Aletho News


Total Tyranny: We’ll All Be Targeted Under the Government’s New Precrime Program

By John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead | The Rutherford Institute | May 19, 2021

“There is now the capacity to make tyranny total in America.”― James Bamford

It never fails.

Just as we get a glimmer of hope that maybe, just maybe, there might be a chance of crawling out of this totalitarian cesspool in which we’ve been mired, we get kicked down again.

In the same week that the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously declared that police cannot carry out warrantless home invasions in order to seize guns under the pretext of their “community caretaking” duties, the Biden Administration announced its plans for a “precrime” crime prevention agency.

Talk about taking one step forward and two steps back.

Precrime, straight out of the realm of dystopian science fiction movies such as Minority Report, aims to prevent crimes before they happen by combining widespread surveillance, behavior prediction technologies, data mining, precognitive technology, and neighborhood and family snitch programs to enable police to capture would-be criminals before they can do any damage.

This particular precrime division will fall under the Department of Homeland Security, the agency notorious for militarizing the police and SWAT teams; spying on activists, dissidents and veterans; stockpiling ammunition; distributing license plate readers; contracting to build detention camps; tracking cell-phones with Stingray devices; carrying out military drills and lockdowns in American cities; using the TSA as an advance guard; conducting virtual strip searches with full-body scanners; carrying out soft target checkpoints; directing government workers to spy on Americans; conducting widespread spying networks using fusion centers; carrying out Constitution-free border control searches; funding city-wide surveillance cameras; and utilizing drones and other spybots.

The intent, of course, is for the government to be all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful in its preemptive efforts to combat domestic extremism.

Where we run into trouble is when the government gets overzealous and over-ambitious and overreaches.

This is how you turn a nation of citizens into snitches and suspects.

In the blink of an eye, ordinary Americans will find themselves labeled domestic extremists for engaging in lawful behavior that triggers the government’s precrime sensors.

Of course, it’s an elaborate setup: we’ll all be targets.

In such a suspect society, the burden of proof is reversed so that guilt is assumed and innocence must be proven.

It’s the American police state’s take on the dystopian terrors foreshadowed by George Orwell, Aldous Huxley and Phillip K. Dick all rolled up into one oppressive pre-crime and pre-thought crime package.

What’s more, the technocrats who run the surveillance state don’t even have to break a sweat while monitoring what you say, what you read, what you write, where you go, how much you spend, whom you support, and with whom you communicate.

Computers now do the tedious work of trolling social media, the internet, text messages and phone calls for potentially anti-government remarks, all of which is carefully recorded, documented, and stored to be used against you someday at a time and place of the government’s choosing.

In this way, with the help of automated eyes and ears, a growing arsenal of high-tech software, hardware and techniques, government propaganda urging Americans to turn into spies and snitches, as well as social media and behavior sensing software, government agents are spinning a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports aimed at snaring potential enemies of the state.

It works the same in any regime.

As Professor Robert Gellately notes in his book Backing Hitler about the police state tactics used in Nazi Germany: “There were relatively few secret police, and most were just processing the information coming in. I had found a shocking fact. It wasn’t the secret police who were doing this wide-scale surveillance and hiding on every street corner. It was the ordinary German people who were informing on their neighbors.”

Here’s the thing as the Germans themselves quickly discovered: you won’t have to do anything illegal or challenge the government’s authority in order to be flagged as a suspicious character, labeled an enemy of the state and locked up like a dangerous criminal.

In fact, all you will need to do is use certain trigger words, surf the internet, communicate using a cell phone, drive a car, stay at a hotel, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating lessons, appear suspicious to a neighbor, question government authority, or generally live in the United States.

The following activities are guaranteed to get you censored, surveilled, eventually placed on a government watch list, possibly detained and potentially killed.

Use harmless trigger words like cloud, pork and pirates. Use a cell phone. Drive a car. Attend a political rally. Express yourself on social media. Serve in the military. Disagree with a law enforcement official. Call in sick to work. Limp or stutter. Appear confused or nervous, fidget, whistle or smell bad. Allow yourself to be seen in public waving a toy gun or anything remotely resembling a gun, such as a water nozzle or a remote control or a walking cane, for instance. Stare at a police officer. Appear to be pro-gun, pro-freedom or anti-government. Attend a public school. Speak truth to power.

Long before Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden were being castigated for blowing the whistle on the government’s war crimes and the National Security Agency’s abuse of its surveillance powers, it was activists such as Martin Luther King Jr. and John Lennon who were being singled out for daring to speak truth to power. These men and others like them had their phone calls monitored and data files collected on their activities and associations. For a little while, at least, they became enemy number one in the eyes of the U.S. government.

Yet as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, you don’t even have to be a dissident to get flagged by the government for surveillance, censorship and detention.

All you really need to be is a citizen of the American police state.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president The Rutherford Institute. His books Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State are available at He can be contacted at Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at

May 19, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | 1 Comment

Pentagon to surveil social media of US Service Members

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim the Net | May 19, 2021

The new US administration is reportedly planning to reverse course on a previous policy not to spy on members of its own military by monitoring political opinions they express on social media.

In the past, this type of surveillance was not used out of fear that it might infringe on service members’ First Amendment rights, but now that the Biden administration is making combating “domestic extremism” one of its main narratives, that is changing.

According to The Intercept, which said it had access to relevant internal Defense Department documents and spoke to a source with direct knowledge, a pilot program is in the works to continuously screen behavior on social media of the members of the military, looking for any concerning signs, in the context of opinions espousing domestic extremism.

According to the same source, the Pentagon plans to outsource this job to a private surveillance company – most likely Babel Street – and thus bypass the First (and Fourth) Amendment.

Babel Street is already selling controversial products to US law enforcement, who use its services as a method of circumventing government requirements, like warrants. Babel Street buys and sells massive amounts of phone location data, and some of the previous clients have been the Secret Service and US Special Operations Command.

The latest pilot program seems to be developed far from the eyes and the ears of Congress. Don Bacon, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said that so far they had heard nothing from the Department of Defense (DoD) “that would confirm this story.”

However, an email from the House Armed Services Committee sent later said it was their understanding that the DoD intends to use social media screening as an additional vetting tool, rather than one for ongoing surveillance.

“That said, Secretary Austin has been clear about his intentions to understand to what extent extremism exists in the force and its effect on good order and discipline. We look forward to hearing the results of the stand down and the Department’s plan to move forward,” the email said.

