What to do about red flag people

Who and What Are Red Flag People?

They’re people who create problems, exacerbate difficulties and exploit vulnerabilities. For one reason or another, they are simply not good folks. They may be driven by ambition, jealousy, narcissism or they may be otherwise impaired. Whatever their problem is, it can cause problems for you.

trouble...

If you work with, go to school with or live near such a person (and we all have, at least once), here are some tips for dealing with yourself and dealing with them. The more involved you are with them, the more of these points may apply. If you are fortunate to have stayed relatively disconnected from them, then few of these may apply.

To protect yourself–your job, your property, your reputation, your children, your animals, your finances–it’s important to grasp the fact that red flag folks can pull you down. And they can pull you down much, much farther than you ever intended to go with them.

There are two parts to this process, the first part is sorting it out for yourself mentally. The second part is implementing it, that will be covered tomorrow.

Do you need to take steps to disconnect from a red flag person?

• Has there been a pattern of behavior that has caused damage to you?
• Do you wish you did not have to deal with them?
• Does their charm/authority keep you enrolled in the association?
• Do you make excuses for their behavior?
• Do you make excuses for your compliance?
• Do you think if you tough it out that they will change?
• Have there been confrontations?
• Were they productive or unproductive?
• Do they keep their word?
• Do they act differently after confrontations or disagreements?
• Are you getting mixed signals from them?

Empaths, people with conscience, often put themselves through a lot of grief by putting up bad behavior from red flag people. It’s your choice. There are times it’s the right thing to do, and there are times it’s not. Two things are key to making good decisions in this regard:

• Patterns of problematic behavior
• The other person’s desire and willingness to do better

A wise person once said, “If you’re going to say ‘no’, say it as soon as you can, because the longer you wait, the harder it gets.”

This is absolutely true.

And I will add: what you tolerate increases.

Anna Moss

RELATIONSHIP RED FLAGS, A Guide for Women
THE RED FLAGS WORKBOOK, A Blueprint for Personal Restoration

Content copyright (c) Anna Moss
unless otherwise indicated
FIRST REPRINT RIGHTS ALLOWED WITH ATTRIBUTION
ALL OTHER RIGHTS RESERVED
Image copyrights retained by their originators.
Images shared for educational purposes as allowed by
Fair Use, Section 107, US Copyright Act 1976

Word study: cancer cartel

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines cancer this way:

1. malignant tumor: a malignant tumor or growth caused when cells multiply uncontrollably, destroying healthy tissue.
2. illness caused by tumor: the illness or condition that is caused by the presence of a malignant tumor
3. fast-spreading bad phenomenon: something, usually something negative, that develops or spreads quickly and usually destructively

The Bing dictionary defines cartel like so:

1. group of businesses controlling market: an alliance of business companies formed to control production, competition and prices
2. alliance of like-minded political groups: a political alliance among parties or groups having common goals

And there you have it.

 

Cancer cure history in video

Two of the real pioneers in cancer research, who found cures, demonstrated them over and over again.

Both were hounded to death for their trouble by the medical cartel and its government thugs.

 

This is the first of a nine-part series.

 

This is the first of a three-part series.

The cancer racket (part 5)

Cancer may be one of those calamities that most folks don’t give much thought, until a cancer diagnosis strikes them or someone they care about.

“I’m afraid it’s malignant…”

It should be noted that cancer is increasing, especially cancers of the reproductive organs. In most western countries, cancer is eclipsing heart disease for the number one spot as major cause of death.

This, despite tens of billions of dollars spent on cancer research, about which two-time Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling PhD had this to say:

“Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties …”

A hundred years ago, the cancer rate was one in a hundred, there was no cancer industry, there was no cancer research. Then someone saw an opportunity. The cancer war was born, and is being orchestrated to extract enormous sums from the uninformed before they expire. Dr John Bailer, Editor, US National Cancer Institute Journal said this about the war:

“My overall assessment is that the national cancer program must be judged a qualified failure.”

According to the International Agency for Research in Cancer:

“…80-90 per cent of human cancer is determined environmentally and thus theoretically avoidable.”

