Before February, when someone mentioned Project Veritas, the first thing popping into your mind would be James O’Keefe. O’Keefe founded the conservative media company known for its clandestine video stings. As Veritas grew, he became a media star and remained the face of the company until February. The organization’s board put O’Keefe on paid leave, removing him from any decisions for Veritas. The board claimed a breach of fiduciary duty and lost the investors who funded the company (Project Veritas is a 501(c)3 organization). O’Keefe responded by leaving the company. Now, just seven months after pushing out the face of the company, Project Veritas ceased operations.
Okeefe became a star when, along with Hannah Giles, he took down ACORN, a powerful and corrupt liberal organization:
Quote
Investigative journalism was changed forever when James O’Keefe walked into an ACORN office in 2009 posing as a pimp, Hannah Giles posing as a prostitute, and exposed workers there actively assisting the duo to set up sex trafficking operations. The workers exposed on video were fired, ACORN lost its government contracts, and the whole operation shut down within a year.
After O’Keefe was pushed out, he formed a new company directly competitive with the old “O’Keefe Media Group,” yes folks, OMG. Some of the Veritas investors and some of his key Veritas personnel moved to the new company....
In August 2023, Hanna Giles replaced O’Keefe, her partner, in toppling ACORN. Some disgruntled employees claimed that Giles spent her first three days at Veritas trashing O’Keefe. That is a nice reward for someone who called Giles a “national treasure” in his book Breakthrough.
Giles began firing personnel who were seen as loyal to the company’s previous CEO.
Quote
“She came to all hands in April with her fat sidekick Ben Wetmore and all they did for 3 days was talk shit about James and relitigate all the terrible things he did to her/them 10-12 years ago. I knew right then her entire agenda was revenge,” a source said.
Five months later, in August 2023, there was a mass firing of Veritas employees.
The company that used to employ 65 people was down to 18.
Yesterday, on Sept 20, 18 went down to zero.
Quote
According to a letter titled “Reduction in Force” that was sent to Project Veritas staffers by HR director Jennifer Kiyak on Wednesday, the organization is putting all operations on pause amidst severe financial woes.
“In the interest of preserving the possible future existence of Project Veritas we need to put operations on pause and, as communicated since the Spring, another Reduction in Force (“RIF”) is necessary,” Kiyak wrote....
“It’s devastating,” Giles said. “I’ve got to get back into the bank accounts to see what’s real and what’s not real because I have been getting presented with things that were not making sense and then when I’m presented with okay there’s only a thousand dollars left in the 501(c) (3) and I thought we had until October. We did a half a million dollar transfer and that was this period. But, like, we’re bankrupt.”
Truth be told, in my 35+ years in the media business, I have never seen a company “pause” its operations,..” unpause.” For all intents and purposes, Project Veritas is as dead as General Francisco Franco.
How did the company go bankrupt?
Quote
O’Keefe’s lawyer, Jeffrey Lichtman, told Mediaite that when O’Keefe was “forced out of Project Veritas in February of this year, they had between $6-8 million in their bank accounts. James had access to none of it. Six months later it’s apparently all gone. Instead of nameless sources blaming James for spending that money and bankrupting Project Veritas, perhaps their CEO and board of directors can let us all know how they blew through it all.”
The lesson here is you don’t “fire” the face of a company that seems to be well-liked by the employees.
Right now, there is no way to determine who is correct, the O’Keefe side or the people who side with the board when forced him out. In a way, it doesn’t matter. Project Veritas established a new kind of “citizen journalism.” Since the initial ACORN videos exposed many examples of hypocrisy and corruption, It will be sadly missed.
‘Statistically Significant Increase’ In Myopericarditis And Single Organ Cutaneous Vasculitis Found After COVID-19 Vaccination
Authored by Megan Redshaw via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
A large nationwide study of more than 4 million people in New Zealand identified a statistically significant association in two adverse events following vaccination with Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. (Fit Ztudio/Shutterstock)
In the post-marketing safety study recently published in Springer, researchers examining 12 specific adverse events found an increase in myopericarditis during the 21-day period following both Pfizer vaccine doses. Myopericarditis describes two distinct inflammatory heart conditions that occur simultaneously, myocarditis and pericarditis.
The highest rate of myopericarditis was observed in the youngest participants under 39 years of age following the second vaccine dose—with an estimated five additional myopericarditis cases per 100,000 persons vaccinated regardless of age. Researchers also observed an increase following both vaccine doses in individuals aged 40 to 59.
“Our findings align with international postmarketing studies, case series reports, and cases detected through reports to New Zealand’s spontaneous system that identify an association between the BNT162b2 vaccine and myo/pericarditis, especially in younger people and after the second dose,” the researchers stated.
