Understanding and Identifying News Bias, Misinformation and Disinformation. By Susan Safi. December 1, 2024

Understanding and Identifying News Bias, Misinformation and Disinformation. 

By Susan Safi for a community group. Dec,1,2024

Introduction:

Professional global news agencies have editorial guidelines and extensive resources for fact-checking, but most serve an agenda and the news most people call “the news” is really someone else’s “news” designed to keep a particular agenda or worldview going with the masses feeling informed and included.

Before we do that, be aware, or at least consider, that the same media manipulation and nefarious tactics used to harm or threaten us have also been employed within our “Freedom movement” in a stealthy, aggressive, hidden, deceptive and controlling manner, using tactics straight out of the playbook of “Hybrid Warfare”.

When you understand the tactics of this you may pick up on things previously missed.

I mention often the term “Hybrid Warfare”. A broad definition from Wikipedia:

” Hybrid warfare is a theory of military strategy, first proposed by Frank Hoffman, which employs political warfare and blends conventional warfare, irregular warfare, and cyberwarfare with other influencing methods, such as fake news, diplomacy, lawfare, regime change, and foreign electoral intervention.”

This strategy can just as well be used by a government to deal with potential threats from its own population such as dissidents and “freedom” movements.

We all witnessed, first-hand, media playing a key role in serving an agenda we oppose, producing propaganda and lies aimed at manipulating and twisting the truth. Either the media outlet is owned by people with an interest in a particular agenda or, as we saw in Australia regarding the “pandemic”, many received government or other funding to publish in line with the Covid-19 narrative and population management.

We will look at how to determine the origin and key agenda of where “news” is coming from to understand the nature, level of reliability and veracity of that “news” outlet.

Years ago, I came across a NATO document on this strategy by the title of, “Social Media as a Tool of Hybrid Warfare” https://stratcomcoe.org/publications/social-media-as-a-tool-of-hybrid-warfare/177. Tactics written therein involve infiltrating movements, knocking out/controlling the leaders, taking over/hijacking the narrative, usually subtly where most won’t realise something is amiss, re-directing all away from the important messages that inform effective activism, replacing it by flooding/overwhelming the space with “red-herrings”, to steer all off-course, rendering them largely ineffective.

I experienced this on an international level. It was dangerous as it involved the war mongers rolling out their so-called “soft” tactics towards achieving the ultimate objective of overthrowing a government by inserting people posing as pro-government “activists”, in some cases killing the local activists that realised what was happening.

NATO’s Hybrid Warfare’s Social Media strategy likely expanded

to include “the enemy’s” anticipation of a movement being established by “the people” and promptly going in there, unbeknown to the people, and establishing it first, hence controlling the entire movement, its messages and direction from the very outset.

Psychological tactics would focus on wearing down people’s resolve, energy and mental well-being via fomenting fear, hysteria, ignorance, confusion, promoting an exhausting tsunami of disturbing subjects, mostly inaccurate or outright false, that re-direct the movement’s key mission, muddying the ability to adhere to the key issues and actions needed, rendering impossible unity and discipline in the movement. Almost all of this is done through social media. A trained eye can discern who is who.

 

Let’s look at some ways to become savvy in spotting the lies and deception.

*Disinformation–is wrong information deliberately fabricated to deceive.

*Misinformation is incorrect or misleading stories, not deliberately created to deceive. 

 

 (1) Your Gut Feeling:

*Does it sound unlikely, sensational, wishful or like “clickbait” i.e., articles with attention grabbing, half true or totally false headings to increase website traffic to raise revenue and/or spread a rumour rapidly?

*Is it meant to be a satirical article? Does it come from a satirical website?*Is it presented (including sound) to provoke strong emotional reactions, fear, anger?

*Is it an imposter site of a real person?

*Is it an old story with a new date on it posing as something new?

*Is the photograph presented as an image of the actual news or issue being presented? Did it come from another source? If so, that could sound the “fake alarm”. 

 *If it gives data, statistics and quotes from experts but no source, does it check out?

(2) Always Look for the Source.

*A news outlet/author known for unreliable news? Find the source of the report.

*Clue; a report went viral but all roads lead to just one source. Why? Example: a scientific conclusion promoted sensationally and as fact but investigations show incomplete, improperly conducted scientific enquiry and still quoted by scientists and medical people is a red flag.  What’s the agenda? Could it be disinformation and misinformation?

*Did other reputable media report on a story with only one source? Sloppy work?

*Seek Website details on unreliable news https://www.whois.com/whois/

 

(3) Censorship.

*Is there attempted censorship of/around the topic? If there isn’t censorship of something you’d think would be censored, then that may be a red flag of a topic “allowed” for perhaps disinformation or distraction. Investigate!

 

(4) Seeking News Outlets and Analysis in the “Alternative” Media.

*Credible journalism is based on fact-gathering, is integrity based, with an analytical and objective mindset. A lack of these qualities has no place in the “alternative’ media and is suspicious at the least.