Medical historian and anti-vivisectionist Hans Ruesch said this:

“Despite the general recognition that 85 percent of all cancers is caused by environmental influences, less than 10 per cent of the National Cancer Institute budget is given to environmental causes. And despite the recognition that the majority of environmental causes are linked to nutrition, less than one percent of the National Cancer Institute budget is devoted to nutrition studies. And even that small amount had to be forced on the Institute by a special amendment of the National Cancer Act in 1974.”

In other words, prevention is not profitable and is not to be tolerated. The cancer war feeds on consumer ignorance and organizational complicity. Promising therapies never see the light of day and big-buck research just falls short of long-awaited cure. The entire enterprise depends on the continuation of the search for a cure.

Author G Edward Griffin wrote:

“… the cartel’s medical monopoly has created a climate of bias in our educational system, in which scientific truth often is sacrificed to vested interests . . . [I]f the money is coming from drug companies … the impetus is in the direction of drug research. … scientific truth often is obscured by vested interest.”

So, where does that leave us? With a broken system considered a failure and a fraud by eminent scientists around the world.

Further reading:

• THE CURE FOR ALL CANCER, Hulda Clark, ND, 1993
• Australian Bureau of Statistics, Causes of Death, Australia 1992, ABS, Canberra, 1993
• Dr. Bailer, speech, American Association for the Advancement of Science, May 1985, “Animal Research Takes Lives” 1993
• Robert Sharpe, THE CRUEL DECEPTION, 1988
• Hans Ruesch, THE NAKED EMPRESS, 1992
• Edward Griffin, THE POLITICS OF CANCER, 1975
• Sydney Singer, Medical Demystification Report, Vol.1 No. 1
• Dr. Werner Hartinger, speech, Second International Scientific Congress of the Doctors in Britain, 1992

The cancer racket (part 4)

Hypocrisy is a hallmark of psychopathic individuals and organizations.

Just one manifestation of lack of conscience

In considering the psychopathic signature of the cancer industry, it’s important to know that many doctors, when diagnosed with cancer, do not choose for themselves the treatments they sell to their patients.

The following article, written by a doctor, is posted in its entirety. You can see it and its comments here.

How Doctors Die

It’s Not Like the Rest of Us, But It Should Be by Ken Murray, MD

Years ago, Charlie, a highly respected orthopedist and a mentor of mine, found a lump in his stomach. He had a surgeon explore the area, and the diagnosis was pancreatic cancer. This surgeon was one of the best in the country. He had even invented a new procedure for this exact cancer that could triple a patient’s five-year-survival odds—from 5 percent to 15 percent—albeit with a poor quality of life. Charlie was uninterested. He went home the next day, closed his practice, and never set foot in a hospital again. He focused on spending time with family and feeling as good as possible. Several months later, he died at home. He got no chemotherapy, radiation, or surgical treatment. Medicare didn’t spend much on him.

It’s not a frequent topic of discussion, but doctors die, too. And they don’t die like the rest of us. What’s unusual about them is not how much treatment they get compared to most Americans, but how little. For all the time they spend fending off the deaths of others, they tend to be fairly serene when faced with death themselves. They know exactly what is going to happen, they know the choices, and they generally have access to any sort of medical care they could want. But they go gently.

Of course, doctors don’t want to die; they want to live. But they know enough about modern medicine to know its limits. And they know enough about death to know what all people fear most: dying in pain, and dying alone. They’ve talked about this with their families. They want to be sure, when the time comes, that no heroic measures will happen—that they will never experience, during their last moments on earth, someone breaking their ribs in an attempt to resuscitate them with CPR (that’s what happens if CPR is done right).

Almost all medical professionals have seen what we call “futile care” being performed on people. That’s when doctors bring the cutting edge of technology to bear on a grievously ill person near the end of life. The patient will get cut open, perforated with tubes, hooked up to machines, and assaulted with drugs. All of this occurs in the Intensive Care Unit at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars a day. What it buys is misery we would not inflict on a terrorist. I cannot count the number of times fellow physicians have told me, in words that vary only slightly, “Promise me if you find me like this that you’ll kill me.” They mean it. Some medical personnel wear medallions stamped “NO CODE” to tell physicians not to perform CPR on them. I have even seen it as a tattoo.

To administer medical care that makes people suffer is anguishing. Physicians are trained to gather information without revealing any of their own feelings, but in private, among fellow doctors, they’ll vent. “How can anyone do that to their family members?” they’ll ask. I suspect it’s one reason physicians have higher rates of alcohol abuse and depression than professionals in most other fields. I know it’s one reason I stopped participating in hospital care for the last 10 years of my practice.