Meanwhile, neither Babel Street, nor Bishop Garrison, who is behind the project, have commented about it. Garrison is a senior adviser to the defense secretary and head of an extremism steering committee, who has drawn attention for what has been described as a purge of Trump supporters from the military. In 2008, he is said to have authored an opinion piece that referred to free speech as “digital black plague.”

May 19, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | | 2 Comments

Facebook hints its “Oversight Board” could expand to other social platforms

Facebook has its sights set on more censorship domination

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim the Net | May 19, 2021

Facebook is seen as trying to promote the self-regulating model known as its Oversight Board as a success story that could become a standard for other similar platforms.

There were indications of an ambition to turn the Oversight Board into a bigger, more widely-encompassing regulatory body in a letter CEO Mark Zuckerberg penned in 2019, announcing the Board and saying that while it would initially deal with a small number of contentious cases, Facebook hoped it would in time expand to include “more companies across the industry as well.”

More recently, discussing Facebook’s decision to ban President Trump, VP of Global Affairs Nick Clegg did not disagree with his boss’s initial sentiments around the Oversight Board.

“Who knows, maybe in the future it could either be the germ of an idea that is then taken up in statutory regulation or it could be something that could operate for more companies than just for Facebook,” Clegg said.

One of the members of the board, Rachel Wolbers, said the body hopes to do such good work that “other companies might want our help.”

Officially, the Board has commented to say that while the model of “online governance” they are testing here might prove useful to others, their focus is currently on Facebook and Instagram.

And while the signs are there that Facebook would like to at least set the tone and become a leader in the censorship and moderation “standard” for social media – or just toot its own horn as doing this highly controversial work well – those other companies, its competitors, have so far remained silent, and that includes YouTube, Twitter, and Reddit.

One reason some observers give for this is that they “like their autonomy and have different rules” – but there is also the issue of how such an idea might be brought to life technically, given the different platforms and appeals systems currently in place.

There are examples of entire industries self-regulating to introduce agreed upon rules, like the gaming industry. But those who see the idea of the Oversight Board as a far fetched role model for others say that its own existence is “still controversial.”

May 19, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

The J&J Covid-19 vaccine is being manufactured by the anthrax vaccine company. This is its history

By Dr Meryl Nass, MD | May 19, 2021

Emergent BioSolutions will be in the spotlight today during a House Select Subcommittee Meeting on the Corona Virus Crisis, today at 10:30 am. It can be watched here.

Hybrid Hearing on “Examining Emergent BioSolutions’ Failure to Protect Public Health and Public Funds”

Below, I provide the backstory aka checkered past of this company.

DOD created a plan to vaccinate its service-members against many biowarfare threat agents in the 1990s. At the time, of the bioterrorism vaccines that were being considered, only anthrax and smallpox vaccines had licenses. Anthrax vaccine was chosen to initiate the program in March of 1998.

The first 2 million doses of anthrax vaccine came from a stockpile that had been made for the US army by Michigan’s state vaccine lab (Michigan Biologics Products Institute).  What became known in November 1997, after the FDA performed an inspection, was that most of the army’s 11 million dose stockpile of anthrax vaccine, stored at the Michigan lab, was multiply expired, had been redated, and was contaminated, with visible bacterial and fungal growth in some of the lots. FDA immediately shut down the anthrax vaccine factory, and quarantined 9 million of the 11 million existing doses. Unfortunately, FDA allowed the Defense Department to use 2 million doses, which it did over the next two years.

The Conclusions from FDA’s 1998 and 1999 inspection reports of the facility can be read here.

The Michigan state lab was a massive affair with many buildings on a campus in downtown Lansing. It produced a large variety of vaccines and blood products for the state of Michigan. However, over the years the state had not made the required repairs and updates. After the 1997 FDA inspection, Michigan had to repair the place or close it.  Michigan decided to sell, and looked for a buyer.

The former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral William Crowe, heard about the sale. He had come to know the el Hibri family when he was Ambassador to the UK. The el Hibri’s had purchased anthrax vaccine from the UK government laboratory at Porton Down just before the Gulf War, and resold it to the Saudi government at a 100x markup.

Crowe and the el Hibri family joined with several of the lab’s officials, and the newly formed group purchased the lab. The purchase price was about 19 million dollars. Admiral Crowe was given a 13% share in exchange for his role as Chairman of the Board, risking none of his own funds. Much of the cost was later paid by the transfer of vaccines to the state of Michigan.

The new company, formed in the first half of 1998, was named Bioport. It chose to focus on its sales of anthrax vaccine to the Army. However, the new company was deeply concerned about potential liability for the lab’s products. The purchase was delayed until the Secretary of the Army signed an indemnification for injuries that might result from use of anthrax vaccine in soldiers, and it also indemnified the company against claims if the vaccine failed to provide the expected protection against anthrax. The state of Michigan had also been indemnified by the Army to produce the vaccine. But from its 1970 licensure until 1998, almost all the anthrax vaccine had only been used in animal experiments.

After FDA had shuttered the anthrax vaccine plant for manufacturing defects, the Army paid to bulldoze and then rebuild the factory in 1999. But even after it was rebuilt, FDA withheld its approval, and the plant lay idle.

Meantime, the 2 million doses that FDA had failed to quarantine were injected into 500,000 military service-members between 1998 and 2001. Many thousands became ill.  An official report on the program, quoting unnamed government officials, claimed that 1-2% of recipients had developed permanent disabilities. The military  vaccinations were mandatory, and refusers were punished with a court martial or loss of a month’s pay and performance of extra duties. Nonetheless, seeing the injuries sustained by their colleagues, many refused.

In 2001, the anthrax vaccine label, a legal document that describes what is known about the product, listed the CDC’s definition of Gulf War syndrome as a possible adverse effect of the vaccine. (It has been removed from the current label.)

Five Congressional hearings were held throughout 1999 on different aspects of the anthrax vaccine program by the House Committee on Government Reform and National Security (now known as the House Committee on Oversight and Reform). Additional hearings held by other Congressional committees also touched on the vaccine program. The Government Reform and National Security Committee wrote up its findings in a report titled Unproven Force Protection. Its June 30, 1999 hearing dealt specifically with Bioport and its sole source contracts.

