Category Archives: Crimes Against Children

As Big Tech Censored Doctors and Scientists, 2021 Set a Record for Child Sexual Abuse on Their Platforms

Matt Agorist 
January 22, 2022

Originally Published @ The Free Thought Project

Last month, Twitter permanently banned Dr. Robert Malone — who has widely been credited with inventing the mRNA technology used in the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 immunizations. Following the Twitter ban, Dr. Malone appeared on the Joe Rogan podcast, in one of the most viral episodes ever. That podcast and all subsequent clips were then banned from YouTube.

Malone wasn’t inciting hatred toward groups of people or calling for an overthrow of the US government. He was merely presenting facts that were inconvenient to the established narrative, and for this, he was memory-holed by the arbiters of information in big tech.

Peaceful discourse over the last two years has become an enemy to the status quo. No longer can the plebes question their rulers on official channels. Instead, they are pushed to the outskirts of the internet and logical well-formed arguments are then mixed in with dark and ridiculous conspiracy theories in what appears to be a deliberate act to stifle free thought.

Dr. Malone was just one of many esteemed minds who have been unceremoniously silenced into oblivion by big tech as these information controllers delete content that runs counter to their narrative. They claim this mass censorship and narrative control is carried out to keep you safe. But as a recent report from The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) illustrates, as big tech clamps down on free speech, they allow child sexual abuse to not only spread — but flourish.

According to the  new data from IWF, online sexual exploitation of 7-10 year olds exploded in 2021 with a 300% increase.  This increase was part of a record-breaking number of child sexual abuse images being transferred and exchanged on platforms who rampantly censor doctors and scientists for challenging the status quo.

Thanks to government imposed lockdowns and “virtual learning” more children were online last year, which increased their odds of encountering sexual predators.

According to IWF, the foundation received more complaints about child sexual abuse images, also known as child pornography, in 2021, than they have in the last 15 years combined.

Social media sites like Facebook and Twitter are increasingly being used by child predators for grooming and sexual exploitation, according to the data — even children who parents may consider “too young” to be in danger.

As advocacy group, Parents Together Action points out, while parents are a critical part of keeping kids safe online, tech platforms also need to address the massive and growing problem of online child sexual abuse. The IWF data is Europe-centric data about an international problem, which US-based tech companies have a unique opportunity to protect children from.

Unfortunately, however, these tech companies are seemingly more concerned with banning folks for questioning the safety of vaccinations and covid protocols than they are with protecting children — and the data proves it.

Not only are these companies not interested in stopping child sex abuse on their platforms, but as TFTP reported, they are profiting from it. While banning those who question the status quo, Twitter is alleged in a lawsuit to have victimized children by knowingly allowing a video of them to go viral.

The victims sued the platform alleging that it benefitted financially by failing to remove the video featuring the children — which was retweeted thousands of times and garnered nearly 200,000 views.

To be clear, this was not a mistake that simply didn’t pick up on the nature of the content. The boy and his mother, according to the lawsuit, repeatedly contacted Twitter about the content, but the social media giant allegedly didn’t suspend accounts distributing it until a federal agent from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) intervened.

In fact, according to the lawsuit, Twitter even responded to the boy and his mother via email and said the child porn did not violate its policies. According to the suit, an email shows Twitter telling John Doe on Jan. 28, 2020, that it “reviewed the content, and didn’t find a violation of our policies, so no action will be taken at this time.”

“What do you mean you don’t see a problem?” the minor asks in a response that same day. “We both are minors right now and were minors at the time these videos were taken. We both were 13 years of age.”

A subsequent screen shot shows that the video accumulated 167,000 views within a day and received more than 2,200 retweets and 6,640 likes.

Facebook is just as guilty.

As Facebook moves the needle on censorship of free speech to an all time high, last year, they were sued in the Texas Supreme Court for allowing child predators to groom and recruit children for sex-trafficking.

The group sued Facebook for negligence and product liability, saying that Facebook failed to warn about or attempt to prevent sex trafficking from taking place on its internet platforms. The suits also alleged that Facebook benefited from the sexual exploitation of trafficking victims, according to a report in the Houston Chronicle.

The three victims accused Facebook of “running “an unrestricted platform to stalk, exploit, recruit, groom, and extort children into the sex trade.” One was 15 when an older man contacted her on Facebook, offered her a modeling job, photographed her, posted the pictures on the now-defunct BackPage website, and prostituted her to other men, leading her to be “raped, beaten, and forced into further sex trafficking.” The other two girls were 14, and reported almost identical experiences, with one openly pimped out for “dates” on Instagram, a Facebook subsidiary,” Graham Dockery explained.

