Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The Great Betrayal

By Will Jones • Daily Sceptic • July 21, 2021

Destroy their education. Destroy their jobs and their job prospects. Destroy their social life, their friendships, their mental health. Force them to work long hours at school or in physically demanding jobs in uncomfortable and breath-inhibiting face masks. This is what our country has done to our young people in the past 16 months.

Why? In an attempt (and not a very successful one) to protect a small minority of mostly elderly folk who are particularly vulnerable to one disease while we wait in limbo to develop a vaccine and roll it out to the vulnerable population.

Then do we give them back their freedom? Not at all. Then we move the goalposts, making freedom conditional on more and more people getting the vaccine. Until we make it to so-called ‘Freedom Day’, a month later than originally planned, and Boris Johnson chooses then to tell young people that their freedom to do the things they enjoy will be dependent on receiving a vaccine.

A vaccine that uses experimental technology and was rushed through trials without waiting for the full safety data (trials which will never now conclude as the control groups have been vaccinated). A vaccine, or rather vaccines, which the authorities now acknowledge increase the risk of dangerous blood clotting and heart conditions, particularly in younger people. Vaccines for which there are now more reports of fatalities in the U.S. than all other vaccines put together for the past 30 years.

OpenVAERS

The E.U.’s own infectious disease journal Eurosurveillance has just published a study concluding that, when it comes to the AstraZeneca vaccine and blood clots, “in young adults, the risks were similar or higher than the benefits”.

Bear in mind this is just considering one side effect based on the reported incidence. It doesn’t take into account other side effects and under-reporting.

That’s the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is now discouraged for under 40s in the U.K. Are Pfizer and Moderna vaccines much better? Warnings have recently been added to them that they cause serious heart conditions in some cases. What else might emerge as the data is properly analysed?

The decision whether to take a particular vaccine, given the risk and potential benefit, is a personal one, and we can hardly blame the minority of young adults who appear to be concluding they’d rather take their chances with the virus, from which they’re also likely to get better immunity.

Any kind of threat of withdrawal of benefits for failure to take a medicine, let alone an experimental medicine, undermines informed consent. For that matter, the paucity of information provided on the real risk of side effects and the real age-specific level of benefit undermines informed consent.

Our young people have been betrayed again and again by this Government, which seems to have reached a place where it regards them primarily as vectors of disease who must be coerced into taking the prescribed medicine to make them clean enough to allow out and about. Yet the evidence that the vaccines are particularly good at preventing the spread of infection is patchy at best.

Our leaders should be ashamed of themselves for how they have abused young people and their trust, jeopardised their health and strangled their aspirations.

Sadly, I don’t think enough of them are sufficiently alive yet to the full horror of what has been pointlessly done to them in the last year and a bit to realise how angry they should be. But if they ever do wake up to it, there will be a terrible political reckoning.

July 21, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | 3 Comments

All Americans must leave Afghanistan except diplomats: Top Taliban official

Press TV – July 21, 2021

All foreign forces in Afghanistan are considered occupiers, a top Taliban official tells Press TV, stressing that the United States should pull out all its military and civilian personnel from the country except its diplomats.

Mullah Khairullah Khairkhwa made the remarks in an interview with Press TV on Wednesday, alleging that the militant group and the United States had agreed on the matter.

“They have accepted that all Americans except their diplomats should leave Afghanistan and this issue is clearly written,” he said in an interview with Press TV’s Face to Face program.

“All NATO forces and their allies in Afghanistan must leave Afghanistan, and even those who were nominated to protect their embassies were rejected by us, because if we come to the government of Afghanistan, we are responsible for protecting their embassies and diplomats,” added the official.

‘US, NATO can’t provide security’

The US and the Western military alliance of NATO, Khairkhwa said, were incapable of providing Afghanistan with security.

Had the Americans been capable of securing Afghanistan, they would have done so over their 20-year-long occupation of the country, which saw some 150,000 foreign forces entering the Central Asian territory, he said.

“How can they bring us security?” he asked, and warned that if given the chance, Washington would always try to find a pretext to bring in troops, whether it was training the Afghan forces or providing security for the American interests in Afghanistan.

‘No use for Americans to return’

Khairkhwa also said the history of foreign military interventions in Afghanistan, as was the case with the British and Russian invasions, showed that such militarism was doomed to fail.

He, therefore, predicted that if the United States sought to re-enter Afghanistan following its current troop pullout, it would end up suffering the same fate as it has over the past 20 years.

“Because when someone enters someone’s house and fights there, the owner of the house will fight back as long as he lives. And if the Americans want to return, the same process of 20 years ago will be repeated. It is no use for them, nor is it of any use for us…,” the official noted.

Taliban after formation of ‘common govt.’

The official was also asked about the May-present escalation in the Taliban’s aggression and the goals that the group could be seeking by ramping up the violence.

Khairkhwa claimed that the group prioritized “political solutions” and “negotiation” over the armed offensive.

“We are trying to find solutions that are a good way for the people to elect a government, whether it is in the form of a council and a settlement, or in some other way, is now on the table for negotiation,” he said.

The group, he alleged, would close the door to all negotiation if it were completely against it.

‘Taliban advance, govt. fall inevitable’

The Taliban official, however, stressed that neither the group’s advances nor the incumbent government’s fall were to be helped.

“You see, the districts are very easily conquered” by the Taliban, which “have the ability to conquer the big cities” too.