Despite this, Bioport has been very successful. Although the Pentagon was considering an end to the anthrax vaccine program in the summer of 2001, the sudden appearance of the anthrax letters after the September 11, 2001 attacks breathed new life into the vaccine program and turned Bioport’s fortunes around. DHHS Secretary Tommy Thompson announced in November 2001 that the anthrax vaccine plant would finally receive an FDA approval and begin production. At the end of January 2002 that is what happened.

But that was not the end of Bioport’s problems.  Soldiers challenged the legality of the vaccine’s license in federal court. It was learned that while there had been efficacy testing of an earlier version of the vaccine, the current vaccine formulation had never undergone either efficacy or safety testing in a clinical trial. Aware of this major omission, FDA had withheld the issuing of a “final rule and order” for the anthrax vaccine for over thirty years.

The soldiers prevailed on the legal issues, and First District Court Judge Emmett Sullivan rescinded the vaccine license in 2004, based on the company’s failure to prove efficacy or meet basic FDA standards for licensure.

Unwilling to bow to judicial authority, the Defense Department rolled out a backup plan. A new regulatory authority had just been created, the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). An EUA was slapped on the unlicensed anthrax vaccine, and DOD quickly restarted its mandatory vaccinations. (There was no emergency: the issuing of an EUA required only the potential for an emergency.)

The attorneys for the soldiers took the case back to court, and Judge Sullivan ruled that even if an experimental medical product received an EUA, it was still investigational and could not be mandated. The law required that EUA products be offered with informed consent. To receive an EUA (unlicensed) product, the recipient must be apprised of the risks and benefits of the product, be informed of alternatives to the product, and no coercion in any form could be applied. Ergo, no mandate.

FDA waited about 18 months, and then issued a full license for Bioport’s anthrax vaccine, although there were still no efficacy data. FDA instead claimed that a 1950’s era trial of a very different anthrax vaccine was sufficient for licensure, even though that trial failed to show benefit against inhalation anthrax.

When the soldiers and their attorneys challenged the licensing decision in court, the next judge ruled in favor of FDA on the basis of “deference”—meaning that FDA could ignore its own regulations when making a determination on safety and efficacy, with or without acceptable data. In 2006 mandatory vaccination restarted.

Bioport then shed its old skin in an attempt to leave its baggage behind. It renamed itself Emergent BioSolutions. Its vaccine had been renamed BioThrax.

Emergent BioSolutions (EBS) then branched out, buying other companies, primarily those making other sole source biodefense products. The military continued to mandate anthrax and (in 2003) smallpox vaccines for service-members. Eventually EBS purchased the smallpox company as well, and the cholera and typhoid vaccines used in the US.

A 2010 report on Emergent BioSolutions, written by Scott Lilly for the Center for American Progress, was titled, “Getting Rich off Uncle Sucker.” It revealed 300% profit margins, unique for a government contractor.

The company’s business plan was to rely on insiders to sell sole source biodefense products to the US government, most of which were stockpiled and never used–inking contracts with multiple federal agencies, including CDC, DOD, NIAID, the State Department, ASPR and BARDA.

In 2012 EBS got one of three DHHS contracts to house a so-called Center for Innovation in Advanced Development and Manufacturing (CIADM) that could be used to produce pandemic or biodefense products in the event of emergencies. With this grant EBS purchased and expanded what became its Bayview factory in Baltimore. The CIADM contract essentially guaranteed Emergent a big role in any future pandemic response.

Emergent acquired the maker of Narcan nasal spray, the opioid overdose antidote. Soon FDA began recommending to prescribers that they write a Narcan script whenever they wrote a narcotic script, just in case. States started buying large quantities for free distribution. Sales rose 600% after EBS bought the company.

Under the Trump administration, retired Air Force Colonel, physician and biodefense consultant Robert Kadlec was appointed to the position of Assistant Secretary of DHHS for Preparedness and Emergency Response (aka ASPR). Kadlec had also been a consultant and business partner of EBS’ founder and chairman Fuad el-Hibri. Kadlec had omitted this information from the required disclosures for Senate confirmation. Once confirmed as Assistant Secretary, Kadlec was able to transfer responsibility for the National Strategic Stockpile (containing the US stockpiles of pandemic remedies, masks and equipment) from the CDC to his own agency. Kadlec then gave multiple sweetheart deals to EBS, until the value of EBS’ contracts with ASPR exceeded those of every other contractor.

ASPR Kadlec was blamed for cancelling a federal contract to make N95 masks while buying more and more anthrax and smallpox vaccines, pre-Covid.

Covid-19 presented a huge opportunity for Emergent BioSolutions. EBS received $628 million from DHHS to retool its CIADM factory. It inked additional contracts with the Astra-Zeneca, Johnson and Johnson, Novavax, Providence Therapeutics and VaxArt companies to provide bulk manufacturing of their vaccines in its Baltimore facilities. Altogether its pandemic contracts were worth about $1.5 Billion. It was slated to manufacture 9 separate medical products to address Covid-19, all designed by other companies.

But there were serious potential problems.

While it had a storied Board of former federal officials, Emergent BioSolutions had never brought a single product to market. Its expertise was in contracting and acquisitions, not production. It had a history of production failures, and had demanded that the federal government bail the company out, or else the sole source products the company provided would become unavailable. Some of this was detailed in the Congressional report Unproven Force Protection. Entering the pandemic, EBS was still making the same mistakes it had been guilty of twenty years earlier:

EBS did not have an active workforce in Baltimore. On September 30, EBS held an online job fair which it titled “Warp Speed Careers Event.” The event sought to recruit 300 employees. Yet EBS had begun inking vaccine contracts 5 months earlier, and could have hired and trained a workforce that was ready to go when FDA gave it the go-ahead.  Instead, doing things on the cheap, EBS hired late, failed to provide adequate training to its employees, and experienced a spectacular series of production failures. Many millions of doses of its Johnson and Johnson and its Astra-Zeneca Covid vaccines had to be dumped. J and J missed its 20 million dose quota for the end of March, and FDA, despite repeated inspections, would not give the plant an authorization so its products could be used.

Despite this, somehow millions of doses produced in the unauthorized plant were shipped to Canada, the European Union, South Africa and Mexico. The EU, at least, used the product. How did that occur? We don’t know. Did any get distributed in the US? We can’t be sure none did.

On April 4, 2021, EBS announced it would receive an additional $23 million from DHHS for new equipment to use in the manufacture of Johnson and Johnson’s Covid-19 vaccine.

