you might have even bought a few or considered them. It really doesn’t seem that harmful initially, you’re just trying to get the ball rolling by having some reviews placed on your product, and besides, you know that it’s that great, so what harm is there in placing a few reviews? Well, according to the latest lawsuit from Amazon, those fake reviews could be really hurting the company and its integrity. Not only is Amazon stepping up its measures to ban fake reviews, but they are suing sellers of reviews to stop this practice dead in its tracks.

This lawsuit targets all fake reviews for all products. From vacuums to HDTVs, fake reviews have been a cancer that some sellers have used to boost their sales. While we will largely focus on how these reviews affect Kindle and paperback books, this lawsuit is against fake reviews for every product.

Amazon’s Wording

According to the lawsuit, Amazon expressly says that fake reviews are a method by which some sellers attempt to improve their competitive advantage by making their product seem better than what it really is. This is done by creating inauthentic and often inflated reviews that exalt the product as the savior as a genre or the best thing you can possibly buy, but the truth is that the product might be substandard or not worth all the fanfare. This also makes consumers more willing to buy the product based on the glowing reviews, though they may not really like it after they read it.

This also creates distrust in the Amazon brand, as many consumers will wonder if those five-star reviews are real, and they will understandably doubt the integrity of both reviewers and Amazon in general, which leads to reduced sales for everyone involved.

The Truth

Yes, these reviews can be misleading and they do create distrust in the Amazon brand, but let’s examine the truth of these fake reviews. First of all, it’s usually easy to spot the fake review. Most five-star reviews will either be short and sweet (ie: “really did the job, loved it!” or “this book is great, recommend it to all my friends!” or “I’m going to read this book again and again.”) or they give a very detailed look into the product to saw who it’s for and why it’s great.

Fake reviews, on the other hand, will be glowing beacons, espousing just how amazing the product is and glossing over any shortcomings. The grammar and tone will seem mechanical, like it’s not coming from a consumer, and it will use persuasive language to try to get people to buy the product. While there are certainly fake reviews that do the job and come off as consumers, the majority are fairly easy to spot.

There are also some people who wonder how serious this lawsuit is because Amazon recently had an expose about how bad their working conditions are, and they might be using this lawsuit to both distract and to shine light on how consumer-friendly they are. While it’s hard to tell for now since Amazon really is going ahead with this lawsuit, their intentions might be less than pure.

Do Fake Reviews Really Work?

As stated above, most fake reviews are easy to spot, so you might think that these authors don’t get any rewards for their unethical (and possibly soon illegal) behavior, but you’d be wrong. Take the case of John Locke (not the classical writer, but a make-money-fast and novelist modern writer) who used fake reviews to gain his way to the top. For example, his book “How I Sold 1 Million eBooks in 5 Months” contains a number of fake reviews, and you can find them in many of his other books. Several of his books were bestsellers.

There’s also smaller cases like Dagny Taggart’s “Learn Spanish in Seven Days.” There are a significant number of five-star reviews, however a truly impartial review found a number of accent marks that don’t exist in the Spanish language, numerous grammatical errors that were likely made by poor online translations and very basic conversations that wouldn’t help you much in the real world. The only way to get so many great reviews with these many issues would be by buying them (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/10/21/how-an-industry-of-amazon-entrepreneurs-pulled-off-the-internets-craftiest-catfishing-scheme/).

According to Amazon’s own internal memos, they know that at least 60% of reviews are fake, and they also understand that stopping this flood is close to impossible. While finding authors who have used these reviews to skyrocket to the top can be difficult, you can find a list of unethical authors here who have used or are suspected of using fake reviews: https://zonalert.wordpress.com/2014/08/23/onlie-ratings-and-reviews-are-fake/.

Effects on Writers

So, even if they aren’t as serious as they are pretending to be, what are the effects on writers? First of all, I hope you never bought any fake reviews or planned to. They rarely have a lasting effect (often causing more harm to your brand than good due to the associated distrust), and more than likely Amazon will be taking stronger methods to remove and block these fake reviews. They might even, though it is quite unlikely, start penalizing authors who use these tactics with harsher punishments.

It might be long and arduous, but the best thing you can do is try to coax good reviews out of people by offering an amazing product. It isn’t as instantaneous as buying one, but it’s the best and more fruitful method as these reviews will be trusted and they will help build your brand. If you have bought fake reviews, then all you can really do is wait it out and see what Amazon does with this new lawsuit. You might be safe, but it’s best to rethink your marketing strategy.


While this might just be a ploy to get attention away from the darker sides of Amazon, this is still a real lawsuit and Amazon is currently planning to go after sellers of these fake reviews to punish them and to show authors (and other sellers) just how serious they are about removing these reviews and restoring trust in the Amazon brand.

