Aletho News


Delicensing Doctors for ‘Harmful Misinformation’

By Jane M. Orient, M.D. | Assosiation of American Physicians and Surgeons | December 17, 2021

In addition to being subjected to various forms of censorship, for the first time in living memory American doctors are getting threat letters from licensure boards warning them against distributing “harmful misinformation.” Medical boards in 12 states have disciplined doctors because of this allegation. While it is claimed that there’s an epidemic of misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic, the warnings don’t spell out what that means.

We don’t have an epidemic of patients dying because doctors told them to refuse treatment or to drink Clorox or aquarium cleaner.

In fact, no patients need to have suffered any harm at all for the medical board to investigate a doctor’s no-longer-free speech. All it takes is an anonymous complaint.

Pharmacists who were converted into the overseers of physicians’ prescribing practices will complain that a doctor had prescribed ivermectin for COVID-19.

Or an employer might complain that a doctor supported a worker’s request for a medical exemption that wasn’t on the CDC’s list of acceptable reasons.

Or the doctor might have spoken at a political meeting at which mask mandates were being challenged.

Or a patient might complain that a doctor wasn’t wearing a mask in his private consulting room, even when no COVID-19 patients were anywhere near and the doctor had demonstrated immunity.

Or a pathologist might have stated publicly that his busy lab was seeing a higher percentage of cancers in vaccinated patients.

“Harmful misinformation” appears to mean anything that contradicts or asks questions or raises doubt about the dogma that “vaccines are safe and effective,” or suggests a treatment not endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and their corporate sponsors.

One source of the allegedly “harmful misinformation” is a database created and maintained by the CDC, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Anybody can enter a suspected vaccine adverse reaction, and the public can access it. So, “it can be abused by people trying to sow fear,” write Shayla Love and Anna Merlan in VICE News. One person filed a fraudulent report, promptly removed, claiming that an influenza vaccination had turned him into the “Incredible Hulk.”

Flawed as it is, VAERS is the best CDC has to offer for looking for “danger signals.” Of course, correlation doesn’t prove causality. As Lindy McGee from Texas Children’s Hospital correctly pointed out, “I can report if I get hit by a truck after I’ve gotten a vaccine and that would be reported as associated with a vaccine. It does not make any implication of causality.” However, there is a double standard. If you get hit by a truck, but test positive for COVID-19, the hospital will get paid for counting you as a COVID death.

Adverse reports to VAERS are many times higher for COVID-19 vaccines than for all other vaccines combined since the database was established in 1988. The website clearly states: “Knowingly filing a false VAERS report is a violation of Federal law (18 U.S. Code § 1001) punishable by fine and imprisonment.” So, presumably most of the approximately 20,000 reports of death concern people who really did die soon after getting the jab, most within a few days. It could be 20,000 coincidences, but the count is not “misinformation.”

Love and Merlan call the compilers of VAERS information at “dumpster divers.” Matt Motta of Oklahoma State University and Dominik Stecuła of Colorado State University refer to that January article favorably in their Aug 25 essay that says VAERS is only good for researching “vaccine hesitancy.” They don’t mention that the featured VAERS death count of 329 from Jan 22, 2021, has steadily increased.

Also viewed as “misinformation” is the opinion of physicians and researchers that hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and other “repurposed” drugs are beneficial in COVID-19, as shown in more than 1,000 studies. Reports of dying patients who recovered when hospitals were legally forced to step aside and allow off-protocol treatment are ignored.

The safe option for doctors is to promote the jab or keep silent, and not to suggest anything different from what Anthony Fauci approves. By silencing doctors who are ethical professionals, one opens the gates for the reckless charlatans.

Recall that in Orwell’s Newspeak, the meaning of words is inverted. The Ministry of Love is in charge of torture; the Ministry of Plenty, of starvation; and the Ministry of Truth, of propaganda.

Is the Minitrue defining “misinformation” today?

December 23, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

“Super Immunity”: Pandemic collapses into self-parody

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | December 23, 2021

The Covid19 “vaccines” don’t work. They’ve admitted it, and now they’re seriously trying to tell us it’s actually a good thing.

What “working” really means when your pandemic is nothing but wave after wave of meaningless positive tests and weasel-worded changes to the meaning of “cause of death”, is a different discussion for another time.