As of last week, EBS was facing another lawsuit from its shareholders, and its stock price had fallen to $60 from the peak on February 12 of $125 per share. However, Emergent CEO Robert Kramer exercised his stock options in January and February, near the stock’s peak, earning himself over $7 million dollars in profit.

In summary, EBS, despite considerable manufacturing shortcomings, has been extremely successful at obtaining government contracts and earning huge profits. But its products have repeatedly been unreliable. The company has managed to turn failures into success, especially when its products, like civilian stockpiles of anthrax and smallpox vaccine, and nerve gas auto-injectors, are stockpiled but not used.

The public has only gradually been learning that the vaccines it thought were being produced by huge Pharma companies Astra-Zeneca and Johnson and Johnson were in fact being manufactured by the anthrax vaccine company, Emergent BioSolutions. How did it come to pass that the federal government, and these established pharmaceutical companies, bet the farm on EBS’ production of Covid-19 vaccines?

May 19, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, War Crimes | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Never have so many become so blinded to the truth

By Nicholas Orlando | Conservative Woman | May 19, 2021

THERE was a time in the not-too-distant past when our freedoms were predicated on the vulnerable being vaccinated. This was the limiter which justified the continuation of draconian measures into winter after Christmas was stolen. Christmas was stolen to save January. November was stolen to save Christmas. They told us in October that if we didn’t lock down then we would face 4,000 deaths a day. A number they knew at the time to be a gross overestimate. They used it anyway.

We now know unequivocally that we are victims of this government’s unethical psychological campaign of coercion. We know many loved ones believe their relatives’ deaths were falsely certified as Covid deaths on presumption and not evidence. And that a quarter of recently attributed deaths were not caused by the virus. I am still incredulous at the statement ‘deaths of any cause within 28 days of a positive Covid test’ as the caveat to daily reported figures.

We have simply lost our minds.

Of course no one wants to get Covid. Like any seasonal flu it has the potential to be nasty. But it remains a relatively insignificant virus for the vast majority of the population. Despite an average death age for the disease (82) higher than population life expectancy (81), we have been forced to endure an endless campaign of mendacious claims and impositions justified with empty promises.

Now the end of the long and ‘irreversible’ roadmap (which has for several months been at odds with the once solid claim of ‘data not dates’) is being re-framed before our eyes with Sage claiming the possibility of 10,000 hospital admissions per day in July and restrictions continuing beyond June 21.

The justification for this new round of official caution, the ‘Indian variant’, has been promulgated with several weeks of distressing media imagery. Just a few weeks before a similar stream of distress was being transmitted from Brazil.

For those who want to balance the BBC’s scenes of mass graves in Brazil and funeral pyres across India, it may be worth researching these countries’ Covid deaths per million to gain some proportion.

For many of us the past six months has been psychological torture. Endless days of winter isolation leading to a half-life in spring. A persistent sense of atrophy has remained with the dull ache of forced containment. Small businesses placed into induced comas. The nation’s cultural treasures kept under lock and key. Human connection severed. Life’s potential suppressed.

If you are buying into the official narrative you are rewarded with a sense of moral vindication. Your sacrifice is for a greater national good. It’s bad manners to question the motives and morality of what has taken place. Or to entertain the idea that taking an unlicensed medical treatment may not be okay.

If, like me, you are uncertain about the jab for perfectly sensible and personal reasons, you may be preparing for the extraordinary reality that access to your ‘normal’ life, including the things you love, be it cultural, social or leisure, may soon be off limits. You may be wondering if your job is going to be at risk. And whether you will again be allowed to travel abroad.

The Covzealots are now rounding on those of us they label with ‘vaccine hesitancy’. We are determined to be a risk, so it seems fair game to consider people like me to be selfish, idiotic, anti-vaxxer-conspiracy-nuts. The ramping up against us has the signs of becoming a persecutory campaign.

For what it’s worth, I’ve spent eight years of my life in various volunteering roles. Supporting the elderly, the mentally ill and young people. I’m as fallible as the next man. But I’m not going to take lectures on morality because I won’t be bullied or coerced into compliance by the state.

If you are observing the official narrative, you have seen the pattern. You were well prepared for the approaching about-turn on restriction easing. You were prepared for the forthcoming drive to vaccinate children (I was shocked when they announced the recommendation for pregnant women) with a medical device which remains in its trial phase.

The propaganda bomb, created with sophisticated psychological techniques, deployed throughout the media and driven forwards by state activists in the press, has been designed to rattle even the hardiest among us. For many, the commonplace week or two of coughs, aches and sneezes has become the existential terror of ‘is this really it?’

Whilst I understand the power of fear, I cannot grasp how so many fellow citizens have become so blinded. There seem to be two branches of the same pro-Covid narrative playing out within the mainstream: willingness to excuse ‘Boris’ and therefore lend sympathy for his government’s vaccine nationalism, or anger at his incompetence, that enough wasn’t done at the outset, so the endless spiral of restrictions is necessary (according to the ‘experts’). Either way they work together to support compliance.

Before the Iraq war, I was shouted down for questioning an agenda where so many things did not add up. The dodgy dossier latterly proved doubters like me to be correct. The same people are shouting at me again. Many supposedly astute individuals seem to want to lend good faith to another state operation being supported by Tony Blair.

I wonder if those amongst us going along with a monumental attack on truth, freedom and individual liberty would see through the shoddy claims of the government Covid salesmen were they lent the autonomy to be the ‘rational actors’ Sage planners had originally determined the population should be treated as? We will never know.

May 19, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | 1 Comment

Friends and allies: The Gates Foundation and British scientists

By Karen Harradine | Conservative Woman | May 17, 2021

This is the third article in a series

IN THE previous instalments I explored the extraordinary hold Bill Gates has over global health policy and the spread of its influence right into the heart of British public health policy via the funding by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (GF) of science businesses, foundations and public bodies through a complex web of interconnection and crossover of personnel. 

This, however, is not the sum total of the GF’s reach into the world of British science and public health. It has been funding British university science departments, projects, and individuals for more than two decades. The topics involved include research into and manufacturing of vaccines.

No government-appointed science committee has influenced public health policy as much as Sage. Many of its members, who cross over with Independent Sage and Nervtag and are already somewhat compromised by connections to the GF-funded GlaxoSmithKline and Wellcome Foundation, are also employees of universities and colleges which have received massive GF grants and, in some cases, work in partnership with them. Three of Sage’s members, Professors Graham Medley, Andrew Rambaut and Matt Keeling, are individual recipients of grants from the GF.