How has it come to this—that doctors administer so much care that they wouldn’t want for themselves? The simple, or not-so-simple, answer is this: patients, doctors, and the system.

To see how patients play a role, imagine a scenario in which someone has lost consciousness and been admitted to an emergency room. As is so often the case, no one has made a plan for this situation, and shocked and scared family members find themselves caught up in a maze of choices. They’re overwhelmed. When doctors ask if they want “everything” done, they answer yes. Then the nightmare begins. Sometimes, a family really means “do everything,” but often they just mean “do everything that’s reasonable.” The problem is that they may not know what’s reasonable, nor, in their confusion and sorrow, will they ask about it or hear what a physician may be telling them. For their part, doctors told to do “everything” will do it, whether it is reasonable or not.

The above scenario is a common one. Feeding into the problem are unrealistic expectations of what doctors can accomplish. Many people think of CPR as a reliable lifesaver when, in fact, the results are usually poor. I’ve had hundreds of people brought to me in the emergency room after getting CPR. Exactly one, a healthy man who’d had no heart troubles (for those who want specifics, he had a “tension pneumothorax”), walked out of the hospital. If a patient suffers from severe illness, old age, or a terminal disease, the odds of a good outcome from CPR are infinitesimal, while the odds of suffering are overwhelming. Poor knowledge and misguided expectations lead to a lot of bad decisions.

But of course it’s not just patients making these things happen. Doctors play an enabling role, too. The trouble is that even doctors who hate to administer futile care must find a way to address the wishes of patients and families. Imagine, once again, the emergency room with those grieving, possibly hysterical, family members. They do not know the doctor. Establishing trust and confidence under such circumstances is a very delicate thing. People are prepared to think the doctor is acting out of base motives, trying to save time, or money, or effort, especially if the doctor is advising against further treatment.

Some doctors are stronger communicators than others, and some doctors are more adamant, but the pressures they all face are similar. When I faced circumstances involving end-of-life choices, I adopted the approach of laying out only the options that I thought were reasonable (as I would in any situation) as early in the process as possible. When patients or families brought up unreasonable choices, I would discuss the issue in layman’s terms that portrayed the downsides clearly. If patients or families still insisted on treatments I considered pointless or harmful, I would offer to transfer their care to another doctor or hospital.

Should I have been more forceful at times? I know that some of those transfers still haunt me. One of the patients of whom I was most fond was an attorney from a famous political family. She had severe diabetes and terrible circulation, and, at one point, she developed a painful sore on her foot. Knowing the hazards of hospitals, I did everything I could to keep her from resorting to surgery. Still, she sought out outside experts with whom I had no relationship. Not knowing as much about her as I did, they decided to perform bypass surgery on her chronically clogged blood vessels in both legs. This didn’t restore her circulation, and the surgical wounds wouldn’t heal. Her feet became gangrenous, and she endured bilateral leg amputations. Two weeks later, in the famous medical center in which all this had occurred, she died.

It’s easy to find fault with both doctors and patients in such stories, but in many ways all the parties are simply victims of a larger system that encourages excessive treatment. In some unfortunate cases, doctors use the fee-for-service model to do everything they can, no matter how pointless, to make money. More commonly, though, doctors are fearful of litigation and do whatever they’re asked, with little feedback, to avoid getting in trouble.

Even when the right preparations have been made, the system can still swallow people up. One of my patients was a man named Jack, a 78-year-old who had been ill for years and undergone about 15 major surgical procedures. He explained to me that he never, under any circumstances, wanted to be placed on life support machines again. One Saturday, however, Jack suffered a massive stroke and got admitted to the emergency room unconscious, without his wife. Doctors did everything possible to resuscitate him and put him on life support in the ICU. This was Jack’s worst nightmare. When I arrived at the hospital and took over Jack’s care, I spoke to his wife and to hospital staff, bringing in my office notes with his care preferences. Then I turned off the life support machines and sat with him. He died two hours later.