Indeed, whether they were ever meant to work, what they are actually for and why the establishment needs to push them so hard, are interesting questions for a future article.

For now, let us confine ourselves to Big Pharma’s stated intention: The “vaccines” are allegedly meant to stop the spread of “Covid19”. They don’t do it.

The “vaccines” are not even true vaccines by the traditional definition. People who have been “vaccinated” still get infected, and can still spread the infection to other people.

Such infections are called “breakthrough cases”, and their existence has run a familiar course in the media.

First they didn’t exist, then they did exist but they were rare, then they weren’t that rare but they were mild… and now they’re not just mild, they’re actually a good thing…because of “super immunity”.

That’s right, getting sick after being vaccinated might actually be good for you, according to a recent study, currently getting wall-to-wall coverage in the press.

Apparently a team of researchers studying the blood of people who had breakthrough infections found that [our emphasis]:

breakthrough infections of Covid after double vaccination developed as much as 1,000 per cent more effective and abundant antibodies, creating a form of “super-immunity”,

One. Thousand. Percent. That’s a lot of percents. Like, ten times the usual amount of percents. Mightily impressive sciencey-sounding numbers.

So, it turns out, if you get the double-jab, but still get sick anyway, that’s not a sign you’ve just been conned into taking an experimental gene therapy that doesn’t do what it claims to do.

It’s not an indication that the entire narrative is just a construction built on assigning a new name to standard cold and flu symptoms via a faulty test.

And it definitely doesn’t mean the vaccines don’t work… it means they super-duper-mega work, and you’re basically invulnerable.

… unless a new variant comes along, in which case get a booster. Or two. Because while 1000% immune might sound like a lot…wouldn’t 2000% immune be even better?

In less than twelve months we’ve actually circled all the way around from “the vaccine’s work” to “the vaccine’s don’t work… and that’s a good thing”.

At this point, you just have to laugh.

December 23, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment

COVID-19 vaccine mandate for San Diego students struck down by the Court in a final decision on the merits

A court recognizes an unauthorized power grab – we need more of that

By Aaron Siri | December 22, 2021

The San Diego Unified School District took it upon itself to mandate a COVID-19 vaccine for students. In-person school for certain ages was conditioned upon receipt of this vaccine. Those who chose to decline the vaccine would be automatically forced into an “independent study program” with no in-person learning as of January 2022.

Because school districts do not have the authority to mandate a vaccine not already required by the state legislature, we filed an ICAN-funded lawsuit on behalf of a San Diego student and their family to challenge the mandate. We, along with counsel for Let Them Choose which also challenged the mandate on behalf of another petitioner, asked the Court to strike down the mandate and, this week, the Court did just that.  You can read the papers below.

In a long-awaited victory by those seeking to retain the right to informed consent and medical decision-making free from coercion, the Court found that it was “compelled” to invalidate the mandate as the school district had no authority to implement or enforce such a requirement.

The Court held, in a tentative ruling issued prior to oral argument and confirmed afterwards, that:

The sole function of this Court is to determine whether the [mandate] is preempted by state law. SDUSD’s [mandate] appears to be necessary and rational, and the district’s desire to protect its students from COVID-19 is commendable. Unfortunately, the field of school vaccine mandates has been fully occupied by the State, and the [mandate] directly conflicts with state law. The addition of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate without a personal belief exemption must be imposed by the Legislature. Accordingly, this Court is compelled to GRANT the petitions for writ of mandate.

This is the true role of the Courts: to assess the facts and the law and to make a determination based on only those facts and the relevant law. No other outside influences. Even if a Court “believes” something is necessary, rational, well-intentioned, or commendable, it still must do what it is compelled to do: follow the law. This role has been seemingly absent or forgotten over the past year when it comes to vaccine mandates, and so it is encouraging to see things working as they were intended.

The basis for this decision, that school boards in California do not have the authority to require a COVID-19 vaccine, would apply to all school boards across California that are seeking to mandate a COVID-19 vaccine. We are prepared to file lawsuits against any other school board in California that seeks to mandate a COVID-19 vaccine. Congratulations to all the parents in San Diego, California and beyond who no longer need to inject their children with a liability-free, novel medical product in order for their child to attend school.

For those interested in the details, our opening brief can be found here, the Defendant’s opposition brief can be found here, and our reply brief can be found here.