Earlier this year a Sage subcommittee, the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling, Operational sub-group (SPI-M-O), commissioned three university departments to conduct modelling research, a scaremongering exercise that was to be the basis of Sage advice to the Government. 

Readers may remember the three modelling papers produced by Imperial College London (ICL), Warwick University and the London School of Tropical Hygiene and Medicine (LSHTM) which received considerable press attention at the end of March, and their dramatic simultaneous warnings of a ‘third’ Covid-19 wave and new lethal variants; cautioning (yet again) how this will put the NHS under stress. All recommended stricter lockdowns, Test and Trace and, tellingly, booster vaccines.

SPI-M-O had assigned each university a specific task: ICL’s was ‘Evaluating England’s Roadmap out of Lockdown’, Warwick’s to produce ‘Road Map Scenarios and Sensitivity’ and LSHTM’s to make an ‘Interim roadmap assessment: prior to Step 2’.

Promoting the ICL paper was none other than the multi-tasking Sage member Professor Neil Ferguson, co-founder and Principal Investigator of the Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis (MRC GIDA) at Imperial College, a centre that works closely with the GF, the Global Fund and Gavi, Vice Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health at ICL, a Director and Adviser at the World Health Organisation (WHO) and a recipient of cloud computing time from Microsoft and Amazon for Covid-19 modelling.

Notorious for churning out alarmist modelling and for advocating Chinese lockdown policy, in this latest paper Ferguson turned his attention to vaccines. It said that current vaccines on their own would be ineffective in keeping new variants under control. A few weeks later, though neither a virologist nor immunologist, he was insisting on the necessity of vaccine boosters. 

Warwick’s paper emphasised the ‘danger’ of new variants to an even greater degree than the ICL paper. It warned that ‘stringent methods’ would be needed to counteract them and that the current vaccination programme might not adequately contain them.

The paper produced by the LSHTM group was the most pessimistic of all. It warned that a ‘third wave’ and new variants would bring a high death toll. It also stressed the need for Test and Trace which, together with that other Sage recommendation, vaccine passports, is the new formula for digital slavery and a surveillance state. 

How Ferguson, whose modelling methodologies and predictions had been so comprehensively discredited, was getting away with this repeat performance seemed baffling,  but for the fact that as a key member of the SPI-M-O subgroup he had been able to commission the new modelling research as well as that of supportive colleagues at Warwick University and the LSHTM.

Curiously, several SPI-M-O members turn out to be affiliated to one or another of these three universities too and are the very same academics who wrote these modelling papers. Given that they have commissioned themselves and sit on the subgroup, no independent assessment or scrutiny of their work has taken place. This is the epitome of jobs for the boys and girls.

Here are the SPI-M-O members connected to ICL:

Professors Neil Ferguson (Sage), Stephen Brett, Nicholas Grassly, Steven Riley, Wendy Barclay (Sage) and Drs Marc Baguelin, Samir Bhatt and Tim Lucas. Ferguson and Baguelin contributed to the ICL paper. 

Here are the SPI-M-O members who work at Warwick University:

Professor Matt Keeling and Drs Louise Dyson, Edward Hill, Michael Tildesley and Joe Hilton. Keeling, Dyson, Tildesley and Hill are four out of five authors of the Warwick paper. 

The following SPI-M-O members are connected to the LSHTM:

Professors John Edmunds (Sage), Mark Jit, Graham Medley (Sage), Drs Nick Davies, Rosalind Eggo, Sebastian Funk, Thibaut Jombart, Petra Klepac, Adam Kurcharski, Rohini Mathur, Sam Clifford, Elizabeth Fearon, Gwen Knight and Bill Quilty. Edmunds, Jit and Davies are three out of four of the authors of the LSHTM paper.

The Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Professor Jonathan Van-Tam, is a member of both Sage and SPI-M-O.

It will surprise few readers to learn that ICL, Warwick University and the LSHTM, are historically heavily funded by the GF.

The GF made its first grant to ICL of $31.9million in 2000. ICL received a further $46.7million from the GF in 2006 to research tropical diseases. The GF granted ICL a total of $446,205 in 2019 for research into enteric and diarrhoeal diseases, technology solutions, malaria, and ‘Discovery and Translational Sciences’. In 2020 it gave ICL a total of $91.5million for studies into polio, tuberculosis, global health, technology solutions, malaria, HIV, Discovery and Translational Sciences and family planning.

Last January, Sage member Professor Sir Mark Walport was appointed chair of the Imperial College Academic Health Science Centre (AHSC) Strategic Partnership. His ICL colleagues Professor Robin Grimes and Dr David Halpern sit on Sage too. Professor Ferguson and two ICL colleagues, Professors Wendy Barclay and Peter Openshaw, are members of Nervtag as well.

Warwick University’s GF funding goes back to 2015. An initial grant of $20,000 from the GF rapidly increased to a current total of $8.3million. In 2017, the GF awarded Warwick University $3million to research disease modelling, and in 2020 $2.2million to study neglected tropical diseases.

The LSHTM received a $40million GF grant for malaria research in 2000, with other grants in 2008 totalling $60million. More recently, in 2019, it was awarded a total of $15million, including £1million for Aids research, and in 2020 a further $1.5million for vaccine development.

Sage member Professor Yvonne Doyle works at the LSHTM as does Nervtag member Professor John Edmunds and Independent Sage member Professor Martin McKee. Professor Edmunds was recently a recipient of a grant worth £5million from UKRI, which collaborates with the GF, to study disease modelling in Africa.

The late Professor Val Curtis, a member of Independent Sage, also worked at the LSHTM. 

Predictably, none of the recent modelling by this closed shop takes into account the economic damage, social disintegration or consequences of lockdown, or the neglect of non-Covid-19 diseases as a result of lockdown and social distancing policies. Yet all this is now extensively catalogued. The conflicts of interest and cross over with these government advisers and highly directed research in universities heavily funded by GF, which has one narrow vision global vaccination agenda, is alarming.

Even more alarming is that it is on this basis that an unaccountable and unelected body has effectively dictated Government policy and our lives this past year. Its controversially modelled predictions of worst-case scenarios, none of which to date have been borne out, have been useful for two things: terrifying the populace into submission and priming the government, and us, into further lockdowns next autumn and winter – and establish them as the ‘new normal’.

Whether the men and women named here are useful idiots for Gates, or self-servers without moral compass, such scientific narrow vision reflects very poorly on them and their institutions.