Even with all his wishes documented, Jack hadn’t died as he’d hoped. The system had intervened. One of the nurses, I later found out, even reported my unplugging of Jack to the authorities as a possible homicide. Nothing came of it, of course; Jack’s wishes had been spelled out explicitly, and he’d left the paperwork to prove it. But the prospect of a police investigation is terrifying for any physician. I could far more easily have left Jack on life support against his stated wishes, prolonging his life, and his suffering, a few more weeks. I would even have made a little more money, and Medicare would have ended up with an additional $500,000 bill. It’s no wonder many doctors err on the side of overtreatment.

But doctors still don’t over-treat themselves. They see the consequences of this constantly. Almost anyone can find a way to die in peace at home, and pain can be managed better than ever. Hospice care, which focuses on providing terminally ill patients with comfort and dignity rather than on futile cures, provides most people with much better final days. Amazingly, studies have found that people placed in hospice care often live longer than people with the same disease who are seeking active cures. I was struck to hear on the radio recently that the famous reporter Tom Wicker had “died peacefully at home, surrounded by his family.” Such stories are, thankfully, increasingly common.

Several years ago, my older cousin Torch (born at home by the light of a flashlight—or torch) had a seizure that turned out to be the result of lung cancer that had gone to his brain. I arranged for him to see various specialists, and we learned that with aggressive treatment of his condition, including three to five hospital visits a week for chemotherapy, he would live perhaps four months. Ultimately, Torch decided against any treatment and simply took pills for brain swelling. He moved in with me.

We spent the next eight months doing a bunch of things that he enjoyed, having fun together like we hadn’t had in decades. We went to Disneyland, his first time. We’d hang out at home. Torch was a sports nut, and he was very happy to watch sports and eat my cooking. He even gained a bit of weight, eating his favorite foods rather than hospital foods. He had no serious pain, and he remained high-spirited. One day, he didn’t wake up. He spent the next three days in a coma-like sleep and then died. The cost of his medical care for those eight months, for the one drug he was taking, was about $20.

Torch was no doctor, but he knew he wanted a life of quality, not just quantity. Don’t most of us? If there is a state of the art of end-of-life care, it is this: death with dignity. As for me, my physician has my choices. They were easy to make, as they are for most physicians. There will be no heroics, and I will go gentle into that good night. Like my mentor Charlie. Like my cousin Torch. Like my fellow doctors.

[end of Dr Murray's article]

There’s no substitute for experience.

Anna Moss

RELATIONSHIP RED FLAGS, A Guide for Women
THE RED FLAGS WORKBOOK, A Blueprint for Personal Restoration

Content copyright (c) Anna Moss
unless otherwise indicated
FIRST REPRINT RIGHTS ALLOWED WITH ATTRIBUTION
ALL OTHER RIGHTS RESERVED
Image copyrights retained by their originators.
Images shared for educational purposes as allowed by
Fair Use, Section 107, US Copyright Act 1976

The cancer racket (part 3)

Once the psychopath (individual or organization) has its victim under its control, the game begins in earnest. Control is the central pillar of the operation.  The victim must be controlled (mentally, physically, financially) in order for the blood feast to begin.

The victim of the cancer industry is subjected to innumerable tests and treatments, many painful and protracted. Many of us have seen what these treatments do the bodies of the victims. We can only imagine what they do to their spirits. Just like there are spiritual consequences of sexual contact with a psychopath, I suspect there are also spiritual consequences of medical contact with the medical perpetrators and the poisons used in the protocols.

Tests

Average cost 5,000

Biopsy

Preparations

Average cost 1,000

Inserting port

Surgery

Average cost 40,000

Tumors on ovaries

Chemotherapy

Average cost: 30,000

Hours with the needle

Unexpected reactions

Radiation

Average cost: 16,000

Passing through the fire

The Whole Enchilada

Average cost mid to high six-figures.

Not what they were bargaining for

How many people would subject themselves or their children to these treatments if they were informed about painless, non-invasive, affordable, non-toxic treatments?

An ounce of prevention …

Anna Moss

RELATIONSHIP RED FLAGS, A Guide for Women
THE RED FLAGS WORKBOOK, A Blueprint for Personal Restoration

Content copyright (c) Anna Moss
unless otherwise indicated
FIRST REPRINT RIGHTS ALLOWED WITH ATTRIBUTION
ALL OTHER RIGHTS RESERVED
Image copyrights retained by their originators.
Images shared for educational purposes as allowed by
Fair Use, Section 107, US Copyright Act 1976

 

 

The cancer racket (part 2)

We are looking at similarities between the psychopath and the cancer industry. A look at the victims can speak volumes.

