New allegations of election fraud are emerging out of Los Angeles after several homeless individuals have spoken out to reveal that they were paid to cast ballots for Democrat candidates in the city’s mayoral election.

The individuals said they were paid to vote for either incumbent Mayor Karen Bass or Democrat socialist L.A. City Councilwoman Nithya Raman.

The explosive claims surfaced in a series of viral videos posted by TikTok user “laneedsspencerpratt.”

The popular social media influencer interviewed homeless residents living on LA’s Skid Row about their experiences during local elections.

The interviews come as scrutiny continues to grow over California’s election system, ballot harvesting practices, and ongoing federal investigations into alleged voter fraud schemes.

Homeless Residents Describe Being Paid for Votes

In one video, a homeless woman alleged that she was given two dollars in exchange for voting for career Democrat Mayor Bass.

“They come out here all the time,” she claimed.

Another woman said individuals handed her a ballot, instructed her how to vote, and paid her five dollars for participating.

Several other homeless individuals shared similar stories, claiming they were approached by activists or organizers who directed them on how to complete ballots.

One man alleged he was not even registered in Los Angeles County but was still instructed how to fill out election paperwork.

WATCH:

Homeless Paid to Vote for Democrats in LA Mayoral Election

The allegations have added fuel to growing concerns about ballot harvesting and election integrity in California.

Skid Row Under Growing Scrutiny

The allegations have reignited questions about voter registration practices on Skid Row, where thousands of homeless individuals are concentrated.

According to “laneedsspencerpratt,” homeless residents suffering from addiction, mental illness, and extreme poverty are vulnerable to manipulation by political operatives seeking votes.

“The Democratic political machine wants to keep Skid Row exactly the way it is because Skid Row is a valuable asset,” the account stated.

“You have people suffering from addiction, mental illness, and extreme poverty being asked to sign papers they often don’t fully understand in exchange for compensation or gifts.”

The account further argued that vulnerable individuals are being exploited for political purposes rather than being helped toward recovery and stability.

Questions Raised About Voter Registrations

The controversy intensified after Los Angeles mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt pointed to what he described as a suspicious late-election vote swing that benefited Los Angeles City Councilwoman Nithya Raman.

Pratt noted that Raman received a net gain of more than 43,000 votes after Election Day.

“Where have I seen that number before?” Pratt asked on social media.

Pratt referenced reports estimating that Los Angeles has roughly 43,000 homeless residents.

The candidate also highlighted concerns regarding voter registrations linked to homeless shelters.

According to claims circulating online, Raman previously presented a $600,000 check to St. Joseph Center in Skid Row.

The facility allegedly has thousands of voter registrations connected to its address despite reportedly having no residential beds available.

The claims have fueled calls for greater scrutiny of voter registration records and ballot collection practices.

Federal Election Fraud Investigations Underway

The allegations arrive as federal authorities continue investigating election-related fraud in California.

Last month, investigative journalist James O’Keefe highlighted a case involving a woman who pleaded guilty to operating a scheme that paid homeless individuals to register to vote over a period spanning roughly two decades.

The case drew national attention after prosecutors cited evidence of fraudulent voter registration activities targeting vulnerable populations.

Just last week, First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California Bill Essayli confirmed that multiple election fraud investigations remain active.

Essayli stated that his office is working alongside the FBI on several ongoing cases.

“We have multiple election fraud investigations underway,” Essayli said.

The federal prosecutor pointed to recent indictments as evidence that election fraud exists and suggested additional criminal cases could be forthcoming.

Growing Calls for Election Integrity

The latest allegations have amplified concerns among election integrity advocates who argue that ballot harvesting and weak voter verification standards create opportunities for abuse.

Supporters of stronger election safeguards say vulnerable populations should never be used as political tools and that every legitimate vote deserves protection.

While investigators continue examining fraud allegations, critics argue the claims emerging from Los Angeles highlight the need for greater transparency and accountability in election administration.

For many Americans, the reports from Skid Row raise troubling questions about whether vulnerable citizens are being exploited to influence election outcomes and whether similar practices may be occurring elsewhere across the country.

With federal investigations continuing and more cases potentially on the horizon, the battle over election integrity shows no signs of slowing down.

Source: https://slaynews.com/homeless-paid-vote-democrats-la-mayoral-election/

Fight the Censorship Join the Hopegirl Mailing List and get my free AudioBook: The QEG Chronicles Free Energy Full Disclosure: https://bit.ly/HGQEGBook

HopeGirl Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@hopegirlblog
HopeGirl Telegram Channel Chat and Groups: https://t.me/Hopegirl587 
Get Our Free EMF Survival Guide : https://bit.ly/FTWEMF
10 Percent Off our EMF Protection Products with this Link: https://www.ftwproject.com/ref/tenoff

The post Homeless Paid to Vote for Democrats in LA Mayoral Election appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

Dr. Vernon Coleman has released another ‘Old Man in a Chair’ video. The destruction of health care is a way to reduce the global population for the great reset, he warned.

He explained that doctors are being paid to kill their patients as part of a depopulation programme, using global warming as an excuse to restrict medical care.

Sharing details about the “Green Physician Toolkit” published by the Royal College of Physicians and other material published by the NHS, and suggestions for US health practitioners, Dr. Coleman shows how the medical profession is being influenced to prioritise environmental sustainability over patient care, with claims that climate change is a major threat to global health.

Unsurprisingly, the World Health Organisation advises doctors not to debate the science.  This is because any debate would reveal the truth about global warming being a scam.

The focus on environmental sustainability is leading to a shift towards preventative vaccination programmes, and potentially compulsory vaccination, and the use of untested and toxic vaccines, such as mRNA vaccines, under the guise of reducing carbon emissions, he warns.

Click on the image below to watch the video on BitChute.

Dr Vernon Coleman The End of Medicine 3 April 2025 31 mins

Transcript

By Dr. Vernon Coleman

[Note from The Exposé:  Hyperlinks contained in the text have been added by us.]

I’m sorry if this is a bit blunt, but there isn’t another way to put it.

In ‘The End of Medicine’ I am going to prove to you that doctors have been ordered to murder their patients and whether they realise it or not, that is, I’m afraid, exactly what they are doing.

Now that I have caught your attention, let me put it another way: your doctor has been ordered to kill you or, at the very least, to let you die. Murder or manslaughter, that’s the choice. That is what she or he is now being paid to do. And that’s exactly what she or he is going to do.

The excuse, of course, is global warming – which is being used as an excuse to turn doctors into killers.

It’s April 2025 and this is video number 338.

Everyone with functioning brain tissue knows that global warming is a scam – with the ultimate aim, as I warned when we were both much younger, being depopulation – and the killing of billions.

What better way is there to kill billions than by withdrawing medical care? And what easier and more convincing way than to blame global warming for everything they say they have to do? The medical establishment is pushing us, relentlessly and remorselessly, into the sort of society available in China: a technocracy, a world controlled by scientists and technicians.

Medicine has, I’m afraid, long been run by crooked and ruthless people who are easily manipulated by the prospect of profit. As a result, medicine has retreated and is failing patients.

Naturally, they are beginning by killing the disabled, the elderly, the frail, the mentally ill and the poor.

But, however fit you are and however young you are, they’re after you too.

What is happening is worse, far worse, than anything that has ever happened in history. This is cold-blooded global genocide.

Now is about to become the most frightening time in history. Never before has man been in such jeopardy.

Finally, consider this: the World Health Organisation’s advice to doctors and other health care workers is simply this: “Don’t debate the science.”

As with covid and the covid vaccine, debate is forbidden because any debate would reveal the truth.

The WHO knows that if doctors once start debating the science of global warming (or climate change) they will lose every debate.

In my new book ‘The End of Medicine’ I refer to an eminent study which concludes that the Earth’s temperature is the lowest it has been for 485 million years and has been falling for years. The Earth has previously been much warmer than it is now, and the global mean surface temperature has fallen from nearly 100 degrees Fahrenheit at the start of the modern human era to a little over 50 degrees Fahrenheit now. Much nonsense is talked about earth tremors and disappearing islands but the evidence shows these events are nothing unusual. Seismographers confirm that for centuries, islands in different parts of the world have disappeared as a result of tidal waves, volcanic disturbances or earth tremors.

The biggest irony in the history of the world is that our climate really is now changing. And it is changing because of man. But it isn’t the burning of fossil fuels that is changing the climate. It’s the deliberate dimming of the sun that is now about to start doing serious damage. Dimming the sun is going to create storms and cold weather, and it’s going to exacerbate the effect of the coming ice age. And every new storm, or few hours of bad weather, will be blamed on non-existent global warming and honoured with a name so that we can all have three or four named storms in a week.

And now they believe that medical care must be cut back to protect the planet from us. We are the enemy. We must be culled.

The conspirators have decided (without evidence, research or permission) that medical care must be restricted in every way to satisfy their absurd pseudoscience. Their arrogance is so complete that they impose their cultish view upon the public without sharing their plans, without debate, without any democratic oversight and without any attempts to evaluate the effect their plans will have upon the public health. The conspirators and their cult followers are as interested in the health and well-being of you and I as serial killers are interested in the health and well-being of their victims.

Global warming is used as an excuse to destroy health care and to kill people – as part of the depopulation programme. Remember, global warming was invented in order to provide an excuse for carrying out a depopulation programme and for introducing all the restrictions and laws which now control our lives.

Medical care has already deteriorated to the point where it is now true to say that the medical care we have today is worse than the medical care that was available over half a century ago. That’s how bad things are already. And unless we stop them, everything is going to get worse – much worse.

Since the United Nations was founded, back in the 1940s, human beings have been the enemy, and the aim of the self-appointed saviours of the world has been the formation of a world government and the transfer of all power and money to a tiny elite of malignant self-described philanthropists.

It was during the lockdowns which began in 2020 that both general practitioners and hospitals cut back their services very considerably. Cowardly general practitioners dressed from head to toe in utterly pointless but expensive PPE apparel and hid under their desks to avoid the flu. Many of them insisted on providing consultations exclusively by telephone and by computer. The evidence shows unequivocally that attempting to diagnose and treat patients by telephone, or over an internet connection, is so dangerous as to be worse than useless.

In 2024, medical journals around the world suddenly started to print articles arguing that health care was a major cause of global warming. The hysteria was almost palpable and it became clear that the left-wing cultists had recruited the global medical establishment as another weapon against mankind and were using the mythical and unscientific nonsense known as global warming as an excuse to destroy medical care.

The destruction of health care is a way to reduce the global population for the great reset.

In the UK, the initial warning shot fired in the direction of patients was a publication produced by the NHS. The publication, called ‘Delivering a Net Zero National Health Service’ ‘set ambitions on reaching Net Zero for emissions controlled directly by the NHS by 2040 and for emissions influenced by the NHS by 2045’.

I believe that the document is probably one of the most insane but depressing productions I’ve come across in a lifetime’s encounters with insane publications. The publication has what it calls a “10 point green plan for practices.” The first of these is to “declare a practice climate and nature crisis” assuming that a mere declaration will turn a myth into reality. The next few items include advice to “optimise inhalers,” “calculate the practice’s carbon footprint,” “monitor and reduce your practice’s energy usage” and “consider switching your business banking provider to a green bank.” The next item on the list concerns “environmental prescribing and treatment” and the first suggestion here is that doctors “consider non-pharmaceutical interventions such as ‘green social prescribing” or an increase in physical activity. I had to look up “green social prescribing” and I found that it is “the practice of supporting people to engage in nature-based interventions and activities to improve their mental and physical health.” Apparently, the NHS now employs “social prescribing link workers” who will connect people to community groups and agencies for practical and emotional support. Digging a little further, I found that this means “local walking schemes, community gardening projects, conservation volunteering, open water swimming or arts and cultural activities which take place outdoors.” Wonderful. “You have pneumonia, Mrs. Reeves. I’m sending you down to the river to do a little open-water swimming in the sewage.” “You have a vaccine-damaged heart, Mr. Starmer, so I’ve prescribed a week’s cultural activities for you.”

There is also a recommendation to begin “de-prescribing in frailty.” I had absolutely no idea what “de-prescribing in frailty” means so I looked it up and it seems to mean not giving too many medicines to patients – particularly old and frail ones. This is something I’ve been writing about since the 1970s but I never thought to describe it as “de-prescribing in frailty.” And there is a suggestion that prescription durations should be appropriate for the course of medication required. This comes under the same heading as telling old people to drink plenty when the weather is hot and to put on a scarf and hat when it’s cold.

Next, we come to a suggestion that doctors “continue remote consultations where appropriate.” And this was the point in the report where I exploded and threw my reading glasses across the room because remote consultations, although now extremely popular with lazy GPs (who prefer to avoid actually doing what they are paid for), are almost never appropriate. Any doctor providing remote consultations (whether by telephone or computer) should be boiled in oil, hung, drawn and quartered, tarred and feathered and then have their licence surgically removed with a spoon. The telephone’s place in medicine is to be used as a tool for patients to ask the doctor to come and visit them at home. But that doesn’t happen now because doctors, taking full advantage of the global warming myth, don’t get out of bed much anymore.

The rest of the report was just rubbish. Next on the list was “Engage, educate and empower patients to take individual action on the climate crisis for the benefit of their health.” Since there is absolutely no climate crisis, this suggestion was clearly superfluous. And if there were a crisis, I’m not quite sure what individual patients are supposed to do about it other than worry.

And then on the list came the suggestion to “promote active transport for both staff and patients.” I had to look this up as well, and although I originally thought it might mean walking or bicycling, it doesn’t. “Active transport” is defined as the movement of molecules or ions across a cell membrane from a region of lower concentration to a region of higher concentration – against the concentration gradient.’ I hope you are confused by this because I certainly am.

Next on the list they suggested “using scrap paper and paper clips instead of post-it notes” and “opting for naturally wrapped treats such as satsumas or snacks with compostable or recyclable packaging.” I was startled by this. I had never previously thought of the satsuma as having such a significant role to play in medicine but there you go.

There is also a suggestion called “Revolution Zero” which is defined as using reusable masks. I don’t know why they didn’t just call it “using reusable masks” but people who get excited about satsumas probably also get excited by phrases like “Revolution Zero.”

Number 10 on the list is “Use the green impact for health toolkit” which is, I suspect, the title of the whole thing, including the stuff about active transport, doing something with satsumas and GPs doing their morning surgeries on the telephone without wasting energy by getting out of bed.

In America, the first formal interest in using global warming to destroy health care came with the claim that in the US, the health care sector was responsible for 8.5 per cent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The suggestion which I found in a report from the Ways and Means Committee Democrats and a story under the headline ‘How the US Health Care System Contributes to Climate Change’ was that “Health systems must learn to adapt to a changing climate, but they also can take steps to mitigate the level of carbon emissions they produce.”

Readers were told that “climate change is already devastating the planet” and that the “negative health effects of climate induced crises disproportionately impact groups that are already at risk, including people of colour, people with low income, people with pre-existing health conditions, older adults and children.” They didn’t explain why people of colour are more likely to be impacted by the “devastation” they say is already affecting the planet but they did say that “climate change disrupts the health systems ability to deliver safe, effective care.” Again, no evidence was offered for this bizarre claim.

The Committee on Ways and Means Chair sent out a request for information to hospitals and health systems to find out how climate events had impacted them. The conclusion from the respondents was summed up as “The climate crisis knows no bounds.”

A majority of respondents told the Committee that they had experienced at least one extreme weather event in the last five years. There was no definition of an extreme weather event but I assume the respondents meant they had experienced a very windy day, a very hot day or a very cold day. I think that an analysis of people in any century would report much the same.

This utter gibberish helped prepare the ground for the destruction of medicine. And with the ground prepared, the next move was to start laying the foundation stones for the takeover of medicine and the deliberate, cold-blooded destruction of health care.

In a paper entitled ‘How clinicians can lead climate action to protect patients and the planet’, it was argued that clinicians must “embrace their roles in creating an environmentally sustainable health care system to protect patients and the planet” and that the “US health care system must be more proactive in mitigating climate change, and clinicians have a big role to play.”

Once again, the assumption was made that global warming is real. That’s really not how science is supposed to work. You can’t just say, “The best way to treat pneumonia is to give patients a bowl of custard” or “The best cure for gout is rhubarb pie.” You need evidence before making a claim. And there isn’t any.

The paper says that there are several reasons why all clinicians should get involved in reducing health care’s alleged contribution to climate change.

First, they claim that climate change leads to public health damage (though they offer no evidence) and reducing this damage is a moral, professional and public health imperative for clinicians. And that’s rubbish too. Clinicians have one responsibility only: to do the best to diagnose, treat and care for their patients. That’s it.

Second, they allege that clinicians are among the most respected professionals in society and can influence patient care, policy and advocacy. They say that “their leadership role can serve as an example for other sectors that intersect with health, including food, agriculture, transportation, plastics, waste and fossil fuels.” I’m afraid I doubt that clinicians are still respected. The covid vaccine fiasco pretty well destroyed that. And I don’t think that even if they are still respected, doctors have any responsibility to promote the dangerous pseudoscience that is leading us directly into Net Zero – something that is causing illness and death on a global scale.

Third, they claim that “impact from climate change causes preventable harm to patients, the public and the planet.” Once again, they don’t offer any evidence because there isn’t any evidence. There’s a lot of hot air but hot air isn’t scientific evidence. The paper also states that “climate change impact could create harm similar in magnitude to that caused by medical errors.” I agree that medical errors cause massive harm (one in six people in hospital is there because they’ve been made ill by a doctor, and every year millions of patients are killed by doctors) but before making changes to adapt to a non-existent problem, wouldn’t it be wise to deal with an acknowledged real problem (the growing incidence of iatrogenesis)?

So, what does all this mean?

Well, it apparently means using environmentally friendly inhalers and yoga, and there’s a lot of the usual sort of chatter about “organisational sustainability efforts.” (I believe it is now illegal to discuss global warming without using the word “sustainability” on a regular basis.) And there is talk of environmentally friendly products and services and the need to build awareness and enable change. The whole thing sounds like a leaflet published and distributed at a nutty conference for sandal-wearing alternative health fanatics. Disappointingly, there was no mention of the role of satsumas in the American recommendations.

The medical profession has now become more hysterical. It is repeatedly claimed that “climate change is the leading threat to global health.” Solutions offered included “moving care out of hospitals” and “avoiding unnecessary interventions” – that means treatment. It was officially claimed that dealing with global warming had the support of both the public and NHS staff. Once again, no evidence for this was offered.

It was argued that “one seasonal influenza vaccination has an estimated carbon footprint over 14 times smaller than the treatment of one case of influenza.”

However, this self-serving statement (guaranteed to delight the drug industry) was not accompanied by any evidence that the two are linked. How many patients who are vaccinated avoid developing influenza? (Sorry, we don’t have that figure available.) How many patients are killed or seriously injured by flu vaccines? (Sorry, we can’t tell you that because it’s a secret.) This bizarre and unscientific nonsense about the flu jab is a clue to the future they have planned for us. Our designated future will be dominated by vaccines (especially the toxic, unproven, untested mRNA vaccines) and being jabbed with yet more untested, probably toxic vaccines will be compulsory. (I warned about compulsory vaccination in my book ‘Anyone who tells you vaccines are safe and effective is lying’.) We will be told that because of global warming, we have to rely on preventative vaccination programmes.

It is stated that by discharging hospital patients earlier, huge amounts of money and carbon dioxide can be saved. There is, of course, no evidence that patients who are discharged earlier are more (or less) likely to live. And no one seems to have bothered to find out whether patients who are discharged earlier need to go back into hospital.

It is stated that “delivering hospital care in a home setting can also bring carbon savings.” And financial savings. But there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that hospital patients who are treated at home do as well as patients who are treated in hospital. Isn’t this something that should be tested in properly conducted experiments rather than plucked out of the air as something that seems like a “good idea”?

It was also stated that “lower carbon alternatives can be sought” in hospitals. And so, it was suggested that alternatives to a popular anaesthetic gas should be used. Sadly, I haven’t found any evidence of experiments proving that the alternatives are as safe and as effective. They may be cheaper and they may have a lower carbon footprint. But do they work as efficiently and as safely? That, it seems, is the sort of question that shouldn’t be asked. The policy seems to be to find ways to please the global warming cultists without bothering to make sure that the alternatives are as safe and as effective.

Junior doctors in some areas have been told to devote half or more of their time to “quality improvement related to environmental sustainability.” This will doubtless help increase waiting lists and unnecessary deaths.

But the big trend today is the virtual appointment.

What, exactly, is a virtual hospital appointment?

At first glance, it sounds as if patients at home are linked up electronically to the hospital so that they can be examined and tested and interviewed in the comfort of their own home. That’s what it sounds like: an appointment without an uncomfortable chair, a five-hour wait and a lending library of germs.

Actually, I’ll tell you what a virtual appointment consists of. A virtual appointment is a bloody telephone call. If you need to go into hospital for an operation, they’ll do your pre-op examination on the telephone. A telephone call is what they now call a virtual appointment. You can’t check a blood pressure or listen to a heart on the telephone. But in a virtual appointment, that’s all you get. And when they throw you out of hospital and send you home, your post-operative check-up will consist of … guess what? You’re right, a phone call again.

And that’s it. Your virtual appointments may last no more than a minute. It could take up less time than a wrong number.

And has anyone done any research to see whether those patients who were treated virtually were as well looked after as the patients who were actually seen in a hospital?

Don’t be silly. That would probably be bad for the environment.

Virtual appointments have been such a huge success in saving money and cutting down travel (and, I suspect, in killing people) that virtual wards are now being introduced.

We are assured that virtual wards will enable hospital staff to monitor patients “through physical devices and integrated software.”

Are virtual wards safe? Are they good for patients?

Well, I couldn’t find any research about that but I can tell you that a great deal of information has been published about costings and costing models. The estimated cost saving per patient was £742.44.

Brilliant, eh?

Virtual wards mean that hospital staff can work from home. The patient can stay at home and the medical staff can stay at home. The two groups need never meet at all. No more bedpans, no more dirty bed sheets.

The virtual ward will operate from 8 am to 8 pm. Patients won’t be allowed to fall ill outside those hours. No more annoying nighttime emergencies. People who disobey the rules and fall ill at night are allowed to die. And that’s it.

And patients will be involved in decision making. Actually, from what I’ve seen, they may well be making all the decisions.

The savage truth about the future of medicine was apparent when the Royal College of General Practitioners in the UK finally succumbed to the lunacy and published a publication entitled ‘Green Physician Toolkit’ though it would, perhaps, have been more accurately described as “How to kill patients, do less work and still feel good about yourself.”

The booklet began by claiming that “climate change is one of the biggest threats to human health” and is “projected to cause an excess of 250,000 deaths per year by 2050” (no evidence whatsoever was offered for this rather bizarre and exotic proposal). Readers were warned that the UK would not be immune from the effects of extreme heat, flooding or the inevitable arrival of climate refugees.

The authors of the publication claim that 2022 was the hottest year on record, causing 3,000 excess deaths. (Naturally, no evidence was offered for this claim which, having lived through much hotter years I do not believe for a second, and there was no mention of the fact that if the weather does become warmer then the number of people dying from cold will presumably fall from the current level of between 60,000 and 100,000. Global warming would reduce deaths, not increase them.)

The UK Health Security Agency was quoted as saying that heat-related deaths could increase by 10,899 per year between now and the 2050s. Naturally, no evidence was offered for this remarkably specific estimate which would, it should be noted, still produce far fewer deaths than the usual cold of a British winter. It is interesting to note that the specific figures quoted are rather reminiscent of the very specific figures quoted for deaths from covid-19 at the beginning of the pandemic hoax.

You will doubtless be relieved to know that the RCGP has produced an impressive list of ways in which doctors are encouraged to deal with the alleged global warming scare. They suggest that doctors “ensure both initiation of medication and on-going use is decided in collaboration with patients by using shared decision-making guidance.” They want doctors to switch from intravenous to oral antibiotics (though this is surely a clinical decision). And there is the usual heavy-duty bureaucracy so popular with global warming cultists. Doctors are encouraged “to identify your sustainability lead clinical and the sustainability lead on the board” and to “incorporate climate change and sustainable health care as a standing item in all clinical governance meetings.” Doctors are told to “make sure to use the right bin” and to “think twice before making a request (for blood testing).” And doctors are told to reduce unnecessary prescriptions. I’d have thought that cutting out all unnecessary prescriptions should have been part of every doctor’s professional life since they first slung a stethoscope around their neck in earnest.

And there is the killer (literally) advice to offer remote consultations and remote monitoring where clinically appropriate. Lazy doctors have leapt upon this advice as an excuse to stop seeing patients but actually remote consultations are never, ever appropriate.

Doctors are told that they should “where appropriate look for opportunities to communicate digitally, thus reducing road transportation-related pollution.”

And this, of course, is why doctors no longer visit patients at home and subsequently why there is no effective health care in Britain. (Without GPs doing home visits, neither the ambulance service nor Accident and Emergency Departments can cope).

There is advice to switch patients with asthma to inhalers containing a steroid (though I have not seen any research evidence offered to show that this is safe or effective). Doctors are simply told that “most people are open to moving to a new Maintenance and Reliever Therapy inhaler and regime when recommended by their asthma healthcare professional.” Of course they are. Most people would stand on their head in a bucket of custard if told by their “asthma healthcare professional” that it would cure their asthma.

And there is also a list of some tips from the World Health Organisation. Doctors are told to tell their patients about how global warming is a threat to their health. (Apparently, four people have died in Italy due to extreme heat.) But by far my favourite tip is number ten on the list: “Don’t debate the science.”

Everything I’ve just told you comes from my new book ‘The End of Medicine’ which is well over 300 pages long and is packed with scary evidence of the ways in which doctors are being paid to kill rather than cure. So, for example, the incidence of sepsis has exploded since doctors became reluctant to prescribe antibiotics. And there’s a big section on the horrors promised by nanotechnology. It’s not surprising that the number of people being killed by doctors is soaring. It’s not happening by accident.

If I haven’t been banned completely, you can find out how to buy a copy by visiting the bookshop on [my website]. Banning books is very fashionable these days. Germany just banned my books. Again. They wanted to burn them but the climate nutters wouldn’t allow them to have a bonfire.

At the end, the book contains practical advice on how best you can look after yourself and your family. And please don’t worry that the book is going to make me rich. It isn’t. I’d have made far more money if I’d monetised this video – which I haven’t.

Please get everyone you know to watch this video. We can only win by sharing information.

Thank you for watching an Old Man in a Chair.

Source:  https://expose-news.com/2025/04/06/death-by-doctor/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchut,e.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Death by doctor: why and how doctors are now paid to kill their patients (video) appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

A prominent economist has been exposed as a “paid puppet” after it was revealed he’s been bankrolled by leftist groups to push efforts to oppose President Donald Trump’s Department of Government Effeciency (DOGE).

Oren Cass, who served as a senior advisor to former Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), was believed to be trying to influence the Trump administration’s economic policies in the lead-up to the inauguration.

However, Cass is now facing criticism for his opposition to Trump and Elon Musk’s DOGE efforts in line with the resistance from some of his top donors.

Cass, the founder and chief economist at American Compass, told Politico in February:

“Elon Musk is not actually a popular person, and the frame of politics that the DOGE crew is pushing is not an effective brand of politics.”

Also in February, Cass wrote a piece for UnHerd titled, “Why DOGE will fail: There isn’t an easy button for everything.”

In the article, he argued that “DOGE is haphazardly cutting expenditures without even knowing what they are.”

Cass has a long history of criticizing Musk.

Last year, he took shots at Musk’s personal character.

He said in a post on X that Musk’s values are not aligned with the interests of the American people.

In March 2024, Cass posted that Musk has “already committed to upholding core socialist values” to placate the Chinese Communist Party for financial gain.

Cass has been positioning himself as an ally of the Trump administration.

However,  a significant chunk of American Compass’s funding comes from a handful of foundations tied to liberal causes.

Those donations include almost $2 million from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Omidyar Network, which is led by a founder described as “notable for funding liberal-in-conservative clothing groups that target former president Donald Trump and his supporters.”

The Hewlett Foundation gave nearly $2 million, 44.1% of total funding, to American Compass from 2020-2023, including a startup grant.

Meanwhile, Pierre Omidyar of the Omidyar Network gave $550,000, 11.3% of total funding, from 2020-2023.

Both the Hewlett Foundation and Omidyar Network have worked against the Trump administration.

Hewlett Foundation Director of Economic and Society Initiative Jennifer Harris has been critical of Musk and DOGE’s efforts on X.

Harris cast doubt that DOGE cuts would result in actual savings and shared a post that said:

“The Air Crashes Of The Past Two Days Show Us the Obvious: The Man in Charge of @DOGE Runs Companies That No One Would Miss If They Disappeared Tomorrow.

“If Good Government Disappears, People Die.”

The anti-Trump “news” outlet The Atlantic posted a piece in February with the headline, “DOGE Is Failing on Its Own Terms.”

The bottom of the propaganda article stated:

“Support for this project was provided by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.”

The Omidyar Network has been active behind the scenes pushing resistance against Musk and the Trump administration, the Washington Examiner reported in November.

The group has opposed Musk in various forms and previously backed corporate boycotts against Musk, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

Along with his criticism of DOGE, Cass has been a vocal opponent of another one of the Trump administration’s top priorities, tax cuts.

Despite offering some praise of Trump, Cass has been a longtime critic of the president’s 2017 tax cuts.

He called the cuts an “expensive failure” and said Trump’s support is facing an “inevitable expiration.”

In September 2020, he added that Trump is “building no intellectual foundation, no institutional infrastructure and no policy agenda.”

In a statement, Mike Palicz, director of Americans for Tax Reform, said:

“Oren Cass is a former Romney staffer upset that Trump is cutting taxes and cutting government spending.

“DOGE shouldn’t care about the political assessment of a man who just lost a local school board election.”

Cass previously worked as a senior economic advisor on the presidential campaigns of Mitt Romney in 2008 and 2012.

David McIntosh, Club for Growth president, said in a statement:

“So American Compass opposes the Trump tax cuts, and now Elon Musk’s work to cut federal government waste, it’s almost like he’s just a paid-puppet of the Left – oh wait, he is.”

After Trump’s 2024 election victory, Cass continued to signal opposition to Trump’s tax policy.

Source:  https://slaynews.com/news/former-mitt-romney-advisor-exposed-paid-puppet-behind-anti-doge-efforts/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchut,e.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Former Mitt Romney Advisor Exposed as ‘Paid Puppet’ Behind Anti-DOGE Efforts appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

A British farmer has said that the government has offered a scheme to pay farmers not to supply food for three years. This scheme is part of a larger trend where farmers are being financially incentivised by the state to reduce food production.  Why would they do that?

Last week, TrailBlazingTruths posted a video clip on TikTok of Cornish farmer Keith Andrews explaining how the UK government is incentivising farmers not to grow food.

“We’ve been offered £2,500 to join a scheme for the next three years where we don’t supply you any food,” he said.

“I’m going to plough a field.  I’m going to put spring barley in.  I’m going to get £440 off the Government, per acre. Then when it comes to crop size, leave it [to] rot in the ground.

“So, I don’t get no straw for the cattle, you don’t get nothing for your bread, for everything we make.

“I can also plant bee mix which is for birds and bees.  I can plant wild bird seed which is for wild birds.

“I can also be paid to buy a tonne of bird seed, like anybody puts in their garden for the birds, and threw it out on the ground once a week.  I can get paid for that.

“My accountant says ‘do it’.  Because in doing that, I’ve not got to buy fertiliser – which since the Ukraine war it’s gone from £250 a tonne to £1,000 a tonne, so in order to fertilise your food I’ve got to buy fertiliser at £1,000 a tonne.

“So, I’ve now got a crop that I don’t have to spray, I don’t have to send nobody out there with a tractor, I don’t have to fertilise it or I can just leave it in the ground to rot.”

We were unable to establish details for when or where Andrew’s speech was given.  However, the government incentivisation Andrews referred to has been in place for a couple of years and has been expanded and the incentives increased over time.

A scheme to pay farmers for actions they take, going beyond regulatory requirements, to manage their land in an “environmentally sustainable” way was set out by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (“Defra”) in their Agricultural Transition Plan 2021 to 2024.

Called the Sustainable Farming Incentive (“SFI”), the scheme is made up of a set of specified standards and is open to all farmers and occupiers with management control. It is one of three that make up the environmental land management (“ELM”) schemes, which replaced the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy.

The ELM schemes have the stated aim of “support[ing] the rural economy while achieving the goals of the 25 Year Environment Plan and a commitment to net zero carbon emissions by 2050.”  This alone tells us that the schemes have dubious origins and motives.

SFI was launched by the UK government in 2022 following an earlier pilot.  In June 2023, the Government launched a “new and improved” SFI 2023 offering farmers additional actions and more flexibility to choose the actions they want to get paid for, offering more than twice as many new SFI actions as originally planned.

Incentivising farmers to plant hedgerows instead of crops, Minister of State at Defra Sir Mark Spencer said: “There’s no minimum or maximum land area or hedgerow length, so farmers can choose how much land to cover with their SFI agreement.”

In September 2023, Defra posted a blog which demonstrated that they hadn’t thought through the dire consequences of their eco-activism:

Through SFI, our aim is to support farming and farmers. We want to protect and improve the environment, food production and food security. We obviously don’t want SFI to be used in a way that comes at a cost to any of them.

We know that sometimes sparing land for a year, or 2 or 3 can make food production more resilient and can support farmers to achieve better margins from their land. Some of our SFI actions do take land out of food production for a short time, which helps farmers do this.

The evidence shows that a small number of farmers, roughly 1% of those who applied for SFI in 2023, entered 80% or more of their farm into actions that involve taking land out of food production.

While flexibility and freedom of choice are important features of SFI, we think this goes further than is necessary. And, in the context of economic volatility and challenging weather conditions, there is a risk that this could become more of an issue.

The Sustainable Farming Incentive, UK Government, 13 September 2024

Defra’s warning about food security was issued in September 2023.  But this warning was ignored a few months later with the announcement of yet more upgrades to the scheme.

In November 2023, Steve Barclay was appointed the Secretary of State for Defra.  Within two months, he announced “the biggest upgrade to the UK’s farming schemes since leaving the European Union.”  These upgrades included:

Enhanced payments for ‘creation’ and ‘maintenance’ options to improve the long term incentives for farmers to create habitats and ensure they are rewarded for looking after habitats once they have created them.

Premium payments for actions with the biggest environmental impact or combinations of actions that deliver benefits at scale, such as £765 per hectare for nesting plots for lapwing, and £1,242 per hectare for connecting river and floodplain habitat.

Biggest upgrade to UK farming schemes introduced by the Government since leaving the EU, UK Government, 4 January 2024

In May 2024, the UK government finally realised their folly.  The scheme proved so popular to struggling farmers that the Government was forced to issue a crackdown, warning that growers could only take 25 per cent of their land out of direct food production for environmental projects.

The Telegraph reported that Mark Spencer, the Minister of State for Food, Farming and Fisheries, said the initiative “was always intended to be implemented on smaller areas of land … Food production is the primary purpose of farming and we are taking action to clarify this principle.”

Farmers, and the public at large, don’t need to be told that the primary purpose of farming is food production.  And farmers, and the public at large, would have implemented policies to support farmers to grow more food, not less.

Keith Andrews is not the only farmer issuing warnings about the Government’s policies.  In April, Jeremy Clarkson warned that farmers are being incentivised not to produce food and said he has stopped growing food in some of his fields because it is more profitable to take government eco handouts.

Writing in the Sunday Times magazine, he said: “I have signed up to the government’s eco-friendly grant scheme and will be planting things that aren’t food in three fields.

“They’re good for the soil and they’re good for my bank balance. But it means I’m not growing stuff people can eat,” Clarkson said.

“I know one chap who has taken 60 per cent of his farm out of food production and he’s not alone. So, yippee. All that stored carbon and all of that fixed-in nitrogen.

“But what if you want some bread? You’ll have to get a loaf made from wheat that was grown abroad. And how’s that good for global warming?”

In the video below, Russel Brand highlighted the issue raised by Clarkson and asked, why would you incentivise farmers to not grow food?

Source:  https://expose-news.com/2024/07/23/british-farmers-are-being-paid-to-leave-crops/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post British farmers are being paid to leave crops rotting in the ground or to “plant” food for the birds appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.