The tentacles of the GF are everywhere. In the final part of this series I will be looking at its funding of the Oxford Recovery trials, Cambridge Science Park, its interconnections with the AstraZeneca project, its funding of several other universities, and finally at its investment in Serco, one of the outsourcing companies behind the Test and Trace programme.

May 19, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Covid-19 vaccines: In the rush for regulatory approval, do we need more data?

By Peter Doshi | BMJ | May 18, 2021

After rollout under emergency authorisation, manufacturers of covid-19 vaccines now have their sights on regulatory approval. But what’s the rush, asks Peter Doshi, and is just six months of data from now unblinded trials acceptable?

In April 2021, Pfizer and Moderna announced efficacy results at the six month mark from the phase III trials of their respective covid-19 vaccines.1 2

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said the company’s data “confirm the favourable efficacy and safety profile of our vaccine and position us to submit a Biologics License Application to the US FDA [Food and Drug Administration].”1 And on 7 May it formally initiated that application which, if successful, will earn the Pfizer-BioNTech product, BNT162b2, the distinction of becoming the first covid-19 vaccine approved by the FDA.

Because lest we forget, all covid-19 vaccines currently in use in the US are available under emergency access only.

(The situation is similar in Europe, where four covid-19 vaccines have been granted “conditional marketing authorisations,” a fast track mechanism that can be used in emergencies. These can be converted into standard “marketing authorisations” pending positive data after authorisation, but this has not yet happened for any covid-19 vaccine being administered.)

As hundreds of millions of people around the world get vaccinated, it may seem like wordsmithing to highlight the fact that none of the covid-19 vaccines in use are actually “approved.” Through an emergency access mechanism known as Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA), the products being rolled out still technically remain “investigational.”3 Factsheets distributed to vaccinees are clear: “There is no FDA approved vaccine to prevent covid-19.”4

The approval-authorisation distinction is often misunderstood by the media,5 even in the scientific press. But it was the focus of much discussion back in September 2020. With large phase III trials by Pfizer and Moderna well under way, and the November US presidential election looming, many worried about political pressure resulting in the rollout of an unsafe or ineffective vaccine.6

The FDA had already come under fire, accused of bending to the White House in granting EUAs for two covid-19 treatments, hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma. But those fears largely dissipated when the FDA published a guidance document in early October outlining its expectations for the EUA. According to the document, at least half of a trial’s participants would need to be followed for at least two months.7 This alone made it all but certain no vaccine could cross the line before the election.

The FDA also said it would want a vaccine at least 50% effective (with a confidence interval reaching no lower than 30%) against a primary endpoint of preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection or covid-19 disease of any severity8—parameters it had previously defined as necessary for approval. Even for non-clinical parameters, like manufacturing quality, the FDA characterised its expectations for the EUA as “very similar” to those for approval.3

Six months: enough?

One key difference between EUA and approval (also called “licensure,” and which for vaccines is known as a BLA (Biologics License Application)) was the expected length of follow-up of trial participants. Unlike its clear articulation of two months for an EUA, the FDA has not committed to a clear minimum for approval.

Cody Meissner, a professor of paediatrics at Tufts University and member of the FDA’s advisory committee, was curious. “Is it possible to predict or estimate when conditions of safety and efficacy might be satisfied for BLA?” Meissner asked at the agency’s 10 December meeting which had been convened to consider the FDA’s first emergency authorisation for the Pfizer vaccine.

The FDA’s Doran Fink responded: “I couldn’t predict, but I will say that we typically ask for at least six months of follow-up in a substantial number of clinical trial participants to constitute a safety database that would support licensure.”

An approval based on six months of data would represent one of the fastest for a novel vaccine in FDA history. Among the six “first in disease” vaccines approved by the FDA since 2006, pre-licensure pivotal trials were a median of 23 months in duration, according to a recent analysis.9

Six months also seems substantially shorter than previously conceptualised expectations. A World Health Organization expert group on covid-19 vaccines (which included FDA regulators) in August 2020 called for follow-up “until at least month 12, or until an effective vaccine is deployed locally.”10 Another group, composed of industry and academic authors, similarly wrote in October 2020: “we recommend longer term follow-up of all participants … for at least a year after randomisation.”11

On paper, the phase III studies by Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen are all of two years’ duration. But the FDA’s official position on minimum follow-up before licensure is unclear at best.

In its formal guidance last June, the agency said that for licensure applications, it wanted participants followed for covid-19 outcomes for “as long as feasible, ideally at least one to two years”12 after the first injection. But the same document states that safety assessments for “serious and other medically attended adverse events” should be studied “for at least six months after completion of all study vaccinations. Longer safety monitoring may be warranted for certain vaccine platforms.”

Asked to clarify whether its guidance is asking for follow-up of at least six months or one year, a spokesperson told The BMJ: “We do not have any further information beyond what is in the guidance document.”

Unblinded and without a control group—what about safety?

Duration of protection is not the only question that longer, placebo controlled trials can address. They also address vaccine safety.

“Very often, it’s the fact that we have that placebo controlled follow-up over time, that gives us the ability to say that the vaccine didn’t cause something at a longer period of time after vaccination,” the FDA’s Philip Krause explained last December.13

Yet there is a gap—currently of unknown size but growing—between any expectation of blinded placebo controlled data, and the reality that within weeks of the vaccines receiving an EUA the unblinding of trials commenced as placebo recipients were offered the chance to get vaccinated.

Steven Goodman, associate dean of clinical and translational research at Stanford University, told the FDA in an invited presentation last December, “Once a vaccine is made widely available and encouraged, maintaining a double blinded control group for more than a nominal period is no longer in the investigator’s (or regulator’s) control and undue pressure to do so may undermine the entire vaccine testing enterprise.”14

Goodman’s recommendation was to rapidly convert the trials into crossover studies, enabling those on placebo to get vaccinated (and vice versa), while maintaining the blind. The companies challenged the feasibility, calling it “onerous,” and a crossover never occurred.15

The BMJ asked Moderna, Pfizer, and Janssen (Johnson and Johnson) what proportion of trial participants were now formally unblinded, and how many originally allocated to placebo have now received a vaccine. Pfizer declined to say, but Moderna announced that “as of April 13, all placebo participants have been offered the Moderna covid-19 vaccine and 98% of those have received the vaccine.”2 In other words, the trial is unblinded, and the placebo group no longer exists.