He cited the example of the government that was propped up by the Soviets, but “could not survive and finally fell.”

“As for the current government, the people know that it will not last. That is why the fall is underway,” he said.

Khairkhwa claimed that the “elders” had not yet ordered any offensive against large cities, including the capital Kabul, and that the group would prioritize negotiation and political agreement concerning the manner of their control in the future.

The official, nevertheless, appeared not to be ruling out armed action targeting the cities by saying, “We use precaution so that, God forbid, it does not cause massive casualties.”

Why hasn’t the Taliban been fighting Daesh?

Khairkhwa was asked about the reason why the Taliban had not been fighting the foreign-backed Takfiri terrorist group of Daesh, which it considers another occupying entity, for some time.

The official said the hiatus had been brought about as a result of the sporadic nature of Daesh’s presence in Afghanistan, adding that the group would have kept up its fight if the Takfiris “had a headquarters.”

He also described Daesh’s ideology as “deviant” and claimed that the Taliban’s mindset differed from that of the terrorist outfit.

‘Taliban, Saudi Arabia not as close as before’

The Taliban official also said the group and Saudi Arabia’s relations did not have their former quality.

“We do not have the same connection we had before… We haven’t had any public trips to Saudi Arabia,” he said.

He also said if the Saudi regime sought to fund so-called “religious schools” in Afghanistan, the funding had to go through the government and the ministry of education instead of going straight to the schools.

What becomes of Afghanistan’s foreign policy if Taliban triumph?

Meanwhile, the Taliban official claimed that the group would try to maintain relations with Muslim countries, including the neighboring ones such as Iran, if it rose to power in Afghanistan.

He alleged, though, that Afghanistan would not be allowed to lean extensively in any direction if the group assumed power.

July 21, 2021 Posted by | Illegal Occupation | , | 3 Comments

Where’s the Rage for Israel and NSO’s Pegasus the West Had for China’s Huawei?

By Morgan Artyukhina – Sputnik – 21.07.2021

Anger has swirled around the globe over revelations that Pegasus spyware created by Israeli software firm NSO Group has been used by governments to wiretap journalists and public figures. However, the fury is mild when compared to claims Beijing compelled Huawei to put a “backdoor” into its phones, which has never been proven.

Earlier this week, a group of news outlets including the Washington Post and Forbidden Stories, along with human rights group Amnesty International, revealed disturbing findings: governments around the globe have been buying up Pegasus spyware from NSO Group and using it to spy on journalists, public figures, and even other world leaders.

50,000 Phones Targeted

Thousands of phone numbers are on the list, with some of the biggest names including French President Emmanuel Macron and Moroccan journalists Omar Radi, both allegedly wiretapped by Morocco, and journalist Jamal Khashoggi, allegedly wiretapped by his native Saudi Arabia prior to being killed by a Saudi hit squad at the Saudi consulate in October 2019.

In all, 180 journalists were targeted in 20 countries, including Kazakhstan, India, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Azerbaijan, Hungary, Morocco, Rwanda, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mexico, Egypt, Algeria, Togo, Turkey, France, Spain and the United Kingdom. They also targeted at least 65 business executives, 85 human rights activists, 189 journalists, and more than 600 politicians and government officials, including high-level officials like cabinet ministers, diplomats, and military officers, according to The Washington Post.

Also on the list were 10 prime ministers, three presidents, and one king, including Iraqi President Barham Salih, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, the prime ministers of Pakistan, Egypt, and Morocco, and seven former heads of government from Lebanon, Uganda, and Belgium, and several other countries.

Shalev Hulio, NSO’s chief executive and co-founder, has cast the story as flimsy, but said the company is “investigating every allegation … and if we find that it is true, we will take strong action.”

“NSO Group’s technologies have helped prevent terror attacks, gun violence, car explosions and suicide bombings. NSO Group is on a lifesaving mission and the company will faithfully execute this mission undeterred, despite any and all continued attempts to discredit it on false grounds,” the company told the US Public Broadcasting Service.

On Wednesday, the firm put out a press release saying “enough is enough,” announcing it would cease responding to media inquiries about what it called a “vicious and slanderous campaign.”

“NSO is a technology company. We do not operate the system, nor do we have access to the data of our customers, yet they are obligated to provide us with such information under investigations,” the company added.

​The Israeli government has confirmed it “approves the export of cyber products exclusively to governmental entities, for lawful use, and only for the purpose of preventing and investigating crime and counterterrorism, under end use /end user certificates provided by the acquiring government. In cases where exported items are used in violation of export licenses or end use certificates, appropriate measures are taken.”

However, it denied having any knowledge of the use of Pegasus to spy on other targets, and noted to the Post that “Israel does not have access to the information gathered by NSO’s clients.”

That said, a former senior US national security official who has worked closely with the Israeli security services also told the outlet “It’s crazy to think that NSO wouldn’t share sensitive national security information with the government of Israel. That doesn’t mean they’re a front for the Israeli security agencies, but governments around the world assume that NSO is working with Israel.”

How Have Nations Reacted?

Representatives from many of the nations implicated in the investigation have unanimously denied the reports they spied on journalists, dissidents, and world figures, insisting their governments are based on the rule of law. However, it’s notable that not all of the countries where journalists were targeted have been asked for comment, with France, Spain, and the UK being notable exceptions.

Asked by The Hindu, a White House spokesperson said on Wednesday that “The United States condemns the harassment or extrajudicial surveillance of journalists, human rights activists, or other perceived regime critics.”