  

Once the industry established itself as the only choice to make after a cancer diagnosis, they took the next step, which is reeling in the victim. This can be done a number of ways, which all boil down to seizing control of the victim’s mind through various forms of lying.

Control through Lying

Perhaps the biggest lie of all is that there is no cure. This lie does not stand up to open inquiry and honest debate, which is why there is neither. This enables the cancer industry to not only continue to monetize their treatments, but enforce the hive-mind programming about those treatments through their various charitable events.

The brainwashed pinkies

In psychopathic literature, these lying behaviors are described as gaslighting or rewriting history. The psychopath defines, denies, lies, minimizes, justifies to get what he wants.

Since he has no conscience, he feels no remorse about his lying or its consequences. He wants what he wants and pursues it relentlessly. The truth doesn’t matter and he does whatever he has to do to hide it.

To understand the magnitude of the lies, it’s important to grasp the efficacy of the cures. Two of the most documented cures are hemp and laetrile. These two vids explain the fundamentals of these treatments as well as some of the politics behind their suppression. If the thought of cancer makes your blood run cold, you need to watch these.

RUN FROM THE CURE:

THE POLITICS OF CANCER AND THE SCIENCE OF LAETRILE:

Both of these treatments can be had for pennies on the dollar. In fact, they are so affordable, they can be accessed without insurance. Medical expenses are the leading cause of personal bankruptcy.

Billions dead. Millions currently in treatment. Is the cancer industry a form of genocide?

Anna Moss

RELATIONSHIP RED FLAGS, A Guide for Women
THE RED FLAGS WORKBOOK, A Blueprint for Personal Restoration

Content copyright (c) Anna Moss
unless otherwise indicated
FIRST REPRINT RIGHTS ALLOWED WITH ATTRIBUTION
ALL OTHER RIGHTS RESERVED
Image copyrights retained by their originators.
Images shared for educational purposes as allowed by
Fair Use, Section 107, US Copyright Act 1976

 

The cancer racket (part 1)

There are many paradigms of institutional abuse to which the fearful and uninformed subject themselves. They do this despite the damage, pain and diminishing returns of their participation in said program.

Blind faith: deadly when ill-placed

The cancer racket has made the “voluntary compliance” threat used by the IRS its own. It is a sophisticated and well-oiled machine. It runs on the vast wealth of its primary accomplices, the pharmaceutical and insurance hydras. It has a standing army of doctors and nurses who march in lock-step to the dictates of the hidden hand.

The cancer racket is every bit the terrorist group that the IRS is and it is becoming just as hated as its fraud is being made known.

Let’s look at the building blocks of psychopathy (the root cause of most suffering on earth) to see how they are used by the cancer industry to pour out the blood and money of its victims like water over the altar of modern medicine.

Deceit through Positioning

The basic premise of the cancer racket could be stated as: “Cancer kills. You don’t have a chance at beating it unless you go to your doctor and do what he says. The only defense against cancer is drugs and sometimes, surgery.”

The victim must buy into this in order for the rest of the racket to work. The programming has now become conventional wisdom, that is, it is almost an assumption in most people’s minds now. Cancer = surgery + chemotherapy + radiation. All faith is to be placed in the progrom.

Fear, assumption and intimidation are injected into the conversation. The victim:

• is subjected to a battery of tests and then made to wait to hear results of tests; waiting triggers fearful thinking and stress, both of which break the connection to Source
• hears things like, “I”m so sorry” and “I’m afraid, it’s cancer” and “It’s very aggressive” and so forth
• gets the doctor’s interpretation of the test results and treatment options all of which guide him or her to the end of the line

In turn, each of these reinforce the gravity of the diagnosis, the insanity of doing anything other than following the doctor’s orders. This, of course, means that they will run, not walk through the program no matter what.

The insurance industry employs number crunchers, actuarials, who have got the value of every kind of health challenge reduced to a number. When ovarian cancer or lung cancer or thyroid cancer or prostate cancer present, workers in the system know what each one is worth.

As muppetgate revealed about the Wall Street slaughterhouse, all decisions for cancer treatment are likewise guided by creating cash flow and maximizing profit for the hospital slaughterhouse regardless of what happens to the medical muppet.