Janssen told The BMJ: “We do not have specific figures on how many of our study participants have received a vaccine at this time.” But the company confirmed it was implementing an amended protocol across all countries to unblind all participants in its two phase III trials, the earlier of which passed the median of two month follow-up mark in January.

How the FDA will weigh the loss of blinding and placebo controlled follow-up is unclear, but just months ago the agency said these trial properties were vital.

“Continuation of placebo controlled follow-up after EUA will be important and may actually be critical to ensure that additional safety and effectiveness data are accrued to support submission of a licensure application as soon as possible following an EUA. … Once a decision is made to unblind an ongoing placebo controlled trial, that decision cannot be walked back. And that controlled follow-up is lost forever,” the FDA said last October.3

At its next advisory committee in December 2020, the FDA reiterated the importance of the placebo group: “Placebo controlled follow-up can be very important in showing that whatever happened in the vaccine group also happened in the placebo group. Because that’s our best way of knowing.”13

What’s the rush?

The US’s “Operation Warp Speed” delivered on its promise to get a novel vaccine into arms in record time (box). Millions of doses of vaccines are being administered daily across the US, making clear that lack of FDA approval is no barrier to access. So just what benefit is there in seeking, and granting, a BLA?

The BMJ asked the manufacturers why they were seeking a BLA. Moderna did not respond and Janssen only confirmed it intended to apply for a BLA “later in 2021.” Pfizer likewise did not answer but instead quoted an FDA webpage on medical devices, which stated: “Sponsors of EUA products are encouraged to follow up the EUA with a pre-market submission so that it can remain on the market once the EUA is no longer in effect.”16 But EUAs have no built-in expiry date—in fact, 14 EUAs for Zika diagnostic tests remain active despite the public health emergency expiring in 2017.17

Cody Meissner told The BMJ he saw some distinct advantages of a BLA over EUA. An approved vaccine, for one, would provide “an element of assurance,” increasing public trust in the vaccines, particularly for those currently sitting on the fence. It would also pave the way for claims of vaccine injury to be routed through a more established compensation programme, and for adding the vaccine to government funded schemes to reach children in financial need.18 Finally, it may affect the potential for vaccine mandates: “It is unlikely these vaccines will be mandated while an EUA is in place. Remember that currently these vaccines are still considered experimental.”

While still under EUA, an increasing number of educational and other institutions have already mandated vaccines, but debates over the legality of these actions has hinged on the distinction between authorisation and approval.19

But approving a vaccine in order to legally support mandates or convince people of its safety arguably puts the cart before the horse. Meissner responded that a BLA would not be issued until the FDA is convinced of the short and long term safety of these vaccines.

No new biodistribution studies for covid-19 vaccines

Officials have consistently emphasised that despite shaving years off traditional timelines for producing vaccines, no compromises in the process were taken.20 However one type of study, tracking the distribution of a vaccine once injected in the body, was not conducted using any of the three vaccines currently authorised in the US.

Such biodistribution studies are a standard element of drug safety testing but “are usually not required for vaccines,” according to European Medicines Agency policy,21 which adds, “However, such studies might be applicable when new delivery systems are employed or when the vaccine contains novel adjuvants or excipients.”

In the case of covid-19 vaccines, regulators accepted biodistribution data from past studies performed with related, mostly unapproved compounds that use the same platform technology.22232425

Janssen told The BMJ its covid-19 vaccine leverages the same technology as its Ebola vaccine, which received licensure last June. “Our confidence in our adenovirus vector Ad26 is based on our experience with this vector.”

Pfizer and Moderna did not respond to The BMJ’s questions regarding why no biodistribution studies were conducted on their novel mRNA products, and none of the companies, nor the FDA, would say whether new biodistribution studies will be required prior to licensure.


  • Competing interests PD gave a public statement at the October and December FDA advisory committee meetings mentioned in this article (transcripts here:, and may continue to engage in public input towards regulatory decision making around covid-19 vaccines. PD is also employed by a university that has mandated covid-19 vaccines for all faculty, staff, and students. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official policy or position of the University of Maryland.

Peter Doshi, senior editor –


May 19, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Politifact backtracks on the origin of SARS-Cov-2, yet smears remain uncorrected

By Meryl Nass, MD | May 18, 2021

Here is Politifact quoting me from the film Plandemic, which Politifact then disputed by citing a March 17, 2020 Nature Medicine article, which I had mentioned in the film as being bogus:

“I feel quite convinced that this was a laboratory designed organism.” — Dr. Meryl Nass, internal medicine specialist

POLITIFACT August 18, 2020: Research shows that the virus could not have been created in a lab. An article published March 17 says the genetic makeup of the coronavirus, documented by researchers from several public health organizations, does not indicate it was altered.

Now, it seems, many have awakened, after being spoon-fed an analysis of the facts by Nicholas Wade, and realized the Nature Medicine paper makes absolutely no sense.

Here is what Politifact says now, May 17, 2021:

Some scientists have argued that the lab-leak hypothesis deserves to be taken much more seriously than it was earlier in the pandemic, and that dismissals of it as conspiracy theory were premature. Claims of complete certainty on either side remain unfounded.

No mention, of course, of Politifact’s previous smear of me and the movie. All the fact-checkers piled on me last August, as I described in a blog post, for saying the origin of Covid was a lab. Where are the rest of them now? Do the rest of the fact-checkers correct their facts?

Do the social media platforms that banned the movie resurrect it?

May 19, 2021 Posted by | Film Review, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | | Leave a comment

Shocker: Why is this substance in the Moderna COVID vaccine?

By Jon Rappoport | No More Fake News | May 19, 2021

It’s called SM-102.

Verifying that it is in the Moderna COVID vaccine, I find a 12/30/20 CDC document titled: “COVID-19 Vaccines: Update on Allergic Reactions, Contraindications, and Precautions.” [1]

If you scroll down halfway through the document, you’ll see a chart titled, “Ingredients Included in mRNA COVID vaccines.” (pg 20)

The right-hand side of the chart shows ingredients in the Moderna vaccine. The fifth ingredient down is “SM-102: heptadecan-9-yl 8-((2-hydroxyethyl) (6-oxo-6-(undecyloxy) hexyl) amino) octanoate.”

Now we go to a document published by the Cayman Chemical Company of Ann Arbor, Michigan: “Safety Data Sheet acc. to OSHA HCS.” (04/11/2021) [2]

This data sheet lists the effects of SM-102. Here is the opening note: “For research use only, not for human or veterinary use.”