In addition to myopericarditis, the study found an increase in single-organ cutaneous vasculitis (SOCV) in the 20- to 39-year-old age group following the first vaccine dose. SOCV is a syndrome characterized by inflammation and damage to the skin’s blood vessels without the involvement of other organ systems. Study Methods
To carry out their study, researchers collected data from Feb. 19, 2021, at the beginning of the vaccine rollout, to Feb. 10, 2022, among 4,114,364 individuals aged 5 and older who received a first and second primary or pediatric dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. During the study period, 13,597 individuals were excluded after testing positive for COVID-19.
The researchers then compared the incidence rates of each outcome of interest for 21 days—the interval between first and second vaccine doses—following vaccination with Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine to the expected background incidence rate from a pre-vaccination period (2014 to 2019) to detect vaccine safety signals.
Outcomes of interest were identified from New Zealand’s National Minimum Data Set—a national data collection system for all public hospitalizations connected to a National Health Index number that allows researchers to link hospitalization with Pfizer vaccination records in the National COVID Immunisation Register.
The 12 adverse events analyzed included acute kidney injury, acute liver injury, Guillain-Barré syndrome, erythema multiforme, herpes zoster, SOCV, myopericarditis (includes all events coded as myocarditis, pericarditis, and myopericarditis), arterial thrombosis, cerebral venous thrombosis, splanchnic thrombosis, venous thromboembolism, and thrombocytopenia.
Outside of myopericarditis and SOCV, researchers identified no other statistically significant associations between Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine and other outcomes of interest for all ages combined. Unlike myopericarditis, SOCV has not been identified as an adverse reaction to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, and only a few case reports and reviews have been published in the literature.
Potential Study Limitations
The study had several potential limitations. Although many adverse events of special interest resulted in hospitalization, some conditions, such as herpes zoster, are typically treated in the primary care setting. Diagnoses of conditions following COVID-19 vaccination in the general setting were not included in the analysis and could be underestimated.
Using ICD-10-AM codes to identify outcomes of interest without conducting clinical record assessments could lead to potential misclassification, and changing diagnostic codes before the study period could overinflate or underestimate potential adverse events.
Healthy vaccinee bias could affect results when comparing observed adverse events among the vaccinated cohort with the background population, as healthier people are more likely to get vaccinated. Additionally, a risk period of one to 21 days may exclude potential adverse events beyond the time frame, according to the study. Researchers Conclude Benefits of Vaccines Still Outweigh Risks
Despite the increased risk of myopericarditis observed during the study, researchers said the risk of myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 infection is “substantially greater” than after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination, leading them to conclude the benefits of vaccination still outweigh the risks from the disease.
Yet experts acknowledge that myocarditis caused by a natural viral infection differs from that triggered by mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. As previously reported by The Epoch Times, although COVID-19 can cause myocarditis, the myocarditis developed by a healthy young person post-infection is extremely mild compared to the onset of myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination.
According to pediatric cardiologist Dr. Kirk Milhoan, myocarditis caused by the COVID-19 vaccine differs from viral myocarditis because an infection of the heart isn’t causing the damage. It’s being damaged by the “spike protein that’s cardiotoxic to the heart,” which causes inflammation in the three main vessels of the heart by a different process.
“There’s a difference between the body encountering a virus naturally that causes myocarditis and actively giving the body something we know causes harm,” Dr. Milhoan told The Epoch Times.
The New Zealand study adds to a growing body of evidence showing mRNA COVID-19 vaccination can trigger heart inflammatory conditions in young people.
Here’s what never happened in the hospital during COVID:
…a doctor sat down next to a patient and said,
“You have a choice.
We can give you Remdesivir, which killed 53% of the patients in an Ebola trial. It was so bad the trial had to be shut down. And you’ll notice here in Remdesivir’s fact sheet, it says, ‘Not a lot of people have used Remdesivir. Serious and unexpected side effects may happen.’
Or we can give you ivermectin, a safe and effective drug that’s been successfully used for decades, and send you home. Which do you prefer?”
The reason that conversation never happened is that it would have cost the hospital too much money. If the hospital gave you ivermectin and sent you home, the federal government paid the hospital $3,200. If the hospital gave you Remdesivir, the federal government paid the entire hospital bill, plus a 20% bonus. So the hospital executives’ choice was to receive $3,200 or $500,000, which was the average hospital bill. No contest. Patients were going to get Remdesivir — whether they wanted it or not.
Informed consent died a grotesque death in the hospitals during COVID, and we need an autopsy. There was no information, and there was no consent, and without them, patients are reduced to helpless victims, exploited for corrupt financial gain and immoral experiments.