Regardless of their intent, it’s best to steer clear from these fake reviews. Hopefully you haven’t bought any yet, but if you were planning to, now is definitely not the time.

Link to original article: http://amyharrop.com/amazons-lawsuit-against-fake-reviews/amazon-2/

Ebola: The Japanese Cult Aum Shinrikyo’s Attempt To Use The Virus As A Potential Biological Weapon

Aum Shinrikyo’s leader Shoko Asahara

By Scientist/Micro-Surgeon Johan Van Dongen

The Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo, infamous for setting off sarin gas in a Tokyo subway in 1995, also targeted Ebola as a potential biological weapon. In 1992, they sent a medical group of 40 people ostensibly to provide aid, during an Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo. However, their real intention was to collect some Ebola virus, as Amy Smithson, a senior fellow at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, noted in her 2000 report Ataxia.

Even if Aum Shinrikyo had managed to gather samples of the Ebola virus, it would have been extremely difficult to kill large numbers of people in countries with a strong health infrastructure such as Japan. Once the virus had been identified and patients isolated, the pathogen would have been unlikely to spread widely. Still, any terrorist attempting to stoke fears rather than accrue a high body count could have some modicum of success with Ebola. “When talking about bioterror, it’s more about the terror than it is the bio,” said Fauci.

Doctor Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (one of the US National Institutes of Health) stated in an interview that the virus could potentially be used for “small-scale” Ebola attacks, in about three different ways, although each approach would run up against substantial logistical, financial and biological barriers. First, Ebola could be weaponized by taking large quantities of it and inserting them into a small “bomblet” that, once detonated, would spray the virus perhaps 30 feet potentially infecting people as it landed on their faces, on cuts or on hands that they might then touch their eyes with.

In this photo provided by CBS News, the National Institute of Health's Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert, speaks on CBS's "Face the Nation" in Washington. Speaking on the Ebola virus, Fauci said it's perfectly normal to feel anxious about a disease that kills so fast and is ravaging parts of West Africa, but predicts there won't be an outbreak in the U.S. (AP Photo/CBS News, Chris Usher)

Doctor Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (one of the US National Institutes of Health)

“That would be like a hundred people simultaneously touching an Ebola-infected person,” says Fauci. Ebola would not need to be altered in any way to make such a plot work. The virus is already so capable of spreading from person to person via contact with bodily fluids that in its natural state it could do some serious damage.

“Ebola is a very lethal pathogenic virus,” says virologist Robert Garry of Tulane University. “It’s basically weaponizing itself.”

The second, and perhaps easiest, small-scale bioterrorism option would be to recruit individuals for Ebola suicide missions. Such a plan would hinge on injecting Ebola virus into a limited number of people, who would then need to leave west Africa (or wherever the outbreak may be) before becoming symptomatic. Then those individuals would have to get into a public space and projectile vomit or bleed onto others to infect them. Obviously, the plot would need to overcome substantial technical challenges including the extreme weakness that arises from Ebola. If it did succeed, this mode of transmission would not kill thousands of people, but it would set off significant fears.

The third bio-terrorism method appears to be the most unlikely: genetically modifying the virus to enable it to spread more readily, perhaps through the air. As Scientific American reported on September 16, transforming the Ebola virus from a pathogen that primarily affects the circulatory system to one well suited for the respiratory system, would be a major research undertaking. While theoretically the microbe could be manipulated to act in that way, it would be a demanding choice for nefarious actors looking to stockpile harmful materials.

Johan van Dongen

But there’s another delivery mechanism that’s more up a suicide bomber’s alley. They get infected and carry the disease incubating in them but still asymptomatic to their target country. As soon as the symptoms just begin manifesting, the person goes to a highly public area and blows themselves up, spraying contaminated and aerosolized body components all over the surrounding populace, as well as killing or injuring others just from the blast.

That can be done during the cold and flu season when everyone is coughing and sneezing already and you have a prime secondary and tertiary infection path already going in your favor, as well as masking the early Ebola symptoms.

Glenn Ogoro

If we consider Ebola as a weapon of terror, then yes; it’s not likely. How about considering Ebola as a means to combat terrorism? After all, Ebola has all the spread characteristics which can be used to eliminate or weaken hostile or terrorist cells.

First, most terrorist cells now are of Muslim origin and maintain religious and cultural practices which include touching, kissing and washing of their dead. Since these cells by their nature are communal, there is a lot of targeted interaction between members of a cell, even when they are sick.

A simple prisoner exchange could be the link to introducing the virus into these extremist groups/cells. A few infected prisoners injected and left to harbor the virus for a few days right before release is an easy way to get the virus in these cells. New prisoners are usually the center of attention for a few days and constantly greeted with hugs, kisses, and other affectionate contact gestures. Spread.

When said prisoner gets ill; until there are the later signs of hemorrhaging, the virus can easily spread to internal and general caretakers, which I can assume will be a few, and from them to others. Multiplied spread.

Further spread will increase when the body is being prepared for burial (washing, kissing). Spread cycle.

Until the signs are noted by members of terrorist groups, the virus can easily spread rapidly and fast; engulfing a network in a matter of weeks. Even though the spread from one prisoner might not be that much, the impact will be major if considered through a group of released prisoners (as usual).

Early containment could be unlikely, due to the general opposition of western doctrines in these cycles. The forcing of extremist groups to change their practices could mean undermining their religious beliefs and accepting a “western” way, which may not be easily accepted.

In the event where the virus is detected early among members, the effects of panic and fear among a typically close-knit operation can still be deleterious, to the point of slowing or shutting down operations due to reduced interaction, and uncertainty among members.

Biowarfare has been going on for a very long time. In the dark ages, plague victims would be thrown into cities by catapult to break sieges. Smallpox infected blankets were given to Indians by British soldiers in the French and Indian Wars. China still has outbreaks from bio-weapons the Japanese used against them in WWII.

It wouldn’t take a Manhattan Project type effort to develop a bio-weapon and Ebola is so nasty to start with, it doesn’t need much in the way of weaponization. If someone is playing games, field testing this bug and getting their act together for a major attack somewhere in the world, it’s time to build a bunker.

Multiple viral agents have been classified by the CDC as potential weapons of mass destruction or agents for biologic terrorism. Agents such as smallpox, viral hemorrhagic fever viruses, agents of viral encephalitis, and others are of concern because they are highly infectious and relatively easy to produce. Although dispersion might be difficult, the risk is magnified by the fact that large populations are susceptible to these agents and only limited treatment and vaccination strategies exist. Although the risk of large-scale bioterrorism using viral agents is small, public health programs and health care providers must be prepared for this potentially devastating impact on public health.

The filoviruses, Marburg and Ebola, are classified as Category A bio-warfare agents by the Centers for Disease Control. Most known human infections with these viruses have been fatal, and no vaccines or effective therapies are currently available. Filoviruses are highly infectious by the airborne route in the laboratory, but investigations of African outbreaks have shown that person-to-person spread requires direct contact with the virus-containing material. To show you that Ebola can be spread by air and other directions we will publish three scientific Abstracts published in well known scientific institutions.

Lethal experimental infections of rhesus monkeys by aerosolized Ebola virus

Johnson E1, Jaax N, White J, Jahrling P, Int J Exp Pathol. 1995 Aug;76(4):227-36.


The potential of atherogenic infection by Ebola virus was established by using a head-only exposure aerosol system. Virus-containing droplets of 0.8-1.2 microns were generated and administered into the respiratory tract of rhesus monkeys via inhalation. Inhalation of viral doses as low as 400 plaque-forming units of virus caused a rapidly fatal disease in 4-5 days.

The illness was clinically identical to that reported for parenteral virus inoculation, except for the occurrence of subcutaneous and venipuncture site bleeding and serosanguineous nasal discharge. Immunocytochemistry revealed cell-associated Ebola virus antigens present in airway epithelium, alveolar pneumocytes, and macrophages in the lung and pulmonary lymph nodes; extracellular antigen was present on mucosal surfaces of the nose, oropharynx, and airways.

Aggregates of the characteristic filamentous virus were present of type I pneumocytes, macrophages, and air spaces of the lung by electron microscopy. Demonstration of fatal aerosol transmission of this virus in monkeys reinforces the importance of taking appropriate precautions to prevent its potential aerosol transmission to humans.

Transmission of Ebola virus (Zaire strain) to uninfected control monkeys in a biocontainment laboratory

Jaax N1, Jahrling P, Geisbert T, Geisbert J, Teele K, McKee K, Nagley D, Johnson E, Jaax G, Peters CLancet. 1995 Dec 23-30;346(8991-8992):1669-71.


Secondary transmission of Ebola virus infection in humans is known to be caused by direct contact with infected patients or body fluids. We report transmission of Ebola virus (Zaire strain) to two of three control rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) that did not have direct contact with experimentally inoculated monkeys held in the same room.

The two control monkeys died from Ebola virus infections at 10 and 11 days after the last experimentally inoculated monkey had died. The most likely route of infection of the control monkeys was aerosol, oral or conjunctival exposure to virus-laden droplets secreted or excreted from the experimentally inoculated monkeys. These observations suggest approaches to the study of routes of transmission to and among humans.