Facebook lawyers argued the company was shielded from liability under Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which states that what users say or write online is not akin to a publisher conveying the same message.

This should totally be the case, but if Facebook can claim Section 230 on child trafficking, then why do they target and eliminate political speech so viciously? If Facebook does not act as a neutral party and removes peaceful anti-establishment content, they have no legal basis to claim entitlement under Section 230. Neither does Twitter.

As the great purge of anti-establishment views continues, remember that these companies who claim they have your best interests in mind, are deleting potentially life-saving discourse while child predators thrive on their platforms.

Could Ghislaine Maxwell Walk? Motion for Retrial Officially Filed After Shock Juror Admission

Isa Cox, The Western Journal
Published January 20, 2022

Attorneys for convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell filed a motion for a retrial on Wednesday after a revelation from a member of the jury that he was abused as a child.

As this information did not come to light before Maxwell’s trial, which began in November, the defense could get exactly what it’s after and, theoretically, the longtime accused madame could ultimately walk free.

Oh boy.

The juror accounted that he helped talk his peers into convicting the notorious British socialite, which Maxwell attorney Bobbi Sternheim cited in a letter to U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan requesting a new trial.

Both prosecutors and the defense raised concerns about the juror’s revelation earlier this month, The Hill reported, with the state requesting that the judge open an investigation into the issue. Maxwell’s attorneys, however, are pressing for a whole new trial instead.

Maxwell was convicted last month on several charges relating to her one-time boyfriend, the late Jeffrey Epstein, and an underage sex trafficking scheme over which the two have long been accused of conducting.

Four accusers detailed how they were befriended, groomed and essentially served to Epstein to sexually abuse by the wealthy, well-connected Maxwell and a jury convicted her on five out of six federal sex trafficking charges.

Scotty David, as he was identified by media outlets he spoke with earlier this month, says that some of his fellow jurors weren’t sure of Maxwell’s guilt until he shared his own experience of childhood sexual abuse, which caused some of them to “come around.”

“When I shared that, they were able to sort of come around on, they were able to come around on the memory aspect of the sexual abuse,” David told Reuters on Jan. 5.

He also said that coming to a unanimous verdict “wasn’t easy, to be honest.”

“There’s a room of 12 people and we all have to be on the same page and we all have to understand what’s going on,” he said. “And then we have to agree. So that’s partly why it took so long.”

According to the New York Post, David said he swayed the jury by explaining why he had waited until high school to tell anyone about the abuse he suffered when questions arose about why Maxwell’s accusers had also waited a long time to come forward.

Maxwell’s attorneys argued that the women, who testified as to events that happened in the ’90s when they were teenagers, had unreliable and exaggerated memories of their relationship with Maxwell and Epstein.

Jurors were asked if they or their family had a history of sexual abuse, but David said he didn’t remember being asked about this in the initial questionnaire, which he “flew through.”

His failure to disclose his childhood experiences, all the same, could be sufficient for Alison to grant the defense a retrial.

Can you even imagine if Maxwell managed to slip the hook at this point, after all this time?

She and Epstein have been accused of the twisted scheme for years. And call me a bit tin foil hatty, but considering all the shadowy circumstances surrounding their respective lives, it’s hard not to raise an eyebrow.

Just saying.

The technicality could see Maxwell walk, a devastating ending to nearly two years’ effort in the pursuit of justice for their accusers.

Is it really going to come down to this?

We’ll just have to wait and see.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

Convicted Pedophile Funneled Millions In Foreign Cash Into Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Campaign

Convicted pedophile, UAE adviser and central witness in former special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, George Nader, has pleaded guilty to his role in helping the UAE funnel millions of dollars in illegal campaign contributions into US campaigns during the 2016 presidential election, according to The Intercept, citing federal court documents filed last month.

In a December sentencing memo, federal prosecutors disclosed that Nader had agreed months early to plead guilty to a single count of felony conspiracy to defraud the US government by pumping millions in donations to Hillary Clinton’s campaign – concealing the foreign origin of the funds.

Nader conspired to hide the funds “out of a desire to lobby on behalf and advance the interests of his client, the government of the United Arab Emirates,” according to the prosecutors’ sentencing memo. Nader received the money for the illegal donations from the UAE government, the memo said. The filing marks the first time that the U.S. government has explicitly accused the UAE, a close ally, of illegally seeking to buy access to candidates during a presidential election.