*Does the author supply references for information given and people quoted?

*Do the references stack up as reliable? If not, be vigilant.

*Is there a lack of quotes and contributing sources, particularly on a complex issue?

*Ask yourself why this article has been written?

*If you want to dig deeper, ask who benefits from what’s presented as “truth”.

*What school of thought or agenda drives the writer or news outlet?

 *Are they consistently on a mission to demonise/promote a country, political movement/party, religion, culture etc.? Are intelligence agencies/religious organisations/corporations etc., behind the writer/or media outlet? If so, how is that reflected in their articles and reliability of their news? It may still be useful but keep in mind where it’s coming from.

 *Comments under news, videos etc., can give insights or clues about any unanswered questions or issues in your mind.

(5) Manufacturing the News

*Social media bots can mass produce and rapidly spread articles, giving the impression the news is correct, gaining a large following and even instilling a sense of credibility. 

 *Well-known Organisations/Charities, often respected for their original mission, can be co-opted to spread false narrative/s, especially “atrocity propaganda”, increasing passions, violence, keeping the accused side busy defending itself. Years back I relied on Cory Morningstar's blog for her amazing research on NGO's.

*The "Covid Narrative" experienced this from NGO's, professionals we were suppose to trust and much more. Big NGO's like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Avaaz and others have been involved in manufacturing news/videos that support political agendas of powerful governments/players. Amnesty’s founder, Peter Benenson, soon realised governments and intelligence agencies and other big players were infiltrating and using the organisation. His claims were denied.

*The “babies taken out of incubators” debacle in Kuwait had Amnesty International initially corroborating the story “Nurse Nayirah” gave in “evidence” against Iraq, influencing Congress to go to war, but was later revealed as false testimony created by a big public relations firm in the US. https://youtu.be/LmfVs3WaE9Y?si=wzhjzRHQ8TzfCDTH.

*US Author/Activist Connor Boyack commented; “Ever wondered how a single lie could deceive Americans and drag the country into war?” Why would this be any different regarding our issues?

*Fake videos maybe be created using digital software, machine learning, face-swapping, images combined to create new footage purporting events to have taken place which never did. The results can be convincing and difficult to identify as false.

*The trained/experienced eye may spot “fake’ quickly. Below is one likely "manufactured" Israeli military video that went viral, “IDF Elite Unit Rescues Around 250 Hostages Alive”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taZB-dvsg9c. The video, to those who know such environments, is clearly not in a refugee camp or anywhere in Gaza, but likely a stage set. It went viral and unquestioned.

*Fake or wrongly attributed photos: The ‘Houla Massacre” photograph was taken from another country and promoted by the BBC as an atrocity in Syria. BBC made a statement detracting the photo being from Syria. It was a serious "mistake' as these kind of images and reports were likely to influence a 'no-fly-zone" request to the UNSC.  In the last dot point of Section 4, I advise looking at reader or viewer comments as they can be enlightening and the BBC detraction provides plenty of reader comments. One reader said "If the picture was wrong, what else might be wrong about the reporting of the Syrian massacre and who perpetrated it?"

*A dramatic and instructional investigation by a former local journalist in the UK, Robert Stuart, eventuated in a court case with BBC. Robert's years of laborious and detailed work to uncover the lies is perhaps the best model for anyone doing investigations of media mischief, one in that case, designed to influence Parliament to involve itself in yet another war. His blog on his investigation is inspiring. The video produced years later tells the story in detail. Before the "Covid Narrative' and its employment of the media, the use of it to push agendas of the worst kind were well practised as you can see.

*Images from an earthquake in Tibetan China in April 2010 was presented at the time by various media as China massacring its Tibetan population but was quickly called out as false. The images showed monks walking through the dead looking for earthquake survivors but was, by some with an agenda, captioned as a massacre. Remember, it can be quite easy to do searches on some "news" items by looking for images and, in that case, it was clear that lies had been spread and that is when one asks "who benefits".

*Check images when you suspect those presenting them might have a nefarious agenda. Look at the photo for inconsistencies, “warping” where straight lines in the background now appear wavy, strange shadows, jagged edges, or skin tone that looks too perfect. You may use Google’s Reverse Image Search or just search the subject in images to check where an image originates from and if it has been altered.

 (6) Creating Your Own “go to” List.

*Instead of having to investigate the tsunami of material on topics, it’s useful to take time to identify (rigorously) authors and media outlets with a solid history of credible and reliable information and good analysis, noting where they come from philosophically or politically and then make your own “go-to” list. You could have sections noting the orientation or particular special knowledge or strengths of each site/writer.

Some of my favourite links of “old hands” in investigation and analysis. I can add more later.