However, despite the admission by NSO that it sells such software and by Israel that it, at the very least, approved of each sale, and in light of comments by foreign intelligence officials that Israel likely materially benefitted from the affair by gleaning information from the group, it seems that a bigger scandal would be expected. But not a single government has demanded punishment for either NSO or Israel, or decried even the possibility that Israel helped countries wiretap people not suspected of criminal actions, or raised fears that a country’s government likely got ahold of classified information from them via illegal means.

There have been no calls for sanctions against Israel or NSO or any senior figures at NSO, or prosecutions, or frankly even acknowledgements that the affair is even happening outside of dry-mouthed condemnations. In fact, the only calls for sanctions have been by journalists themselves, such as the Intercept’s Ryan Grim and Electronic Intifada’s Ali Abuminah.

​The reactions – and lack thereof – stand in stark comparison to how Chinese tech giant Huawei has been treated.

Huawei Crucified Without Evidence

Shenzhen-based Huawei is the world’s largest manufacturer of both telecommunications equipment and smartphones and a major supplier of 5G internet service. The company was started in 1987 by Ren Zhangfei, a former Chinese military engineer, although he owns less than 2% of its shares, which are owned by Huawei employees.

The US has claimed for years that Ren’s military experience and membership in the Communist Party of China make Huawei a security liability, but in 2018 a more concerted effort began aimed at forcing US military and government agencies from using products by Huawei and another Chinese phone maker, ZTE, claiming that the CPC had forced Huawei to insert a secret “back door” into its phones and networks, enabling the Chinese government to spy on users if so desired.

The company and the Chinese government have both denied that such a backdoor does or even could exist or that they would pursue one if it were possible.

“If they believe there’s a backdoor, they should offer evidence to prove it,” Huawei chairman Liang Hua challenged US intelligence in January 2019. At the time, Washington said it didn’t need to, citing Huawei’s alleged proximity to the Chinese government as sufficient proof.

However, as the US began hounding allies in Germany and the “Five Eyes” nations to drop Huawei’s technologies, it did begin providing them with evidence to support its claims – evidence London, Berlin, and Paris all said wasn’t very convincing. Still, within months each of them had either rejected bids by Huawei or suddenly found new evidence to justify falling into line with US demands.

The firm was placed on a US blacklist in 2019, requiring Americans to obtain a special license from the US Department of Commerce before doing business with Huawei, effectively banning Americans from buying Huawei’s phones, and several nations have now sanctioned Huawei as well. The company’s CFO, Meng Wanzhou, was also arrested in Canada in connection with charges in a US court that aren’t related to the espionage allegations but which are widely seen as further persecution of the company.

The sanctions had their effect, too: in March, a first-quarter earnings report showed its sales down 16.5% year-on, part of a trend that caused it to sell its Honor smartphone marquee last year.

Legacy of Israeli Spying on Allies

In September 2019, Politico reported that US government officials had concluded Israel was responsible for placing cell phone surveillance devices called “Stingrays” around Washington, DC, and had even used them to spy on White House communications. A former senior official used as a source for the article said the devices were likely intended to spy specifically on then-US President Donald Trump, a known lover of his iPhone.

Then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dismissed the report, saying, “Israel doesn’t conduct espionage operations in the United States, period.”

However, the claims go back much further. In 1985, US intelligence analyst Jonathan Pollard was arrested, charged, and later convicted of espionage after he passed classified US Navy documents to Israel, including dirt on Israel’s Arab neighbors, for $1,500 a month.

 Jonathan Pollard, U.S. Navy ID picture

Israel also spied on then-US Secretary of State John Kerry in 2014 and 2015 during negotiations for what became the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, according to reports by Der Spiegel and the Wall Street Journal.

In 2017, Le Monde revealed that Israel’s Mossad had penetrated the French intelligence directorate in what it called Operation Ratafia, with the goal of developing close relationships with fellow spies “to the point of crossing the line of turning them into double agents.”

None of these brought calls for sanctions, either, revealing how politically motivated the attacks on Huawei and other Chinese tech firms really are. Why does the West continue to tolerate the Israeli government spying on them and their citizens?

July 21, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | 1 Comment

Obstetrician’s safety claims on Covid vaccine in pregnancy ‘were misleading and biased’

By Sally Beck | The Conservative Woman | July 21, 2021

THE UK Medical Freedom Alliance has sent an open letter to Dr Brenda Kelly, consultant obstetrician at Oxford University Hospitals, detailing ‘serious concerns’ about statements she made in videos on the hospitals’ website about Covid-19 vaccination in pregnancy.

The alliance, a group of medical professionals, scientists and lawyers, says it is concerned about several ‘simplified, misleading and biased’ claims Dr Kelly made about the safety and efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccines. It says these claims are not supported by the available evidence, and ‘may seriously impede the process of obtaining fully informed consent from pregnant women’.

This is the text of the letter:

We would like to share with you our Open Letters to the RCOG / RCM dated 29 March 2021 and to the JCVI dated 19 April 2021 vaccines-should-be-offered-to-all-pregnant-women regarding Covid-19 vaccines for pregnant women.

This is in response to your recent appearance in a series of short videos, published on the Oxford University Hospitals website, where you made several statements conveying simplified and biased messages that are not supported by the available evidence.

Concerns are mainly related, but not limited to, your representation of the Covid-19 vaccine safety profile.

1. You state that Covid-19 vaccines are safer for pregnant women than contracting Covid-19 disease, when there is no evidence at all that Covid-19 vaccines will prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection or any of the complications you refer to (stillbirths / premature delivery / long Covid).

2. Your statement that Covid-19 vaccines are ‘safe and effective’ stands completely unqualified, resulting in the suggestion that nobody will come to any serious harm as a result of the vaccine.

As a medical practitioner, we are sure that you will be aware that such a statement does not apply to any medical intervention, and cannot possibly apply to a product that is based on a completely novel technology whilst remaining in Phase 3 trial stages, not due to be completed till 2023.

3. You indicate it to be reassuring that Covid-19 vaccines do not contain any live virus, but completely fail to mention that the gene technology using mRNA and lipid nanoparticles has never previously received full regulatory approval for humans on a large scale.

As pregnant women were not included in the regulatory trials, the effect of this technology on a pregnancy, a developing foetus and on a breastfeeding baby cannot possibly be known and declared safe at this stage.

4. You categorically state that there are no harmful ingredients in the Covid-19 vaccines, specifically the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, which you recommend for pregnant women. May we refer you to the Government documents for a full list of ingredients of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

Both mRNA vaccines contain polyethylene glycol (PEG). PEG is a known allergen which carries a risk of serious, potentially fatal allergic reactions. The US Centre for Disease Control (CDC) has issued advice that anyone allergic to PEG or its close relative, Polysorbate, should not receive either of the currently available mRNA vaccines.

This has also been reflected in advice from the NHS, which states: ‘Since the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine contains PEG, individuals with PEG allergy should not receive this vaccine.’

5. You state that side-effects to be expected after a Covid-19 vaccine would be mild and self-limiting. However, since the start of Covid-19 vaccine rollout to the population in December 2020, thousands of vaccine-related illnesses and deaths have been reported through databases in the US, Europe and the UK, raising serious concerns about safety.

In the report published by the MHRA on June 30, 2021, there were over one million adverse reactions in the UK, some of them very serious, including seizures, paralysis, blindness, strokes, blood clots and acute cardiac events. This report includes 1,440 fatalities.

Some life-threatening effects, such as blood clots and myocarditis, have been reported specifically in young people, which will be particularly relevant for women of childbearing age.

We strongly suggest that any published information regarding Covid-19 vaccine should include reference to risks of serious morbidity, which you completely fail to mention.

In this context, it is also essential to note that Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers demanded and were granted exemption from any liability for adverse effects of injury or death caused by their products.

6. You claim that safety of Covid-19 vaccines in pregnancy may be inferred from monitoring over 130,000 pregnant women in the US, which has not raised any safety concerns.

Whilst this suggests robust reassurance, this assertion completely fails to acknowledge that this ‘study’ refers to the CDC’s V-safe Covid-19 Vaccine Pregnancy Registry, which is a voluntary reporting system, collecting observational data of over 130,000 women, who happened to be pregnant at the time of vaccination. It is notable that only just over 5,000 of these women have been formally enrolled.

This is not comparable to robust, thorough, scientific evaluation and peer-reviewed evidence.

No data is available regarding potential effects on the foetus or other pregnancy outcomes, as the length of time Covid-19 vaccines have been tested and administered does not even equal the length of a single pregnancy at this point.

Published data from June 2021 in the New England Journal of Medicine only refer to ‘preliminary findings’ regarding safety of mRNA Covid-19 vaccines in pregnancy, also mostly based on the V-safe pregnancy registry.

This study reports 104 miscarriages before 20 weeks in 127 women, who had received a Covid-19 vaccine before the third trimester and completed their pregnancy. As of 30 June 2021, 314 miscarriages and 12 stillbirths / foetal deaths have been reported to the MHRA via the Yellow Card system.

7. We would like to draw your attention to a recent report from the MHRA regarding the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine, dated June 4, 2021, which states under toxicology conclusions: ‘In the context of supply under Regulation 174, it is considered that sufficient reassurance of safe use of the vaccine in pregnant women cannot be provided at the present time: However, use in women of childbearing potential could be supported provided healthcare professionals are advised to rule out known or suspected pregnancy prior to vaccination. Women who are breastfeeding should also not be vaccinated.’

8. We further would like to draw your attention to the Summary of Product Characteristics for Covid-19 Vaccine Moderna by the MHRA updated 25 June 2021, which states: ‘Administration of COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna in pregnancy should only be considered when the potential benefits outweigh any potential risks for the mother and foetus. It is unknown whether COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna is excreted in human milk.’

This is not consistent with your message that the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines are suitable for every pregnant woman without further considerations.

In the current situation, which is fraught with uncertainty and fear, the public is looking to professionals for balanced advice. We suggest that anyone stepping forward with a purpose of conveying information relevant to Covid-19 vaccination bears the responsibility to do so comprehensively and based on all available evidence.

We further suggest that presenting such a simplified and biased message as in your series aimed at pregnant women, is deeply irresponsible and even unprofessional.

We find it incomprehensible how you would justify omitting all the information we have presented in this letter, which is freely available and essential to assimilate for anyone deliberating whether to accept a Covid-19 vaccine, especially when two lives are potentially affected at once, as during pregnancy.

We therefore strongly recommend that you immediately retract your videos or issue a corrected version including comprehensive and balanced information regarding the available evidence about Covid-19 vaccine safety in pregnancy.

We thank you for reading this letter and sincerely hope you consider its contents in full.

July 21, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Keir Starmer Is Self-Isolating Now. I Call Bullshit

By Richie Allen | July 21, 2021

Labour Party leader Keir Starmer has gone home to self-isolate this afternoon. The media has been told that one of his children has tested positive for covid.

According to the BBC:

A statement from his office said one of his children tested positive at lunchtime, but Sir Keir was doing daily tests and tested negative this morning.

Sir Keir was in the House of Commons for PMQs earlier. The PM and chancellor are also self-isolating after contact with the health secretary who tested positive.

This is the fourth time Sir Keir has had to self-isolate since the pandemic began. His spokesman said his family will also be self-isolating.

I’ve no proof whatsoever, but I call bullshit. The media has spent much of the past 48 hours discussing the NHS app and “pingdemic.” Millions of people have been pinged by the app and told to go home and isolate. It’s led to total chaos.

Business owners are tearing their hair out as staff shortages threaten the post-lockdown economic bounce. There are widespread reports that millions of younger people are deleting the app from their phones. Nobody wants to be forced into isolation, especially at this time of year.

The managers of the scamdemic, the entire political class and the media, are horrified that so many are deleting the wretched app. Maybe Johnson, Health Secretary Sajid Javid and Labour leader Keir Starmer have been sent to self-isolate to set an example.

You’d be well within your rights to ask me why. Because chaos is their desired outcome. They want to destroy the economy and cause a shortage of food and other products. They want to bankrupt businesses. They want to bankrupt you. Chaos is the plan.

Ordo Ab Chao. Order out of chaos. All roads lead to The World Economic Forum’s Great Reset. The people will only accept it when their worlds are turned upside-down.

The public is being manipulated 24/7 by the political class and the media working in tandem. They want you in a perpetual state of agitation and confusion. You become even more suggestible while in that low vibrational state.

There’s no covid now. There’s no threat if there ever was one. People should not be taking instructions from their phones to drop everything and rush home to isolate. It’s tyranny. People seem to be wising up to it and ditching the app. It’s about bloody time.

How convenient then, that the PM and the leader of the opposition party should be pinged and sent home, while at the same time the media is attacking anyone who suggests it’s time to move on and get on with our lives.

July 21, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , | 2 Comments

On The Battlefield of Misinformers, Dissenters & Staunch Stakeholders of the Almighty Narrative

By ErinKate Stair, MD, MPH | Trial Site News | July 19, 2021

Throughout the pandemic, I’ve worked as a public health analyst and have been part of several scientific communication initiatives dealing with how and what information is relayed to a particular audience. These include tasks like explaining how mRNA or viral vector-based vaccines work, using only plain language, and monitoring and dispelling myths about the vaccines. Right now, there is an aggressive campaign to purge misinformation from social media platforms. My main issue with this campaign is that, whatever the motive, scientific dissent is being incorrectly categorized as misinformation. Not surprisingly, a war over information has emerged on a digital battlefield crowded with Misinformers, Dissenters, Staunch Stakeholders of the Almighty Narrative and Confused-AF Spectators. This has allowed for keen observations related to strategy and tactics. Stay tuned for a self-published playbook on Amazon (that may even be available for purchase for a few days before being banned for violating something or other), but first I’d like to share some thoughts with you.

It’s important to acknowledge the existence of misinformation, or information that is false. If you don’t believe in misinformation, then you are essentially saying that everything you see or hear is true. Sometimes misinformation has a nefarious intention behind it, and then it’s called disinformation. Scientific dissent, however, is not misinformation. Scientific dissent is logical arguments, legitimate concerns and opinions, often expert ones, that challenge the overarching, scientific narrative. Dissenters might challenge pieces of that narrative or even all of it.

Scientific dissent is paramount, because it can help identify problems with a methodology, policy, drug, therapy, health program or even a widespread belief. I like to think of dissent as a Checks and Balances for science, ever important today when much of our medical system, regulatory bodies, health organizations and research agendas are under the spell of puissant pharmaceutical companies. They may not “love it when you call them Big Pharma” but big, they are.

Can you think of a time when scientific dissent was historically valuable? I mean, I hope so, as there are plenty of examples, one of which I’ll highlight: dissent concerning the relationship between the earth and the sun. Once upon a time, there was a man called Nicolaus Copernicus. He was an astronomer from Poland, and he was also a Dissenter. He published a book promoting a controversial theory about the earth revolving around the sun. At the time, everyone stood firmly behind the physics of Aristotle and believed the earth was the center of the universe, so they told Copernicus that his theory violated the science. If Copernicus had a Twitter or Facebook, he’d be branded a Misinformer and banned for spreading misinformation. You guys know who turned out to be right…, right? It’s not all the time, maybe not even half the time, that Dissenters prove correct, though it was the case with Copernicus.

Unfortunately, scientific dissent is not being recognized on social media platforms. It’s being misclassified as misinformation and banished. Now, I’m not a constitutional lawyer, but I believe private companies have the right to remove whatever content they want, and I’d only worry about a First Amendment violation if the government starts policing content for those companies. (Oh wait.) Either way, people deserve to know that these companies aren’t good at distinguishing misinformation from scientific dissent, and the baby will most likely get tossed with the bathwater.

In fairness, it can be extremely difficult to distinguish between misinformation and scientific dissent, which, given the importance of dissent, is an argument for doing away with censorship entirely. Others feel that misinformation can harm or even “kill” people, and therefore Misinformers, and the misinformation they spew, should be banned from every social media platform. But how is misinformation identified? It’s usually the job of “independent” fact checkers, sometimes journalists with no scientific background or journalists who consult with blue-check-mark scientists on Twitter who have similar biases and affiliations. And usually if information deviates from the almighty narrative, often dictated by a regulatory body, government or large health organization, it’s marked as misinformation. Scientific Dissenters are not invited to the fact-checking party, and why would they be? That would complicate the process, often create more questions than answers and sabotage the business plans of companies turning profits by posting the names of Misinformers as a righteous duty for all of humanity.

Another question is what to do with anecdotes. An anecdote is a person’s experience, so it’s hard to call that misinformation or dissent. Still, many anecdotes are purged from social media sites under the umbrella of misinformation. I don’t support deleting personal experiences, because I fear it could push someone over the edge, and since I don’t really know the person’s mental state or level of brainpower, I don’t want to be the one to tell that person to shut up and quit sharing. There isn’t a “test” to join a social media site, and not everyone has the same intellectual power or is a master of online discourse. Furthermore, the heart of the internet is the democratic sharing of information. No level of censorship can stop people from interacting. If sites ban them, they’ll create new digital places to exchange ideas. It’s no mystery why sites like BitChute, Telegram, Newtube and Odysee, not to mention private newsletter subscriptions, are growing. The war on misinformation is like fighting guerilla fighters who don’t care about holding terrain, can set up camp anywhere, and make it very difficult for the other side to declare victory.

Anecdotes may also be useful for the evolution of science and medical practice. For example, take some people’s experience with antidepressants and antidepressant withdrawal symptoms. Traditional medical wisdom was that withdrawal symptoms from antidepressants lasted up to two weeks. Regular people took to Twitter, Facebook and online forums to dispute that. They shared their experience of coming off antidepressants and having withdrawal symptoms lasting for a significantly longer time. While often accused of “pill-shaming” or being “anti-psychiatry” or spreading “dangerous misinformation”, they persisted in sharing their stories. Their persistence is why, for example, the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and Royal College of Psychiatrists changed their guidance regarding antidepressant withdrawal symptoms.

No matter who gets classified as what, there are notable tactics and predictable responses on the battlefield of Misinformers, Dissenters and Staunch Stakeholders of the Almighty Narrative. Those who misinform, knowingly or not, latch on to Dissenters like parasites, so as to bolster their position and gain credibility. The Staunch Stakeholders of the Almighty Narrative love when this happens, because they use the Misinformers’ parasitic behavior to discredit the Dissenters. It’s the old guilt-by-association bit.

A dirty but highly effective tactic of the Staunch Stakeholders of the Almighty Narrative is to hit the Dissenters with reductive, stigmatizing labels. “Quack” is their favorite, and I’d argue excruciatingly overused. I recommend spicing it up a bit with alternatives like “Flimflammer” or William “Devil Bill” Rockefeller, not to be confused with the Rockefeller Center that just donated millions to fight misinformation, but the guy who was a famous Snake Oil Salesman. Other go-tos are “conspiracy theorist” or “anti-vaxxer” if you express an iota of concern about vaccines. Sometimes they disguise condescension as concern and ask questions like, “Is he/she okay?” or they treat Dissenters like radicals…, as if the Dissenter went from Gizmo to Stripe in a blink of an eye and can no longer be saved. Such pigeonholes can cost Dissenters their social media profiles, their reputations and even their jobs, and anyone considering dissention will observe this backlash and keep mum. Also, let me be clear about something: There are folks who could qualify as Quacks, but not everyone who gets called a Quack is a Quack. There are folks who could qualify as radicals, but not everyone who gets called a radical is a radical, and so on and so forth. The main thing the Dissenters should be wary of is to not become illogical or tribal due to the overwhelming bitterness and frustration that inevitably ensues. Meditation helps here, perhaps copious glasses of wine too.

What about the Confused-AF spectators? They simply observe the Cyber Charlie Foxtrot of Misinformers, Dissenters and Staunch Stakeholders of the Almighty Narrative and end up having no idea what or who to trust. Some might say their confusion is a reason to censor information, like forging a path through the forest for them so they don’t have to do it themselves. Others believe censorship will only fuel their distrust. For example, if you fear your significant other is cheating on you and want to know for sure, do you want to read all his/her text messages, or only the ones he/she shows you?

In conclusion, what one considers the best path forward probably comes down to personal, philosophical and political beliefs, but I think we can all agree that scientific dissent has propelled science forward, not backwards. Scientific dissent is information, not misinformation. Right now we lack tech overlords and consistent, unbiased fact checkers who can successfully distinguish scientific dissent from misinformation, and that’s a problem.

July 21, 2021 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | 1 Comment

Delete NHS App + Stop Getting Tested = Scamdemic Over

By Richie Allen | July 21, 2021

Friends, gammons, countrymen, lend me your shell-likes. Take out your phone. Press your thumb or forefinger on the NHS app. Hold it down for a second. It’ll give you options. Choose delete app. Good job. Now, never take a PCR or lateral flow test again.

Congratulations. You have ended the scamdemic. Go about your business. By the way, it’s not a bad idea to switch off the 24-hour news channels either.

Listening to BBC radio this morning, I was genuinely surprised to learn that a significant proportion of the population is labouring under the misapprehension that keeping the NHS app on their phones is compulsory. It isn’t. It’s entirely voluntary.