Rushing is a major weapon of all forms of interpersonal abuse and it is a major string of the cancer racket. It’s all very urgent and everything must be done at once. This raises the anxiety and upset of the victim. It makes it more difficult to arrange for second opinions, to search out information, to think things through.

Some patients are so indoctrinated, they think further consultations with the doctor will offer options outside modern medicine. If any such alternatives are every admitted, they are likely qualified with gutteral noises, rolling eyes, dismissive or intimidating posturing or doom language.

The high priest of medicine

The high priests of the cancer racket walk around in white coats accessorized with the tools of their trade. They may be nice or smug—whatever their style, whatever works to reel in the victim. The two phrases I hear most often when people describe their doctors are “he’s so nice” and “he’s a specialist”.

When fraudulent, being nice and being a specialist both fulfil the Charm requirement of the psychopathic bond. People who seek outside sources for the repair of their bodies need different qualities to get them into the program. Women often need someone who is “nice” to them. Men often need someone who is “a specialist” to justify their participation in said program.

Anna Moss

RELATIONSHIP RED FLAGS, A Guide for Women
THE RED FLAGS WORKBOOK, A Blueprint for Personal Restoration

Content copyright (c) Anna Moss
unless otherwise indicated
FIRST REPRINT RIGHTS ALLOWED WITH ATTRIBUTION
ALL OTHER RIGHTS RESERVED
Image copyrights retained by their originators.
Images shared for educational purposes as allowed by
Fair Use, Section 107, US Copyright Act 1976

Word study: amusement

Loosely continuing on the theme of multi-tasking and some of its associated red flags. Today, a look at the word, “amusement.”

Endless choices for television amusement

First, its root, muse. The root comes to us from Middle English, where its first known use was in the 1300s. Prior to this, muse evolved from:

• Anglo-French muser (to gape, idle)
• Old French *mus (mouth of an animal)
• Medieval Latin musus (state of abstraction)
  

Today, muse means to become mentally absorbed, to reflect and think, perhaps inconclusively. A century ago, muse meant to marvel at something, to wonder about something, to ponder out loud. A muse was also a personifcation of inspiration, as an artist’s muse.

The prefix “a” means antithetical to, oppositional, obstructing, negating. The suffix “ment” means result, action, state, process.

Most of us think of amusement positively, as an entertainment, an enjoyable activity, something that is humorous, uplifting or pleasurably diverting. An amusement can be those things, but at root, it can also be an agent that cuts us off from higher pursuits. There it is again, the cutting off from spiritual access to Source and the inspirations that come from it.

  
The trance of amusement

It’s only when I travel that I watch TV. The number of channels available is astounding, and yet, there’s practically nothing of any substance on. Five hundred channels, and not a single show worth watching. It’s like being on a raft in the middle of the ocean; water everywhere, but not a drop to drink.

And this is exactly as intended.

The desired result

Anna Moss

RELATIONSHIP RED FLAGS, A Guide for Women
THE RED FLAGS WORKBOOK, A Blueprint for Personal Restoration

Content copyright (c) Anna Moss
unless otherwise indicated
FIRST REPRINT RIGHTS ALLOWED WITH ATTRIBUTION
ALL OTHER RIGHTS RESERVED
Image copyrights retained by their originators.
Images shared for educational purposes as allowed by
Fair Use, Section 107, US Copyright Act 1976

Meme: texting while driving

The Saturday pho-blog.

Today: a reminder of the red flags waving over the roadways when drivers are multi-tasking; particularly when they’re using portable devices. Lives can change in the blink of an eye. You do not want to know what it’s like to be in one of the cars or get the call at home when it does.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Texting while driving has now outpaced drinking and driving, which is long-standing, well-known red flag.

 

Anna Moss

RELATIONSHIP RED FLAGS, A Guide for Women
THE RED FLAGS WORKBOOK, A Blueprint for Personal Restoration

Content copyright (c) Anna Moss
unless otherwise indicated
FIRST REPRINT RIGHTS ALLOWED WITH ATTRIBUTION
ALL OTHER RIGHTS RESERVED
Image copyrights retained by their originators.
Images shared for educational purposes as allowed by
Fair Use, Section 107, US Copyright Act 1976