For “World News & Geopolitics” to get the basic story I go first to https://sputnikglobe.com/ & https://www.rt.com/news/

Ekaterina Blinova. Geopolitics. Superior work. Some of her articles are here https://sputnikglobe.com/author_ekaterina_blinova/

Cory Morningstar. Info on NGO’s and who funds them https://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/

Whitney Webb. Superior investigator. Google her or go here https://x.com/_whitneywebb

Moon of Alabama. Geopolitics https://www.moonofalabama.org/

Greanville Post. Geopolitics, anti-imperialist https://www.greanvillepost.com/

Covert Action Magazine. Geopolitics mostly https://covertactionmagazine.com/

Global Research. Anti-Imperialist, Geopolitics https://www.globalresearch.ca

Consortium News. Anti-Imperialist https://consortiumnews.com/

John Pilger(late). Investigative, analysis. Important work of his https://johnpilger.com/

USA & Geopolitics. Scott Ritter no fixed address & Colonel Douglas Macgregor https://www.youtube.com/user/douglasmacgregorTV

Judge Napolitano, Judging Freedom. Interviews re USA & Geopolitics https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDkEYb-TXJVWLvOokshtlsw/videos

The Cradle. Geopolitics and often presenting Iran's take. https://thecradle.co/

Off Guardian. A huge mix of issues covered. I haven’t checked them thoroughly for a while though https://off-guardian.org/

Glenn Greenwald. Founded “The Intercept”. Known for reporting on NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. There was one issue of his omission in an important matter that troubled me, and it might have been one of the reasons he parted ways with “The Intercept” but have a look at him. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resignation-from-the-intercept

25 November 2024 WAR WITH RUSSIA. IN THE WEST SO MANY ARE REDIRECTED IN MULTIPLE WAYS AND THE MESSAGE BELOW TELLS THINGS HOW THEY ARE

 

War With Russia?

https://www.youtube.com/live/KPJmh_bAxlA?si=5HlTzYpWvLStL235 

 

 

 

 

Triple TAP Episode #19 with Iman and Susan Safi 20 September 2022

The Graphene Oxide Narrative.

By Susan Safi
20 April 2023 (updated 27 June 2023)

* Science advice from Iman Safi (M.Sc.)

Hybrid Warfare, a military strategy that blends conventional warfare and irregular warfare across the full spectrum of conflict, is a vast arena to explore. In these dangerous times it is crucial that we acquaint ourselves with aspects of this warfare relevant to our activism.

The social media strategy, one of the tools within the suite of Hybrid Warfare tactics, was developed to wield and control various popular movements which rely on social media/alternative media as a platform to oppose globalist and other nefarious agenda. In 2016 NATO produced a research paper [1] on the use of media and social media as a form/tool of warfare and in that research used Ukraine as the war theater. It was used with great effect in the war on Syria. We now see how it has been rolled out to deal with dissent and information exposing the COVID-19 narrative and all that comes with it. This pernicious strategy has now been perfected to the extent where even the most astute observer can be fooled.

The key tactic to "handle" any exposure and opposition to schemes against humanity is to insert actors, or “activists” and their “entourage” into these movements, posing as supporters, experts, citizen journalists and the like. These actors typically appear suddenly and from "nowhere" on the activist platforms, i.e., social media/alternative media. They commence harvesting information or details of concerns from activists, information still slightly relevant but rather obscure and of a fascinating and/or terrifying nature. No one suspects that anything is amiss. The actors continue expanding their chosen topic to colossal, overwhelming proportions, speaking/writing endlessly of it, effectively drowning out the most pertinent and important narratives in that activist movement with their "white noise". The result of this strategy is that it dominates every interaction in that movement, including its media and social media forums and causing diversion.

These actors/infiltrators hijack and divert the narrative, become the front and centre of the people’s movement and as local or peer support is gained, incrementally validate themselves as important representatives of the cause.  In one movement, these kind of actors even managed to shift the movement's communications platform to twitter, a forum at the time hardly used by that people's movement. Non-compliant/cooperative [2] indigenous activists, leaders and intellectuals of that movement were disabled and silenced by the actors via defaming and attacking them, completing the key step of effectively re-directing the narrative.

The Current “War of Wars” that's Played out in the West:
Graphene in Vaccines and the Environment:

In the vast "freedom movement" challenging "Globalist Agenda" an endless array of diversions can be and perhaps are employed in order to redirect attention away from key issues and priorities in pursuing this battle. One of these garnering much attention is that of alleged graphene oxide in Covid-19 “vaccines” and other stories flowing on from that. There are reasons to believe that this topic has the hallmarks of a hybrid warfare ploy;  rapid gaining of momentum of the narrative despite a lack of validation, the generation of great fear, anxiety, hysteria and even fixation on the subject, the co-opting of some medical and scientific allied professionals identified as part of the "freedom movement", giving validation to the narrative. Often there is strong condemnation, even from traumatised "victims" of anyone questioning the lack of science or validation. Consistent with such a warfare strategy, a topic of some relevance or concern in the "freedom movement" is introduced, in this case indications of experiments involving graphene oxide in bio-medical settings, with the proponents of these experiments, research and the narratives, offering alarming and terrifying "facts" or suspicions, but so far, always falling short of presenting  public verifiable and conclusive research results, including information about equipment and procedures used to identify such findings and how it was substantiated.

When a media piece presents someone as providing facts and that person doesn't clarify that they are not facts, they then are in effect endorsing the bold, alarmist, traumatising statements and contributing to shameless "click bait" media and the degradation of the integrity of the "freedom movement". Such silence can be interpreted as acquiescence to the false narrative, even worse when that as-yet unsubstantiated claim morphs into further claims of graphene oxide spreading into every sphere of human existence; in the non-jabbed people’s blood, in the water, in the sky and so on and with each day bringing a new existential threat to people’s psyche in the “freedom movement".

A number of allied health/natural health practitioners have established diagnosis and treatment centres for "non-vaccinated" and "vaccinated" patients where they are told they are riddled with graphene oxide and invariably prescribed expensive, ongoing remedies to supposedly rid their bodies of the substance. In all cases investigated, it appears diagnosis is undertaken with completely inappropriate equipment and protocols for diagnostics. Among others, hundreds of “un-jabbed” people are walking around believing they are mortally ill, parting with the few dollars remaining after losing their jobs to the mandates, and hoping they will feel better. When enquiring how these modest practitioners identify these nano-particles, the answer is that the local practitioner has the correct microscope and protocols for such diagnosis in their actual office. No one is ever willing to identify any laboratory used (if it is) by these allied health practitioners and a Medical Doctor involved deeply in the subject, was also unable to name any despite presenting as a proponent of the theory that Covid-19 "vaccinations" contain graphene oxide and that it is also presenting in the blood of "unvaccinated" people.

To highlight the curious phenomenon of making such unsubstantiated claims, in a meeting in front of all present, a GP driving the graphene oxide in jabs and blood narrative, admitted having no conclusive results to prove such claims. That same admission was made earlier in a phone call with a scientist and yet the claims continued. One meeting participant asked about the “problem” of “graphene in water”. Expecting the GP to state that there was no verification of this, surprisingly the GP launched into an immediate explanation of how this "problem" should be dealt with, hence endorsing this as a fact and adding to the growing hysteria about the topic in general. Even more surprising was the GP's terribly flawed suggestion as to how to deal with the "problem" by way of the use of EDTA as a chelating agent. EDTA can only "grab" much smaller particles such as sodium and calcium ions. However, the graphene oxide molecule is much larger than the EDTA itself. This would be akin to expecting to "grab" an elephant with a mouse trap. EDTA can only pick up cations: nothing else. 

Just where did this graphene-oxide-in-the-jabs claim come from?

Prior to the “Covid-19 Crisis”, research on using the substance in bio-medicine was prevalent.  Chinese scientists in 2020 submitted an application for a patent [3] for “Nano coronavirus recombinant vaccine taking graphene oxide as carrier”.  It is still pending.  Hence, it was a topic that had relevancy to the interests of the "freedom movement" but was not centre-stage to the struggle for freedom.

Very much around the same period, several scientists, including a PhD in Psychology and others of various not-so-relevant disciplines began making claims of finding graphene oxide in the “vaccinations”. It is commonly believed that the “graphene-in-vaccines” narrative originated in Spain from Professor Campra and others from his university. However, according to the protocols used, their research apparently, like all the others, was not conclusive, yet it forms the basis for others making these claims [4] and [5].

One such scientist, whatever the status is about his claimed or real credentials as a scientist, Dr Robert Young, introduced the notion of “graphene-in-vaccines” in an academic paper [6] with it quickly progressing to claims of graphene being in the water and air. Young listed an impressive collection of equipment used to reach this conclusion, in particular Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM).  On the surface, his alleged conclusions reached sounded convincing and it was assumed he truly had access to millions of dollars’ worth of sophisticated analytical equipment and laboratory time, facilities which would have been located at multiple sites across the US, such as universities and research organisations [7]. An example of the unsubstantiated fear mongering and sensationalism from Young and his host can be found at 35 minutes of the attached video [8].

The highly acclaimed Dr Mike Yeadon stated [9] that such findings as so far presented could only be conclusive if one was able to see the hexagonal pattern of single carbon atoms in a single graphene sheet, otherwise it would be like looking at a fishnet in a bucket without taking it out and identifying what shape the holes were.  That assessment was relevant in the case of what Young and others did. Yeadon had more to say about this throughout this interview [10]. It appears that this evidence has not been presented.

The root of the narrative originated from the same information from a set of researchers who made interesting observations but provided no conclusive results. Their incomplete research was presented over and over again to the public as proof.

The question that needs to be answered is why no one has supplied the conclusive evidence? Is this not in everyone’s interest, or is that a naïve assumption? Another interesting observation is that it appears that “fact checkers” on social media leave such articles or posts alone.

Any further experiments need to be examined as to the equipment and protocols used and how conclusive results were achieved if they indeed were. To do anything else and to not be open about it or let alternative media run with the hysteria of it is irresponsible.

In April 2023 another story circulated stating there was “proof” of graphene oxide in the "vaccines" via confirmation by the FDA. The “proof” was provided on page 7 of a study by Pfizer, but what was presented was a spec sheet of the actual vaccine. The study was titled “Structural and Biophysical Characterization of SARS-coV-2 Spike Glycoprotein (P2 S) as a Vaccine Antigen.” The reference on page 7 to graphene oxide has been taken out of context [11]. It was used in the protocol of undertaking the test on the product; but it was reported as a constituent of the product. The contents of page 7 discussed the protocol for setting up imaging and how to image the spike protein with a cryo-electron microscope. Below are links to some articles presenting this “proof” which was presented as bolstering the claims [12] of all the unsubstantiated claims [13]made earlier [14].

Scientist Sasha Latypova responded to this sensational claim, explaining what happened [15]. She has 25 years of experience in clinical trials for multiple pharmacological companies worldwide and countless interactions with the FDA in her part in the scientific industry, particularly in the area of improving cardiac safety assessment in clinical trials. Sasha, after addressing the issue writes, "Can graphene oxide still be present in the injection? YES it can be. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence for it".
Note: "Circumstantial evidence"

It appears that there still is no substantiated and conclusive proof of graphene oxide in any "vaccine" and the case for listing the narrative as a potential divergent or trauma-based strategy has merit. Certainly, there is research on its use in drug delivery and the research below discusses in detail the dangers of introducing graphene oxide to the human body [16], but so far there appears to be no substantiated proof that this has occurred with Covid-19 "vaccinations".

Vigilance in ensuring this never happens (graphene oxide in "vaccines" or entering human bodies) is paramount, but proper processes for inquiry need to be followed in order to substantiate any claims.

UPDATE 13 May 2023:

There are many examples of massive flaws in scientific discourse around graphene oxide in blood, all the while continuing to infer the presence of graphene oxide in the absence of any proper scientific substantiation of this. Around this topic, swift business is being conducted in advocating and marketing "cures", in this case EDTA. The EDTA will chelate individual metallic ions such as calcium and sodium etc. This is dictated by their molecular size and their electrostatic properties. Graphene molecules however are tens of times, if not hundreds of times bigger than those metallic ions and much bigger than the EDTA molecule itself. In other words, to expect an EDTA molecule to chelate graphene would be comparable to using a mouse trap to catch an elephant as described earlier. EDTA can only pick up cations: nothing else. When someone makes such a flaw, it puts a question mark on every other piece of scientific discussion they have presented. If this basic fact is something the researcher is not aware of then, how are they in a position to make bolder statements about more complex scientific issues? [17] One needs to know the alphabet before one can read and write.

 

1. https://www.stratcomcoe.org/social-media-tool-hybrid-warfare
2. http://thesaker.is/social-media-as-a-tool-of-hybrid-warfare-the-case-of-syria/
3. https://patents.google.com/patent/CN112220919A/en
4. https://imagenes.diario16.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/MICROSCOPIA_DE_VIAL_CORMINATY_DR_CAMPRA_FIRMA_E_1_HORIZONTAL.pdf
5. https://twitter.com/ualmeria/status/1410884237377560579
6. https://www.europereloaded.com/dr-robert-young-finds-graphene-oxide-in-all-four-vaccines-and-other-nasties/
7. Young claims to have accessed a vast array of the best equipment and facilities in the US. This is about millions of dollars of equipment and is in an environment where budgets for scientific research are never adequate and access to "outsiders" for use, particularly if they have a “history” or credentials that are questioned, and not seen as part of the scientific “establishment” makes the claims to such access questionable. Additionally, these incredibly expensive instruments are not found altogether in any one laboratory because they are very specific. Research laboratories normally have the equipment they specifically need for their line of research. Young would have needed to find a way to access all of this from different universities and research centres, far and wide. Looking at his background it could be said that it is unlikely he would have the connections and kudos to access such special and rare equipment.
8. From 35 minutes. https://rumble.com/v28ygrm-situation-update-2923-  natousrussian-war-to-escalate.html
9.  https://www.notonthebeeb.co.uk/post/yeadon-on-graphene-and-our-comment
10.  https://www.bitchute.com/video/kI7Kd3WYNu9K/
11.  https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/125742_S1_M4_4.2.1-vr-vtr-10741.pdf
12.  https://expose-news.com/2023/04/15/graphene-covid-vaccines-manufacturing-process/
13. https://www.europereloaded.com/fda-confirms-graphene-oxide-is-in-the-mrna-covid-19-vaccines/
14. https://nexusnewsfeed.com/article/health-healing/breaking-fda-confirms-graphene-oxide-is-in-the-mrna-covid-19-vaccines/
15. https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/pfizer-evidence-of-graphene-oxide
16. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8213470/
17. https://anamihalceamdphd.substack.com/p/there-is-hope-edta-chelation-works

 

LEARNING FROM THE WAR ON SYRIA By Susan Safi 14 May 2022

We are in the midst of a global war against the people. Many wars against ordinary people have occurred and in recent years strategies and tactics from those have been perfected and used in the attacks we now experience.

In Australia, our “freedom” movement is large, diverse in philosophies of ways of going forward, and has many participants taking leading roles in different areas.

In the political solution camp, divisions and white-anteing have emerged, particularly the moment we headed into the pre-polling days before election day. To make such attacks at a time when people are casting their votes seems fruitless other than ensuring chaos, confusion and people losing confidence in the vote they intended to cast.

During the war on Syria, i.e., by the same people at war against all of us, the phenomenon of such divisions, some life-threatening, emerged when it became clear that the enemies were not going to win, particularly when Syria requested Russia’s assistance.  I am putting together some things written by a pair under their activist names as I see similar patterns emerging in the war on humanity we are experiencing.

The pattern of destructive sabotage/white-anteing in the case of Syria only was made possible when certain key people leading the truth movement began to lose focus on the priorities, letting their egos get in the way which opened the doors for “support” from anyone regardless of whether these people were truly good allies. In no time many purported supporters came from dubious backgrounds, possibly guided by foreign intelligence agencies or groups pushing their own agenda.

The first stage saw these people gaining the confidence of the indigenous advocates for their country, then when these “friends” milked the advocates of their knowledge, know-how and above all, connections to the right people they had completed stage one of their task.

Then they discarded them. If they protested at being used and became suspicious of the motivations of these “supporters”, they were mercilessly targeted for defamation and shutting down.

These “supporters” in no time had an army of Western supporters who had also suddenly become interested in the plight of that country. Networks inside and outside of the country were quickly established. The corruption that so many Syrians hated and which had led to the country becoming vulnerable to attack was used by these “friends” to ensure they got their way.

These operatives ensured full control over the “truth” movement, mitigating those suspicious locals by driving in deep, dangerous wedges and smears to totally disable them.

They steadily gained control over what narratives were to be presented to the solidarity movement in the West and that was done through the growing alternative media that suddenly took interest in the plight of the country.

It transpired that much of the observed behaviour of these hijackers seemed to come straight out of a NATO research document on hybrid warfare that described overtaking movements, their narratives, repeating the same topics to drown out other ones, and that was mainly concerning the use of social media. (1) (link) 

Control over social media, what topics were covered there and in the alternative media, was key to controlling the truth movement, and it was not merely control, but possessing the ability to discredit the movement. Just like in the freedom movement in Australia, incrementally activists were barraged with many reports and information of dubious origin and its volume was impossible to process. The task of gathering correct information became most arduous. This was the forte of these operatives, controlling the narratives, building an army ”…of scavengers, hired pens and thugs, the picture was complete and all they needed was to repeat the lies over and over and over again until simple minded people, too lazy to do their own investigation, believed the lies.” (2) (link)

This is what was learnt in the war on Syria which the Globalists tested the use of media/social media as an effective form of warfare (hybrid warfare).  Losing control over one’s voice was very dangerous. “In the early years of the Syria defence movement, the activists were sticklers for ensuring accuracy and integrity in their reports and advocacy activities. Syrians were firmly in charge of and in control of their movement. They also knew humility and honesty was necessary for the credibility of their work and hence needed to be open and real in meeting and dealing with justified criticisms about Syria and her government, ensuring they never were dismissed as “propagandists” and manufacturers of false narratives. They knew that they had to maintain the moral upper ground and walk the talk when exposing the complicity of much of the mainstream media in the war machine targeting the Syrian state.“ (3) (link)

We can see in the following statement a parallel with our freedom movement.“Controlled opposition in its many forms, whether from social action organisations to political or environmental ones, from the plethora of media outlets, to online petitions, have left many genuine seekers of the truth reeling, exhausted, disheartened and disempowered as they expend endless energy trying to figure out who is truly an alternative source of information and action and who is not.“(4) (link) 

 
The lessons learnt in more recent empire wars, must be applied to any movement that opposes them and the freedom movement is the ultimate battle for the existence of the well-being of humanity, or at least those nations targeted. “What the world community of genuine activists and supporters of justice and resistance to the designs of “the empire” need to remember is that, it is a constant battle to keep up with the truth and lies within our movement...[h]ence, it will always be a battle to ascertain where the controlled opposition strikes and what kind of operatives and projects on the ground are really part of that.” (5) (link)

 
Part of that important lesson learnt was to “… never allow reports or photographs that were incorrect. We wanted to always have the moral upper ground as a mirror to the media lies and untruthful narratives...” (6) (link)

That also included responsible journalism and activism in terms of not allowing the ugly divides in society to be strengthened as had happened with some of the “supporters” who turned out to be anything but that. (7) (Link) 

Using twisted, false or manufactured news or analysis is a key strategy and tactic of hybrid warfare and, as many activists become overwhelmed with this and with emerging new players, it seems that, despite evidence being available or findable
“… the facts are glaring at members of our community, but, they go into denial. The irony is that when it suits their comfort zone, many are adept at research and exposing issues that the main stream media lies about, but engage in “suspension of disbelief” when an inconvenient “conspiracy” is staring at them or has actually engulfed them.” (8) (link)

What many activists in the Australian freedom movement may be unaware of, is that,
“[t]he empire works in this way using a hierarchy of operatives, with the bottom rung often being unaware of their role in this hierarchy and just happy about the attention and free run of their ….egos where they can pursue their own organisations’ agenda and their personal one too.  A few steps up the ladder, the more smart ones take on a few pet topics which they flood the social media platform with, drowning out any other news or stories and indigenous writers/reporters that they don't have control over.  (9) (link) 

In closing, words written years back on the experiences of the war on Syria are appropriate.
 “It is hoped that as further reflection, research and work is done on this topic of infiltration, hijack, destruction and redirection of indigenous based movements using social media, other peoples enduring and fighting against attacks on their sovereignty and way of life, take note of what happened in the struggle for Syria … and be forewarned and prepared. There are many highly mischievous schemes to achieve this infiltration, and indigenous activists need to be well informed.”(10) (link)

THE ZEOLITE ‘CHELATION’ AND BODILY CLEANSING CONUNDRUM; by Iman Safi 23 January 2024

3THE ZEOLITE ‘CHELATION’ AND BODILY CLEANSING CONUNDRUM;

Questions Demanding Answers:

Much has been recently said about the ability of zeolite to rid the body of toxins. How true is this?

Zeolite is a naturally-occurring mineral. It is found in some soils and in deposits all over the world. As a MSc. in soil science and a practicing field agronomist for 45 years, I have dealt extensively with zeolite for over three decades, and I believe that I can safely say that I know what it can and cannot do.

I have a well-founded background in biology and chemistry and always took interest in medical, health and wellness issues. I am therefore familiar with scientific literature from both medical as well as naturopathic perspectives, and I know how scientific data and conclusions can and should be presented.

Moreover, in the last 2 to 3 years, with all the talk about graphene, all the contrasting reports, misinformation and disinformation flying around from all sides, I had to use my own scientific knowledge to delve into the myths and facts and listened to the words of the experts in that field.

In this article however, I am not going to discuss whether or not graphene has been insidiously pushed into our bodies. I will restrict my comments to whether or not zeolite is able to remove graphene in any given situation as a starting point.

I am backing up my argument(s) herein with easy-to-check references using Wikipedia. And even though this is a technical discussion, my argument is written in a manner that is easy to comprehend even by those of little or no science background.

I am writing this because I have come across a video that promotes a ‘protocol’ using zeolite to ‘pull out graphene’ and other nasty chemicals from human bodies: "Masterpeace test removing foreign substance from blood with Dr. Carrie Madej"

At face value, the video alleges to offer a masterpiece solution (hence the name Masterpeace) to allay the fears of very concerned people who have lost trust in much of what was dished out to them. However, I feel rather uncomfortable with the manner is which data figures were presented and many conclusions drawn from the studies done.

On the above bases, and after watching the 33 min video, I felt that it didn’t provide satisfactory information and that it presented more questions than answers. This is why I decided to give the podcasters the chance to explain themselves and hopefully allay my concerns. This is why I am asking the promoters of this ‘protocol’ the following questions:

a. What procedure have you followed to conclusively detect and measure the level of graphene in blood when eminent scientists in the field proclaim that no such tests are available? I am asking for the specific names of both quantitative and qualitative tests.

b. Why are you withholding the name of the lab that has done the tests? The reason you gave does not seem rational. By revealing the name of the lab, you can add much credibility to your claim all the while put the onus of explaining how the figures were obtained on the lab instead of yourselves.

c. Even at face value, the data sheets presented are questionable to say the least. To be begin with, the tables are not itemised in a manner that clearly explains what is what. Secondly, figures presented on a separate table on the right side are very obscure. I had to work out that they are the individual figures before they were averaged. However, it is still unclear to me if they are based on analytical data collected from the same person over a period of time, or otherwise data collected from different people. But this is not all because in either case, many of the readings you reported are identical to the fifth significant figure. Anyone who has passed Biology or Chemistry 101 with a D knows that this is a virtual impossibility. Presented below is one of many tables with highlighted 7 colour-coded pairs of exact figures.

I have consulted with a friend with a much more superior medical knowledge and experience to mine, and she assured me that if one gives two blood samples from two different veins the results will not be identical to such level of accuracy. Such identical figures are not restricted to the table above. They are present in all of your data.

What is your explanation?

d. Where did you get the standards for the levels of the items you have analysed in the blood in a manner that can accurately describe them as ‘tolerable’, ‘borderline’ ‘high’ and ‘very high’?

e. Zeolite is one of many naturally-existing aluminosilicate minerals that adsorb cations (ie positively charged particles) by virtue of its Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC). Are you familiar with this term? The reason I ask is because you did not make any reference to it even though it is central to the properties of zeolite.

f. Zeolite has a high CEC because of its hollow 3D structure giving it a higher surface area than say muscovite, montmorillonite and other sheet-type aluminosilicates. This brings into question the physical size of the 3D frame. This is an essential determinant that decides what particles it is able to hold within its frame and what particles it cannot. Your presentation did not make any reference to this.

g. To sum up points e & f, zeolite is capable of adsorbing certain positively charged entities by a process called ‘Cationic Exchange’.

h. Zeolite therefore is not a chelating agent as referred to in your presentation. On what basis was it referred to as such?

i. Chelation and Cationic Exchange are two different things. How can you explain that your presentation did not seem to understand the difference? Do you know the difference?

j. But even if one uses a real chelating agent such as EDTA, DTPA or anything else, such molecules electrostatically attracts all positively charged ionic particles (i.e cations). This includes cations of the essential elements calcium, magnesium, zinc, iron, potassium, manganese and copper. In other words, if they can indeed chelate out toxic substances, they will equally lead to electrolyte depletion. Have you monitored the levels of electrolytes in your patients’ serum and if you haven’t, can you explain why? Admittedly, there is a mention of iron levels, but no discussion or explanation was given.

Can you explain why?

k. What is the underlying electrostatic explanation of the alleged ability of zeolite to bind and remove polyethylene and polypropylene from the body given that they are not positively charged particles?

l. Your data refer to graphene oxide in terms of moles; nanomoles to be specific. How do you define what is a graphene mole? Is it in reference to a single carbon atom or a benzene ring? I need to know so I can make further calculations to your many claims and ask you more questions.

m. How do you administer zeolite? It can’t ‘purify’ blood unless it is the blood stream. In such case, it will need to be taken intravenously. It seems however that your ‘Masterpeace’ product is oral. How does it get absorbed into the villi of the intestine when it is such a huge molecule?

n. Your presentation made an astonishing representation that the zeolite in the ‘Masterpeace’ product can be in particles as small as 1nanometer (nm) and as big as a whole cell. In reality, according to Wikipedia, ‘zeolites have microporous structures with a typical diameter of 0.3–0.8 nm’.

Zeolite - Wikipedia

This size is only that of the pore. It doesn’t include the silica and alumina around it that create it. A whole unit would be at least 3 times the size but I wasn’t able to find confirmation for this that I can quote. However, it must be kept in mind that single units of this complex chemical structure don’t exist naturally and cannot be created artificially. Physically-speaking therefore, a zeolite nano-particle cannot be as small as 1 nm. Your claim lacks scientific foundation and credibility.

On the other extreme of the size equation, a cell-size zeolite particle is too big for the intestine to absorb. Your argument falls down on both counts unless you can explain. Can you?

o. In your presentation, it was suggested that the nasty components removed by zeolite eventually get excreted in the urine. If the whole idea of the alleged chelation is about physically trapping harmful chemicals and removing them from the blood serum by binding them virtually irreversibly to the zeolite particle, how do they end up in solution? Does the zeolite release its load in the kidneys? Doesn’t this put the load back into the serum and defeat the purpose Can you please explain how do they end up in the urine?

p. The final point is about particle size. Graphene is comprised of sheets of many benzene rings each of which is about the size of the hollow inside the zeolite structure. A single benzene ring therefore is theoretically an entity that can be trapped by zeolite. But graphene is made up of many of those entities. There is no limit as to how many of those rings can exist in the molecular structure of graphene, a hundred, two hundred, a thousand? There is really no limit as such. In reality, one needs at least a couple of dozens of those rings in a cluster before it can even be called graphene; after all, a single ring is benzene, a double ring is naphthalene, a triple ring anthracene and so forth. There is a hoard of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons with multitudes of benzene rings and they still do not qualify to be referred to as graphene. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon -Wikipedia. A graphene nano-particle is expected to have 100-300 nm in size, i.e 100-300 the size of the pore space within zeolite that is alleged to have the capacity to trap it. Am I correct in saying that this would be like trying to catch elephants using mouse traps?

*graphite molecular structure size - search (bing.com)

q. At the surface, your presentation seems to be designed to appeal to people who have lost confidence in many aspects of what has been dished out to them. Feeling vulnerable, they ended up deeply concerned about how to help themselves and their loved ones. You seem to be representing yourselves in a manner that offers solutions, but you are not making a proper scientific representation of your claims anymore than you are explaining to your audience what your ‘protocol’ is all about and how much does it cost. Do you have any comments to make here?