Problems arise when you are pinged and then contacted by a track and trace call-centre to inform you that you were in contact with someone who tested positive. At that point you risk being fined if you don’t isolate for the specified time and answer your phone when they call you to confirm that you are complying.

So delete the feckin app! Do it now and stop being tested. How thick do you need to be to have a test when you are healthy? Use your God given brain. It’s a trap.

How can I put it in a way that it is universally understood? Healthy man take test. Test faulty. Test come back positive. Man must isolate. Government say cases rising. Must impose restrictions. People must have jab.

It’s Kafkaesque, but the people still hold all the aces. It’s very simple. Delete the bastard app and tell them to get stuffed when they ask you to have a test. If you haven’t had a jab yet, don’t. You’ll be amazed at how quickly this will go away.

July 21, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | 1 Comment

FBI informants played key role in plot to kidnap Michigan governor, government accused of entrapment

RT | July 21, 2021

Several of the men accused of planning to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer say they were entrapped by the FBI, with government documents suggesting that at least 12 undercover informants played major roles in the scheme.

A lengthy investigation by BuzzFeed News – published on Tuesday and based on court filings, text and audio transcripts, and more than two dozen interviews with sources close to the case – claimed that the 12 informants and undercover agents “played a far larger role” in the kidnapping plot than was previously known.

“Working in secret, they did more than just passively observe and report on the actions of the suspects. Instead, they had a hand in nearly every aspect of the alleged plot, starting with its inception,” the outlet reported, noting that the scope of their involvement “raises questions as to whether there would have even been a conspiracy without them.”

So far, one of the 14 suspects in the case has formally accused the government of entrapment, saying the FBI actively drove the plot forward and helped to assemble its key planners, while lawyers for two others say they plan to raise similar claims in the future.

All but one of the 14 defendants – six of whom were slapped with federal counts, while eight others were charged under Michigan’s terrorism laws – have pleaded not guilty, insisting there was no serious plan to kidnap Whitmer. One defense attorney deemed the plot “big talk” between “crackpots” and “military wannabes.”

In the FBI’s original criminal complaint issued on October 6, 2020, the bureau acknowledged that it “relied on information provided by Confidential Human Sources (CHS) and Undercover Employees (UCE) over several months,” saying that, while all the informants were not present with the plotters at all times, “at least one … was usually present during the group meetings.”

The bureau mentioned only four undercover sources, however, including two actual agents, in its initial complaint – far fewer than the 12 ultimately revealed in later filings. The FBI also did not disclose the full extent of their involvement in the plot, though did note that some informants were paid for their work.

One of them, named as ‘CHS-2’ in the complaint, was paid at least $14,800, which the FBI says included “reporting and expenses,” while a source labeled ‘CHS-1’ was paid $8,600. It did not specify a reason for that payment.

Though not included in the initial affidavit, it was later revealed that another informant, identified only as ‘Dan’ in government documents, was paid around $6,000 for “reimbursement for expenses” and another $24,000 for his “services” as a source. The bureau also purchased him a new car, deeming it a “witness protection expense.”

An Iraq War veteran, ‘Dan’ would become so deeply involved with the group of alleged kidnappers that he eventually rose to be its “second-in-command,” according to BuzzFeed. For around six months, he collected hundreds of hours of recordings of the group using a wire, encouraging suspects to collaborate with one another and “prodding” the ringleader to “advance his plan.” At times, he even paid to transport group members to meetings, as did another Wisconsin-based informant.

Last week, an attorney for one defendant filed a motion citing texts from an FBI agent to ‘Dan,’ saying they showed the bureau directed him to recruit specific people into the kidnapping conspiracy. The lawyer is now requesting all messages exchanged between the two, suggesting they could bolster an entrapment defense.

The group also arranged plans to purchase bomb-making materials from an undercover agent, as the FBI affidavit notes that four suspects planned to “meet with a UCE on October 7, 2020, to make payment on explosives and exchange tactical gear.” They were arrested before that meeting could happen, and the full extent of the agent’s involvement in the plot remains unclear.

While the US Department of Justice declined BuzzFeed’s requests for comment, the Michigan attorney general’s office downplayed the defendants’ claims, saying they were “not indisputable facts,” and that officials would “counter and correct these issues in court.”

The alleged plotters were arrested in October 2020, with many held without bail ever since. Authorities claim the group began preparing for the kidnapping in June of last year after months of discussions online, in which members frequently criticized Whitmer’s policies, namely Michigan’s draconian Covid-19 lockdowns. The group was said to have held several military-style training sessions and gathered thousands of dollars in weapons and gear for Whitmer’s abduction.

Though the government is likely to challenge the entrapment allegations, the FBI has come under fire for its questionable use of confidential informants in the past, particularly in cases linked to terrorism. In one high-profile case that culminated in 2012, members of another Michigan militia group accused of planning to kill a police officer were acquitted after the defense successfully argued the conspiracy was instigated by embedded FBI informants.

July 21, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, False Flag Terrorism | , | 1 Comment

National Park Service To Spy On Picnics, Family Gatherings, Weddings And Much More

credit: Wikimedia
Massprivatei – July 20, 2021

According to a notice published in the Federal Register, the Department of the Interior (DOI) is turning the National Park Service (NPS) into a mirror image of the NSA, FBI, DHS and every other three-letter spy agency you can think of.

“Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Interior DOI is issuing a public notice of its intent to modify the National Park Service (NPS) Privacy Act system of records, INTERIOR/NPS-1, Special Use Permits.”

This so-called modification of special records permits will allow law enforcement to collect a disturbing amount of personal information on national park visitors.

As Nextgov points out, anyone wishing to get a permit to use one of America’s 423 national parks will have all their personal information sent to the White House.

“The NPS is making it easier to share more data with the White House and other federal agencies on applications and approvals of special use permits for parks spaces.”

America’s absurd War on Terror is now targeting picnics, family gatherings, weddings etc.

“People interested in using a park for a specific purpose at a specific time generally have to obtain a special use permit. NPS issues permits for three types of uses: standard events like weddings, sports, picnics and family gatherings; special events like demonstrations, races, tournaments and the like; and construction, research and utility work.”

When park users apply for such permits, the system collects a wealth of data needed to process the application, including:

  • Name, organization, Social Security number, Tax Identification Number, date of birth, address, telephone number, fax number, email address, person’s position title.
  • Information of proposed activity including park alpha code, permit number, date, location, number of participants and vehicles, type of use, equipment, support personnel for the activity, company, project name and type, fees, liability insurance information.
  • Payment information including amounts paid, credit card number, credit card expiration date, check number, money order number, bank or financial institution, account number, payment reference number and tracking ID number.
  • Information on special activities including number of minors, livestock, aircraft type, special effects, special effect technician’s license and permit number, stunts, unusual or hazardous activities.
  • Information on driver’s license including number, state and expiration date.
  • Vehicle information including year, make, color, weight, plate number and insurance information.

According to the notice in the Federal Register, the purpose in collecting everyone’s personal information is “to provide park superintendents with information to approve or deny requests for activities on NPS managed park lands.”

Does anyone really believe that park rangers or campground hosts need visitors SSN’s, DOBs, bank account numbers etc., so they can approve or deny a person’s request to use our national park[s]?

Nextgov does a great job of describing the NPS collecting park visitors personal information as being an innocuous “update”; it is not.

Page 7 of the notice reveals that the NPS will routinely send everyone’s personal information to numerous federal agencies.

“In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DOI as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3).”  

Below is an abbreviated description of the federal agencies that will routinely have access to permit application park visitors personal information:

A. The Department of Justice (DOJ), including Offices of the U.S. Attorneys, or other Federal agency. Any other Federal agency appearing before the Office of Hearings and Appeals.

B. A congressional office when requesting information on behalf of, and at the request of, the individual who is the subject of the record.

C. The Executive Office of the President.

D. Any criminal, civil, or regulatory law enforcement authority (whether  Federal, state, territorial, local, tribal or foreign) when a record, either alone or in  conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law –  criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature, and the disclosure is compatible with the purpose  for which the records were compiled.

E. An official of another Federal agency.

F. Federal, state, territorial, local, tribal, or foreign agencies that have requested information relevant or necessary to the hiring, firing or retention of an employee or contractor, or the issuance of a security clearance, license, contract, grant or other benefit, when the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were compiled.

G. Representatives of the National Archives and Records Administration.

H. State, territorial and local governments and tribal organizations to provide information needed in response to a court order.

I. An expert, consultant, grantee, or contractor (including employees of the contractor) of DOI that performs services requiring access to these records on DOI’s behalf to carry out the purposes of the system.

J. Appropriate agencies, entities of the Federal Government.

K. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when DOI determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency.

L. The Office of Management and Budget.

N. The news media and the public, with the approval of the Public Affairs Officer in consultation with counsel and the Senior Agency Official for Privacy.

According to the memo, the NPS and will keep everyone’s personal information for 15 years at which time they promise to delete or shred it.

“Retention of records with short-term operational value and not considered essential for the ongoing management of land and cultural and natural resources are destroyed 15 years after closure. Paper records are disposed of by shredding or pulping, and records contained on electronic media are degaussed or erased in accordance with 384 Departmental Manual 1.”

Does anyone really think that picnics, family gatherings and weddings pose a threat to our Homeland?

There is one bit of good news to come out of turning the NPS into a spy agency: national park visitors can request a copy of what records the Feds have on them if they include the specific bureau or office that keeps those records in an information request.

“An individual requesting records on himself or herself should send a signed, written inquiry to the applicable System Manager identified above. The request must include the specific bureau or office that maintains the record to facilitate location of the applicable records. The request envelope and letter should both be clearly marked “PRIVACY ACT REQUEST FOR ACCESS.”

And as you can see from the list above, it is going to be a crapshoot to guess which specific federal agency or which branch of law enforcement was spying on your picnic, family gathering or wedding.

It is hard to imagine that when Congress created the National Park Service in 1872 they would have envisioned that the White House would turn it into a spy agency.

As Americans everywhere rush to visit our national parks how many of them will care that the Feds are collecting vast amounts of personal information about them and storing it for 15 years?

Do Americans care enough to stop DHS from turning formerly benign government institutions like the U.S. Postal Service and the National Park Service into federal spying agencies? Only time will tell.

July 21, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | 1 Comment

THE CASE FOR IVERMECTIN | CRAIG KELLY MP

Whocomcampaigner |  June 22, 2021

Here is Craig Kelly presenting his evidence of Ivermectin suppression to an empty Australian parliament. This picture illustrates the type of ‘democracy’ that we have in Australia today. The people’s voice is not being heard by our government.

July 21, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | 4 Comments