Lethal experimental infection of rhesus monkeys with Ebola-Zaire (Mayinga) virus by the oral and conjunctival route of exposure.

Davis K.J, Geisbert TJ, Vogel P, Jaax GP, Topper M,J ahrling PB. Lancet 1996 Feb; 120 (2): 140-55.



The source of infection or mode of transmission of Ebola virus to human index cases of Ebola fever has not been established. Field observations in outbreaks of Ebola fever indicate that secondary transmission of Ebola virus is linked to improper needle hygiene, direct contact with infected tissue or fluid samples, and close contact with infected patients.

While it is presumed that the virus infects through either break in the skin or contact with mucous membranes, the only two routes of exposure that have been experimentally validated are parental inoculation and aerosol inhalation. Epidemiologist evidence suggests that aerosol exposure is not an important means of virus transmission in natural outbreaks of human Ebola fever; this study was designed to verify that Ebola virus could be effectively transmitted by oral or conjunctival exposure in nonhuman primates.


Adult rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) were exposed to Ebola-Zaire (Mayinga) virus orally (N=4), conjunctival (N=4), or by intramuscular inoculation (N=1, virus-positive control).


Four of seven monkeys exposed by the conjunctival route, three of four monkeys exposed by the oral route, and the intramuscularly inoculated positive control monkey were successfully infected with Ebola-Zaire (Mayinga). Seven monkeys died of Ebola fever between days 7 and 8 post-exposure, but one of the monkeys given aggressive supportive therapy and a platelet transfusion; lived until day 12 post-exposure.

Belgian scientist and discoverer of Ebola, Peter Piot, knew everything about the virus but wouldn’t say publicly was a medical crime against Africa, because his country was involved.


Findings from the experimental study confirm that Ebola virus can be effectively transmitted via the oral or conjunctival route of exposure in nonhuman primates and absolutely can be used as a bio-warfare weapon.

The Killing Indulgence: Don’t Be A Slave To Drug Abuse

Drug is something if you go into it, you can't get out of it.

The use of hard drug like cocaine has increased rapidly destroying the lives of many people

Crime and illegal activities, like drug peddling, are destroying our community and putting the health of individuals in danger. The disastrous effect of drugs on mankind is a global phenomenon that governments are yet to find a common solution. Consumption of dangerous drugs is tearing Europe and America apart, just like how AIDS has completely ruined Africa. On almost every street in Europe, junkies are commonly seen, especially in Spain, Germany and Holland. Hard drug has transformed able-bodied men into some fearful creatures like actors set for a horror movie.

Some are gaunt at the edge of death. Others have lost their families and properties. Some are insane leading them to permanent confinement in mental institutions. Similar to fight against terrorism worldwide, governments are fighting against drug abuse to ensure good health for its citizens. The drug menace, destruction and its drastic effect on people have dented and inflated the medical cost of many countries which citizens have been plagued by illegal usage of harmful drugs.

Every continent including America and Europe is at war over drug trafficking for almost a century. Surveillance and security at airports and border posts have increased but still hard drugs find its way into the hands of Americans and Europeans, taking its toll on citizens. Mexican drug barons and Italian mafias through different illegal sources bring drugs to the shores of Europe and America. Even though thousands of drug traffickers have been arrested, yet deadly drugs are still flooded in America and Europe.

Once hooked on drugs, they can’t do without them. The more they take it, the more they want it. In order to satisfy their demand, junkies resort to stealing anything they could lay their hands on. This has caused a sharp increase in crime. The question is: Are the authorities winning the war on drugs? The harvest is plentiful but the labourers are few. Despite previous and recent progress in arresting drug dealers and seizing tons of illegal drugs, the trade still goes on unabated.


Is the  “The global war on drugs is it yielding positive results or failing? From every angle, one could clearly see that the war on drugs is totally futile. New research has revealed more dangerous illegal drugs have become cheaper while their potency increased, indicating that efforts to control the global illegal drug market through law enforcement are failing.

War on drugs has totally failed that governments wish to consider decriminalizing drugs in a bid to cut consumption and weaken the power of organized crime gangs. Until the war on drugs is successful, many will continue to live in the abyss, taking them into their untimely grave. Harmful drugs had spread to the extent that it is tried by many people including children and pregnant women, putting the babies’ lives in danger.

Children are now using cocaine in large quantities like adults. It’s very hard to see one you loved consumed by drugs. In fact, the war on drugs is the responsibility of everyone. Parents have a role to play as well, by letting your child know that you have concerns about his well-being, educating the child on how dangerous drugs can be. When the child is already deep into drugs the only solution is to enter the child into rehab.

%d bloggers like this: