Aletho News


The ‘racketeering and corruption’ that led to man-made Covid virus being unleashed

By Neville Hodgkinson | The Conservative Woman | July 14, 2021

Yesterday we reported evidence given to the German-led international Corona Investigative Committee on Friday July 9 by Dr David Martin, who runs a US company monitoring innovations relevant to financial interests.  He said a review of more than 4,000 patents issued around the SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) coronavirus had led to the dramatic conclusion: ‘We made SARS’. Today we continue an account of his evidence, of which the live-streamed video is here

THE United States has a federal law known as the RICO Act.  It sounds friendly, but is aimed at something deadly: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations. It was introduced due to the complexity of bringing successful charges against organised crime gangs.

Dr David Martin told the Corona Investigative Committee that in April 2003, a US drug company applied for a patent on anti-viral agents, treatment, and control of infections by coronavirus, just three days after the Centres for Disease Control sought to patent the SARS coronavirus itself – in a supposedly secret application. The first SARS outbreak had occurred in February that year in China.

His description led the inquiry committee chairman, German lawyer Reiner Fuellmich, who specialises in exposing corporate swindles, to comment: ‘This could well blow up into a RICO case ultimately.’

Martin replied: ‘Not could blow up – it is a RICO case. And the RICO pattern which was established in April 2003 for the first coronavirus was played out to exactly the same schedule when we see SARS-COV-2 show up.’

He claimed that Moderna (originally ModeRNA) were given the genetic sequence for the spike protein that forms the basis of their Covid vaccine by phone from the vaccine research centre at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases even before the novel subclade of the virus had been defined. ‘How do you treat a thing before you actually have the thing?’ he asked.

Moderna (originally ModeRNA Therapeutics) is a Massachusetts-based company founded in 2010 by a team of investors to develop RNA (ribonucleic acid) technology, thought to hold huge promise in harnessing the power of RNA code to make new medicines inside our bodies.

Another important date, Martin said, is June 5, 2008. This was around the time when the Defence Advanced Research Programme (DARPA) in the US took an interest in coronavirus as a biological weapon.  It was also the date when a drug company, now part of the Paris-based pharma giant Sanofi, filed a series of patents targeting genes that 12 years later are said to be the novel features of SARS-COV-2 that make it a health hazard for humans.

From 2008 onwards, patent filings from numerous organisations identified ‘every attribute’ of the virus, as it eventually came to be described. The reference paper routinely used to identify it, published in March 2020, claimed to show that the novel features had come about in nature, and that the virus ‘originated from multiple naturally-occurring recombinant events among those viruses present in bats and other wildlife species’.

Martin said: ‘Unfortunately, if you actually take what they report to be novel, you find 73 patents, issued between 2008 and 2019, which have the elements which are allegedly novel in SARS-COV-2. So – there was no outbreak of SARS, because we had engineered all of the elements of that.’

The supposedly new virus had been said since 2016 to be poised for human emergence. But ‘it was not only poised for human emergence, it was patented for commercial exploitation – 73 times,’ Martin said. ‘Any assertion that this pathogen is somehow unique or novel falls apart on the actual gene sequences, which are published in the patent record.’

Researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (who collaborated with the laboratory in Wuhan, China, in the coronavirus ‘gain of function’ work) along with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Moderna, began the sequencing of a spike protein vaccine in November 2019, a month before the Wuhan outbreak happened.

Martin also challenged the idea that injecting people with the RNA sequence for the spike protein is a true vaccine. The theory behind it is that by teaching the immune system to recognise the protein, which in itself has toxic effects, the body will be better equipped to deal with the toxin when exposed to the virus.

‘The illusion that we continue unfortunately to see very well-meaning people get trapped in, is conversations about whether we are having a vaccine for a virus. The fact is, we’re not. We are injecting a spike protein RNA sequence, which is a computer simulation of a sequence which has been known and patented for years. It’s not derived from nature.

‘The ludicrous nature of the story that this is somehow prophylactic or preventative flies in the face of 100 per cent of the evidence, because the evidence makes it abundantly clear that there has been no effort by any pharmaceutical company to combat the virus. This is about getting people injected with the known-to-be harmful spike protein.’

The reason for doing that, he argues, is to get people ‘addicted’ to a pan-coronavirus vaccine. There had been a decade-long, pan-influenza vaccine mandate, ‘desperately, desperately, desperately promoted by governments around the world. They failed. And they decided if influenza doesn’t deliver, on the public promise of getting everybody to get an injection, let’s change the pathogen.

‘You need to create the illusion of a demand, and there is nothing right now that does a better job of creating the illusion of demand than the urgency of an event you have manufactured.

‘Here’s the sad and sober irony: I raised these issues in 2002, after the anthrax scare, and the tragedy is we are now sitting in a world where we have hundreds of millions of people who are being injected with a pathogen-stimulating computer sequence which is being sold under what the Patent Office, the medical profession, and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) in its own clinical standards would not suggest is a vaccine. But by using the term, we are now subjecting hundreds of millions of people to what was known by 2005 to be a biological weapon.’

The video of Martin’s live-streamed evidence is already receiving tens of thousands of views. At the very least, the data he presents surely should put to rest the idea of the virus as a product of nature that just happened to develop the capacity to jump from animals to humans.

This in itself has enormous implications. For one thing, why should we believe the claims by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness (CEPI), launched in 2017 with a huge cash infusion from the Gates Foundation, that a proposed 3.5billion-dollar quest for a universal coronavirus vaccine to ‘contain SARS-COV-2 and its variants’ is either a desirable or an achievable goal?

Urging support for the plan, co-founder Bill Gates said ‘CEPI has helped the global science community do something incredible: develop Covid-19 vaccines in less than a year.’  That claim sounds more than hollow in the light of the 20-year patent trail revealed by Martin.

What’s more, Martin spelled out a case that even the alleged SARS ‘variants’ of the coronavirus are artificial, representing the identification of different gene fragments rather than genuine variations.

‘It’s just an alteration in when you start and stop what you call the reading frame,’ he said. ‘If what we are looking for is something we have decided is worth looking for, then we’ll find it … where I choose to start or stop, I can say I found it. Or I didn’t find it! I didn’t find the match that I projected on to the data, because I chose to look at the data in a way that I could not find the match.’

With government advisers seemingly pulling ‘new variants’ out of the bag whenever they feel the grip of terror is lessening, this is another area calling for a sober reassessment of what is really going on.

July 15, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

North Carolina Henderson County Board of Commissioners look for new platform after YouTube censorship

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim the Net | July 15, 2021

Once again YouTube has decided that it has the right to silence elected officials in the US in a bid to prevent them from making their policies and decisions known, particularly concerning COVID.

When North Carolina’ Henderson County Board of Commissioners met to discuss whether to spend taxpayer money to promote Covid vaccination, and decided against the idea, passing a relevant resolution, YouTube was quick to delete the video taken during the meeting.

The commissioners’ meeting and vote not to spend county dollars to push for people to get the jab was followed by citizens, vaccine skeptics, expressing their opinion on the issue by saying that they believed the inoculation project was put together by the government, the media, and pharmaceutical companies who have a “hidden agenda.”

The Google company also swiftly rejected the appeal filed by the commissioners, stating that the the content had been reviewed “carefully,” but that YouTube censors still found the video in violation of the medical misinformation policy.

Two days after this happened, the County held another vote and decided to remove YouTube as the video platform its officials use, and look for alternatives.

Vice chair Rebecca McCall and other commissioners called YouTube’s decision an act of censorship, and questioned whether such a widely used platform, even if privately owned, should be allowed to do that – or be the judge of what medical information is acceptable.

YouTube has a long list of things its users are not allowed to utter on the platform, often not even as part of a debate among scientists and doctors, as YouTube believes these things pose “a serious risk of egregious harm.”

This includes recommending Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine for Covid treatment (even though critics of the use of these drugs speak about their inefficacy rather than potential harm), and making claims that Covid vaccines can make people ill. Contradicting local health authorities or the WHO is also prohibited, where it comes to treatment, prevention, transmission, or orders of restrictive measures such as mask wearing and social distancing.

July 15, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

White House admits ‘flagging problematic posts’ for Facebook, says it’s needed to fight medical ‘misinformation’

RT | July 15, 2021

As the Biden administration called “medical misinformation” a public health threat, the White House said it was working with social media to flag “problematic” posts. Critics called it an end-run around the First Amendment.

“We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters on Thursday. In addition to directing the company to censor people, the government is also working to “get trusted content out there” by putting medical professionals in touch with social media influencers.

Psaki’s admission came after Surgeon General Vivek Murthy issued an advisory declaring misinformation “an imminent and insidious threat to our nation’s health.”

“Misinformation takes away our freedom to make informed decisions about our health and the health of our loved ones,” Murthy said at the White House. During just the Covid-19 pandemic, it has led to Americans refusing to wear masks, “turn down proven treatments” and choosing not to get vaccinated, which, he said, cost lives.

Murthy is a “tyrant” who wants “Big Tech to crack down on what amounts to open inquiry and free exchange of ideas,” commented journalist Jordan Schachtel, one of the notable skeptics when it comes to official pandemic narratives.

Looking at the surgeon general’s recommendations, Grabien’s Tom Elliott pointed out that the government is literally instructing private companies to “abridge the freedom of speech, and of the press, and the rights of people to peaceably assemble and petition the gov’t for redresses of grievances” – in other words, violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Journalist Glenn Greenwald, who helped publish NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden’s revelations about surveillance abuse in 2013, called this union of corporate and state power “one of the classic hallmarks of fascism.”

“If you don’t find it deeply disturbing that the White House is ‘flagging’ internet content that they deem ‘problematic’ to their Facebook allies for removal, then you are definitionally an authoritarian,” said Greenwald.

“This is ‘Ministry of Truth’ level malfeasance. They’re literally admitting to colluding with [the] media to control the narrative. This is censorship,” tweeted Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky), adding that such tactics befit dictatorships and that throttling speech with which the government disagrees crosses a line.

Conservative columnist Stacey Lennox argued that censorship would actually make Americans question the White House’s narrative even more.

“If your ideas are the best, they can stand on their own. Censorship will make people question it more. Every. Single. Time,” she tweeted.

Democrats have clamored for social media to censor “misinformation” ever since the 2016 election, which resulted in the surprise victory of Republican Donald Trump over mainstream media favorite Hillary Clinton. The Trump campaign had bypassed corporate gatekeepers by reaching out to Americans directly via Twitter, Facebook, and other social media.

Four years later, under the pretext of fighting misinformation and “Russian interference,” thousands of users had been purged from the platforms, while Twitter and Facebook suppressed a newspaper for publishing a story about Joe Biden’s son Hunter and the information found on his laptop. They also cracked down on any questions about new electoral practices, such as mass mail-in voting, labeling them “misinformation.”

The Biden campaign actually demanded Facebook censor Trump himself for “misinformation,” which the platform initially refused to do.

Eventually, however, Trump was banned from all social media platforms – while he was still the sitting president – as much for allegedly “inciting violence” over the January 6 riot at the US Capitol, as for continuing to argue the 2020 election wasn’t honest.

July 15, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | 2 Comments

YouTube censors Dr. Drew (again) for “medical misinformation”

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim the Net | July 15, 2021

US physician and media personality Dr. Drew Pinsky is once again in trouble on YouTube, after one of his videos was removed for allegedly containing medical misinformation.

The video was an episode of one of Pinsky’s podcasts that featured Dr. Ram Yogendra, an anesthesiologist, and following this, he announced that YouTube handed his channel a “two week penalty.”

This is similar to what happened in February, when Pinsky told Dave Rubin of the Rubin Report that his YouTube channel had been “deplatformed” for a week, with a threat of permanent deplatforming.

He also shared at the time that he was unable to understand what the reasons behind YouTube’s actions were, but assumed they had to do with a discussion with another doctor of Covid topics such as immunity and controversies around different types of treatments of some complications brought on by the disease.

This time, Pinsky seems to have received a second strike against his channel within 90 days, leading to two weeks suspension, or, as he put it, “penalty.” A third strike within a given period would lead to the doctor’s permanent deplatforming.

This development seemed to have given Pinsky some show topic ideas, so he afterwards took to Twitter to announce an AMA session on Clubhouse, the topic being, “Big Tech vs. Free Speech: Ask Dr. Drew.”

Pinsky has a diversified presence on many platforms, including on Rumble, which he recently joined, and he urged his audience on Twitter to find links on his website to the video on other social media networks.

As for this latest example of YouTube’s censorship of his videos on the platform, Pinsky in one tweet thanked a commenter who said they listened to the whole podcast episode but were unable to determine what might have constituted for medical information – instead, it was “just talk about how discussion is being censored.”

But it would be much easier for YouTube to cite medical misinformation and call it a day, than to for once go into any meaningful detail in explaining why creators are punished and deplatformed.

July 15, 2021 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | | 1 Comment

Biden & DNC want to censor text messages to stop ‘misinformation’ – ‘if it saves just one life’

Who needs privacy?

By Helen Buyniski | RT | July 14, 2021

The White House is tying itself in knots to silence anyone questioning the mainstream Covid-19 narrative, and, whatever you think of vaccines, its latest plans are only the first step toward making thoughtcrime a reality.

The US government is done playing “good cop” with regard to the “vaccine hesitant.” The Biden administration, which recently opted to send ‘volunteer’ vaccinators door to door in what may be the most ill-thought-out public health campaign in US history, doesn’t just want to meddle with your body anymore – its plans to control “misinformation” you may send by SMS text message indicate it’s intent on controlling your mind as well.

White House chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci is leading the crusade, blaming “Fox News or whomever” for crafting the vision of “a bunch of federal workers knocking on your door, telling you you’ve got to do something that you don’t want to do.” Fauci clarified that it wasn’t government officials, but “trusted messengers who are part of the community”. Noticeably, he didn’t address the “doing something you don’t want to do” part – a telling oversight in the minds of those who are convinced the campaign is indeed a coercive one and those who’ve been paying closer attention to who makes up the door-to-door vax packs.

While Politico insisted on Monday that these teams talked up by Biden and Psaki were merely delivering information on vaccination, not administering the jabs, a Tuesday report from a local TV network in Mecklenburg, North Carolina showed precisely the opposite, proudly announcing one man was so excited by the visit he chose to get the shot right then and there on his porch.

Who are you going to believe, then, America? The TV or your lying eyes?

And this campaign is far from a single-pronged strategy. According to Politico, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and “Biden-allied groups” – whatever that last phrase means – have plans to “engage fact-checkers more aggressively” and “work with SMS carriers to dispel misinformation about vaccines that is sent over social media and text messages.”

Yes, you read that correctly. The White House plans to interfere with people’s ability to send text messages if it doesn’t like what they say. This is not a question of whether one supports or rejects the Covid-19 vaccine campaign, or what one thinks about vaccines at all; this is the curtain being yanked back on the police state the US has long insisted it isn’t (but that all its enemies are). It’s Washington rearing up with bared teeth, concealing its scabrous pelt in a lab coat, and hoping you don’t see the claws grasping the syringe. The US gave up its moral authority regarding freedom of the press somewhere between the Pentagon Papers and the revelations of Operation Mockingbird, but interfering with the content of individual text messages sent between innocent civilians brings the nation much deeper into the thickets of fascism than it has ever dared venture before, to a spot where it seems intent on setting up shop permanently.

Shots in the Hood ‘Strike Force’

Ultimately, the issue goes far beyond the pandemic to how much power Americans are willing to cede to a government that – based on statistics, at least – less than a quarter actually supported in the last election, a result framed as an accomplishment that speaks more to apathy. This is why the narrative managers don’t replace Fauci. When they really need credibility, they deputize trusted community members – a tactic they’ve been quite open about using, recently to middling success in Chicago’s Englewood neighborhood, where a local barber shop participated in Biden’s “Shots at the Shops” campaign to flood some of the city’s most dangerous, crime-plagued black neighborhoods with what were portrayed as clever, street-smart vaccination teams eager to save the lives of their fellow man.

That way, when whatever health campaign (or other government initiative) those barber shops (or other incursion on constitutional freedoms) have tied their credibility to suffers a hit – and the Englewood appearance wasn’t anything to write home about – it’s the trusted local institution that takes the blame. The overarching public-private partnership – that Faustian (Faucian?) pact between business and government – is one of the defining elements of fascism. But it’s become so common and normalized under Biden’s Covid-19 “Build Back Better” project that the average American thinks nothing about seeing all their local businesses getting into bed with the private equity firms such as BlackRock and Blackstone that have quietly bought up their neighborhoods during the pandemic – or as far back as the 2008 crash. After all, these groups know enough to shroud themselves in rainbows and climate-babble, and that’s all most people care about these days when vetting who they will allow to own them.

Search and Stick

More importantly, if White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki can look Americans in the eye and claim no one’s being vaccinated on the search-and-inoculate missions in North Carolina, while the next TV channel shows exactly that happening, a seed of cognitive dissonance is successfully sown that allows a person to believe two mutually exclusive “truths.” Even if we know at some basic level the government is lying to us, we don’t want to believe our trusted neighborhood fixtures are also doing so. The Biden administration’s recently declared scorched-earth campaign thus has the potential to sabotage trust in as many ways as there are trusting relationships in a community, and it doesn’t care what happens to those people as long as it gets control of the American mind at the end of the road. Families might be shredded and homes torn apart over the FBI’s recent announcement that we must snitch on our fellow man lest ill-defined “extremism” take root somewhere, but Blackstone and Vanguard turned record profits this year, and that’s what matters.

Americans seem to believe the Covid-19 pandemic is winding down – a Gallup poll early last month suggested nearly three in five Americans believe their lives are either “somewhat” or “completely” back to normal after 18 months of being put through their Pavlovian paces in what the World Economic Forum admits was the world’s largest-ever psychological experiment. But the narrative managers have only begun declaring war – not on the virus, or even so much on how we think about it, but how we think about them.

Former George W. Bush administration official John Bridgeland warned Politico on Tuesday that “lies” (not necessarily about vaccines, but that create “communities already wary of the vaccines”) are “potentially a death sentence.” Now what kind of government official would he be if he allowed some family who just wanted to be left alone with their “death sentence” to go back to their dinner? Not a very effective one, that’s for sure! Bridgeland didn’t say what kind of “lies” made people more susceptible to death by Covid-19, but no doubt he’d like to spend a long time digging through your phone to make sure you’re not harboring any.

Humanity must be primed for the next crisis, after all. Whether that’s a “climate lockdown” or a fake alien invasion, we’re being primed for another metaphysical gut punch meant to turn us against ourselves. At that point, resistance will no longer be optional, it will be a matter of survival – but your phone won’t let you text that to anybody.

Helen Buyniski is an American journalist and political commentator at RT. Follow her on Telegram

July 15, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | 3 Comments

Malthusian Myth Busting: Easter Island Edition

By David Middleton | Watts Up With That? | July 15, 2021

You know the story…

In just a few centuries, the people of Easter Island wiped out their forest, drove their plants and animals
to extinction, and saw their complex society spiral into chaos and cannibalism. Are we about to follow
their lead?

Jared Diamond, 2005

While it is true that the Easter Islanders deforested their island, forensic historians have now determined that by converting the forest to farmland and innovatively adapting to prolonged Little Ice Age droughts, they avoided collapse.


Resilience, not collapse: What the Easter Island myth gets wrong

By Jennifer Micale
JULY 08, 2021

You probably know this story, or a version of it: On Easter Island, the people cut down every tree, perhaps to make fields for agriculture or to erect giant statues to honor their clans. This foolish decision led to a catastrophic collapse, with only a few thousand remaining to witness the first European boats landing on their remote shores in 1722.

But did the demographic collapse at the core of the Easter Island myth really happen? The answer, according to new research by Binghamton University anthropologists Robert DiNapoli and Carl Lipo, is no.

Their research, “Approximate Bayesian Computation of radiocarbon and paleoenvironmental record shows population resilience on Rapa Nui (Easter Island),” was recently published in the journal Nature Communications. Co-authors include Enrico Crema of the University of Cambridge, Timothy Rieth of the International Archaeological Research Institute and Terry Hunt of the University of Arizona.

Easter Island, or Rapa Nui in the native language, has long been a focus of scholarship into questions related to environmental collapse. But to resolve those questions, researchers first need to reconstruct the island’s population levels to ascertain whether such a collapse occurred and, if so, the scale.

“For Rapa Nui, a big part of scholarly and popular discussion about the island has centered around this idea that there was a demographic collapse, and that it’s correlated in time with climate changes and environmental changes,” explained DiNapoli, a postdoctoral research associate in environmental studies and anthropology.

Sometime after it was settled between the 12th to 13th centuries AD, the once-forested island was denuded of trees; most often, scholars point to human-prompted clearing for agriculture and the introduction of invasive species such as rats. These environmental changes, the argument goes, reduced the island’s carrying capacity and led to a demographic decline.

Additionally, around the year 1500, there was a climactic shift in the Southern Oscillation index; that shift led to a dryer climate on Rapa Nui.


In short, there is no evidence that the islanders used the now-vanished palm trees for food, a key point of many collapse myths. Current research shows that deforestation was prolonged and didn’t result in catastrophic erosion; the trees were ultimately replaced by gardens mulched with stone that increased agricultural productivity. During times of drought, the people may have relied on freshwater coastal seeps.

Construction of the moai statues, considered by some to be a contributing factor of collapse, actually continued even after European arrival.

In short, the island never had more than a few thousand people prior to European contact, and their numbers were increasing rather than dwindling, their research shows.

“Those resilience strategies were very successful, despite the fact that the climate got drier,” Lipo said. “They are a really good case for resiliency and sustainability.”

Burying the myth

Why, then, does the popular narrative of Easter Island’s collapse persist? It likely has less to do with the ancient Rapa Nui people than ourselves, Lipo explained.

The concept that changes in the environment affect human populations began to take off in the 1960s, Lipo said. Over time, that focus became more intense, as researchers began to consider changes in the environment as a primary driver of cultural shifts and transformations.

But this correlation may derive more from modern concerns with industrialization-driven pollution and climate change, rather than archaeological evidence. Environmental changes, Lipo points out, occur on different time scales and in different magnitudes. How human communities respond to these changes varies.


Binghamton University

However future forensic historians (archaeologists & anthropologists) will be right when they determine that our society collapsed because we decimated our reliable and affordable energy infrastructure in order to build a lot of useless statues due to “modern concerns with industrialization-driven pollution and climate change.”

Myth Busting…

The full text of the paper is available… Approximate Bayesian Computation of radiocarbon and paleoenvironmental record shows population resilience on Rapa Nui (Easter Island).


When we assess the uncertainties of the Rapa Nui data and those involved in the analytic steps, the current evidence indicates that the island experienced relatively steady population growth from initial human settlement ca. 800 cal BP until the period following European arrival. The “wiggles” in the observed SPD curve all fall within the simulation envelope and result from details of the calibration curve combined with sampling error, and importantly, not genuine paleodemographic signals. Given these facts, we are unable to confidently distinguish between the four hypotheses. All of the fitted models, however, are consistent with a logistic growth pattern only marginally influenced by changes in climate and forest cover. The wide HPDs of the environmental parameters suggest a range of possible positive or negative effects, yet no values appear strong enough to cause major population declines (Fig. 3). Given the comparatively small number of radiocarbon dates, we cannot determine whether our inability to discern between the competing models is the consequence of small sample size, the small ‘effect size’ in models 2–4 (i.e., the absolute deviation of βpalm and βSOI from 0), or a combination of both factors. Nonetheless, none of the fitted models support the notion of pre-contact population collapse (Fig. 3). Therefore, our results suggest that if deforestation or increasing SOI had effects on the island, Rapa Nui populations were resilient to them. These findings are independently supported by recent research showing that monument construction steadily continued even after European arrival57,77. In addition, research now demonstrates that deforestation was a prolonged process, did not result in catastrophic erosion, and that land cover was quickly replaced by lithic mulch gardens that increased agricultural productivity66,67,80,81,82,83,84,85. Moreover, while some claim that deforestation resulted in the loss of food29,68, there is no evidence that palms were a significant dietary resource for islanders66,86. Thus, it is more likely that the loss of the palm forest represented an expansion of cultivation opportunities and positively contributed to the initial growth and overall resilience of the population. In summary, there is no empirical support for the notion that deforestation resulted in strong negative impacts on the human population of Rapa Nui.

Our results also have implications for the effects of climate change on the island. Rull71,73 has recently claimed that climate-induced droughts caused a large-scale societal disruption resulting in the cessation of monument construction and intra-island migration from coastal settlements to the crater lake at Rano Kau. Similar to previous analyses of the tempo of monument construction around the island57, the vast majority of our 14C data derive from coastal settlements and do not show declines in activity or support claims of major climate-induced disruptions from drought. While climate perturbations seem to have led to desiccation of the crater lake at Rano Raraku72, recent research suggests Rapa Nui populations adapted to these changes by relying primarily on coastal groundwater sources87,88,89.

DiNapoli et al., 2021

It turns out that the Malthusian myth of Easter Island’s demographic and ecological collapse was just a bunch of Rapa Hooey!


DiNapoli, R.J., Crema, E.R., Lipo, C.P. et al. Approximate Bayesian Computation of radiocarbon and paleoenvironmental record shows population resilience on Rapa Nui (Easter Island). Nat Commun 12, 3939 (2021).

July 15, 2021 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Under the cosh of Green Reason

By Edward Gifford | The Conservative Woman | July 15, 2021

INCREASINGLY ‘Green Reason’ – citing the environment – will be used as a justification for any kind of measure, no matter how illogical or absurd. Since March 2020 this type of justification has been used to prop up a whole range of bizarre Covid measures. But the actual substance of the argument – health or environment – is neither here nor there, it is the solipsistic quality that is most valued; these justifications invite silence. Quiet acquiescence is intrinsic to its power. Any dissent is not taken at its rational value but is rather shot down in a barrage of emotionally charged statements.

As yet there is no widespread, subconscious response to a Green Reason announcement as there is to Covid one: it does not create a sense of immediate personal danger; somehow the environment is more abstract than a microscopic pathogen. But we should not be surprised as the chains of reasoning are built up to such a degree that the majority will feel immediately insecure and clamour for the State to step up and protect them.

I recently came across Green Reason whilst travelling south on the ‘smart’ M1, around Sheffield. A gantry announced: ‘Speed limited to 60mph to improve air quality.’ I had never seen or heard of such a command before; looking askance at the other passengers in the car, they too looked puzzled.

Although the motorway was reasonably quiet as we pootled through this long section, compliance was absolute. The smart motorways employ a plethora of enforcement measures, speed traps at every gantry and, in addition to the usual copper loop sensors embedded in the road surface, ‘side-fire radar’ combined with automatic number plate recognition. These will ‘improve tracking and reaction operations’, according to Highways England.

A reasonable first question would be: who benefits from the supposed higher quality air?

A 10mph reduction does not seem to offer much, especially from an automotive point of view: at higher speeds internal combustion engines burn cleaner and more efficiently. A reduction in speed then seems counter-productive. Secondly, who on the motorway benefits from that marginal reduction in particulate matter in the immediate air surrounding their car? The high-quality filters on cars again negate that difference. Or perhaps instead it is for the improvement of the surrounding area? Possibly, but one imagines that re-planting the trees hewn down to build the expanded motorway could render greater benefit than a limited speed reduction scheme.

Although those reasons may in themselves render the scheme hopeless, they are beside the point. One can imagine the officials responsible for the sign laughing at how clever they have been; who would not want to improve air quality? Anyone who questions this measure cannot go far beyond the original statement, so plain, innocent and laudable, before being pigeon-holed as an ‘anti-environmentalist’. The narrative will be constructed to be unassailable.

Gas boilers, wood-burning stoves and flying (via stealth fuel duties – though of course private jets are exempted) are all coming under the cosh of Green Reason; and though measures are needed to protect the countryside, they must be considered rationally in accordance with tradition, in the cold light of day subject to debate and plebiscite.

‘Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.’ – C S Lewis

July 15, 2021 Posted by | Environmentalism, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Cheer-Up World: There ARE Effective Treatments for COVID-19

By Chris Lonsdale | 21st Century Wire | July 14, 2021

Since COVID-19 hit the scene at the beginning of 2020, one of the key elements driving the fear around this disease is that there appeared to be no cure. And, for people who got infected with COVID-19, the guidance coming from major global institutions such as the NIH (US National Institutes of Health) and the CDC (US Centres for Disease Control) was basically “do nothing, stay home, and when you turn blue go to the hospital.” This public health policy prescription was usually followed by the qualifying caveat, “this is our only approach until a vaccine arrives.”

This, clearly, has terrified people all around the world. For the majority of the world’s population the belief has been that catching COVID-19 is a veritable death sentence. Which leads us to an important question. How would things change if there were, in fact, effective treatments for COVID-19?

I have just come out of a fascinating 90-minute press conference and Zoom call, delivered by the Malaysian Alliance for Effective COVID Control (MAECC). This was very much a “good news” presentation. The main message? There are very effective treatments for COVID-19.

The essence of the discussion in the MAECC session focused on the drug Ivermectin. The Doctors found it necessary to do a press conference and public presentation because the widespread use of Ivermectin in Malaysia is currently illegal. A doctor prescribing Ivermectin for his COVID-19 patients was recently raided by police!

Malaysian doctors are not doing leading edge research here, but simply trying to care for their patients by working to get a proven treatment officially accepted for use in Malaysia. Ivermectin has already been used very successfully in many places around the world where media hysteria did not get it banned from the shelves. Mexico has used it to great effect, as did Peru. Over the last few weeks, reports coming out of India are demonstrating massive benefits from Ivermectin.

There is already a 97% decline in cases in New Delhi, India. Indeed, four other Indian states that are using Ivermectin now report decreases in cases by 60% to 95%. However, other states that have blocked the use of Ivermectin have increases in cases by several hundred percent – the exponential explosion that everyone is terrified of!

As The Desert Review says in their report, “It is a clear refutation of the WHO, FDA, NIH, and CDC’s policies of ‘wait at home until you turn blue’ before you get treatment.”

Before you buy into the criticism that these are only “observational studies” and haven’t been tested by large scale, randomized control trials approved by the WHO, CDC, NIH, FDA etc. it’s important to realize that the only type of studies that are apparently good enough for such institutions these days are those which are so large and complex that only multi-national pharmaceutical companies are able to run and fund them.

That said, you should know that 56 studies on Ivermectin, 17 of them being Randomized Control Trials, have clearly demonstrated very positive effects from Ivermectin. A site doing real-time meta-analysis of all the Ivermectin studies as they get published summarizes the results as follows: “100% of the 17 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early treatment and prophylaxis report positive effects, with an estimated improvement of 73% and 83% respectively”.

They also make the point that “The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 56 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 2 trillion (p = 0.00000000000041).”   You can check this information yourself directly on their site (Source:

Another effective protocol for prophylaxis and early treatment of COVID-19 is Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with Zinc. As of this writing, 248 trials of HCQ used for treating COVID-19 have been completed, by 3,972 scientists, with 378,812 patients. We can see 66% improvement in 26 early treatment trials, 75% improvement in 11 early treatment mortality results, and 24% improvement in 35 randomized controlled trials. These results are publicly available on a database that is tracking all HCQ studies to date. You can see those studies here at

There are also a number of other effective treatments for COVID-19 that we don’t have space for here.

What’s important to understand is that these effective treatments have been used since mid-2020. Which raises a very important point. If these treatments are so effective, why haven’t we heard about them?  Why aren’t they being used everywhere? It appears that, for some reason, information about the effectiveness of these treatments is being suppressed.

For instance, “Fact checkers” will tell you that HCQ or Ivermectin aren’t authorized by major institutions like the FDA, CDC, or WHO (as if such organizations are supposed to set and police policy rather than simply providing guidance). They will also try to discount any positive results using ad hominem attacks and smears, such as pointing out that a person using one of these treatments may have at some time in the past, voiced “anti-vaccine sentiments” (whatever that may be). You can see an example here:

The censorship extends to Social Media. A whole list of front-line doctors who have successfully used some of these treatments have had their accounts removed from Social Media platforms, simply because information they provided about their successes was deemed “contrary to guidelines from the WHO” by the various Big Tech platforms. I have personally witnessed the de-platforming of literally dozens of highly respected, professional, front line doctors and researchers.

De-platforming is not the only concern. It appears that in the attempts to discredit effective treatments for COVID-19, anything goes. A study which came out in The Lancet mid-2020 supposedly showing that HCQ was dangerous was subsequently withdrawn due to the study being fraudulent.

Sadly, this withdrawal happened only after the damage was done, and HCQ had been successfully kicked to the curb in many places around the world – even up to the point that in some jurisdictions doctors could be jailed for prescribing it!

You may ask: “How did these studies that were apparently designed to falsify the effects of a widely used drug, pass peer review in the world’s premier medical science journals – The Lancet as well as The New England Journal of Medicine ?” The details of this sordid tale can be found here:

If one digs, it appears that the main reason that we have not heard of these effective treatments is that the WHO and the CDC and other major institutions do not approve of the use of any alternative treatments, unless these are being tested in a clinical trial (which it seems only they can approve of). For instance, the US National Institutes for Health (NIH) guidelines state: “The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) recommends against the use of any drugs for SARS-CoV-2 pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), except in a clinical trial (AIII).” See the PDF document here:

This is indeed strange, especially in the middle of a pandemic. One would expect that, in order to save patient lives, doctors would look for and try medicines that might possibly work, as long as there were no safety issues.  When clearly there is evidence of no-harm, and increasingly powerful evidence that certain treatments can save lives, it would be highly unethical for Doctors NOT to start using such treatments. Doctors use medicines for purposes other than those listed on the label all the time!

Since Ivermectin and HCQ are both on the WHO list of essential medicines and have been so for a long time – decades in the case of HCQ – the world knows about the safety and dosage of these medicines. As an example, since 1992, Ivermectin has only been linked to 16 deaths, whereas deaths linked to the COVID-19 vaccines are now in the thousands (information from the Uppsala Drug Monitoring Centre run by the WHO ( via Prof Paul Marik, Chief of Critical Care & Pulmonary Medicine, EVM, USA).

Clearly, something appears very much out of balance here. There ARE effective treatments for COVID-19, yet the institutions that we rely on for medical guidance appear to be ignoring, or even suppressing these treatments – even though they are known to be safe after many decades of use. Despite their known safety, neither Ivermectin nor HCQ have been able to obtain even an EAU (Emergency Use Authorization)!

At the same time, new creations that have only had very limited testing, and for which the safety cannot be known in such a short period of time, are approved for emergency use.

The world economy is now in dire straits, with entire populations having been essentially under house arrest for the better part of 18 months. People continue to die from (or with) COVID-19 without treatments being available. And we are now seeing important examples of breakout infections in people who have already been vaccinated against COVID-19.  As Reuters reported just a few days ago, “Hundreds of vaccinated Indonesian health workers get COVID-19, dozens in hospital”. This is just one many similar news stories reporting the very same phenomenon.

According to the pharmaceutical manufacturers themselves, the current range of emergency use vaccines do not actually provide immunity and only “reduce severe symptoms” of COVID-19. While this issue has yet to be fully resolved, many in the mainstream are still claiming that these vaccines will “inoculate” the recipient against the novel coronavirus. Therefore, these jabs should rightly be categorised as a type of treatment against the disease of COVID-19, and not a vaccine against the said pathogen, the SARSCoV2 coronavirus.

It goes without saying that the wide availability of cheap and effective drug treatments for COVID would severely undermine the widely touted mainstream claim that mass-vaccinations are the only solution to slowing down or ‘defeating’ a supposed global pandemic.

Clearly, effective treatments are absolutely required at this point. The good news is that there are such treatments available.

With effective treatments in hand, the global COVID-19 situation could end in as little as a few weeks. The world CAN return to normal. Sadly, there seem to be forces at work blocking such an outcome.

We need to ask: why are these effective treatments not being allowed in so many places? Why is information about these treatments being suppressed? Perhaps the fact that treatments like Ivermectin and HCQ are off patent and extremely cheap might give us a clue.


Author Chris Lonsdale is a psychologist, linguist, educator, entrepreneur, dialogue facilitator and corporate advisor with over thirty years experience doing business in Asia.

July 15, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , | 1 Comment

If anyone backs vaccine for children, tell them to read this compelling scientific rebuttal

By Kathy Gyngell | The Conservative Woman | July 14, 2021

THIS week we’ve been making a concerted plea to parents and all adults to resist or counter any suggestion by the Government or schools or any other institutions that children need to be, or should be, vaccinated for Covid. 

On Monday we published a tour de force by Belinda Brown, a researcher, writer and mother, concerned that mothers and families were in ignorance of the facts. She set out the key reasons why child vaccination should not even be mooted.  

Yesterday we featured a film made by doctors who are mothers, explaining why they, with their medical knowledge, would not let their own children be vaccinated.

Today I want to share with you a report entitled Covid-19 Vaccines and Children: A Scientist’s Guide for Parents. It is authored by Dr Byram Bridle of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance – a group of doctors, scientists and health practitioners committed to providing independent, evidence-based information about Covid.

Dr Bridle’s paper consists of more than 40 pages with appendices and it is worth reading thoroughly.

He starts with the key point that ‘authorisation under interim order’ – the basis on which the vaccines have been rushed out – means that ‘additional information is needed on the safety, efficacy, and quality of the vaccine, including in children and adolescents, to support the future full market approval and licensing of the vaccine’.

This in itself really should be sufficient to dissuade any moral and rational adult from dreaming of imposing a vaccine on a child for an infection from which they are at no risk or negligible risk.

Dr Bridle goes on to explain that key safety studies appear to have been missed in the clamour to roll out the vaccines and that, as reported in TCW by Neville Hodgkinson, more is being learned about the vaccines every day.

The most important aspect of this is that the spike protein generated by the vaccine is not just an antigen that is recognised by the immune system as being foreign. In addition, it ‘can interact with receptors throughout the body, called ACE2 receptors, potentially causing undesirable effects such as damage to the heart and cardiovascular system, blood clots, bleeding, and neurological effects’.

Dr Bridle concludes that ‘the current scientific uncertainties demand that the administration of Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine to children, adolescents, and young adults of child-bearing age be paused until proper scientific studies that focus on the safety and pharmacokinetics and biodistribution of the vaccines and the vaccine encoded spike protein can be conducted’.

He explains furthermore that there is no safety issue with this course of action, because:

• The risk of severe and potentially lethal Covid-19 in these specific populations is so low that we need to be very certain that risks associated with mass vaccination are not higher.

• Asymptomatic members of this population are not a substantial risk for passing Covid-19 to others.

• There are effective early-treatment strategies for the very few children, adolescents, and young adults of childbearing age who may be at risk of developing severe Covid-19, such as ivermectin, fluvoxamine, and budesonide.

This is the most authoritative ‘science’ guide I have found. It is what I forward to people who say they trust the Government and who think scientists are agreed.

This is the document I forward to friends and relations who question young adults for refusing vaccination or add to the pressure on them to do so. Since they make this their business, I make it mine to send them this fully referenced piece of dispassionate scientific analysis!

July 15, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Brian Gerrish’s testimony to Reiner Füllmich: Our oppressors are very frightened people

By BRIAN GERRISH | UKColumn | May 29, 2021

On 28 May 2021, I gave evidence to the 54th session of the Stiftung Corona Ausschuss, the German-based extraparliamentary inquiry by lawyers into the medical establishment’s and public policymakers’ handling of the Covid crisis internationally.

The theme for the day during the 54th session was “Caught between nudging and side effects”. A transcript of my testimony is below.
Auch auf Deutsch erhältlich.

Reiner Füllmich: Brian, I apologise for having kept you waiting for twenty minutes or so.

Brian Gerrish: That’s absolutely fine, and I’d just like to say that I don’t speak German but it was fascinating watching you and listening, and it was wonderful to see you start laughing, because you looked very serious in most of the dialogues that I’ve listened to.

There was one word that I picked up that I found very interesting, and that was Wahnsinn, which came up several times, particularly when [persecuted primary school headmistress] Bianca was speaking.

Reiner Füllmich: You know what it means, right?

Brian Gerrish: Yes, “madness”. And I’m going to say to you: it’s not madness. What we are facing is calculated, and it’s a mistake to call it “madness”, because it’s very precise; it’s very calculated. We need to understand that in order to be able to deal with what we’re facing.

Reiner Füllmich: That’s very interesting to hear, because we have come to the conclusion that “the other side”, as we call them, is using two major tools. One is, of course, psychology, psychological operations; and the other, which transports this psychological operation, is the mainstream media.

Can you tell us a little about your background?

Brian Gerrish: Well, my personal background is, professionally, I was military: I was in the Royal Navy for twenty-one years. I then worked in industry, essentially, for a while, but after a few years, I began to understand that things were not good in the UK, and I began to see things and investigate things.

Ultimately, that’s led me, over nearly another twenty years, to team up with a gentleman called Mike Robinson, and for fourteen years now, we’ve been running a media outlet called the UK Column, where I’m delighted to say that we’re expanding, and it’s clear that our viewers and listeners are now not only in the UK; they’re across the world.

Reiner Füllmich: Excellent. And now, of course, you’re busy covering Coronavirus and all the ramifications of what Coronavirus is bringing about.

Brian Gerrish: Well, the key point is that we originally started by looking at some of the issues that you’ve just mentioned. We we were looking at how propaganda had come into the country; we were looking at the use of applied behavioural psychology by the Government; and we were looking at changes which were very serious (or we thought they were very serious) that were particularly affecting the style of democracy, and that were also affecting our constitutional rights.

It was against that background of reporting that we have then encountered, obviously, what’s happened with Coronavirus. So I would say to you that our analysis of what has happened with Coronavirus is seen very much against the background of what was happening politically, and in particular the use of applied behavioural psychology and propaganda.

Viviane Fischer: So what do you think is the “calculated madness”? The [description] “madness” is more our judgement from when we look at what was the normal status of things before. No-one would have thought, had you asked us a year ago, that this could have ever happened; at least not us, I guess.

And also, we were really surprised how the legal system has deteriorated, or at least, how it has become obvious that it is really in bad shape. But we also have the feeling, at the same time, that it’s very orchestrated, what’s happening: that it’s like a jigsaw puzzle. They move this piece and this piece, and then the picture is becoming more and more clear what’s going on. But what are your experiences or your analysis of the situation?

Brian Gerrish: First of all, I’d agree with you that the Coronavirus “pandemic”, if we want to call it that in inverted commas, did catch everybody by surprise. I don’t think we saw that coming, and it happened very quickly. So I’d certainly agree with you on that.

But I’ll come back to the fact that we started to see very, very serious things things happening in the UK. If I just focus immediately on the Government’s use of applied behavioural psychology: back in 2010 and 2011, we as the UK Column were warning that the Government had set up a team which was called the Behavioural Insights Team [UK Column note: whose former homepage address ‘’ now redirects to the consciously globalist ‘’]. This was a team of psychologists who were working directly alongside not only the political process, but the policy-forming process within the British Government.

A critical document which we found in 2010 was called Mindspace (you can find it very easily by searching online for it as a PDF document). In that document, the Government admitted that it was using applied behavioural psychology to influence how it designed policy and how it implemented policy.

At one particular point in that document—in fact, it’s at the bottom of page 66, if I remember correctly—the Government boasts that it can change the way people think and behave, and that people will not be aware that this has been done to them. But it adds the caveat that if they do realise that their behaviour is changed, they will not know how it was changed.

We read this document and we were shocked, and we then started to research further. That then led us to discover that, around that time and of course a little bit earlier, the British Government had been conducting meetings with the French, in which we were bringing the political psychology teams together to produce joint plans with the French. The key Frenchman who was present in the meetings was called Olivier Ouillier, and he was working directly at that time for Sarkozy’s private office.

Now, all these meetings were essentially held in secret. We were able to discover that they had taken place, but we were only able to discover that by carefully researching along specific routes which we understood were important. For example, most of these meetings were conducted under the guise that they were part of a charity, the Franco-British Council, which said it was simply set up in order to improve relationships between Britain and France.

So these meetings took place, and it was very clear that there was concerted effort to expand the use of these techniques: not only from Britain and France, but the implication at that time was that these techniques were going to be used across the wider power base of the European Union.

And I’ll just say again that the Mindspace document was boasting that this was the first time the Government would be able to use applied techniques where people would have their behaviour changed—that means their thoughts changed!—and they wouldn’t even be aware that it had occurred.

Reiner Füllmich: For what purpose?

Brian Gerrish: Well, if you want to execute power, then you’re going to try and use normal, democratic politics, or you’re going to try and use force, or you’re going to try and use other means.

And so this comes to me as other means. I have to say that when I saw how cynical this was, how calculated it was, when I was using effectively my military background, I could see that this was the use of raw power.

Now, if I jump forward into events around Covid: very early on in the Covid pandemic (I’ve called it a “pandemic”; of course, I don’t believe that that is what it is, but that’s how it was reported), it came to our attention that the Government scientific advisory group, SAGE, had actually had an internal meeting with elements of the Government’s Behavioural Insights Team.

The key gentleman concerned with this was a man called Dr David Halpern. That meeting was not properly minuted in a proper official sense, but they did put out a briefing sheet from the meeting, and in that document, which I think was dated 22 March 2020, it admitted that the SAGE team and the Government’s policy on Coronavirus was going to use applied psychology in order to ramp up fear in the population, in order to get the population to adhere more closely to the Government’s policy over the response to Coronavirus.

We have the document; we can provide you with a copy of that document.

Reiner Füllmich: Yes, please, because we have the same thing. It’s a leaked paper from the [Federal] Secretary of the Interior, and it is now referred to as the Panic Paper [UK Column note: reported by us on 10 February, commencing at 53:15].

Brian Gerrish: Yes, I’ve heard about the paper in Germany. I haven’t seen it or been able to read it in English. I’m going to suggest to you that that German paper would have come out of the specific talks that I just referred to. When we started to see that the British Government was having these secretive meetings with French applied behavioural psychology experts, it was clear to us that this was going to be rolled out in other European countries. So I was not surprised when I heard about that German document.

Now, in the SAGE document, aside from saying that they were going to ramp up fear, there was something very interesting. It said [UK Column note: in paras. 6–8 on p. 2] that inside [local] communities, community members were going to be used to effectively police each other. So people were going to be used to put pressure on their neighbours, for example, to wear a mask; to adhere to social distancing.

So it was very clear in what they were talking about that they were going to use this covert applied psychology to pressurise citizens to act against one another. And, significantly, they also said that this had to be done with some care, because they believed that it was possible that this situation could get out of control. Clearly, what they meant by that is that instead of having somebody saying to somebody else, “You should wear a mask!”, that requirement could be translated into violence.

Having told you about that document—very clear-cut, very specific—I now come back again to Bianca talking [just before Brian Gerrish], because I could understand a little bit of what she was talking about: she talked about angst, she was talking about stress.

Now, of course, the techniques that are being used on adults—these psychological techniques to induce stress and fear—are also being used on the children. I could only understand a tiny bit of what she was talking about, but I understood enough to grasp—correct me if I’m wrong—that the rules change, so she doesn’t know what the rules are from time to time.

Reiner Füllmich: Exactly, yes. Every week, they changed the rules [for schools], so that she had to sit at her desk over the weekend in order to figure out how to make these things work.

Brian Gerrish: Right. And what that is, the uncertainty and the change in the rules: that is part of the psychological attack. Because the uncertainty immediately is putting people in a position of stress and anxiety and confusion. And if we go back into the professional world of applied psychology, people who are in a distressed, confused state are very susceptible to further messages and instructions. If there’s a fire in a building and people are starting to panic, the first person that starts to give clear commands to the people, those commands will be followed. And that is due to the psychological state.

Now, I’m not professionally trained in psychology; I do know a reasonable amount, which I’ve now learnt as a result of the investigations that I do.

But the other point that I want to bring into this is that many years ago, we started to get very interested in a charity called Common Purpose. Common Purpose, as a charity, said it was there to create “future leaders in society”.

It effectively was like an octopus: it had tentacles, it got into the hospital system, it got into the police, it got into the military, it got into the schools. And once inside these organisations, it was essentially spreading a new philosophy in many areas.

Everything I’m saying to you is fully documented. I have a website which is packed full of documents talking about what this organisation was doing. It particularly went for children. In the earliest days, it was going for children of the age of about 11 to 14, but it also was interested in university students.

Aside from the fact that the people who went on [its] courses were selected, they were also keen to get younger people into their so-called training courses.

When I was investigating this organisation, because I was extremely suspicious about what it was doing (it was a very interesting claim to be “choosing future leaders” who were going to “lead beyond authority”!), [I found that] the training was clearly designed to produce people working in an organisation who were not working in the normal culture of the organisation. Common Purpose had given them a new set of values.

When I took some expert advice on how they were doing this, that was the first time that I was told about the technique of neurolinguistic programming. NLP is actually a form of hypnosis. You can look on the internet and you will find many consultancies providing training in NLP, and you will find many people providing training who say that it has a therapeutic [value], that it can be used to care for people and help people.

In essence, this is true; but what we were interested in is where we started to see the use of neurolinguistics in government policy.

So, [we must] bring these two together:

– It is a fact that the British Government set up a specific applied psychology team.

– It is a fact that that team was promoting ideas to make the population fearful around the pandemic.

But, on a much bigger scale, that team was using—amongst other things—NLP in order to influence virtually every document that the Government was producing.

I don’t know whether any of your team have come across NLP before, but I’ll say that it’s an open secret (you can go and research it, and many professional people teach it) that essentially it’s a form of hypnosis. And this means that you can put across ideas and concepts to people which are not necessarily just going through their conscious mind.

This is fact; this is not fiction.

Now, when you start to see NLP being used for political objectives, of course, the wider public is very, very vulnerable, because unless you have a little bit of training or knowledge of NLP, you won’t even realise that it’s being used on you, and it can be used in a verbal sense but it can also be used in writing.

So, for example, you can have a document in front of you: you many notice a full stop at the end of a sentence; that marker is in the wrong place, and you believe that somebody made a mistake when they were typing.

But this is not what NLP can do, because when you are reading the sentence and you come to the full stop, your conscious mind makes one decision but your subconscious mind makes another one. And it is perfectly possible to be writing documents where it appears that one message is being put across but actually a completely different message is being put to the audience.

If I bring this into the realm of Coronavirus reaction, we are now seeing that every statement made by the Government, every piece of paper that comes out, is invariably very carefully crafted, it’s very carefully put together, and I can see that in much of this documentation, carefully-applied behavioural psychology is being used in the written word.

To back that up, to reinforce that: we also have a government document where they are specifically boasting of being able to use psychology in written documents.

Viviane Fischer: So you think that also the leaked documents that we see [in Germany], like for instance this Panic Paper that was leaked by someone, or at least it was not officially put out—I mean, this created a lot of fear, I guess, also, because some people could see through the whole narrative then, after reading through the paper, but actually even the fact that it came out, and that some people read it or heard about it who were stuck in the fear narrative: maybe it even put them into more fear, just the way that it was designed.

I mean, that you get an outcry, that a lot of people were upset that the Government would use this picture of your Grandma basically being suffocated by you, the child who infects her with Coronavirus; but once this picture is kind of in the official realm, some people hear it and then have these fantasies in their head, and get even more afraid.

Brian Gerrish: Well, that is absolutely correct. We can see here in the UK that particularly the BBC has been using applied psychology in this way: heavily emotive, distressing photographs with very little factual reporting to support the image, the idea given in the photograph.

This is deliberate. It’s calculated. It’s now very easy to see that this is taking place.

So, [with] the background of everything that’s happened with the “pandemic”, we know that every speech that’s made, every document that goes out, is likely to contain a reinforcing psychological message.

But the other thing that I think that is important, from the UK at least; if we go back to 2010, when that Mindspace document was released, within a year we started to see the first exercises which were going to prepare for a pandemic.

So, in 2016 [N.B.: Brian said ‘2011’ by mistake, which was the year of the previous Pandemic Preparedness Paper], we had a thing called Exercise Cygnus, which was the UK influenza pandemic preparedness plan.

That was followed by other official documents talking about a possible future pandemic, and then in 2017, there was a very significant document called Emergency Preparedness, Resilience and Response [N.B.: Brian generalised the name as “Preparing for the Next Pandemic”].

What was, and what is, interesting in reading these documents is that some of them—not all, but some of them—qualify the document by saying, “Well, we can’t predict that a pandemic will happen: we can look long-term over what’s happened in the world; we can look back to 2018 and the flu pandemic and the damage; but we can’t be certain of when there will be another future pandemic.”

But suddenly, in a very short space of years, we can see in the UK a flurry of papers—and again, we can make these available to you—where, suddenly, people are all talking about “the coming pandemic”.

Now, these are UK political public documents. They are not even on the level of the SPARS Pandemic-type documents, where these big exercises have been run in America and elsewhere, looking at the possibility of a pandemic coming. This is a cluster of papers and supposed research in the UK which is quite extraordinary.

Is it a coincidence that in a few years, you have paper after paper warning that a pandemic is coming? What I can see when I read these papers is very little fact but a lot of emotive language.

And, of course, people who had a job in the public sector, in the lower government system, would have been very susceptible to reading this material and then thinking, “My goodness, we need to make local preparations for this!”

So I look at these documents, and I’m pretty confident that what we are seeing is the seeding of ideas of a coming pandemic.

Of course, those seeds were placed in people’s minds, and then the moment we started to get reports of a pandemic coming—particularly, for us [in Britain], from the BBC—people would have started to become worried, or would have started to think about that material and would have started to react in a way that the Government would want.

So we’ve got the substantive evidence showing that the British Government will and does use applied psychology to get its policies across, that substantive evidence saying that they’re going to go as far as making people fearful.

And I’ll add that if you make people stressed and fearful, you’re also going to give them mental health problems, and we now live in a country where there’s a huge rise in depression and suicides, none of which is being talked about in the mainstream press, because the increase in those adverse mental health effects has been so huge since the lockdown policies have been in place; this is an elephant in the room in the UK.

We have the evidence in documents of this type of calculated, destructive applied psychology; but then you can also see, if you start talking to people in public services, to doctors and nurses in the National Health Service here and the hospital service, they are telling us that they’ve also witnessed the sudden flood of these papers, effectively preparing them for a pandemic that was coming. Yet this was a pandemic that the papers said couldn’t be predicted!

Reiner Füllmich: Brian, at the beginning of today’s session, Dr Wolfgang Wodarg and I discussed the fact that a new narrative has been put out into the mainstream media, probably starting out in the United States with Fox News, and they have a host by the name of Tucker Carlson, who explained on one of his news shows that finally, there will be justice, because [Anthony] Fauci has been caught lying to the public about his involvement with the Wuhan virology lab, and how he had conducted gain-of-function experiments there, which was being financed behind the back of the American taxpayer, and against the will of the [US] Government, by US tax dollars.

But the real message wasn’t, “We’re going to get Fauci.” The real message was, “Fauci didn’t tell us that there was a dangerous virus that escaped from the Wuhan lab!” Now, in the meantime, we know that there was probably an accident at the Wuhan lab, but it didn’t cause any real damage. However, those people who seem to have been preparing for this agenda to be rolled out (as you just explained, and as others have explained to us before)—those people took this opportunity and used this as a springboard in order to start rolling out the “pandemic”, which is really a plandemic, and which is really only a PCR test pandemic.

Would you agree with that, that in reality—and this is really important—we do not have a dangerous virus, because the WHO, in accordance with what John Ioannidis says, put the danger of this pandemic at about the level of a common flu: 0.14 or 0.15% infection-fatality rate; so would you agree that this is really not a pandemic but this is a co-ordinated effort?

As you said when you first started talking to us, this is not madness, it is a calculated effort which uses lots of psychology, NLP, in order to keep people in fear, in order to make them do things that they otherwise wouldn’t do?

Brian Gerrish: I certainly do believe that. There’s a number of points there in what you’ve just said to me.

The first important one is: all of the evidence that’s come in through the UK Column, and our analysis, has shown that even the Government’s own statistics have proven that what is happening is effectively a normal flu season. And although they tried extremely hard to manipulate and skew, bend the statistics, the Office for National Statistics in the UK actually did its job: the statistics that that centre pushed out to the public were actually correct, and showed that there was no pandemic. But the Government’s interpretation of it was a blatant twisting of the facts and information.

Reiner Füllmich: The same thing happened here.

Brian Gerrish: Yes, and I can reinforce that statement by saying to you that we now have a stream of people coming to us—doctors and nurses—saying that at the time when the British Government was claiming hospitals were full of Covid patients, they were not full.

Even specialist facilities that were created in hospitals never had a single patient going through them, never mind the big centre set up in London for thousands of patients that ended up, I think, with about 63 patients in a multi-thousand [bed] facility!

In hospitals, we have had hospital consultants [senior treating physicians] telling us that they were responsible for setting up specialist Covid wards, which they did, and when those wards were set up, they never had a single Covid patient in them.

And while that was happening, the British Government sent elderly people, who clearly did have flu—they were in the hospitals and they had flu, they were ill—the Government sent those elderly people in their thousands back into the care and residential homes, where of course, in a closed environment, that infection spread.

Even the wider press—certainly the newspapers in the UK: the Daily Express, I think the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph and the Guardian—all reported at one stage that the evidence was that tens of thousands of elderly people had died unnecessarily. Now, the experts that talk to us at the UK Column say the figure is not tens of thousands; it’s hundreds of thousands.

So, we have the lie over whether it was a pandemic, and one of the tricks that the British Government and the BBC have used is that they talk about the statistics relating to Covid-19 in a cumulative sense. They keep adding the figures together. But, of course, flu is always logged as a seasonal occurrence.

A flu season comes, people catch flu, some people die—that’s always the case—and then, as the weather gets better, flu disappears. And then, next winter, that is a new flu season, and the statistics start again. But with Covid, the statistics have been added across the two seasons.

Now, this is the use of psychology to manipulate people’s minds. It’s absolutely blatant.

You mentioned Fauci. I believe that what you’re seeing at the moment is a smokescreen. Yes, there are questions that need to be asked about what was happening in the Wuhan lab, and certainly we know that it has been standard procedure for many years that if a vaccine is to be created, the pharmaceutical companies will enhance a virus strain as part of their techniques for producing a new virus; so we can imagine that in any laboratory, dangerous enhanced viruses might be created.

So we know that laboratories are doing what is essentially dangerous work on the enhancements of viruses, so it is of course possible that something escaped.

But I think that the timing of the suddenly turning of attention back to Fauci is very interesting, and I believe that this is being done because they know that the wider public is starting to ask the right questions about what has been done as a result of the Covid-19 vaccination policy. So, to try to distract people away from asking the key questions about vaccination, they’re now coming back to Fauci.

And the other man who has suddenly disappeared from the public arena is Bill Gates. Now, why has Bill Gates disappeared? Well, there are a number of interesting questions, but the first problem he faced was that it became known that he had a friendship with Epstein.

So, all of a sudden, Mr Bill Gates has gone from being the squeaky clean, well-behaved entrepreneurial philanthropic businessman to being smeared with the fact that he had a very questionable friendship with [Jeffrey] Epstein. And Melinda Gates has now said that she warned her husband about that relationship many years ago.

So, suddenly, Bill Gates has been exposed in the wider media. That happened first, and now suddenly we’re getting attention focused back on Fauci. My feeling is that the people who are responsible for this despicable plan have now started to think that the public is beginning to look in the right direction, and so they need something to distract them.

And I think we’re going to see a ramping-up of accusations that it was the Chinese who produced a bioweapon, that Fauci was involved. This is all emotive media stuff; this is not proper analysis of what’s been happening. That’s my personal opinion; I could be wrong.

Reiner Füllmich: Actually, I think we agree with that, and everyone who we’ve spoken to agrees with that. It looks as though those who are responsible for this agenda are beginning to throw people under the bus, but—obviously—only for this very purpose: to distract the general public’s attention from what they’re doing. They’re asking the right questions.

So, in a way, I think this shows that they’re losing control, to a degree. They’re not losing complete control, but they’re losing control. What do you think about this?

Brian Gerrish: I agree with that, and if we want to inject some good news into our discussion, the people we are up against, the people we are fighting, are inherent liars. They tell lies; they do not tell the truth. And the problem with that is that eventually, they become caught in their own lies. So I think this is a big part of what’s started to happen.

I can give you another example, from within the UK, of where we see that there has suddenly been some emerging fear in the system. The UK agency which is responsible for the safety and regulation of medication is called the MHRA, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. That is the organisation which has been collecting data on vaccine adverse effects, and for you and anyone who’s ultimately watching or listening, their latest reports are that within the UK, there have been 859,481 adverse reactions …

Reiner Füllmich: Did you say 850,000?!

Brian Gerrish: 859,481. And there have been 1,213 deaths. Now, those statistics are the UK Government’s own statistics; they’ve not come from me, they’ve come from the UK Government, and they come from the MHRA Yellow Card system.

This is supposedly the safety system by which anybody who comes into contact with an adverse vaccine reaction—whether it be something you experienced yourself or you witnessed as a family member or friend, or indeed if you’re somebody in the medical profession—you should log a Yellow Card vaccine adverse reaction message, and it is the MHRA that holds that database.

Now, in the MHRA’s own documentation, they stated in 2018 that to their knowledge, for any medication, including vaccines, less than 10% of the serious adverse reactions were ever recorded. Less than 10%! And for more minor vaccine adverse reactions, they said that the figure recorded would be between 2% and 4% [of the actual total].

Now, if we consider that statement against [the record of] 859,000 adverse reactions and 1,213 deaths, we could be looking at 12,000 people who have died.

We as the UK Column have reported a great deal about this data, and on the website, my colleague, Mike Robinson, has provided a search engine so that you can search the MHRA’s own data. And this is very interesting, because you cannot search the data on the MHRA’s website; it simply provides it as sheets of data. This is very confusing and misleading for the public.

But the caveat that maybe only 10% of serious effects got recorded is very significant. In the last couple of weeks, the MHRA added a new paragraph in relation to that caveat about the low reporting of adverse effects. They said, “Of course, the figure of 10% and 2–4% does not apply to Yellow Card reports of Covid-19 vaccine adverse effects.”

So, once the UK Column started to draw the public’s attention to the fact that the MHRA already had 859,000 adverse effects recorded and 1,200 deaths, and that this might only be a very small proportion of the total number of adverse reactions, the MHRA attempted to deceive the public by posting a notice saying that this 10% [rule] did not apply to adverse reactions as a result of Covid-19 vaccination.

Viviane Fischer: But did anyone buy this?

Brian Gerrish: Well, some people will inevitably buy it, because members of the public who read this information without having a fuller understanding are still in the psychological position that they believe what the Government tells them. And this is a very big mistake, of course. So some people did believe them, but some didn’t.

Now, we as a media organisation challenged that very strongly, and then something very interesting happened: the MHRA suddenly announced, in the last few days, that it was going to have a special initiative for patient information and safety. And when you look at the documents they produced, there’s words on the paper, but the documents do not actually say what they are going to do to improve patient safety.

The other part of the story in the UK is that the MHRA has overall responsibility for logging vaccine adverse effects, but what they are not doing is then investigating to produce the final conclusion on whether an effect was indeed created by a vaccine or not.

Viviane Fischer: The same here.

Brian Gerrish: And if it’s the same in Germany, then we are starting to see that there’s a pattern emerging. This cannot be an accident; this cannot be a coincidence.

Viviane Fischer: And it’s amazing: we just discussed this earlier on in this session that they’re not doing autopsies. They’re really refusing: it’s either coming from the state prosecutors or it’s somehow being hindered behind the scenes, political decisions, whatever. They’re not doing any autopsies on the people who were registered or declared by their relatives that there might be a causality with regard to the vaccines. They’re not looking at it, and if they do, they say, “Oh, there’s no connection.” Even after doing a minor, cursory inspection, they say, “Oh, there’s no connection; it cannot be.”

Brian Gerrish: Well, that is also happening in the UK, that post mortems are not being conducted. We’ve even seen—this is factual, because we have interviewed the family concerned—[a case] where a family’s father died of a heart attack very shortly after receiving a vaccination, and the hospital did not submit a Yellow Card report, and later, when the family had submitted that report, nothing happened. Six and a half weeks passed.

They then said to the MHRA, “What are you doing to investigate the death?” And the first thing the MHRA asked them was, “Was there a post mortem?” Well, of course, the responsibility to do the post mortem comes from the medical team, who should have taken a decision that it could be linked to the vaccine, [and that] therefore, there was a need for a post mortem. But when it was too late, and the person had been buried, then the MHRA said, “Well, there wasn’t a post mortem.”

And the other thing that happened in the UK, about two years ago, [was a change:] originally, death certificates had to be signed by two doctors, and this, within the “pandemic”, was changed so that there only had to be one signature. Constantly, on the death certificates, “Covid” was recorded when family members said, “But my father, my mother, my brother died of cancer!” But because they had supposedly tested positive for Covid-19, that was actually recorded as the cause of death.

So this is the official falsification of statistics, with a direct impact on the health of the nation. This is calculated. And this is why I come back to the statement that it is not madness; if you analyse very carefully the political decisions, the policies, the documents, what we are looking at is genocide. It’s planned. It’s premeditated.

I’ve even had a senior member of the National Health Service—who has spoken to us as a whistleblower—use that very term. Her words were, “What I have watched unfolding within the health service in the UK is genocide.”

Reiner Füllmich: Was that a member of the medical community?

Brian Gerrish: That was a board member of one of the NHS Boards. And we have nurses telling us this; we have nurses using the term “genocide”. I have some doctors who are also using this term, but they’re not using it lightly, and they’re not using it because they’re aware that that other individual used it. It comes out as a word when you interview them about their experiences and what they have seen.

Viviane Fischer: Do you think the rush to vaccinate the children … The [German] Government has now said that from 7 June on, children are supposed to be vaccinated, and everything is supposed to be over and done before the next school year. So this seems to be pretty outrageous; obviously, a lot of people are very upset about this new thing.

They say it’s not going to be mandatory, but with peer pressure, and with them saying you can only access the schools again with testing or with vaccination, or only with vaccination, of course, there’s pressure; it’s basically mandatory, or it’s going to become mandatory.

I wonder, do you think they are now rushing this through because they see that the side effects of the vaccinations are going to become more and more obvious?

Maybe if they introduced this later in the year, quite a few parents might shy away from the vaccinations, whereas now it’s still in-between, and maybe with the option of going on vacations, it’s maybe a good idea to lure people or nudge people into getting even their children vaccinated now? What’s your take on that?

Brian Gerrish: I totally agree with your analysis there. It is very clear that there is now a massive urgency to vaccinate children, and we can see that in open statements of politicians. One politician, [the former Health Secretary] Jeremy Hunt, stood up in Westminster a couple of days ago and basically said that it was vital that we started to vaccinate schoolchildren.

So we can see open statements, but we can also see other documentation circulating where, again, there is this malicious use of psychology, because schoolteachers are being told that if they encounter parents who are reluctant to have their children vaccinated, those parents are effectively going to be listed as extremists.

So we can again see this psychological wedge coming in, to break people away from their children. Of course, if you get parents away from the children, then the Government can do what they like with the children.

And, as I say this to you, I think it’s reasonable for me to say that many years ago, twenty years ago, I was reading a very informative political book called The European Union Collective: Enemy of its Member States [by Christopher Story], and in that book there was a table which purported to be a table of the psychological attack on Western nations. It involved a period of demoralisation; it involved a period of destabilisation; and the ultimate five years was that there was going to be complete chaos and collapse.

And as I read that table—and I had not long been out of the military at that stage—my mind said, “Some of this is happening around us. I can think of examples!” And I have given public talks on part of this idea—I will call it an “idea”—that a psychological attack, a demoralising attack, is being unleashed on our respective nations. I believe that that is the case.

And I believe that when you see how the policy for this Covid scam, this lie, is being mirrored in the UK, in France, in Germany, and across all the other countries, then we can see that clearly, the power base that’s injecting this is not democratic in any form. It’s hostile to us.

I’ll just add, because it’s a little thing that I didn’t want to forget, that Bill Gates has supported an organisation called CEPI: the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation had put in several hundred million dollars to that organisation.

Well, by a “miracle”, CEPI ended up funding the very biological testing laboratory that the MHRA in the UK was going to use, and is using, to tell us whether the vaccines are safe! So Bill Gates’ money goes into CEPI; and from CEPI, it goes to support the very laboratory that is being used to tell us that vaccines are safe—on the basis that they’ve recorded 860,000 side effects, officially!

But they haven’t done any correlation as to whether there’s causation there with the vaccines themselves. That research has not been done.

So it’s obvious that what you have is a system that has been set up in order to deceive the public about what is truly happening with these vaccines. And I think they want the children because they are now quite scared to see the right questions being asked, and they know that if they want to get the children vaccinated, they’ve got to hurry.

Viviane Fischer: I have one more question. We’re looking at all the measures: the masks, this bizarre testing, now the vaccination, and the social distancing. Do you think these have foremost a psychological aspect, of being that you’re power-struck or that you have to show obedience?

And also, I was wondering: do you think it’s maybe also, in addition, that they’re all technologically, pharmacologically, all elements of the same goal: to get you sick?

Because there’s stuff in the tests, the swabs, we know, that is not good, and the masks are making people get infected more easily with a virus or the flu or whatever. So could it be that it’s also really elegantly orchestrated on a medical basis?

Brian Gerrish: Yes. I think what you are saying is correct. It’s difficult for people [to imagine]. If we say that we are reasonable people—we, the assembled people here today, are not perfect, but we’re reasonable people and we’re concerned about our fellow man and woman; that’s what’s in our heads—when you have that in your head, it’s very difficult for you then to look at somebody who is unleashing an utterly brutal plan on people.

If even [just] tens of thousands of elderly people were deliberately killed in the UK (and I believe the evidence for that is overwhelming), then the people who took the decision to kill the elderly people are also capable of taking the decision to kill off other members of society that they don’t believe are worth anything.

Just to come back to psychology and documents: I have a National Health Service document which is talking about patient safety, and it says “If we did this or that, we could perhaps save the lives of 160 people a year. That would be worth £23 million.

Every time the NHS document is talking about protecting human beings, it puts a financial value on that. And when I see those sentences, I know that the person who has written that document does not think in the way that I suspect you and we all think.

So, what they’re doing to the children with the masks and the social distancing—and giving them lessons in “how dangerous the virus is”—that is frightening the children. This is all a psychological attack on their minds, and the people are doing it know full well that this is going to result in all sorts of mental health problems in the children.

There’s a very important paper which is called Bidermans Chart of Coercion. It’s a World Health Organisation-recognised paper about non-physical techniques of torture. Virtually every Covid pandemic measure can be ticked off against one of the entries in Biderman’s chart.

And as I was waiting to come live with you, a very well-informed lady has sent me a document where in the UK, they’re now saying that if a baby is born and there is any suspicion that that child may test positive for Covid, there should be no skin contact.

Viviane Fischer: It’s really getting out of hand. Do you think that the spin for this whole thing is written in England? Do you think that [the UK] is really the spider in the web? Would you discover [that], together with the French people? Is it an American script? It must be centrally organised somehow.

Brian Gerrish: Well, this of course is a very interesting question, because when I talked about the destabilisation chart [in Christopher Story’s book], that allegedly was part of a Communist plan to destabilise the West.

But I think that if we take a more mature view of it at the moment, if we look at the power base (and at the moment, we’re focused on the power base of the pharmaceutical companies), the power base is within the networks of those companies. And, of course, those companies can only function with the people who control their billions of dollars of working capital and profits.

So, for me, it’s very easy to say that if you want to start working out who is doing this, then you have to look at who is actually controlling the sums of money.

And this can be quite emotive, depending on how you put this argument across, but in the UK, the Government—which has not been able to build hospitals, which can’t fill in holes in the road, which can’t run the schools—suddenly announces that we have got £800 billion which has appeared out of thin air in order to fight Covid. Well, this tells us something very important.

The other thing which I think is significant at the moment is: you might have thought a few years ago that if such a pandemic happened, then at this stage, when the economy is so badly hit, we would be hearing the banks complain; we would be hearing the banks saying that “This is disastrous, because the British economy has shrunk by 30% to 40%. The banks can’t function.”

But actually, the banks are silent. And that says to me that the banks are happyThey must be happy, because they’re silent.

Reiner Füllmich: It is, according to what we have learnt by now, the banks. It’s high finance which is profiting from all this, through their investments in the pharmaceutical and the tech industry.

But the bottom line of all this, if this is an agenda (and I have no doubt that it is an agenda; it’s a calculated effort), is that the killing of the middle class, of the small and medium-sized businesses, driving them into bankruptcy, and the actual killing of people, is not collateral damage; it’s the intended damage, right?

Brian Gerrish: It’s intended, and about nine months ago (I can’t substantiate it further, because it’s a whistleblower), a whistleblower who had clearly been within some reasonably high-level meetings within the British Government told us he was shocked that at one stage, they’d discussed the need to destroy small to medium-sized businesses.

He said it was discussed in a way that was so cold that it really disturbed him. When he came out of the meeting, he could not believe what he had just heard.

The previous Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carneyannounced publicly several times that companies that did not adhere to the new “climate change” greening agenda would be punished. They would be put out of business. He said that publicly, and anybody operating a small business really should have paid attention to what that man was talking about.

And, of course, if you stop small businesses from working, you are stopping people from earning a living; and when they can’t pay to live, when they can’t pay to eat, that also increases mental health problems.

The word in English for this is “malevolent”: it’s a poisonous agenda. But it’s deliberate, because it’s being spoken in Parliament and it’s appearing in the documents that are being put out.

Viviane Fischer: What was the pseudo-argument that people from the Government used when they talked about the small and medium-sized businesses needing to be taken out? Climate change?

Brian Gerrish: Well, of course, they’re selling to the wider public that there is a climate change problem, and it’s desperate[ly important] that we take any and every measure to deal with the climate issue; and if that means that a few hundred thousand small businesses are going to be destroyed, well, that’s what’s got to happen.

So the fear factor is the constant thing: the psychology is based on fear and control. We’ve got to be fearful, because the world’s going to end because of climate change. We’ve got to be fearful of a pandemic. We’ve got to be fearful of a war with China and Russia. This is deliberate, calculated psychology.

And, to my mind, this is why, if we want to fight what’s happening with Covid and vaccination, then we have to address this issue as well. When we can prove that our governments are lying and using propaganda, that has to be hit as hard as saying to the public, “We can show you that the vaccines are dangerous, because of these statistics around adverse reactions.” We have to do the two things simultaneously.

One of the ironies is that lockdown has been very good for the UK Column, because many, many more people are coming to us, and every week, we will probably get six, seven, eight e-mails where people say, “We would like to thank you for keeping us sane. Your news, your information, your facts, your analysis has helped keep us sane, because we were getting distressed; we were getting anxious.”

And that is a huge compliment to us. That is something very special that those people are telling us. But, of course, what it also told us was how powerful this effect was on the minds of the public.

Viviane Fischer: I have one last question. We have the impression—and it’s maybe connected to what you said about neurolinguistic programming—that people are under some sort of spell. We’ve discussed this with a lot of psychologists.

Brian Gerrish: Well, we also believe this. This is [the conclusion] we’ve come to. We can say that people are under a spell, and the best description, we believe, is that they’ve been mesmerised.

Viviane Fischer: Yes, mesmerised. But how do you think we can break through this spell? Is there a way?

Reiner Füllmich: Information. We have to get the information out, because knowledge is what kills the illusion. Real knowledge kills the illusion that they’ve created.

Brian Gerrish: This is true, but we also have to be realistic: if you look at what happens when you attempt to hypnotise a group of people, then you get a bell curve distribution. Some people are very susceptible to it and will be extremely hypnotised; some people might be slightly affected; and some people it’s very difficult to hypnotise.

So, across the population, I believe you need to think about it in a bit more of a measured way: you’re going to have some people that I think, probably, we’re not going to get to. They’re gone. They can’t think for themselves. And you’ll have other people—you are clearly some; I hope I am one—who see through what’s happening. It doesn’t matter what they say or “show” us; we can see what the truth is.

So, by exposing it and putting out the correct information ourselves, we are getting through that hypnosis. And, to be positive, I think that is accelerating. The British Government has just announced that it’s spending £1.6 billion to interface with media companies! £1.6 billion. The BBC’s budget is £5 billion on its own.

So a £5 billion BBC [evidently isn’t sufficing], which is the biggest propaganda machine the world has ever seen. It is the most dangerous organisation. You should not believe anything the BBC says without checking it with another source. I could talk to you for an hour about what the BBC really is.

Reiner Füllmich: Yes, well, we have the very same problem with our national public radio and television stations, I believe. It may be worse in Great Britain, however, because I think your history is a lot longer with that kind of propaganda!

Brian Gerrish: I’m sorry, I didn’t answer Viviane’s question fully on whether I thought the seat for this was in the UK. I am very embarrassed to say that I do believe it is in the UK. We are looking at a power base which is a mixture of the monetary power of the City of London, and what is very clear from the documentation is that that monetary power base is now fully working with the wider security services.

This is part of what in the UK they are calling the Fusion Doctrine. That’s another discussion, but essentially, we can see that the monetary power base is now controlling both the intelligence networks, like GCHQ [equivalent of Germany’s BND], but also the secret services. They are acting together.

It is fact, I assure you, because it was announced publicly (but very quietly!) that we now have both Google and GCHQ, the British signals intelligence organisation, working inside the National Health Service. This is outrageous.

Reiner Füllmich: But as the picture emerges, it is becoming ever clearer for more and people to understand: to first see and then ask questions and understand. That’s why they’re pushing so hard, because they understand that something is going off the rails right now.

Brian Gerrish: Yes, they’re understanding that people are waking up, and we are seeing this. I think that there has been a great … Social media has stabilised. I think, in many places on social media, you’re seeing a huge improvement in the quality and the accuracy of information coming out, and I don’t think they ever realised that people would use social media for professional analysis and reporting, as you’re doing today. This frightens them a lot.

Reiner Füllmich: Good.

Brian Gerrish: So I think we’ve got to expose what’s going on. The other thing that we have learnt over ten years is that it’s always better to slightly understate what you’re talking about.

If you tell it reasonably gently, you can always come back and have another go; but if you’re too aggressive, if you’re too forceful, if you scare people, then you lose them. So we’ve tried to always be talking about what’s happening very quietly, in a measured way, and also we don’t cover all of the things that we’re watching.

To take an example, people are talking about magnets sticking to you after an injection. Now, I don’t know whether that’s true or not; I’m interested to follow it, to see; [but] I’m not going to report on it, because until I can prove it, I don’t want to say anything that could undermine what else we’ve talked about.

So I think the [approach] of not being caught up in being too outspoken and aggressive helps people to come to us, to absorb the information.

If you want to end on a really positive note, I decided I would put some greenery behind me today, because I thought a little bit of sunshine and some greenness might lift our spirits a bit. I believe that something very interesting has happened in the last four or five months: professional people are beginning to ask the right questions.

I think that the speed at which this is happening is now causing all of these strange decisions you’re seeing by the establishment: [the sacrificing of] Fauci, the rush to get the children vaccinated even when they haven’t got the rest of the policy through—this, to me, is a sign that they are very frightened people.

The last thing I’d like to say—and I have to smile when I say it—is that there was an activist in Chicago called Saul Alinsky, who wrote an extremely good book which is called Rules for Radicals, and in the book he’s talking essentially about techniques to overthrow government, but one of the things he says is “Always make the argument personal.”

Reiner Füllmich: That’s what we’re doing, yes.

Brian Gerrish: And so it’s not enough to talk about “the BBC”; we’ve got to talk about Tim Davie, the Director-General of the BBC. It’s not enough for me to talk about “the MHRA”; I’ve got to talk about Dr June Raine, the Chief Executive of the MHRA.

The other little thing, which you can accept or laugh at—I’m very happy either way—is that even in writing to some of these officials, it’s very powerful if you put their picture on the letter or the e-mail that you send to them, because what that does is it takes it from a dry communication to actually putting straight into their minds that you are looking at them as an individual.

And, of course, what am I doing here? I’m using applied psychology, but if the bad people use it on us, I think we can use a little bit of it back on them.

Reiner Füllmich: Well, that’s what we’re doing, actually. We’re making it personal. We’re going after these people personally, not after the institutions. Brian, thank you very, very much.

This was extremely interesting and very important, and I think we’re going to be able to hear more of each other, because we have to stay in touch now that we realise—I mean, we’ve had this suspicion all along, but now we realise that this is an internationally-concerted effort by some very, very evil people.

Brian Gerrish: Yes, and what a wonderful opportunity that is, because whatever else these people do, they are constantly pitting nations against nations. If we get a little bit broader and we look back at the wars and the trouble, it was this type of people that caused it, and I think we’ve got a wonderful opportunity now.

The “pandemic” that’s been thrown at us to make us fearful could actually be the very thing to get people coming back as human beings, no matter what their nationality or religion or colour is. I think we’ve got a very exciting opportunity here.

Reiner Füllmich: We agree. It’s a real pleasure, Brian. Thanks so much. I think we’ll talk more.

July 15, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Have You Watched Our JFK Conference Presentations?

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | July 8, 2021

Have you watched the presentations from our recent online conference “The National Security State and the Kennedy Assassination”?

I carefully organized this conference as a prosecutor would in a criminal prosecution. Therefore, it’s helpful if you watch the presentations in the order they were delivered in the conference, as shown below. I have no doubt that anyone who watches these presentations in their entirety will conclude beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that what transpired on November 22, 1963, was a U.S. regime-change operation based on grounds of “national security.”

President Kennedy and the Third World” by Jim DiEugenio

JFK, the Vietnam War, and the War State” by Michael Swanson

JFK and the Cold War: Deception, Treachery, and the Struggle for Power” by John M. Newman

Morley v. CIA, Part 1” by Jefferson Morley

Morley v. CIA, Part 2” by Jefferson Morley

The JFK Medical Cover-Up” by Douglas Horne’ 

The JFK Medical Cover-Up Q&A” by Douglas Horne

Reviewing the Autopsy X-Rays” by Michael Chesser

JFK’s Head Wounds” by David Mantik

How Five Investigations into JFK’s Medical Autopsy Evidence Got It Wrong” by Gary Aguilar

JFK’s War with the National Security Establishment” by Douglas Horne

Regime Change: The JFK Assassination” by Jacob Hornberger

July 15, 2021 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment