Aletho News


Can a space war be stopped?

By Paul Robinson | RT | November 18, 2021

News that Russia has tested an anti-satellite missile has sparked concern for spacecraft and, more worryingly, highlighted the lack of international treaties regulating space weapons, meaning the cosmos is becoming a battleground.

While the US currently opposes controls on orbital arms, the shifting balance of power means that it would likely do well to reconsider. The test in question, confirmed by Moscow on Tuesday, destroyed an old, inoperable Soviet reconnaissance satellite, with Washington blasting the operation as “irresponsible” and “reckless” over the resulting debris.

So-called “space junk” poses a serious danger to objects such as satellites and the International Space Station. By adding to the cloud of junk floating around in orbit, Russia has done nobody any favours, although it should be pointed out that the test didn’t break international law, as there is at present no binding legal regime regulating space debris.

Typical of Western responses to the Russian test was that of General James Dickinson, commander of the US Space Command, who said that Russia had “demonstrated a deliberate disregard for the security, safety, stability, and long-term sustainability of the space domain for all nations.”

“We won’t tolerate this kind of activity,” added US State Department spokesman Ned Price. But while American complaints about space debris may be valid, one wonders whether their real concern is the threat the Russian test poses to their military dominance.

Experts distinguish between the militarization and the weaponization of space. The first involves using space for military purposes, such as communications, and the second involves placing systems with destructive capabilities in space. Militarization happened long ago. Weaponization has yet to occur.

The only legal instrument regulating weapons in space is the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 which prohibits the placing of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit around the Earth, or on the Moon or celestial bodies. Efforts to expand the prohibition to weapons in general have failed, in large part due to American resistance.

While some strategists have argued that it is better to leave space as a “sanctuary” and to avoid going down a path that will lead to a new arms race, the current of opinion in American military circles has long been that such an arms race is unavoidable and that it is better for the United States to get a lead on others while it enjoys a technological advantage.

As the then-Commander-in-Chief of US Space Command, Joseph W. Ashy, said in 1996:

“It’s politically sensitive, but it’s going to happen… we’re going to fight in space. We’re going to fight from space and we’re going to fight into space. That’s why the US has development programs in directed energy and hit-to-kill mechanisms. We engage terrestrial targets someday – ships, airplanes, land targets – from space.”

Since the time of Ronald Reagan, powerful forces have also been lobbying hard for space-based anti-ballistic missile defence systems, a key component of which would consist of weapons systems in orbit. For these reasons, the USA has opposed efforts to tie its hands by means of arms control. In 2006, the US National Space Policy announced that the country will “oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit US access to or use of space. Proposed arms control agreements or restrictions must not impair the rights of the United States to conduct research, development, testing, and operations or activities in space for US national interests.”

Consequently, when in 2008 China and Russia proposed a draft Treaty on Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects, the United States rejected it. Similarly, the United States has consistently voted against an annual resolution put forward by the ad hoc committee of the UN Conference on Disarmament, entitled “The Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space.”

The differing approaches of the US and its Western allies on the one hand, and Russia and China on the other, became clear last year when the two sides backed competing UN committee resolutions. The first, drafted by the British and supported by the US, encouraged UN members to “share their ideas on the further development and implementation of norms, rules and principles of responsible behaviours” in space. Russia voted against this innocuous proposition, complaining that it failed to “include provisions on the need for peaceful uses of outer space, on prohibiting the installation of weapons there, on threats of use of force and a clear outline of responsible behaviour.”

Instead, Russia supported a rival draft that declared that, “the exclusion of outer space from the sphere of the arms race and preserving the realm for peaceful purposes should become a mandatory norm of State policy and a generally recognized international obligation.” The US, along with the UK, Australia, Canada, France, Israel, Japan, the Marshall Islands, and Ukraine voted against this second, more robust resolution. It would appear that they prefer vague talk about “norms” rather than a specific prohibition of the weaponization of space.

Underlying this attitude is the idea that arms control benefits the weaker side, and that as the world’s dominant military power, the US should not agree to being constrained. An arms race in space would be unwelcome, but if one happened, the US would win. Unfortunately for the Americans, it can no longer be so sure of this, and recent technological advances have rendered many of its plans for space irrelevant.

Most notably, Russia’s deployment of hypersonic glide missiles has made the tens of billions of dollars invested by Washington in ballistic missile defence worthless. Even if the Americans could develop some space-based defence system against these missiles, the cost would be gargantuan, and by the time the system could be deployed, new technologies would already have produced counter-measures. The idea that America needs to weaponize space in order to defend itself against nuclear attack doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

The Russian anti-satellite test may be seen as an effort to try to force the United States to recognize its vulnerability and so bring it to the negotiating table. This may not work. The gargantuan sums of money mentioned above mean that there are powerful institutional interests in the United States who will resist any such effort. This is highly regrettable. Nobody but generals and arms manufacturers will benefit from an arms race in space. The sooner everyone recognizes this the better.

Paul Robinson is a professor at the University of Ottawa. He writes about Russian and Soviet history, military history and military ethics, and is author of the Irrussianality blog.

November 18, 2021 Posted by | Militarism | , | 1 Comment

Just how rare are ‘rare’ vaccine injuries?

By Harry Dougherty | TCW Defending Freedom | November 19, 2021

‘ULTIMATELY, the mRNA vaccines are an example for that sort of gene therapy. I always like to say, if we had surveyed, two years ago, the public,“would you be willing to take gene or cell therapy and inject it into your body?” we probably would have had a 95 per cent refusal rate. I think this pandemic has opened many people’s eyes to innovation in a way that was maybe not possible before.’

The man who said this is called Stefan Oelrich. He said it publicly, in a speech to the World Health Summit. He is President of Pharmaceuticals at Bayer, one of the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the world. That’s right, fact-checkers, Big Pharma just admitted that the Covid19 mRNA vaccines are gene therapy and that most people would not have agreed to be injected with them in normal circumstances.

We are just beginning to see how wise 95 per cent of the public would have been. Indeed, a worryingly higher number of teenagers have died since the vaccine was rolled out to their age group, as Dr Will Jones has noted. There were 351 deaths in teenagers aged between 15 and 19 between week 23 and week 43 2021, that’s 108 more than in the same period last year. Even Fullfact’s attempt to dismiss Dr Jones’s findings was half-hearted. Why wasn’t there a similar rise in age groups that are yet to be offered Covid vaccines? No explanation was suggested.

An Icelandic midfielder collapses on the pitch, a Barcelona striker is forced to consider retirement due to a sudden heart condition, a Slovak ice hockey player dies suddenly midgame, and a member of UB40 dies after a ‘short illness’, all within weeks. Yes, yes, some of these may be coincidences, perhaps all of them. But why would anyone be so quick to rule out the possibility that Covid-19 vaccines played a role in any of these incidents unless they had an agenda or an incentive not to establish a causal link? How many doctors would have the courage to admit that they helped to damage people unnecessarily, even if they had done so in good faith?

Most helpfully, Wikipedia has a page listing the deaths of all association footballers who died while playing, from 1889 to the present. Globally, there were four deaths on the pitch in 2018, two of which were caused by cardiac arrest. There were three deaths on the pitch in 2019 and three again in 2020, all caused by cardiac arrest. In 2021 there were 14. One footballer was killed in a collision, while in another case, that of 15-year-old FC An der Fahner Höhe goalkeeper Bruno Stein, the cause of death isn’t specified. The rest died from cardiac arrest. No other year on the list has had as many deaths on the pitch as 2021. As many footballers died on the pitch in September and October 2021 as died in the whole of 2019 and 2020.

One of the deaths this year was 29-year-old Parma player Guiseppe Perrino, who died in a memorial match for his brother, who also died of cardiac arrest while cycling in 2018. Obviously Guiseppe’s brother’s death could not have been linked to the vaccine, but it strongly suggests that some families are more prone to unexpected heart problems than others, which brings us to the tragic case of Italian siblings Vittoria and Allesandro Campo, both footballers who died from cardiac arrest within two months of each other, in a country where life for the unvaccinated is made as miserable as possible.

According to Italian media sources, Allesandro’s death came two days after he received his first dose of the Pfizer vaccine, and the coroners did not exclude the possibility that his untimely death was caused by the jab. It’s difficult to know what caused Vittoria’s death since some reports say her mother insisted that Vittoria was not vaccinated and that toxicology reports found drugs in her system, while others claim her father confirmed that both of his children had been vaccinated. But both of these sibling tragedies raise the question as to whether the vaccine triggers heart problems in families that are predisposed to heart conditions. This is the problem with difficult-to-obtain ‘genuine’ medical exemptions for Covid vaccines: you don’t always know if you’re ‘genuinely’ exempt until it’s too late.

Would it really be that surprising if it turned out that a vaccine linked to heart problems was causing heart problems? Just days before Boris Johnson threatened 16- to 17-year-olds with the prospect of another ruined Christmas if they didn’t get their second vaccine dose, Taiwan suspended giving 12- to 17-year-olds the second dose over fears of a link between the Pfizer vaccine and heart inflammation.

In Australia, the Herald Sun reports that dozens of teenagers have developed myocarditis after their first dose of the Pfizer vaccine. 10,000 Australians have filed for government compensation after being hospitalised by significant side effects from the Covid jabs. As per usual, these afflictions are dismissed as extremely rare, and minimised as mostly trivial. One account from Australian vaccine injury victim Dan Petrovic gives us a clue as to how difficult it is to get vaccine injuries acknowledged by medical professionals. Despite his vaccine-induced heart inflammation, which left him unable to work, walk or play with his daughter, Mr Petrovic says he does not regret having the vaccine.

Each to their own, I guess, but this makes him a reliable source who cannot be dismissed as an ‘anti-vaxxer’. According to Australia’s, ‘neither his cardiologist nor his GP would submit an adverse event report to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)’. One doctor said ‘I’m too busy’ while a cardiologist said ‘I cannot make a medical diagnosis, I’m not a practitioner.’

If health professionals are going above and beyond to not link the vaccine with adverse events, how can we be expected to believe that serious adverse reactions are as ‘extremely rare’ as is claimed?

Thankfully, there are some good blokes left in Australia’s political swamp. One is Gerard Rennick, Liberal National Party Senator for Queensland, where unvaccinated citizens are now banned from doing just about anything that makes life worth living. If you try to message through a question to the Queensland Health authority’s Facebook page, their automated chatbot will suggest ‘Try saying something like . . . Can I visit my family?’

Rennick is no lightweight. He has spent the latter half of this year advocating for the ever-growing number of young Australians who have suffered severe, life-changing adverse reactions to medical procedures they took under the threat of living a ‘lonely and miserable‘ life, as the Queensland health chief Chris Perry put it.

There are many on Senator Rennick’s Facebook account. Look them in the eyes and tell them that their avoidable life-changing injuries are insignificant.

Here is one story he shared, from Candice:

‘Prior to the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine, I was a very healthy/fit 38-year-old female that ran and exercised 2-3 times per week and lived a healthy lifestyle. On the 28/8/2021, I had my 2nd Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine. The day after the vaccine, I developed a headache, neck pain, swollen lymph nodes under my arms and flu-like symptoms. On the 3rd day after the vaccine, I woke through the night with heart palpitations and sweating. Throughout that day I went for a walk and experienced a very sharp pain across the upper and the left-hand side of my chest. This lasted for approximately 20 minutes. That night I woke two times again with heart palpitations and sweating. I presented at the hospital the next day and they took blood tests. My bloods showed the Troponin enzyme that should be at ‘0’ as ‘2500’. This indicated damage to my heart.

‘After multiple tests, it was determined through an MRI that I had developed Myopericarditis due to the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine. I was discharged from hospital 4 days later with medication to reduce the inflammation around my heart and was told I would not be able to run or exercise for around 3-6 months and will be under the care of a cardiologist for this period.’

Another, from Andrew, who was hospitalised by the AstraZeneca vaccine:

‘If winning lotto was as easy as getting a so-called “rare” adverse reaction from these vaccines that are supposedly voluntary but if I don’t get it I can’t do my job, therefore, I can’t put food on the table or pay the rent/mortgage, I’d be a millionaire.’

From Matt:

‘It has now been 10 weeks in hospital and I am still not able to walk. I was admitted 4 days after receiving my AZ vaccine previously being a 30 year old with no medical history to speak of, which left me with loss of function and sensation on my right side.’

From Adam:

‘5 days in hospital after 2nd Pfizer shot, server chest pain, shortness of breath and pain running down arm. ecg was out and bloods were elevated. was diagnosed with pericarditis. With my stay in cardiac ward I was wired up to the heart monitor the whole time, countless blood tests, ecgs, X-rays, CT scan, ultrasound, plus taking 20 tablets a day . . . Now that I’m out of hospital was told to take certain meds for 3 months and take it easy. Doctors and cardiologist wouldn’t go into detail on results.’

This, from Kym, a 38-year-old mother with no prior health problems, is perhaps the most important, because it demonstrates the unwillingness of the medical profession to admit that they have needlessly harmed countless people who would likely not have had any major complications from Covid19. Please share these accounts with your MP.

‘Monday 25/10 discharge dr verbally confirmed that these symptoms are related to the Pfizer vaccine. When I asked for the diagnosis written down on my discharge papers, the tone in the room changed! When asking the doctor for this verbal diagnosis to be put into writing, the answer was: “No, there is no need, this is normal and are just symptoms of the vaccine.” I informed the dr that my “symptoms” were also called “an adverse event” and must be reported to the TGA or QLD Health. Again the response was, “These are just symptoms of your vaccine not an adverse event, they are two different things.” I continued to push the issue with reporting this “event”. I then asked what my prognosis was and when these tachycardia events would subside. The doctor responded, “We don’t know, we don’t have data”, to which I responded that this is why I was pushing the point to have this event documented and reported. Immediately after this question, the doctor stated to me that I was “just admitted for reassurance!” This doctor did not admit me, an Emergency Dr did, this doctor had only met me for 5 minutes, stood at the end of my bed, no physical exam conducted. I was discharged with my papers stating “confident to be vaccination Pfizer-related symptoms/ reported to QLD Health re: adverse following injection”.’

November 18, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | 1 Comment

Biden’s Bounty on Your Life: Hospitals’ Incentive Payments for COVID-19

By Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D. and Ali Shultz, J.D. | Association of American Physicians and Surgeons | November 17, 2021

Upon admission to a once-trusted hospital, American patients with COVID-19 become virtual prisoners, subjected to a rigid treatment protocol with roots in Ezekiel Emanuel’s “Complete Lives System” for rationing medical care in those over age 50. They have a shockingly high mortality rate. How and why is this happening, and what can be done about it?

As exposed in audio recordings, hospital executives in Arizona admitted meeting several times a week to lower standards of care, with coordinated restrictions on visitation rights. Most COVID-19 patients’ families are deliberately kept in the dark about what is really being done to their loved ones.

The combination that enables this tragic and avoidable loss of hundreds of thousands of lives includes (1) The CARES Act, which provides hospitals with bonus incentive payments for all things related to COVID-19 (testing, diagnosing, admitting to hospital, use of remdesivir and ventilators, reporting COVID-19 deaths, and vaccinations) and (2) waivers of customary and long-standing patient rights by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

In 2020, the Texas Hospital Association submitted requests for waivers to  CMS. According to Texas attorney Jerri Ward, “CMS has granted ‘waivers’ of federal law regarding patient rights. Specifically, CMS purports to allow hospitals to violate the rights of patients or their surrogates with regard to medical record access, to have patient visitation, and to be free from seclusion.” She notes that “rights do not come from the hospital or CMS and cannot be waived, as that is the antithesis of a ‘right.’ The purported waivers are meant to isolate and gain total control over the patient and to deny patient and patient’s decision-maker the ability to exercise informed consent.”

Creating a “National Pandemic Emergency” provided justification for such sweeping actions that override individual physician medical decision-making and patients’ rights. The CARES Act provides incentives for hospitals to use treatments dictated solely by the federal government under the auspices of the NIH. These “bounties” must paid back if not “earned” by making the COVID-19 diagnosis and following the COVID-19 protocol.

The hospital payments include:

  • A “free” required PCR test in the Emergency Room or upon admission for every patient, with government-paid fee to hospital.
  • Added bonus payment for each positive COVID-19 diagnosis.
  • Another bonus for a COVID-19 admission to the hospital.
  • A 20 percent “boost” bonus payment from Medicare on the entire hospital bill for use of remdesivir instead of medicines such as Ivermectin.
  • Another and larger bonus payment to the hospital if a COVID-19 patient is mechanically ventilated.
  • More money to the hospital if cause of death is listed as COVID-19, even if patient did not die directly of COVID-19.
  • A COVID-19 diagnosis also provides extra payments to coroners.

CMS implemented “value-based” payment programs that track data such as how many workers at a healthcare facility receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Now we see why many hospitals implemented COVID-19 vaccine mandates. They are paid more.

Outside hospitals, physician MIPS quality metrics link doctors’ income to performance-based pay for treating patients with COVID-19 EUA drugs. Failure to report information to CMS can cost the physician 4% of reimbursement.

Because of obfuscation with medical coding and legal jargon, we cannot be certain of the actual amount each hospital receives per COVID-19 patient. But Attorney Thomas Renz and CMS whistleblowers have calculated a total payment of at least $100,000 per patient.

What does this mean for your health and safety as a patient in the hospital?

There are deaths from the government-directed COVID treatments. For remdesivir, studies show that 71–75 percent of patients suffer an adverse effect, and the drug often had to be stopped after five to ten days because of these effects, such as kidney and liver damage, and death. Remdesivir trials during the 2018 West African Ebola outbreak had to be discontinued because death rate exceeded 50%. Yet, in 2020, Anthony Fauci directed that remdesivir was to be the drug hospitals use to treat COVID-19, even when the COVID clinical trials of remdesivir showed similar adverse effects.

In ventilated patients, the death toll is staggering. A National Library of Medicine January 2021 report of 69 studies involving more than 57,000 patients concluded that fatality rates were 45 percent in COVID-19 patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, increasing to 84 percent in older patients. Renz announced at a Truth for Health Foundation Press Conference that CMS data showed that in Texas hospitals, 84.9% percent of all patients died after more than 96 hours on a ventilator.

Then there are deaths from restrictions on effective treatments for hospitalized patients. Renz and a team of data analysts have estimated that more than 800,000 deaths in America’s hospitals, in COVID-19 and other patients, have been caused by approaches restricting fluids, nutrition, antibiotics, effective antivirals, anti-inflammatories, and therapeutic doses of anti-coagulants.

We now see government-dictated medical care at its worst in our history since the federal government mandated these ineffective and dangerous treatments for COVID-19, and then created financial incentives for hospitals and doctors to use only those “approved” (and paid for) approaches.

Our formerly trusted medical community of hospitals and hospital-employed medical staff have effectively become “bounty hunters” for your life. Patients need to now take unprecedented steps to avoid going into the hospital for COVID-19.

Patients need to take active steps to plan before getting sick to use early home-based treatment of COVID-19 that can help you save your life.

November 18, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | 2 Comments

FDA Asks Federal Judge to Grant it Until the Year 2076 to Fully Release Pfizer’s COVID-19 Vaccine Data

By Aaron Siri | Injecting Freedom | November 17, 2021

The FDA has asked a federal judge to make the public wait until the year 2076 to disclose all of the data and information it relied upon to license Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.   That is not a typo.   It wants 55 years to produce this information to the public.

As explained in a prior article, the FDA repeatedly promised “full transparency” with regard to Covid-19 vaccines, including reaffirming “the FDA’s commitment to transparency” when licensing Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

With that promise in mind, in August and immediately following approval of the vaccine, more than 30 academics, professors, and scientists from this country’s most prestigious universities requested the data and information submitted to the FDA by Pfizer to license its COVID-19 vaccine.

The FDA’s response?  It produced nothing.  So, in September, my firm filed a lawsuit against the FDA on behalf of this group to demand this information.  To date, almost three months after it licensed Pfizer’s vaccine, the FDA still has not released a single page.  Not one.

Instead, two days ago, the FDA asked a federal judge to give it until 2076 to fully produce this information.  The FDA asked the judge to let it produce the 329,000+ pages of documents Pfizer provided to the FDA to license its vaccine at the rate of 500 pages per month, which means its production would not be completed earlier than 2076.  The FDA’s promise of transparency is, to put it mildly, a pile of illusions.

It took the FDA precisely 108 days from when Pfizer started producing the records for licensure (on May 7, 2021) to when the FDA licensed the Pfizer vaccine (on August 23, 2021).   Taking the FDA at its word, it conducted an intense, robust, thorough, and complete review and analysis of those documents in order to assure that the Pfizer vaccine was safe and effective for licensure. While it can conduct that intense review of Pfizer’s documents in 108 days, it now asks for over 20,000 days to make these documents available to the public.

So, let’s get this straight. The federal government shields Pfizer from liability.  Gives it billions of dollars.  Makes Americans take its product.  But won’t let you see the data supporting its product’s safety and efficacy.  Who does the government work for?

The lesson yet again is that civil and individual rights should never be contingent upon a medical procedure.  Everyone who wants to get vaccinated and boosted should be free to do so.  But nobody should be coerced by the government to partake in any medical procedure.  Certainly not one where the government wants to hide the full information relied upon for its licensure until the year 2076!

Health Impact News

Attorney Aaron Siri gave testimony in Washington D.C. earlier this month at Senator Ron Johnson’s Roundtable Discussion.

Here is his 10 minute address explaining the hurdles he is facing in suing the FDA.

November 18, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | 1 Comment

Why Doesn’t the CIA Just Destroy Its Secret JFK Records?

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | November 17, 2021

With President Biden’s order granting the CIA’s request for continued secrecy of its 60-year-old records retailing to the JFK assassination — on grounds of protecting “national security” — the question naturally arises: Why doesn’t the the CIA simply sneak into the National Archives and just destroy its records and be done with it? 

By now, it should be obvious to everyone, including the CIA’s assets in the mainstream press, that the CIA’s remaining secret records contain incriminating evidence pointing toward a national-security state regime-change operation against President Kennedy, just as Oliver Stone posited in his movie JFK in 1991. The notion that the release of 60-year-old records will endanger “national security,” no matter what definition is placed on that meaningless, nebulous term, is patently ludicrous on its face.

Mind you, I’m not advocating that the CIA do this, of course. I believe those long-secret records should have been disclosed to the American people six decades ago. I’m just asking a question and wondering why the CIA doesn’t do what it has done in the past to prevent the American people from seeing its dark-side activities.

Yes, I know that doing this would be violating the JFK Records Act of 1992. But we all know that nothing would happen to the CIA if it broke the law and destroyed those records. Nobody would get indicted. No one would even lose his job. No one would even get a slap on the wrist. After all, this is the CIA we are talking about.

When the CIA intentionally destroyed its videotapes of its brutal torture sessions with suspected terrorists, nothing happened to the CIA. When the CIA intentionally destroyed its MKULTRA records of its drug experiments on unsuspecting American citizens, again nothing happened. 

Moreover, consider what the Secret Service did after the JFK Records Act was enacted. That sordid story is recounted in Douglas Horne’s watershed 5-volume book Inside the Assassination Records Review Board.

The JFK Records Act mandated that all federal agencies disclose their assassination-related records to the public. To enforce the law, Congress called into existence The Assassination Records Review Board.

After the law was enacted, a letter was sent to the Secret Service and other federal agencies specifically directing them to not destroy any assassination-related records. The Secret Service received the letter and understood the directive. 

Nonetheless, the Secret Service intentionally destroyed critically important secret information relating to the assassination. 

No one got indicted for what was obviously a knowing, intentional, and deliberate violation of the law. No one got cited for contempt. No one got fired. The Secret Service got away with it. The American people never got to see those secret assassination-related records.

The Secret Service’s intentional destruction of those records looked especially bad in the context of the Secret Service’s actions prior to and immediately after the assassination. 

First, it didn’t seal the windows or the roof of the Texas School Book Depository or other high-rise buildings overlooking Dealey Plaza, where President Kennedy was assassinated,

Second, it prevented agents from stationing themselves on the side and back of the presidential limousine during the motorcade.

Third, it ensured that the motorcycle cops stayed behind the limousine rather than on its sides. 

Fourth, the custom was to have the official press corps car in front of the presidential limousine so that the professional photographers could easily take pictures and film during the motorcade. This time, the Secret Service placed the press corps car several cars behind the limousine, which ensured that there were few professional photographers capturing the assassination in photographs or film.

Fifth, when the first shot rang out, the Secret Service agent who was driving the presidential limousine — William Greer — failed to floor the accelerator and immediately escape from the area before a second shot could hit the president.

Sixth, the Secret Service agent in the passenger seat — Roy Kellerman — sat there like a bump on the log after the first shot rang out, even though his duty was to immediately jump in the back seat and cover the president with his own body. That’s what Secret Service agent Clint Hill was trying to do when he ran from his car toward the president’s car.

Seventh, as I detail in my book The Kennedy Autopsy, Kellerman was actually the person who first launched the scheme for a fraudulent autopsy that was conducted later that day at the military’s medical facility at Bethesda National Naval Medical Facility. When Dr. Earl Rose, the Dallas County Medical Examiner, announced his intention to conduct an autopsy on the president’s body in accordance with Texas state criminal law, Kellerman, who was carrying a submachine gun, declared that no such autopsy would be permitted. Stating that he was operating on orders. Kellerman and his team of Secret Service agents, who were themselves brandishing their own guns, forced their way out of Parkland with the president’s body in a very heavy ornate casket. Kellerman and his team then delivered the body to new President Lyndon Johnson. Later that day, Johnson delivered the president’s body to the military, which then conducted a top-secret, classified fraudulent autopsy on Kennedy’s body.

Kennedy’s body was secretly sneaked into the Bethesda morgue in a cheap shipping casket at 6:35 p.m., which was almost 1 1/2 hours before the official entry time of 8 p.m.  As I also detailed in The Kennedy Autopsy, Secret Service agents Kellerman and Greer participated in the secret reintroduction of Kennedy’s body into the expensive, heavy ornate Dallas casket, which was then brought into the morgue at the official entry time of 8 p.m.

What was in those top-secret Secret Service records that the Secret Service intentionally destroyed after being specifically told not to destroy them? 

I don’t know, but my hunch is that there was a good reason why the Secret Service felt the need to destroy them.

There is obviously a good reason why the CIA doesn’t want its 60-year-old records disclosed to the American people, and I have no doubts that it has nothing to do with protecting “national security.” Which causes me to wonder why the CIA doesn’t do what the Secret Service did and just be done with the entire controversy.

November 18, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Deception, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

The unvaccinated – lock ’em up!

By Laura Perrins | TCW Defending Freedom |  November 18, 2021

WHAT do you do with people who refuse to do what they’re told by our great overlords in government?

Why, you lock them up, of course.

If the latest opinion polls are to be believed, 58 per cent of Brits would support an Austria-style lockdown of the unvaccinated, rising to 63 per cent among Conservatives and 72 per cent for pensioners. Note, please, that only children of 12 and under are exempt from the lockdown in Austria. One Austrian official expressed doubts that such a lockdown could be enforced since it applies to only part of the population. Don’t worry about that, the interior minister said, the police will be able to carry out thorough checks. So it’s a return to ‘papers please’ in Austria for a minority. This is a disgraceful turn of events in Europe.

Forcing this kind of medical apartheid on a section of your population who will not play ball would have been unthinkable in Britain just a few years ago. Today various media outlets and of course the polling companies are falling over themselves trying to commission polls that say yes, it’s perfectly normal to demand that your neighbour be put under house arrest. Well, I’ve got news for you control freaks: it’s not!

It was bad enough when the government and members of the public wanted to deprive us of breathing fresh air by forcing us all to wear useless face masks, but the idea that it is morally right to demand your neighbours stay at home because they will not sacrifice their bodily integrity and consent to a vaccine that they have refused in good conscience is outrageous.

The selfishness of these people, people who would like to deprive their neighbours of their liberty, should not at this stage surprise us. The hallmark of the entire lockdown hysteria and fear porn has been selfishness dressed up as moral superiority.

It is also notable that 72 per cent of pensioners would either strongly support or somewhat support locking down their unvaccinated kids and grandchildren. Given how much teenagers have already sacrificed in this Covid mania, it once again is a very sad reflection on the older generation that they seek to jail their own grandchildren who have not consented to a vaccine that’s been around for about two minutes.

We have discussed whether or not the lockdown was a lockdown to save the baby boomers before and I received some pushback from those of the generation who pointed out that they did not support the lockdown. However it is also true that many got in touch with me privately to say that sadly they were indeed a minority and that there was overwhelming support amongst their boomer friends for a national lockdown.

The question is, what is the aim of this sort of medical apartheid? It surely cannot be to save the vaccinated as it would be ludicrous to lockdown the unvaccinated to protect those who have already been vaccinated against the illness they sought a vaccine for. We are on very shaky ground if the aim is to protect the unvaccinated from themselves. We don’t ban the obese from McDonald’s or alcoholics from pubs. It would seem ridiculous to ban those who refuse the vaccine from going about their daily lives. It is also morally indefensible to ban people from going about their daily lives in case they get ill. I didn’t think ‘Our NHS’ discriminated like that.

The only other argument is that it will somehow protect the health system as it’s more likely that the unvaccinated will end up in hospital. In fact frequently the vaccinated do end up in hospital, as for once the ‘the science’ is pretty clear  (and acknowledged even by the PM) that two doses of the vaccine do not stop one contracting the virus, nor do they stop person-to-person transmission, nor do they stop hospitalisation, while the jury is out on whether they mitigate the severity of the disease.

All in all, this is a very dark turn in our current Covid regime although it is unsurprising that yet again it is Austria and, it seems likely, Germany who are the first to introduce a medical apartheid.

Although I think it is unlikely that the Conservatives would introduce this kind of discriminatory lockdown and abuse of people’s bodily integrity and medical privacy, we must yet again not give in when it comes to these totalitarian measures being thought about or implemented by our government.

Even if such a draconian move is not made by Boris Johnson, it is unfortunate that the whole idea of medical apartheid can even be thought about in Britain. It causes serious damage to the social fabric in terms of separating those who have been compliant with the government and the medical establishment from those who wish to take a more prudent approach.

What I will not do is engage in a sort of apartheid system of my own or hold any ill will for those who have in their good conscience decided to be vaccinated.

I respect your decision and all we ask for is an equal amount of respect when it comes to our decision as to what we should or should not subject our bodies to.

The basic principles of civil liberties and medical ethics are well established. We will have to fight to conserve these principles that make up a civilised society and liberal democracy.

November 18, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Bill Gates Gave $319 Million to Major Media Outlets, Documents Reveal

By Alan Macleod | MintPress News | November 15, 2021

Up until his recent messy divorce, Bill Gates enjoyed something of a free pass in corporate media. Generally presented as a kindly nerd who wants to save the world, the Microsoft co-founder was even unironically christened “Saint Bill” by The Guardian.

While other billionaires’ media empires are relatively well known, the extent to which Gates’s cash underwrites the modern media landscape is not. After sorting through over 30,000 individual grants, MintPress can reveal that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) has made over $300 million worth of donations to fund media projects.

Recipients of this cash include many of America’s most important news outlets, including CNN, NBC, NPR, PBS and The Atlantic.

Gates also sponsors a myriad of influential foreign organizations, including the BBC, The Guardian, The Financial Times and The Daily Telegraph in the UK; prominent European newspapers such as Le Monde (France), Der Spiegel (Germany) and El País (Spain); as well as big global broadcasters like Al-Jazeera.

The Gates Foundation money going towards media programs has been split up into a number of sections, presented in descending numerical order, and includes a link to the relevant grant on the organization’s website.

Awards Directly to Media Outlets:

Together, these donations total $166,216,526. The money is generally directed towards issues close to the Gates’ hearts.

For example, the $3.6 million CNN grant went towards “report[ing] on gender equality with a particular focus on least developed countries, producing journalism on the everyday inequalities endured by women and girls across the world,” while the Texas Tribune received millions to “to increase public awareness and engagement of education reform issues in Texas.”

Given that Bill is one of the charter schools’ most fervent supporters, a cynic might interpret this as planting pro-corporate charter school propaganda into the media, disguised as objective news reporting.

The Gates Foundation has also given nearly $63 million to charities closely aligned with big media outlets, including nearly $53 million to BBC Media Action, over $9 million to MTV’s Staying Alive Foundation and $1 million to The New York Times Neediest Causes Fund.

While not specifically funding journalism, donations to the philanthropic arm of a media player should still be noted.

Gates continues to underwrite a wide network of investigative journalism centers as well, totaling just over $38 million, more than half of which has gone to the D.C.-based International Center for Journalists to expand and develop African media.

These centers include:

  • International Center for Journalists — $20,436,938.
  • Premium Times Centre for Investigative Journalism (Nigeria) — $3,800,357.
  • The Pulitzer Center for Crisis Reporting — $2,432,552.
  • Fondation EurActiv Politech — $2,368,300.
  • International Women’s Media Foundation — $1,500,000.
  • Center for Investigative Reporting — $1,446,639.
  • InterMedia Survey institute — $1,297,545.
  • The Bureau of Investigative Journalism — $1,068,169.
  • Internews Network — $985,126.
  • Communications Consortium Media Center — $858,000.
  • Institute for Nonprofit News — $650,021.
  • The Poynter Institute for Media Studies — $382,997.
  • Wole Soyinka Centre for Investigative Journalism (Nigeria) — $360,211.
  • Institute for Advanced Journalism Studies — $254,500.
  • Global Forum for Media Development (Belgium) — $124,823.
  • Mississippi Center for Investigative Reporting — $100,000.

In addition to this, the Gates Foundation also plies press and journalism associations with cash, to the tune of at least $12 million. For example, the National Newspaper Publishers Association — a group representing more than 200 outlets — has received $3.2 million.

The list of these organizations includes:

  • Education Writers Association — $5,938,475.
  • National Newspaper Publishers Association —$3,249,176.
  • National Press Foundation — $1,916,172.
  • Washington News Council — $698,200.
  • American Society of News Editors Foundation — $250,000.
  • Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press — $25,000.

This brings our running total up to $216.4 million.

The foundation also puts up the money to directly train journalists all over the world, in the form of scholarships, courses and workshops.

Today, it is possible for an individual to train as a reporter thanks to a Gates Foundation grant, find work at a Gates-funded outlet, and to belong to a press association funded by Gates.

This is especially true of journalists working in the fields of health, education and global development, the ones Gates himself is most active in and where scrutiny of the billionaire’s actions and motives are most necessary.

Gates Foundation grants pertaining to the instruction of journalists include:

  • Johns Hopkins University — $1,866,408.
  • Teachers College, Columbia University — $1,462,500.
  • University of California Berkeley — $767,800.
  • Tsinghua University (China) — $450,000.
  • Seattle University — $414,524.
  • Institute for Advanced Journalism Studies — $254,500.
  • Rhodes University (South Africa) — $189,000.
  • Montclair State University —$160,538.
  • Pan-Atlantic University Foundation — $130,718.
  • World Health Organization — $38,403.
  • The Aftermath Project — $15,435.

The BMGF also pays for a wide range of specific media campaigns around the world. For example, since 2014 it has donated $5.7 million to the Population Foundation of India in order to create dramas that promote sexual and reproductive health, with the intent to increase family planning methods in South Asia.

Meanwhile, it alloted over $3.5 million to a Senegalese organization to develop radio shows and online content that would feature health information.

Supporters consider this to be helping critically underfunded media, while opponents might consider it a case of a billionaire using his money to plant his ideas and opinions into the press.

Media projects supported by the Gates Foundation:

Total: $97,315,408

$319.4 million and (a lot) more

Added together, these Gates-sponsored media projects come to a total of $319.4 million.

However, there are clear shortcomings with this non-exhaustive list, meaning the true figure is undoubtedly far higher. First, it does not count sub-grants — money given by recipients to media around the world.

And while the Gates Foundation fosters an air of openness about itself, there is actually precious little public information about what happens to the money from each grant, save for a short, one- or two-sentence description written by the foundation itself on its website.

Only donations to press organizations themselves or projects that could be identified from the information on the Gates Foundation’s website as media campaigns were counted, meaning that thousands of grants having some media element do not appear in this list.

A case in point is the BMGF’s partnership with ViacomCBS, the company that controls CBS News, MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon and BET. Media reports at the time noted that the Gates Foundation was paying the entertainment giant to insert information and PSAs into its programming and that Gates had intervened to change storylines in popular shows like ER and Law & Order: SVU.

However, when checking BMGF’s grants database, “Viacom” and “CBS” are nowhere to be found, the likely grant in question (totaling over $6 million) merely describing the project as a “public engagement campaign aimed at improving high school graduation rates and postsecondary completion rates specifically aimed at parents and students,” meaning that it was not counted in the official total.

There are surely many more examples like this. “For a tax-privileged charity that so very often trumpets the importance of transparency, it’s remarkable how intensely secretive the Gates Foundation is about its financial flows,” Tim Schwab, one of the few investigative journalists who has scrutinized the tech billionaire, told MintPress.

Also not included are grants aimed at producing articles for academic journals. While these articles are not meant for mass consumption, they regularly form the basis for stories in the mainstream press and help shape narratives around key issues.

The Gates Foundation has given far and wide to academic sources, with at least $13.6 million going toward creating content for the prestigious medical journal The Lancet.

And, of course, even money given to universities for purely research projects eventually ends up in academic journals, and ultimately, downstream into mass media. Academics are under heavy pressure to print their results in prestigious journals; “publish or perish” is the mantra in university departments.

Therefore, even these sorts of grants have an effect on our media. Neither these nor grants funding the printing of books or establishment of websites counted in the total, although they too are forms of media.

Low profile, long tentacles

In comparison to other tech billionaires, Gates has kept his profile as a media controller relatively low. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’s purchase of The Washington Post for $250 million in 2013 was a very clear and obvious form of media influence, as was eBay founder Pierre Omidyar’s creation of First Look Media, the company that owns The Intercept.

Despite flying more under the radar, Gates and his companies have amassed considerable influence in media.

We already rely on Microsoft-owned products for communication (e.g., Skype, Hotmail), social media (LinkedIn), and entertainment (Microsoft XBox). Furthermore, the hardware and software we use to communicate often comes courtesy of the 66-year-old Seattleite.

How many people reading this are doing so on a Microsoft Surface or Windows phone and doing so via Windows OS? Not only that, Microsoft owns stakes in media giants such as Comcast and AT&T. And the “MS” in MSNBC stands for Microsoft.

Media Gates keepers

That the Gates Foundation is underwriting a significant chunk of our media ecosystem leads to serious problems with objectivity. “The foundation’s grants to media organizations … raise obvious conflict-of-interest questions: How can reporting be unbiased when a major player holds the purse strings?” wrote Gates’s local Seattle Times in 2011.

This was before the newspaper accepted BMGF money to fund its “education lab” section.

Schwab’s research has found that this conflict of interests goes right to the very top: two New York Times columnists had been writing glowingly about the Gates Foundation for years without disclosing that they also work for a group — the Solutions Journalism Network — that, as shown above, has received over $7 million from the tech billionaire’s charity.

Earlier this year, Schwab also declined to co-report on a story about COVAX for The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, suspecting that the money Gates had been pumping into the outlet would make it impossible to accurately report on a subject so close to Gates’s heart.

Sure enough, when the article was published last month, it repeated the assertion that Gates had little to do with COVAX’s failure, mirroring the BMGF’s stance and quoting them throughout. Only at the very end of the more than 5,000-word story did it reveal that the organization it was defending was paying the wages of its staff.

“I don’t believe Gates told The Bureau of Investigative Journalism what to write. I think the bureau implicitly, if subconsciously, knew they had to find a way to tell this story that didn’t target their funder.

The biasing effects of financial conflicts are complex but very real and reliable,” Schwab said, describing it as “a case study in the perils of Gates-funded journalism.”

MintPress also contacted the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for comment, but it did not respond. … Full article

November 18, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | | 1 Comment

Fact checking the Radio New Zealand fact check

COVID Plan B | November 17, 2021

Radio New Zealand has recently criticized a Facebook live conversation between former National MP Matt King and epidemiologist Dr Simon Thornley. While people should undertake their own research, we provide some comments related to the media’s critique. The evidence related to covid-19 policy continues to change and be updated.

In the interview, Professor Rod Jackson made several claims, decrying Thornley personally during the interview. Let’s examine them in turn.

  1. There is no trial evidence that ivermectin [an anti-parasitic drug used as early treatment for covid-19 in some parts of the world] works in people with Covid – it doesn’t exist.

Trials do exist. In fact a meta-analysis or summary study of six such trials exist. The pooled effect of these trials is a 79% decline in all-cause mortality (95% confidence interval: 89% to 58%). These trials are from Iraq, Iran, Bangladesh, Egypt, Turkey and India, places less reticent about its use. But they are trials, and the reduction in all-cause mortality is stark, an endpoint which is generally considered clinically important and free of error and bias. Another trial points to effective treatment, such as from vitamin D supplementation, which reduced intensive care admissions to 1/50 (2%) in the treated from 13/26 (50%) in the untreated in Spanish covid-19 patients.

We’re not advocating ivermectin at all. But we are prepared to look at the evidence. The fact that Jackson didn’t know there were trials invalidates his point.

  1. Professor Jackson also said claiming Covid-19 was no worse than the flu was nonsense”.

In the interview, Thornley claimed the infection fatality rate of covid-19 was as bad as a ‘severe flu’. A summary study of many countries indicates that the average global infection fatality rate of covid-19 is 0.15% or 1/667 people.

The fatality rate for H1N1 influenza is variable, but this figure from covid-19 is well within the range of estimates presented from a similar summary study.

The comparison between covid-19 and flu is therefore fair and accurate. Jackson’s claim is misinformation.

We should note that many fatality studies take the definition of a covid-19 death at face value but it does not mean the individual died exclusively from the virus. This was exemplified by the counting a recent covid-19 death in a man who was actually shot and killed, yet tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the autopsy. This was defended by the Ministry of Health, as it conformed with World Health Organization policy.

We are able to test the accuracy of Jackson’s claimed fatality risk. In May 2020, Jackson admonished Sweden for its lax approach. He said the fatality rate of covid-19 was 1/100 people infected, so predicted 56,000 deaths from covid-19 in the country, assuming 60% of the population would be infected. To date, there have been about 15,000 covid-19 deaths, with an age distribution similar to that of background deaths (figure). In fact, by all accounts, Sweden has fared through the epidemic particularly well compared to other European countries.

Figure. Deaths with covid-19 in Sweden, by age at November 3, 2021. Source:
  1. This is a severe disease and we have a evidence-based treatment [the vaccine] where there is definitive evidence that it reduces the risk of severe disease and death by 95 percent, in that order.

This is an extraordinary claim for several reasons. First, the original Pfizer trial reported about the same number of overall deaths in the treated and the untreated groups (14 in the treated and 13 in the untreated). In the six-month trial results, only three covid-19 deaths occurred, one in the treated and two in the untreated group. This is not consistent with Jackson’s assertion of a 95% reduction in risk of severe disease and death.

Given the numbers of deaths in the original trial, it is possible to work out whether the trial would have picked up a 95% reduction as Jackson claims. The trial would have been expected to have only one death in the treated group, and would have detected a difference more than expected by chance with 96% certainty.

There is observational evidence from Sweden of reduced covid-19 hospitalisations and deaths (not from all-causes), however, the vaccine effect diminished to zero for all three outcomes eight months after the date that the vaccine was administered.

To compound the confusion about the effect of the vaccine, the original Pfizer trial now is marred by whistle-blowers who have given the British Medical Journal evidence of fraud occurring during its conduct. Sixteen Swedish doctors have now called for the injection to be suspended as a result of these revelations.

Both Jackson and RNZ use extensive use of ad hominem attacks, which are considered an invalid, and lowest, form of argument.

Examples include:

  • “anti-vax”
  • “discredited academic”
  • “And we have someone who is questioning that evidence, who doesn’t know what they’re talking about, talking to an epidemiologist who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”
  • “outlier in his field”.

The purveyors and writers of such ‘argument’ appear to have no embarrassment at the anti-intellectualism and inhumanity of their conduct.

We’ll stick to the contest of ideas by again considering Jackson’s accuracy. Back in August 2020, Jackson and his colleagues claimed that elimination was still the best strategy for New Zealand to tackle covid-19. That article has not dated well, yet the personalised tirade and arguments are familiar.

“He [Thornley] is the only dissenter in the epidemiological community,”

“It’s not like this is a discussion like a boxing match with two equal partners. What you’ve got is every experienced epidemiologist in the country supporting the Government’s elimination approach.”

“We are all advising the Government, and we speak with one voice. And you have got a junior epidemiologist who is presenting a different case.”

Jackson has made increasingly inaccurate claims during the pandemic, claiming, unchallenged that one in five infected people will be hospitalised after infection with covid-19. No media have ever fact checked this.

New Zealand’s own government data shows Jackson  overestimated by at least a factor of ten, since the proportion of cases (rather than infections) hospitalised is 2% (table).

Table. Counts of cases of covid-19 in New Zealand (16 November 2021).

Count %
Self-isolation 2058 56%
Isolation Complete 969 26%
Managed Isolation 396 11%
Hospital 73 2%
Other 198 5%


As sailing great Russell Coutts has recently pointed out, it is questionable how “media entities can maintain objectivity when they have accepted a government grant that is conditional on them promoting certain government policies”.

It is prudent to check all sources of information, not only those who dare to question the what is coming from the Beehive.

November 18, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Sweden’s “Vaccine Passes” should teach us an important lesson.

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | November 18, 2021

The Swedish Public Health Agency (PHA) has announced that, starting next month, gatherings of more than 100 people will require “Covid passes” showing vaccination status.

Unlike similar schemes in other countries, a negative test will not be accepted as a substitute – either you’re vaccinated, or you can’t enter the venue.

There’s no talk yet of including restaurants, bars or cafes in this… but it is still early.

The PHA published a press release yesterday, detailing the plans. Quoted in The Local, Sweden’s culture minister Amanda Lind said:

Being able to use vaccination certificates is something the government has been preparing for a long time. You have previously heard me talk about vaccination certificates as a “plan B”. Now that situation is here,”

The vaccination pass comes on the heels of announcing the re-introduction of other “anti-COVID” measures, including limitations on mass indoor gatherings. The pass is being described as a way to get around these restrictions by “guaranteeing that participants are vaccinated”.

… and so Sweden falls.

From the beginning of the “pandemic” Sweden has been almost an outlier. Their refusal to lockdown was held up as an example of irresponsible laissez-faire libertarianism in the mainstream press, but made it an important touchstone for lockdown sceptics who viewed it as a bastion of common sense.

It turns out neither is true.

While Germany, Austria, New Zealand, Canada (and others) have gone full fascist brutally suddenly, Sweden is taking the scenic route. Rather than refusing to comply with the narrative, Sweden is simply using a looser net to catch the stragglers.

Those championing Sweden’s approach to Covid have just been caught in a supranational game of “good cop, bad cop”.

It shouldn’t really come as a surprise, the warning signs were all there.

For starters, the sheer amount of coverage given to the “Swedish approach” should have tipped people off.

Let’s take a moment to remind ourselves that the countries that have really rejected the Covid narrative in its entirety – such as Belarus – are never in the news.

In fact the governments that genuinely refused to play ball all had colour revolutions (or attempted ones at least), or saw their presidents die of sudden heart attacks.

Sweden suffered no such bad luck. Because it was playing its part.

For over a year and a half, Sweden has been portrayed as the calm voice in a room of panicking hysterics. They ‘refused’ to lockdown, and their “covid deaths” never reached the disastrous predictions of the modellers, whilst their economy suffered markedly less than the rest of Europe.

Playing that level-headed role has bought them credibility in Lockdown-sceptic circles, which can now be parlayed into an argument for vaccine passes: “Oh you hate vaccine passports? Well you love Sweden and they have them there!”

It’s all about manipulation – getting the doubters to concede to your narratives bit by bit without realizing they are doing so.

By supporting Sweden’s no lockdown approach, because it seems relatively sane, you concede, without fully realizing it, that there is a pandemic, and it does require some kind of intervention.

The same can be said for the “alternate therapies” and “pre-existing immunity” arguments.

Although both seem to have scientific evidence supporting them, the argument is built on a priori assumptions which concede the basic reality of the pandemic narrative.

And you will never win if you play by those rules. This is their pandemic and they can reinvent it in any way they choose.

Think promoting ivermectin is a good way of opposing the vaxx without alienating the believers? No!

You have to follow rules. They don’t. They can just invent a new “variant” out of wholecloth. One that is “resistant to ivermectin”.

And then what do you do?

It’s a simple and important lesson, hopefully, forced home by now:

Don’t part-accept irrationality in an effort to be reasonable. Don’t try and meet insanity in the middle. Deal only in what you can research and observe yourself.

Don’t attempt to compromise with the establishment, because they will never compromise back. There is no middle way.

Never, EVER, accept part of their narrative on trust.

Sweden should teach us never to pick sides in the Covid game, because it’s all rigged and the only way to win is not to play.

November 18, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment


Computing Forever | November 14, 2021

Support my work here:
Support my work on Subscribe Star:
Follow me on Bitchute:
Buy How is This a Thing Mugs here:

Subscribe on Gab TV:
Subscribe on Odysee:

November 18, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | , | 2 Comments