Informed consent has been enshrined in numerous judicial rulings as the foundation of ethical medical practice and seared into the public’s conscience from the Nuremberg trials. Seven Nazi doctors were hanged in Germany by an American military tribunal for “murders, tortures, and other atrocities committed in the name of medical science.” Yet murders, tortures, and other atrocities are exactly what was committed by medical staff in the hospitals against thousands of Americans during COVID.
Take, for example, Ray Lamar, who arrived in the emergency room with a message written with a black sharpie pen on his arm: “NO VENT NO REMDESIVIR.” On his other arm, he wrote the same message and added his wife’s name and phone number. Yet the doctors gave him Remdesivir anyway, without ever informing him. His widow Patti told me she constantly wonders what she could have done to save him.
Image via Patti Lamar.
Christine Johnson told the doctors that she discussed all her medications with her daughter, who is a nurse, and she concluded that she didn’t want Remdesivir. It didn’t matter. Christine was given Remdesivir while she was sleeping, and now her daughter Michelle doesn’t have her mother.
Rebecca Stevens was an avid reader of Epoch Times, where she learned about Remdesivir’s dangers. She declined Remdesivir on five separate occasions, as her hospital records confirm. But the medical staff didn’t care what Rebecca wanted. She was given Remdesivir without her knowledge, and now Rebecca’s five grandsons are bereft.
I asked Michael Hamilton how it’s possible to give Remdesivir to patients without them knowing. Hamilton is a lawyer for several families who are suing California hospitals for the murder of their loved ones, and he’s heard thousands of victims’ stories.
“They would lie right to your face,” he said.
“You’d tell the nurse that you didn’t want Remdesivir and she’d say, ‘Fine. But you’re a bit dehydrated, so let’s get some fluids in you.’ And she’d hook up the IV, but it wasn’t fluids. It was Remdesivir.”
Hamilton told me that another favored tactic was to knock out patients with sedatives like morphine and fentanyl. While they lay there in a stupor, they were injected with Remdesivir.
If secret injections of Remdesivir weren’t enough to kill you, the hospitals had more torture lined up. After all, the federal government paid hospitals a big bonus to ventilate patients — so patients were going to get ventilated, whether they wanted to or not. A lot of patients turned down being vented, because the whole process is a nightmare. You’re painfully intubated, rendered unable to talk; your lungs start shredding, and you may acquire bacterial pneumonia, which the hospital will refuse to treat.
But “no” is not an acceptable answer when the hospital has money at stake. The medical staff’s preferred method for gaining “consent” was relentless bullying, screaming, coercion, and threats until the patient finally caved. Patti Lamar, Ray’s widow, told me that when she refused to let them ventilate her husband, the doctors screamed at her over and over, “You’re killing him! You’re killing him! You’re killing him!” When she couldn’t take it anymore, she reluctantly gave in. Ray died shortly thereafter, and Patti lives with the trauma of that moment.
Image via Dayna Stevens.
Michael Hamilton told me the fate of his friend who was a nurse, hospitalized in the place where she had worked for 26 years. When she refused ventilation, the doctor shrieked,
“You’re refusing medical advice! Now your insurance company won’t pay your hospital bill when you die! Do you want to bankrupt your family? Do you? Do you?” The nurse panicked, and to protect her family, she “consented.”
Two days later, she died.
“This was a very common technique,” Hamilton said.
“I’ve heard it hundreds of times. You tell the patient that unless they do what the doctor says, they’ll bankrupt their family because insurance won’t pay the hospital bills. Nobody wants to do that to their family.”
Does this sound like informed consent to you? It sounds more like medical battery to me.
The entire hospital environment was a hellscape of abuse in which informed consent wasn’t even a distant memory. Hamilton told me that patients were routinely denied all access to food and water, stupefied with 50 medications that included drugs contraindicated for each other, tortured with oxygen machines set at such high levels that they couldn’t breathe, and zip-tied to the bed till their wrists bled and their hands turned black. His stories align with 1,000 collected testimonies of the COVID-19 Human Betrayal Memory Project, which documents the victims’ fates.
The ultimate denial of informed consent was the hospitals’ refusal to allow the patients to leave.
“Patients lost all rights when they went in the hospital,” Senator Ron Johnson told Patty Myers in her documentary, Making A Killing.
“They became prisoners.”
A cottage industry of hospital rescues cropped up, as desperate family members hired lawyers to try to spring their loved ones out of hospital “care.” Ralph Lorigo, a lawyer in Buffalo, told me that in every case when he succeeded in getting a patient’s case before a judge and the judge ruled in the family’s favor, the patient went home and survived. In all cases where the judge refused to hear the case or ruled against the family, the patient died.
Every American is a sovereign individual with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not a sack of meat to be treated as a profit opportunity. Informed consent must be revived from the grave if Americans are to have a fighting chance against powerful financial interests allied against them.
Power companies have issued warnings about dangerous transformer shortages in the USA.
US power companies are raising the alarm about a potential energy crisis. Transformers are crucial to the grid because they change the voltage of electricity to make it usable. However, energy trade groups warn that the nation can’t count on aging transformers to keep the power on. Also, if transformers blow during storms, it could take more than a year for power companies to get new ones due to the supply chain shortage. ERMCO estimates that, in case a storm blows enough transformers in a city with no reserves, it could take several weeks to bring the lights back on.
Mike Partin, president and CEO of the Sequatchie Valley Electric Cooperative, says there is a supply chain problem putting USA at risk because it could take 52 to 56 weeks to get new transformers instead of the typical 4-week turnaround from manufacturers.
The Department of Energy says the entire stability of the electricity grid depends on sufficient supply and stated that transformer outages are a matter of national security.
Tim Mills, the CEO of ERMCO, a transformer distributor, says there aren’t national or regional stockpiles of transformers. But he says that the inventory of many of ERMCO’s customers has dropped in half due to the shortage, while others power companies are nearly completely out of transformers.
As lead times on new transformers grow longer, utilities are also worried about the nation’s ability to make new ones because transformer cores use a specific type of steel called grain-oriented electrical steel (GOES). Most GOES manufacturers are outside of USA.
The Department of Energy wants to expand USA’s production by using a more efficient kind of steel for transformer cores called amorphous steel. Amorphous cores are part of the DOE’s proposed energy-efficiency standards for transformers which they estimate could cut energy waste and slash 340 M metric tons of carbon over the next 30 years. That’s roughly equal to the yearly emissions of 90 coal-fired plants, all while saving consumers an estimated $15 B on their bills.
Gene Rodriguez, an assistant secretary for the Office of Electricity within the Department of Energy says the switch could come with a lot of benefits. “It means less waste in the system,” he said. “You’re paying less money for an energy system that’s inefficient, that is wasting electricity along the way.
However, Partin, Mills and dozens of senators worry that switching to a new type of transformer could worsen the ongoing supply chain problems and slow down the expansion and maintenance of the grid.
In the meantime, the DOE is also offering up $20 M worth of rebates to utilities and businesses to upgrade to energy efficient transformers.
Breaking! DOJ Looking To Jail Infowars’ Owen Shroyer For 120 Days In Jan. 6th Trial
By Kelen McBreen | INFOWARS.COM Wednesday, September 06, 2023
The host of Infowars’ War Room program, Owen Shroyer, is facing up to 120 days in prison after a recommendation was issued by DOJ prosecutors Tuesday.
Shroyer was first charged in relation to Jan 6th on August 2021, eventually pleading guilty to one count of “knowingly entering or remaining in or on any restricted building or grounds.”
Now, the weaponized American judicial system is being sent after Shroyer to set an example for other outspoken citizens.
“Shroyer did not step foot inside the Capitol, he did not need to; many of those who listened to him did instead,” the court document claims.
Of course, there is no evidence Shroyer ever encouraged people to “step foot inside the Capitol.”
Instead, there is actually footage of Shroyer standing by Infowars founder Alex Jones, who grabbed a megaphone and tried to warn the crowd they were being set up and to turn around.
Bodycam footage from Jones’ security detail shows the moment they tried to get Capitol Police officers to allow Jones on a speaker so he could make an attempt at de-escalating the situation.
The court document even admits an Infowars security member said on camera, “Let’s take a break right here. Let me talk to this cop and see if I can get [Person One] up there and deescalate the situation,” with “person one” being Jones.
The DOJ prosecutors are also upset Shroyer “has blamed ‘Antifa’” for its role in Jan. 6th despite evidence showing Antifa members were in the crowd.
At one point, the feds told the judge presiding over Shroyer’s case “the absence of violent or destructive acts is not a mitigating factor.”
Basically, the government is asking that the judge not go easy on the political commentator just because he never committed any violence or destroyed any property.
Towards the end of the prosecution’s document, the Biden administration claimed Shroyer “has yet to sincerely demonstrate genuine remorse for his conduct” on Jan. 6th because he still believes the 2020 election was stolen.
The DOJ even alleged Shroyer has “a lack of respect for law enforcement” but in reality, he’s vocally pro-police, especially compared to the “defund the police” leftists who burned down American cities during the 2020 BLM riots.
Revealing the true reason they’re throwing the book at peaceful demonstrators, the feds said it’s important for the judge to jail defendants in order to “deter” American citizens from marching on the Capitol in the future, writing, “general deterrence may be the most compelling reason to impose a sentence of incarceration.”
This development comes just one day after Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio was sentenced to 22 years in prison despite the fact he was in jail as the events of Jan. 6th took place.
Last week, former Infowars employee and Proud Boys member Joe Biggs was sentenced to 17 years for his non-violent role in January 6th.