Nader’s guilty plea opens a new window into the efforts of the United Arab Emirates and its de facto ruler, Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed, known as MBZ, to influence the outcome of the 2016 election and shape subsequent U.S. policy in the Gulf. The government’s memo notes that Nader and Los Angeles businessperson Ahmad “Andy” Khawaja also sought to cultivate “key figures” in the Trump campaign and that Khawaja donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee. It is unclear where that money came from. -The Intercept

Nader is accused of taking instructions from UAE Crown Prince MBZ, and gave regular updates on his efforts to get close to Clinton.

In total, Nader transferred nearly $5 million from his UAE business to Khawaja – CEO of a Los Angeles-based payment processing company. According to prosecutors, the funds were disguised as a routine business contract between the two men. Of the total transferred, more than $3.5 million came from the UAE government and was given to pro-Clinton Democratic political committees. Prosecutors have yet to publicly identify what happened to the remaining $1.4 million Nader transferred to Khawaja.

In 2016, Khawaja co-hosted an August fundraiser for Clinton which included a laundry list of high-profile guests, including Univision owner Haim Saban, movie mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg and basketball legend Magic Johnson, according to the report. According to the indictment, Khawaja conspired with six other individuals to conceal his excessive contributions. Others who were indicted were also linked to donations to Clinton and other Democrats.

The indictment quotes an alleged encrypted message that Nader sent an official from Foreign Country A via WhatsApp after Khawaja contributed $275,000 and invited Nader to attend and April 16, 2016, event for presidential Candidate 1.

Wonderful meeting with the Big Lady . . . Cant wait to tell you about it, Nader allegedly wrote, in an apparent reference to Clinton.

The indictment noted that political committees that received funding unwittingly submitted false disclosure reports and were presumably victims of the plot. Still, Hillary Clinton apparently attended numerous events, including small gatherings, with Nader, who on July 19, 2016, messaged the foreign official a photograph of him with Candidate 1s spouse an apparent reference to Bill Clinton at Khawajas home. –Washington Post

Prosecutors have sought a five-year sentence for Nader – after he completes the 10-year sentence he’s currently serving for possessing child pornography, and for sex-trafficking a minor to the US “for the purpose of engaging in criminal sexual activity.”

Nader was arrested in January 2018 at Dulles Airport by agents working for Mueller. A search of his iPhones revealed child pornography, which we imagine was used as leverage to gain his cooperation. Three months later, prosecutors filed charges against Nader for the images – however they were filed under seal and kept secret from Nader’s lawyers while he was working with Mueller.

In July of 2017 – 15 months after Mueller let a serial pedophile roam the streets in the hopes he’d be able to nail Trump, Nader was finally indicted on both the child porn and for sex-trafficking a 14-year-old boy.

And of course, Mueller knew about Nader’s 1991 conviction on child pornography charges in the US – for which he served only six months in a halfway house thanks to his role in helping to free American hostages in Beirut. He was also convicted in the Czech Republic in 2003 on 10 counts of having sex with underage boys, and eventually received a one-year prison sentence.

Read the rest of the report here.

Yeesh: Lawyers Reveal Disturbing Questions Prince Andrew Will Be Forced to Answer over Epstein Allegations

What a royal mess.

After a New York federal judge denied Prince Andrew’s legal team’s motion to dismiss accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s civil case against him on Wednesday, the Duke of York will either be compelled to pay a hefty settlement or face a civil trial for sexual assault in September, according to the U.K.’s Daily Mail.

Giuffre alleges “she was forced to have sex with the Duke three times in 2001 at Epstein’s multiple homes.”

The news keeps on getting worse for the royal. Already banished from performing his royal duties when these charges became known in 2019, Buckingham Palace announced on Thursday that the prince was forced to “relinquish his military titles and royal charities,” including use of the title “His Royal Highness,” The New York Times reported.

Additionally, the palace said he will be “defending this case as a private citizen.”

Spencer Kuvin, an attorney representing several of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims, spoke to the U.K.’s Mirror about what lies ahead for the royal outcast.

“It is without question the Duke will be asked about his private parts,” Kuvin said.

“Nothing is off-limits because if an underage girl can describe what the Duke of York’s private parts look like … how would that be if they had not had a relationship?”

Yikes!

Kuvin told the Mirror that “Andrew’s disastrous BBC Newsnight interview will haunt him.”https://www.youtube.com/embed/QtBS8COhhhM?version=3&rel=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&fs=1&hl=en&autohide=2&wmode=transparent

The Mail reported that Giuffre’s attorney, David Boies, has alleged Prince Andrew’s ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, and his daughter Beatrice will be called as witnesses. During the above-mentioned BBC interview, Andrew said he had taken Beatrice to a Woking Pizza Express on the night he allegedly spent with Giuffre in London.

In addition, Boies has mentioned Prince Charles and Meghan Markle as potential witnesses. However, the reason for their testimony is unclear.

The Mail noted that “royals based in the UK cannot be forced to give evidence due to it being a civil case in a different jurisdiction.”

The plaintiffs will likely subpoena Prince Andrew’s medical records. According to the Mail, the prince claims that “he cannot sweat due to a rush of adrenaline while on a Royal Navy ship under attack in the 1982 Falklands War fought between Britain and Argentina.”

This is significant because Giuffre alleged that Andrew had been “sweating heavily as they danced at London nightclub Tramp,” on the night he is accused of sleeping with her in London, the Mail reported.

The outlet noted that friends of Giuffre “insist she will not agree to an out of court settlement, claiming she wants to ‘send a message’ that anyone ‘with power and privilege’ accused of abusing young girls will face the full force of the law.”

“And Ms. Giuffre has instructed her lawyers that agreeing a settlement of at least $5 million with Prince Andrew — who denies the allegations being made against him — would not ‘advance that message.’”

The reality of being offered $5 million or more to settle the case could potentially change her mind. After all, she’s already ruined his life. There’s not much more she can do to hurt him.

Media lawyer Mark Stephens told the Mail, “Prince Andrew has nowhere to go. He’s effectively a dead man walking as far as the royal family is concerned.”

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

Ghislaine Maxwell Gives Up Battle to Keep Names of 8 Anonymous John Does in Sex Trafficking Operation Sealed

 Adam Wilson 
January 15th, 2022

While Ghislaine Maxwell’s highly publicized trial came to a close last month, where she was found guilty on 5 out of 6 charges, another legal battle is still happening to unseal the names of eight anonymous “John Doe’s” named in a civil lawsuit against Maxwell.  The right names are all allegedly high-profile individuals, ranging from politicians to business leaders and members of the royal family, one of whom is rumored to be Prince Andrew.  After fighting to keep the names sealed for months, Maxwell’s lawyers have given up on attempting to protect their identities.  The Daily Mail Reports

“Maxwell, who last month was found guilty of procuring girls for the late pedophile, had also previously opposed making the documents public, but now appears to have had a change of heart.

In a letter to Judge Preska Wednesday, Maxwell’s attorney Laura Menninger said her client will ‘leave it to the court’ to determine whether the names should be unsealed.

‘After careful review of the detailed objections submitted by [the eight Non-Party Does], counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell writes to inform the Court that she does not wish to further address those objections,’ the letter states.

‘Each of the listed Does has counsel who have ably asserted their own respective privacy rights. Ms. Maxwell, therefore, leaves it to this Court to conduct the appropriate review consistent with the Order and Protocol for Unsealing Decided Motions.”

Jeffrey Epstein’s flight logs indicate that Bill Clinton was a frequent flyer on his private jet, with the Ex-President recording 26 separate trips on the plane.

In 2019, ABC News anchor Amy Robach admitted that the Epstein story was covered up by her network in part because of Epstein’s connection to the Clinton family.  “I’ve had this story for three years…ABC would not put it on the air. It was unbelievable…We had Clinton, We had everything…”  She said in a Project Veritas expose.

She says there is Clinton dirt involved (see our previous report on Bill Clinton below) that she had but was told to spike the story:

In August 2019, Investigative reporter Conchita Sarnoff blew the lid off of the case of Bill Clinton, who falsely stated he only flew on Epstein’s plane a few times.

Watch:https://www.youtube.com/embed/YL6soUcE_Vc?version=3&rel=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&fs=1&hl=en-US&autohide=2&wmode=transparent

On May 27, the New York Post reported about an alleged affair between Bill Clinton and Maxwell.

The ex-president— who denies cheating on wife Hillary Clinton with Maxwell — reportedly engaged in the romps during overseas trips on Epstein’s private plane, a customized Boeing 727 that’s since become known as the “Lolita Express.”

The nation’s 42nd head of state also repeatedly sneaked out to visit Maxwell at her Upper East Side townhouse, as detailed in an exclusive excerpt from the “A Convenient Death: The Mysterious Demise of Jeffrey Epstein,” book by Alana Goodman and Daniel Halper, that was released in June 2020.

CNN Producer Hit With New Lawsuit Over Alleged Sex Trafficking of 9-Year-Old ‘Jane Doe’

Jack Davis, The Western Journal
Published January 12, 2022

A $15 million civil lawsuit has been filed against former CNN producer John Griffin, who is already facing federal charges of child trafficking.

“For several years prior to 2020, the defendant solicited young girls, including the minor plaintiff, for the purpose of knowingly persuading, inducing, enticing and coercing them to engage in sexual activity, sexual exploitation, and/or sexual trafficking,” the lawsuit, filed last week in Bridgeport, Connecticut, alleges, according to Fox News, which posted a copy of the lawsuit online as well as a claim to restrain Griffin’s assets for up to $15 million.

Griffin, who formerly produced Chris Cuomo’s show on CNN, faces one charge of child trafficking along with two counts of attempted trafficking.

The lawsuit’s goal is to ensure no matter what happens to the criminal charges, Griffin has to pay, according to the lawyer who filed the suit.

“We are seeking to restrain his assets so he doesn’t have the financial wherewithal to abuse another child,” attorney Joel Faxon said, according to Connecticut Insider.

Faxon said the lawsuit involves the same 9-year-old child who was mentioned in the indictments against Griffin.

That child, who was a resident of Nevada, was allegedly brought to Vermont by her adopted mother and participated in sexual activities that later resulted in the indictment against Griffin.

The lawsuit claims the child suffered emotional and other damage as a result of her interaction with Griffin.

The adopted mother faces charges in Nevada, leading the child to be sent to live with a custodian in Connecticut.

Griffin is accused of inviting multiple women to Vermont to participate in the “sexual training” of their children.

The lawsuit says Griffin is alleged to have told those he tried to recruit that they could help him see that a “minor child” was “trained properly.”

The suit said Griffin is also alleged to have said that “when handled properly, a woman is a woman regardless of her age.”

The evidence against Griffin in the federal indictment against him includes drone video of a “completely naked 9-year-old girl” shown with Griffin, according to court filings.

“When confronted with this video during an interview by FBI agents, Griffin’s first response was merely to suggest he was not looking at the naked girl, despite that she was standing so close to him to be touching,”  according to a memo issued to support detaining Griffin.

Griffin is currently being held in Vermont without bail.

CNN fired Griffin in December after the charges against him were made public.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

Queen Refuses To Pay For Prince Andrew’s Pedo Defense, Forcing Him To Unload Chalet In Fire Sale

The Queen of England is reportedly refusing to pay for Prince Andrew’s legal fees while a US judge decides whether a civil case brought by accuser Virginia Guiffre will be allowed to proceed, according to Newshub.

Giuffre claims that Andrew, son of the Queen and Duke of York, sexually assaulted her when she was 17-years-old after Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell sex-trafficked her.

The prince has consistently denied the allegations, including in an infamous 2019 interview in which one of his defences was a claim he cannot sweat

An American judge is currently deciding whether a civil case brought by Giuffre against the Duke in New York should go ahead. Prince Andrew’s lawyers argue he can’t be tried as he is covered by a deal made in 2009 between Epstein and Giuffre.

The deal, released publicly earlier this month, shows that Giuffre was paid US$500,000 by the now-dead sex offender Epstein to end a claim for damages. She also agreed not to bring any cases against other “potential defendants”; whether that applies to Prince Andrew, who is not named in the deal, is what is in question. -Newshub

If the trial is allowed, many suspect Andrew could settle out of court. According to The Times, a settlement is “on the table,” but Andrew reportedly “has been very clear that he wants to clear his name.”

Meanwhile, The Mirror reports that Andrew is looking for a fire sale on his US$23 million Swiss chalet to pay for legal fees, after the Queen reportedly said she wouldn’t pay for his legal defense.

Judge Delivers Major Setback To Prince Andrew In Lawsuit Filed By Epstein Victim

Now that Ghislaine Maxwell has been found guilty of sex-trafficking charges tied to her work as Jeffrey Epstein’s de facto “madam”, many legal observers expect that she will eventually be sentenced to a lengthy prison stay that could see her die behind bars. But as the world waits for her sentencing, attention is turning once again the civil courts, where Prince Andrew is fighting a high-profile lawsuit filed by Virginia Roberts Guiffre, a prominent Epstein accuser who claims she was trafficked to Andrew when she was still underage.

The lawsuit was filed in the US by a woman who lives in Australia, against a member of the British royal family. Andrew’s name came up during the Maxwell’s trial, when Jeffrey Epstein’s former pilot named names, though he wasn’t officially named by prosecutors.

Now, an American judge has blocked two critical avenues for Prince Andrew to try and get around the lawsuit. Here’s more from the Guardian:

Two of Prince Andrew’s avenues to prevent or stall the progression of Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s sex assault lawsuit against him were blocked on Saturday by a federal judge, increasing pressure to settle claims before a crucial court hearing this week.

Judge Lewis A Kaplan, in a written order, told the prince’s lawyers they must turn over documents on the schedule that has been set in the lawsuit brought by Guiffre who claims she was abused – aged 17 – by the prince on multiple occasions in 2001 while she was being sexually abused by financier Jeffrey Epstein.

The judge’s decision comes ahead of a critical hearing in the case that’s set for Tuesday. Also, the details of a 2009 settlement agreement between the now-deceased Epstein and Giuffre that lawyers for Prince Andrew had hoped would protect him from Guiffre’s claims are expected to be released on Monday. Among other things, the judge will decide Tuesday whether Giuffre’s claims against the Prince are solid enough to merit a trial. All of this could greatly increase pressure on the Prince’s lawyers to settle.

Giuffre’s lawyers have claimed that they have up to six witnesses linking the Duke to his accuser on the eve of the hearing into the civil lawsuit.

In another document, Andrew’s lawyers acknowledged that they couldn’t provide documentary evidence that he has the “inability to sweat”, one of the defenses employed by Prince Andrew to try and discredit Guiffre (although the reaction to the claim in the press was one of abject dismissal).

Meanwhile, on Saturday, it was revealed that David Boies, a lawyer for Giuffre, had said that Ghislaine Maxwell should have “cut a deal” – the latest indication that Maxwell had the opportunity to turn states’ witness against other high-profile individuals in Epstein’s circle, a group that includes former President Bill Clinton as well as Prince Andrew.

“I have said publicly for five years that she was making a mistake in not going in and trying to cut a deal with prosecutors. She could have cut a very good deal early on but she passed up that opportunity. I think that’s proven to be a fatal mistake,” Boies reportedly said.

See the judge’s official dismissal below:

CIA Experimented on Hundreds of Orphans, Torturing Them to Reveal Psychopathic Traits—Report

By Matt Agorist

According to a new documentary out of Denmark, which interviewed former victims, the Central Intelligence Agency secretly carried out experiments on 311 orphaned children. The experiments were meant to reveal psychopathic traits and map out the link between schizophrenia and heredity. According to the report, the children were tortured in clear violation of the Nuremberg Code of 1947 that introduced ethical restrictions for experiments on humans.

Hundreds of Danish orphans were unknowingly used in experiments backed by the CIA, according to Danish Radio, reporting on a new documentary called “The Search for Myself.”

According to the report, the experiments began in the early 1960s and spanned the course of two decades. They were conducted to investigate the link between heredity and environment in the development of schizophrenia. However, the children were not told what research they were involved in. Not even after the experiments ended. It was also funded in part by a CIA front associated with the MK-Ultra program.

Thomas Hoskyns Leonard Blog: MORE ON MK ULTRA (CIA MIND ...

Eerily, the examinations took place in a basement at the Municipal Hospital in Copenhagen. The director and producer of the documentary, Per Wennick, was actually a victim of the CIA and subjected to these experiments as a child. In the documentary, he recalled being placed in a chair, getting electrodes put on his arms, legs, and chest around the heart and having to listen to loud, shrill noises, which attempted to incite a psychological response.

“It was very uncomfortable”, Wennick told Danish Radio. “And it’s not just my story, it’s the story of many children.” By his own admission, he was promised “something funny” before being taken to the hospital. “I think this is a violation of my rights as a citizen in this society. I find it so strange that some people should know more about me than I myself have been aware of.”

According to historian, PhD, and museum inspector at the Danish Welfare Museum, Jacob Knage Rasmussen, this was the only known experiment in Danish history that used children under state care for research — and it was funded by the CIA in violation of the Nuremberg Code.

“I do not know of similar attempts, neither in Denmark nor in Scandinavia. It is appalling information that contradicts the Nuremberg Code of 1947, which after World War II was to set some ethical restrictions for experiments on humans. Among other things, informed consent was introduced, which today is central to the world of research”, Knage Rasmussen told Danish Radio. He emphasized the vulnerability of the group in the custody of the state, who had nobody to complain to.

According to Danish Radio, the idea to experiment on the vulnerable children came from American psychologist Zarnoff A. Mednick, who was then a professor at the University of Michigan.

According to Wennick and the National Archives, the research project was co-financed by the US health service. In the first year alone, the project was supported with what today corresponds to DKK 4.6 million ($700,000). It also received funding from the Human Ecology Fund.

The Human Ecology Fund was a CIA funded operation through the Cornell University College of Human Ecology Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology to support covert research on brainwashing. It was also connected to research under the MK-Ultra program in which social scientists, including anthropologists, were led (mostly unwittingly) to provide input into interrogation techniques still in use today.

Danish psychiatrist Fini Schulsinger dedicated his doctoral dissertation to the experiments in 1977, titling it, “Studies to shed light on the connection between heredity and environment in psychiatry.”

While researching for the documentary, Per Wennick managed to locate 36 boxes at the Psychiatric Centre Glostrup in Hvidovre that detailed the CIA’s unscrupulous child experiments. However, when the center got word of the documentary, they began shredding the documents.

Danish Radio reports that Kent Kristensen, associate professor of Health Law at the University of Southern Denmark, pointed out that the shredding of the documents was illegal.

“I think it’s a huge failure for the former orphanage children who are interested in the pieces of their own childhood to get a total story made about their own lives. That possibility is deprived of them if you shred the research material,” Knage Rasmussen told Danish Radio.

Indeed. It also details the CIA’s depravity and violations of the Nuremberg code. If history is any indicator, however, no one will be held responsible for exploiting these children and it will be swept under the rug, likely escaping any scrutiny by the mainstream media.

Bill Clinton Trends On Twitter After Maxwell Found Guilty On 5 Of 6 Charges

 Martin Walsh
December 30, 2021

EDITORS NOTE: This article contains the author’s opinion

Soon after British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell was found guilty on Wednesday, former President Bill Clinton was trending on Twitter.

Maxwell was found guilty by a jury of helping the late financier Jeffrey Epstein sexually abuse teenage girls.

“Maxwell was accused of recruiting and grooming four teenagers between 1994 and 2004 for Epstein, her former boyfriend, who killed himself in 2019 in a Manhattan jail cell while awaiting trial on sex abuse charges of his own. She was convicted on five of six counts, including one count of sex trafficking. Lawyers for Maxwell, who faces up to 65 years in prison, vowed to appeal,” Reuters reported.

“During the month-long trial, jurors heard emotional and explicit testimony from four women who portrayed Maxwell as central to their abuse by Epstein. Three of the four said Maxwell herself touched their bare breasts or took part in the encounters, which often began as massages. Maxwell’s attorneys sought to undermine the women’s credibility, arguing that they were motivated by money to implicate Maxwell since all four had received million-dollar awards from a compensation fund for Epstein’s victims,” the report added.

“Maxwell will return to Brooklyn’s Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC), where she has been held in isolation since July 2020. Maxwell has voiced concerns about her treatment at the jail, asserting that guards have disrupted her sleep at night and that the stench of raw sewage has permeated her cell,” the report continued.

Not long after the verdict, Bill Clinton trended on Twitter because of his relationship with Epstein and Maxwell.

Clinton can’t escape from his relationship with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Clinton has been dogged by his association with Epstein, who gained access to a collection of powerful men including politicians, business moguls, and even British royalty.

These figures were lured into a spider’s web of blackmail over visits to his steamy Caribbean island and trips on his private plane, dubbed the Lolita Express.

Now, more damning evidence of Clinton’s friendship with Epstein has emerged after a British tabloid published pictures of the disgraced philanthropist sex trafficker and his madame schmoozing with Clinton while he was in the White House.

The two were invited to the White House as VIP guests of the then-sitting president as attendees of a party thrown for high rollers who donated money for the refurbishment of the Oval Office in 1993.

Maxwell and Epstein were given a personal tour of “Clinton’s residence and the East Room during a reception,” a glimpse at how early that Clinton became intertwined with Epstein.