electronic sounds, various influences, experimenting with the rhythm section and 5/4 time

angel

isolation blessing

head down

leavin' the numbers behind

JOIN THE APPEAL and SIGN IT NOW.  https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/the-appeal#fn3b
press like if u’ve signed - let me see we’re together on this

Our planet is facing an extreme health crisis.
The facts speak for themselves, and the growing concern around the world is entirely valid...
In a February 2019 US Senate hearing, the wireless industry was forced to admit they have no safety studies on 5G, and don’t plan to do any. Meanwhile, there are thousands of independent studies concluding that wireless radiation causes biological harm, especially to babies and children. Despite this, the wireless industry is working with governments worldwide to deploy 5G.
Martin Pall - professor emeritus of biochemistry at Washington State University has published numerous papers on wireless radiation effects – cellular DNA damage, endocrine effects, cancer, cardiac effects… damage to animals, plant and insects. “We are taking risks that no rational society on earth would take…”   https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Pall
Beverly Rubik, PhD, Biophysics. Internationally renowned for her research on the biofield, the field of energy-with-information of living systems. https://www.brubik.com/
Dr. Jack Kruse:  Quantum Biophysics & nnEMF  EMFs affect water, and over 90% of the blood plasma consists of water. His research shows that EMFs are a massive danger to life on this planet – a much greater danger than GMO foods, toxic pesticides, vaccines etc.  jackkruse.com https://vimeo.com/356699319/83332e65a7
Dr Monika Krout increased heart rate (ECG) in humans and animals near mobile phone antennas 
www.etudesetvie.be/articles-divers…rout-allemagne/

The entire biosphere of this planet is about to be blanketed with over 20,000 high frequency radiation emitting satellites, starting with SpaceX's newly FCC-approved launching of 4,425 satellite into orbit within the next few years? 

This is not just a concern of a few natural health advocates. US meteorologists, for instance, issued a statement in June of this year that they are worried 5G will disrupt their ability to properly sense the weather. And why? Because 5G radiation is preferentially absorbed by water molecules (the molecule that all of life is built upon!) -- a fact that represents a form of electromagnetically-induced planetary climate change and adverse health effects that virtually no one is talking about. 

If this ill conceived agenda moves forward as planned, millions more small cell installations emitting 5G (millimeter wave) radiation will be placed near every few homes, in every neighborhood in this country. No one and nothing will be immune to exposure to a form of radiation that has never been adequately tested for safety, but which countless studies already indicate have adverse biological effects. 

The 5G agenda has at least a trillion dollars worth of industry momentum behind it, from sectors as diverse as the Big Tech, agriculture, financial services, and even the military. It's not just about faster connectivity, but total, real-time surveillance and the even more concerning potential for weaponization.

So, what's stopping it? The surprising but true answer is YOU. 

137,000 signatures so far by individuals and more than 1,100 organisations from 203 countries and territories. They include:
3,381 scientists
1,913 medical doctors
5,848 engineers
3,525 psychologists, psychotherapists and social workers
3,052 nurses

JOIN THE APPEAL and SIGN IT NOW.  https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/the-appeal#fn3b

5G   →→→ignore track→→→go straight to description→→→URGENT APPEAL→→→SIGN IT NOW

Tragedy in Yemen doesn't seem to be a result of Shia-Sunni conflict, failure of a political transition or Arab spring. What's the true reason behind Saudi-U.S. bombing?  Perhaps Yemen’s open criticism of the U.S.-Saudi invasion in Iraq alienated the country; perhaps the USS Cole provocation attack might have provided the reason for escalation and the future invasion.

“In the fall of 1990, the newly created Republic of Yemen took the position that a diplomatic solution for Iraq’s aggression should be reached between the Arab countries. Yemen’s refusal to join the U.S.-Saudi military coalition against Iraq prompted Saudi Arabia to expel several hundred thousand Yemeni workers and to cut all foreign aid to Yemen; most of the other Arab oil states followed suit. Within months, the republic’s gross domestic product and government revenues—to which external aid contributed significantly—plunged; the unemployment and inflation rates, as well as the budget deficit, soared. By 1992, general contraction of the economy had produced widespread and deepening privation, and modest increases in oil revenues did not add much to the capacity of the new government to ease the growing suffering and to stem the collapse of the economy.”

https://www.britannica.com/place/Yemen/The-age-of-imperialism
https://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/26/world/mideast-tensions-yemen-s-chief-assails-saudis-on-gulf-crisis.html


Jack Kennedy (retired FBI special agent), Maureen Reagan (retired FBI special agent) and Joseph Harding (retired FBI special agent) view on the USS Cole attack
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjPADtoTwbA

Wayne Madsen (former Navy officer and NSA employee):
"The former CIA agent [John O’Neill] who worked with the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force in New York and New Jersey stated that the USS Cole was hit by a specially-configured Popeye cruise missile launched from an Israeli Dolphin-class submarine.  Israeli tests of the missile in May 2000 in the waters off Sri Lanka demonstrated it could hit a target 930 miles away. The ex-CIA agent also stated that Ambassador Bodine threw John O’Neill and his team out of Yemen lest their investigation began uncovering evidence that the Cole was not blown up by an explosive-laden boat but by an Israeli cruise missile. 
The former CIA agent said the reason for the Israeli attack was to further galvanize U.S. public opinion against both Al Qaeda and the Democrats in the weeks prior to the 2000 presidential elections. The Bush-Cheney team could blame the Democrats for not taking the Al Qaeda threat seriously.”

https://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2005/10/madsens-bombshell.html


more about John O’Neill (FBI investigator)

http://911blogger.com/node/11443

yemen: 100 000 dead and counting - FREE DL -chop it-mash it-remix it-spread the k n o w l e d g e

Do masks protect?
	•	Neil Orr’s study, 1981 in the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. Dr. Orr was a surgeon in the Severalls Surgical Unit in Colchester. And for six months, from March through August 1980, the surgeons and staff in that unit decided to see what would happen if they did not wear masks during surgeries. They wore no masks for six months, and compared the rate of surgical wound infections from March through August 1980 with the rate of wound infections from March through August of the previous four years. And they discovered, to their amazement, that when nobody wore masks during surgeries, the rate of wound infections was less than half what it was when everyone wore masks. Their conclusion: “It would appear that minimum contamination can best be achieved by not wearing a mask at all” and that wearing a mask during surgery “is a standard procedure that could be abandoned.”
	•	Ritter et al., 1975, “the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.”
	•	Ha’eri and Wiley, 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. “Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.”
	•	Laslett and Sabin, 1989, “No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,” they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002.
	•	In Tunevall’s 1991  a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound infection rate was 4.7%, while after 1,551 operations performed without masks, the wound infection rate was only 3.5%.
	•	A review by Skinner and Sutton 2001 “The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use.”
	•	Lahme et al., 2001, “surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria"
	•	Figueiredo et al., 2001, in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks, rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn.
	•	Bahli  2009 “no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks.”
	•	Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, “Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,” wrote Dr. Eva Sellden.
	•	Webster et al., 2010, on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopaedic, breast and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients. All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries, and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries. Infections occurred in 11.5% of the Mask group, and in only 9.0% of the No Mask group.
	•	Lipp and Edwards 2014  “no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials.” Vincent and Edwards updated this review in 2016 and the conclusion was the same.
	•	Carøe, 2014: 6,006 patients, wrote that “none of the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not.”
	•	Salassa and Swiontkowski, 2014, “there is no evidence that these measures [masks] reduce the prevalence of surgical site infection.”
	•	Da Zhou et al., 2015, “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.”

Arthur Firstenberg, August 11 2020

no masks (FREE DL)

we're all slaves.
we're what they fear of...

cotton beast

Top Tracks