Far from comforting.

Then the safety data sheet lights up with adverse effects/warnings re SM-102. For example: “Suspected of causing cancer. Suspected of damaging fertility or the unborn child. Causes damage to the central nervous system, the kidneys, the liver and the respiratory system through prolonged or repeated exposure. Very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects.”

Several things to point out here. First, what dosage level of, and what duration of exposure to, SM-102 are we talking about? Details on these toxicity factors need to be known. HOWEVER, all that is overridden by the fact that SM-102 is being INJECTED into the body via the Moderna shot. We’re not just talking about inhalation or skin contact.

Obviously, the human body has layers of defense against attack. With injection, a number of those layers are bypassed.

And once deep within the body, where does SM-102 travel as it causes damage along the way?

I doubt that the Cayman safety data sheet even considered the possibility that SM-102 would be injected.

The experts and authorities will assure us SM-102 is safe. They’ll say only miniscule amounts are being injected. They’ll say the clinical trials of the vaccine revealed no problems. They’ll parrot, over and over again, as they always do: “safe and effective.”

You’re walking along a country path. You see a snake lying just ahead of you. He slowly raises his head and looks at you. On his hood, you read the words: “emergency use authorization granted.”







May 19, 2021 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | | 1 Comment

Not worried about the jab? You should be

By Harry Dougherty | Conservative Woman | May 19, 2021

THE problem with the Covid-19 vaccines is that we simply do not have enough information about their side-effects, and no one should be shamed (especially not by the President of the United States) or have their lives restricted for having this reasonable, wholly unselfish concern.

Such information does not exist at all for under-18s. The small-scale trials were designed only to test the vaccine on adults. Yet, largely because of media hysteria which has been recently accompanied by outright incitement, local officials have taken it upon themselves to start vaccinating 17-year-olds, citing the bogeyman ‘Indian variant’ in our midst.

The vaccine nudgers in government and the media, aided this week by a multi-million-pound YouTube ad campaign to persuade young people to get vaccinated, deliberately miss the point about the supposedly ‘extremely rare’ side-effects of these experimental vaccines, which include fatal blood clots in some cases.

The trouble is that if our ‘brilliant’ scientists knew nothing about the blood clots when the vaccine was first administered to citizens in December, what else don’t they know about?

Last week, the British regulator MHRA reported 41 new cases and nine more deaths as a result of one of these side-effects, a particular kind of clot known as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis alongside low platelets or thrombocytopenia. To date, there have been 209 cases and 41 deaths reported in the UK for the AstraZeneca vaccine alone. The first were reported in January.

According to an analysis of published MHRA data by Dr Hamid Merchant, a total of 532 ‘blood system events’, including 20 deaths, came through the UK’s Yellow Card system relating to the AstraZeneca jab between January 4 and March 14. There were thousands of non-blood-related reports besides. 

Let’s recap on the public guidance regarding the AstraZeneca vaccine. First we were told ‘this vaccine is safe, get vaccinated.’ Then they said, ‘the benefits of this vaccine outweigh the risks, get vaccinated.’ Then the goalposts were moved further: ‘The benefits of that vaccine outweigh the risks if you are over the age of 30, but get vaccinated.’ And now, ‘the benefits of this vaccine outweigh the risks if you are over 40, but get vaccinated, or else!’

If this is how much ‘the science’ has changed in a few months, what will ‘the science’ be a year or two from now? What will we know in the future that cannot be established now? Scientists have not begun to discuss other fatal adverse reactions to have emerged, most significantly the neurological ones for which the AstraZeneca trials were paused.

If countries such as Denmark and Slovakia can suspend the rollout of a vaccine as a precaution, why are individual citizens stupid or callous if they decline the vaccine as a precaution?

In the United States, the government has recorded more deaths after Covid vaccinations than from all other vaccines administered in the country between mid-1997 and the end of 2013, as was reported by Tucker Carlson on Fox News earlier this month. Nothing to see here, of course.

Any reasonable government would have at the very least stopped blackmailing people into getting vaccinated by now. Instead, they have the brass neck to demand that we put our lives in their hands as if we owe it to them. Coerced vaccination is not merely mandatory vaccination, it is mandatory trust, both in government and in ‘the science’, whatever that is.

It is worth reminding those with short memories that tobacco was ‘safe’ for decades. The scientific community promoted smoking not only as safe, but healthy. They were, of course, assisted by celebrities, some of whom would later become senior politicians. And for some 50 years, the overwhelming majority of people were dumb enough to believe it. Who could have guessed that inhaling tar into your lungs twenty times a day, every day, for years, might be bad for your health? We see grim warnings about heart disease, lung cancer and infertility on cigarette packaging today only because scientific outliers of yesterday eventually overwhelmed the consensus with evidence.

More recently and more relevant to the present fiasco, the swine flu vaccine, Pandemrix, was declared safe by regulators in 2009. It was safe, for most. But for some 1,000 people, most of whom were not at any significant risk from swine flu, the vaccine triggered narcolepsy, a crippling chronic sleep disorder that leaves sufferers unable to stay awake. It was only after it was too late for them that the authorities conceded there was a link between Pandemrix and narcolepsy.

One of the victims of Pandemrix, 23-year-old Katie Clack from Peterborough, committed suicide in 2014 because her narcolepsy left her with ‘no quality of life’.

In 2018, the progressive news website Buzzfeed published a powerful feature about NHS workers who had their lives and careers ruined by the side-effects of the swine flu vaccine. Nurse Meleney Gallagher, who now has narcolepsy, told Buzzfeed: ‘I was pressured into it.’

That was in a different era. Earlier this month the same website published a slavish article with the headline: ‘15 anti Vaxxers who were roasted on the internet.’

If history is anything to go by, the idiots out there who think it’s acceptable to bully their vaccine-hesitant friends, colleagues, strangers and even close family are going to look very silly ten years from now.

May 19, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment

Scientists Discover Anti-Maskers Are Really Good At Science! Uh-Oh

Amazing Polly | May 18, 2021

MIT did a study on Covid Skeptics and guess what? They found out we’re better at science, data analytics and communication than they are! Unfortunately this means we have to be stopped. I read from the study and give my commentary.

To support my work, please click here: THANK YOU!

TIMESTAMP for “Implications and Conclusion” 34:20

Link to study:

May 19, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | 3 Comments