December 23, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

Lavrov Tells Stoltenberg He’s Not Fit for His Job, Urges Him to Seek New Employment

Stoltenberg told Russia to respect a treaty it never signed, Lavrov tells him to respect treaties (Helsinki ’75, Paris ’90) the West did sign
Anti-Empire | December 23, 2021

“The cornerstone of such obligations is the indivisible security principle. The heads of states and governments clearly stated that no participant of the OECD should ensure their security by damaging the security of others.

So when Jens Stoltenber made this highbrow and arrogant statement that no one can breach the principle of the Washington Treaty, which keeps the door open to any potential aspirant eager to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, he should remember that we are not a participant in that organization, that we are not signatory to that treaty, but that we are signatories to a broader regional Euro-Atlantic document, which contains the principle of the indivisibility of security.

If Mr. Stoltenberg thinks that NATO is free to discard this principle, which is enshrined in documents adopted at the summit level, then possibly the time is ripe for him to seek new employment, because he is certainly no good for his current job.”


December 23, 2021 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , | 1 Comment

Max Boot’s Rant Against Oliver Stone

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | December 22, 2021

Max Boot, a conservative who has long favored regime-change operations on the part of the U.S. national-security establishment, is going after Hollywood producer and director Oliver Stone. His beef with Stone? He’s upset because Stone has long maintained that the U.S. national-security establishment employed one of its patented regime-change operations here at home, against President John F. Kennedy. 

The title of Boot’s piece, which was published in the Washington Post, is “Oliver Stone Just Can’t Stop Spreading Lies About JFK’s Assassination.” In his article, he attacks Stone not only for his 1991 movie JFK but also for Stone’s latest update to the movie, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass.

Interestingly, Boot makes a reference to Stone’s accusation “that Kennedy’s autopsy reports were falsified.”

Actually, the more accurate way to put it is that the U.S. national-security establishment conducted a fraudulent autopsy. That fraud was reflected in both the autopsy photographs as well as the final autopsy report.

But like many other proponents of the official lone-nut theory of the assassination, Boot doesn’t address any of the main features of the autopsy fraud in his rant against Stone.

Let’s take two examples. (Others are detailed in my two books The Kennedy Autopsy and The Kennedy Autopsy 2.) 

For 30 years, the national-security establishment had falsely claimed that there was only one brain examination in the Kennedy autopsy. 

It was a lie. And when people are lying about something that important, you know that they are up to something that is rotten and no good.

In the 1990s, the Assassination Records Review Board determined that there were two different brain examinations in the JFK autopsy, the second of which involved a brain that did not belong to Kennedy.

How did they determine this? The official photographer for the autopsy, John Stringer, was at the first brain exam. He stated that at that brain exam, the brain was “sectioned” or cut like a loaf of bread is cut. That’s standard procedure with an autopsy that involves a gunshot to the head. Stringer took photographs of the brain, which also is standard procedure.

One of the three military pathologists who conducted the autopsy, Col. Pierre Finck, stated that he attended the brain examination. But he was not at the brain exam that Stringer attended. Stringer verified that. That means that there was a second brain exam. At that second brain exam, a different photographer was present taking photographs. The brain at the second brain exam was not “sectioned.”  A sectioned brain cannot be reconstituted into a non-sectioned brain. That’s how we know that the brain at the second brain exam had to be a brain of someone other than Kennedy.

It’s also worth mentioning two other things about the brain exam. First, when Stringer was asked to examine the official photographs of Kennedy’s brain, he specifically denied that those were the photographs he took. Second, the autopsy report reflects that Kennedy’s brain weighed 1500 grams. An average brain weighs around 1350 grams. Everyone agrees that an extremely large portion of Kennedy’s brain was blown out by the shot that hit him in the head. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, there is no possibility that Kennedy’s brain could have weighed 1500 grams after having a large portion of it blown away by the gunshot.

What does Boot say about the two brain exams? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. 

There is something else worth noting. If it hadn’t been for Oliver Stone’s movie JFK, we would never have learned about this fraud. That’s because the national-security establishment would have continued lying about there being only one brain exam. It was Stone’s movie that led directly to the JFK Records Act and the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) whose job it was to enforce it. That’s how we learned about the fraud relating to the two brain exams.

The ARRB also discovered the existence of a woman named Saundra Spencer. She was a chief petty officer at the Navy’s photography laboratory in Washington in November 1963. She had a top-secret security clearance. She had worked closely with President Kennedy on both classified and unclassified photographs. She told a remarkable story to the ARRB.

On the weekend of the assassination, Spencer was asked to develop the Kennedy autopsy photographs. Since she was led to believe that the operation was classified, she had kept her secret for some 30 years. When the ARRB showed her the official autopsy photographs, she said that those were not the photographs she developed on the weekend of the assassination. The ones she developed showed a massive exit-sized hole in the back of JFK’s head. The official autopsy photographs show the back of JFK’s head to be intact — i.e., no massive exit-sized hole.

If Spencer’s testimony was true and accurate, then that could mean only one thing: the national-security establishment’s autopsy photograph was fraudulent.

What does Boot say about Saundra Spencer? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Spencer’s testimony matched what Dr. Robert McClelland, who was one of JFK’s treating physicians at Parkland Hospital, said. He stated that Kennedy had a massive exit-sized wound in the back of his head. McClelland wasn’t the only one who said that. So did the other treating physicians, nurses, a Secret Service agent, two FBI agents, and others. 

What does Boot say about Dr. McClelland and all those other witnesses who stated that JFK had a massive exit-sized wound in the back of his head? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. 

It’s again worth noting that If Oliver Stone had not come out with his movie JFK, we would never have learned about Saundra Spencer and the role she played on the weekend of the assassination. 

What does a fraudulent autopsy have to do with the assassination? It tells us that the assassination was a regime-change operation, no different from other regime-change operations carried out by the national-security establishment, in places like Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Indonesia (1958), Congo (1961), Cuba (1960 to date), Chile (1970-73), and others.

That’s because, as I have repeatedly emphasized in the past, there is no innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy, especially when the scheme for a fraudulent autopsy was launched the minute that Kennedy was declared dead. That was when a team of Secret Service agents, operating on orders and brandishing guns, screaming and yelling profanities, and exercising violence, forced their way out of Parkland Hospital with Kennedy’s body, so that they could get it in the hands of new President Johnson, who, in turn, would dutifully deliver it into the hands of the national-security establishment. In the process, that Secret Service team refused to permit the Dallas County Medical Examiner to conduct the autopsy, which was required by state law. 

Thus, there is but one reason that the national-security establishment would carry out a fraudulent autopsy — to cover up its own regime-change operation. There is no other reasonable conclusion that can be drawn.

After the U.S. government was converted from a limited-government republic into a national-security state, conservatives as well as liberals reveled in the regime-change operations, including assassinations and assassination attempts, that were being carried about by the U.S. national-security establishment. The Cold War notion was that the national-security establishment was protecting “national security” by keeping us safe from the communists, who were supposedly coming to get us (much like the terrorists, the Muslims, the drug dealers, and the illegal immigrants are supposedly coming to get us today).

What they still have a hard time accepting is that the little monster they love when it regime-changes foreign leaders is the same little monster that regime-changed John Kennedy for doing precisely what those foreign leaders were doing during the Cold War racket — reaching out to those horrible Russians and to Cuban communist Fidel Castro in a spirit of peace and friendship.

If regime-changed foreign leaders like Jacobo Arbenz, the democratically elected president of Guatemala, and Salvador Allende, the democratically elected president of Chile, posed a grave threat to “national security” for reaching out to the Reds in a spirit of peace and friendship, why wouldn’t a U.S. president who was doing the same thing pose an even graver threat to “national security”? (See FFF’s book JFK’s War with the National Security Establishment; Why Kennedy Was Assassinated.) Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, Max Boot doesn’t answer that question.

December 23, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular | , , | 1 Comment

Carrying our baggage into the apocalypse

By Richard Hugus | December 23, 2021

Almost two years in, the “Great Reset” has reached a certain stage of maturity. Years of planning, infiltration, manipulation, and social engineering have come to fruition. The many simulations are now being tested in the real world. The actors who trained and rehearsed for their parts as presidents, prime ministers, health officials, trusted doctors, and media personalities have taken their place on stage, miraculously prepared to save humanity from a catastrophe never experienced by mankind. The operation was always too big to go on covertly, so eventually the perpetrators had to announce their plans, the war had to be declared, and troops assembled on the field of battle.

We know more or less who the perpetrators are — the globalists, the central bankers, a certain megalomaniac software developer, eugenicists, pharmaceutical companies,  Vanguard, Blackrock, the CIA, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Illuminati, the Freemasons, Satanists, aliens working on other wavelengths, and so on.

But what about the other side? Here we see people across the spectrum, very few wealthy or holding power, often oriented toward nation, home, family, personal responsibility, and religion — in other words, conservatives.  Conspicuously absent from any resistance to the Reset are liberals and leftists, the anti-war and anti-imperialist left, so-called “progressives”, socialists, anarchists, and union leaders — the very people one thought would be the first to stand up against corporate tyranny and totalitarian control. Leftists opposing the Reset quickly became former leftists. This group spent the past two years dealing with what seemed the betrayal of a lifetime, as they watched their ideals of liberation from oppression carried to the point of absurdity. They watched anti-racism turn into racism, sexual liberation into gender chaos, anti-fascism into fascism. Opposition to all forms of discrimination gave way to support for discrimination . . .  against the “unvaccinated.” Belief in “my body, my choice” somehow turned  into support for no-choice medical mandates. The new radicals came like puppets of the state to disrupt medical freedom rallies, wearing face masks and calling people “Nazis” for not wearing them.

November 7, 2021, Boston Common.”Anarchists” protesting against a rally for medical freedom.

But then the disillusioned leftist realized that all this was actually consistent with socialism, in which the needs of the collective come before individual rights, and that the left actually has more in common with the utopian leaders of the World Economic Forum than it does with the virus-spreading working class who, afterall, were always too thick to understand the higher goals of socialism. In the surprise ending of the Great Reset, Act I the left revealed its true identity — they were the real authoritarians all along! But even with this revelation, the left lost none of its insufferable self-righteousness.

As devastating as the Great Reset operation could be for the future of humanity, it’s a wonder that we still carry our old grievances and prejudices with us. Millions of people have already been killed or injured by mRNA injections, yet different sides in the freedom movement can’t seem to get over their differences. The left has to come to terms with its delusions, but so does the right.

First of all, let’s acknowledge that with all the power the globalists have, it is inconceivable that both sides would not already be heavily infiltrated. The oligarchs would no doubt agree with their former client Vladimir Lenin  when he said, “the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” We can assume that many in the ranks of Antifa, for example,  are undercover cops, FBI agents, informants, and temp work thugs. From Charlottesville in 2017 to the Black Lives Matter riots in 2020 to Boston Common in 2021, we saw them all in action, working in silent agreement with their supposed sworn enemy, the police.

We can also assume that people who look and talk just like Trump-supporting MAGA conservatives are also on the job, as witnessed in the obvious manipulation by agents working with police to entrap protesters in Washington D.C. on January 6, 2021. The left has been familiar with FBI infiltration since the COINTELPRO days of the ’60s. Conservatives becoming active in politics today may not have this experience. They could maybe learn a few things about agents provocateurs and, for that matter, be cautious about “backing the blue”, until they find out just which side “the blue” are actually on. Cops are generally known to serve the powerful. But conservatives don’t consult the left about their experience with the police. Nor is the left talking to conservatives about why wokeness isn’t providing any solutions. The two sides are not talking.

Anti-imperialists have been opposing US foreign wars since the Mexican War in 1846. The list of wars initiated by the US from then to now — criminal wars that had nothing to do with self-defense — is too long to list. Conservatives have generally supported US warmaking and, because of their patriotism, they honor and support the soldiers who fight the wars. But where was the honor in decimating Afghanistan and Iraq, to mention just two? Love of one’s country does not justify starving and bombing people in another country who never harmed the US. Anti-imperialists would not be surprised that the American empire may be about to pay a moral debt for its wars of aggression. They opposed the wars while patriots supported them, and there are some hard feelings there. The reckoning that seems to be coming to America will be hard for the patriots. But it will also be hard for the left when they realize that all along they have been the shameless dupes of the ruling class, who seduced them with high-sounding goals only to put them and everyone else into a prison where they the guards will have control of not only our bodies but our minds. If there was ever a time to fight fascism, this is it.  But the left has been AWOL in this struggle, and that is a shame they may never live down.

The control of most of humanity by machines projected by the Great Reset will, if it comes true, make the disputes between left and right seem quaint. We’re going to have much worse problems if we don’t end this soon.

December 23, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | , , , | 1 Comment

Shameless BBC hosts Big Pharma’s drive to get Africa hooked on Covid vaccine

By Rusere Shoniwa | TCW Defending Freedom | December 23, 2021

AT the end of November, a piece of BBC agitprop to stoke up fervour for vaccinating Africa went viral. As a British citizen of African descent living in London, I was disgusted by it.

I am concerned that people in Africa may ‘get it’ even less than the average Westerner and I really want to try to reach a few Africans who might be wondering what Covid could mean for them.

So let’s start by imagining if Big Pharma were to run a modestly honest advertisement to recruit dealers for pushing Covid ‘vaccines’ in Africa.

It might read something like this: ‘International drug cartel requires Western-educated Black face to front our public campaign to push experimental and unnecessary Covid vaccines on the impoverished African continent.

‘This is a tough market, highly suspicious of the product and not without good reason. Smile and dial merchants need not apply, as you must bypass the consumer to target the decision-maker.

‘Successful applicants must display the ability to rail melodramatically at the “racist vaccine-hoarding” injustices perpetrated by the West against Africa, appealing to the woke sensibilities of those in positions of power within key Western institutions. African leaders will then be expected to do as they’re told.’

I must confess that I reverse-engineered that ad after watching the successful applicant going through the motions like a performing seal on a BBC World News slot set aside for just such agitprop.

Following the latest Covid variant hype, the co-chair of the African Union’s Vaccine Delivery Alliance, Dr Ayoade Alakija, announced on the UK’s flagship propaganda organ: ‘What is going on right now (the emergence of the Omicron Variant) is inevitable.

‘It’s a result of the world’s failure to vaccinate in an equitable, urgent and speedy manner. It is a result of hoarding by high-income countries of the world and quite frankly it is unacceptable. These travel bans are based in politics and not science. It is wrong.’

Abandoning any pretence at journalism, the BBC presenter, Philippa Thomas, played the role of therapist by responding: ‘I hear your anger about the immediate reaction and the lack of action beforehand.’

The stage direction becomes even more obvious and cringeworthy as Thomas then pauses, providing a cue for the good doctor to glance at her script and resume the televised amateur dramatics: ‘So this is hopefully a dress rehearsal because until everyone is vaccinated no-one is safe … why are the Africans unvaccinated? It’s an outrage because we knew we were going to get here.

‘We knew this is where the hoarding, the lack of IP (intellectual property rights) waivers, the lack of co-operation on sharing tech and sharing know-how, we knew this was the crossroads it was going to bring us to. To a more dangerous variant.’

The only valid question she raises concerns the swift travel bans placed on Southern African countries: ‘Why are we locking away Africa when this virus is already on three continents? Nobody is locking away Belgium, nobody is locking away Israel.’

This is an emotional ploy to gain the trust of the small handful of privileged Africans watching this drivel. She is saying to them: ‘I am right-on, woke, one of you.’ She quickly jumps back on board the Covid cult train with a policy ‘nudge’ that must have African leaders reaching for their sickbags.

‘Something needs to be done to everywhere. My recommendation is to have a co-ordinated global shutdown of travel, for the next month if you want, but don’t single out Africa.’

And then back to the greedy, vaccine-hoarding West: ‘The Botswana government ordered 500,000 doses of vaccines at 29 dollars per dose, much higher than the rest of the world paid. They did not get those vaccines because other people jumped ahead in the queue. Moderna supplied to other countries … and so now we have a variant.’

Not a single grain of this guerrilla marketing campaign was challenged by the BBC journalist.

The obvious starting point for a presenter with half an ounce of journalistic integrity would be to explore whether the ‘vaccines’ are working and whether they would indeed have prevented a variant. After all, the fact that they do not halt transmission and infection is no longer controversial.

No sales pitch involving an illness would be complete without recourse to fear-based marketing tactics. Enter the Omicron narrative.

Despite Dr Alakija’s claim that we now have ‘a more dangerous variant’, there was no evidence that this variant would make any difference to disease severity at the time she was invited by the BBC to make her vaccine sales pitch for Africa. (Nor is there proof that vaccination prevents variants from arising in the first place).

Since then, the evidence emerging is that Omicron is less severe than previous variants and more contagious – the ideal combination for hastening herd immunity with minimal population health impact.

Telling medium-sized lies and half-truths with a straight face has always been the minimum qualification for political office, but Covid has raised the bar to a new height – the ability to swim in a pool of one’s own metaphorical vomit without flinching.

The BBC ‘discussion’ might have turned to safety, to tease out how much personal risk Africans will be expected to bear in submitting to a vaccine that doesn’t perform the primary function of a vaccine.

The word ‘safety’, however, was not permitted to impinge in any way on the protestations of the injustice of depriving Africans of the wondrous medical treatments emanating from the hallowed laboratories of Western science.

The reticence about safety is understandable from a marketing perspective since, by any objective measure, these ‘vaccines’ are the most dangerous mass medications rolled out in modern history.

Perhaps Dr Alakija should have been quizzed about how Africans might react to the drug manufacturers’ lack of confidence in the safety of their own products in light of their refusal to distribute it to countries who refuse to provide blanket immunity from liability for injury.

Not a single word of safety information was explored, even in the vaguest terms, in the BBC report. Nothing. Juxtapose studies highlighting the risk of dangerous heart inflammation for young males following Covid vaccination against Africa’s far younger population, with a median age of around 20.

You’d think this safety risk might get a passing mention. Yet neither of the two stooges saw fit to broach the prospect that many young Africans – whose risk of dying from Covid is so small that it is hard to measure – may die following vaccination.

The callousness of this omission is standard operating procedure in Western liberal discourse, a key function of which is to drape a ‘humanitarian’ cloak over policies that enrich corporate interests in the West while harming and exploiting the poor.

Unveiling the farce of the BBC plug for Africa’s vaccination allows us to consider a game in which we imagine what other doctors might say if the BBC were to air credible dissenting voices – a practice that was once regarded as the bread and butter of journalism, but which would now be a radical act of rebellion.

It’s not a difficult game to play. In fact, no imagination is required, because the actual statements of credible dissenting doctors are available on other independent media news channels, as reported in TCW Defending Freedom on December 8.

A new channel based in Austria, AUF1, gives a platform to those medical professionals who refuse to go along with the official narrative.

Typical is Dr Heiko Schöning, who says: ‘The corona panic is a stage-managed production. It’s a confidence trick. It is now urgent that we understand we are now in the grip of a worldwide Mafioso-style criminal enterprise. We can see we are dealing here with organised crime. So what do we do? We don’t play along any longer. Here and now we have to draw the red line.’

Had Dr Schöning just finished watching the two stooges on BBC World News when he described ‘the corona panic’ as ‘a stage-managed production’?

Whether these doctors are right or wrong is irrelevant to the journalistic duty to present credible dissenting voices to the public. The failure to do so goes a long way to meeting the criteria for propaganda.

The question in relation to Dr Alakija’s BBC guerrilla marketing campaign is: Do enough Africans know that there are alternative credible narratives to challenge the mainstream BBC vaccine narrative and how would they respond if these competing narratives were presented?

Does Africa, or anywhere else for that matter, need mass vaccination? Almost two years into this global nightmare, with evidence showing that up to 80% of South Africans (how similar for other African nations?) may have already been exposed to the virusless than 6% of Africa vaccinated, and a death toll a fraction of that in the ageing populations of the West (Africa’s Covid deaths are 3% of the global total), it is clear that Africa has already learnt to live with the virus.

Had Africans succeeded in applying the same level of rigorous lockdown stupidity that was achieved in the West, it would not have made the slightest difference, as real science is conclusively demonstrating not just the futility of lockdowns but their positive destructiveness.

Despite looser lockdowns (perhaps partly because of this) Africa fared much better than the illiberal West in health outcomes.

No doubt there are other variables at play, but cheap, effective early treatments in some parts of Africa were used to good effect and should continue to be the focus of attention.

Africa and the entire planet would get far more bang for their buck from policies addressing human health holistically rather than with expensive experimental ‘vaccines’ which will continue for as long as human beings are prepared to, or more likely forced to, surrender their bodies to Big Pharma and authoritarian governments.

It must be patently obvious to African leaders that the Covid crisis is a manufactured one, but that does not make it any less of a crisis.

Western liberal democracy is being dismantled at breakneck speed under the cover of Covid containment policies.

The criminality, coercion, censorship, propaganda and blatant negligence all signal the logical conclusion to a brutal colonial mindset – the attempted colonisation of the entire globe to serve the interests of a global elite which has successfully captured Western governments and supranational organisations.

The psychopaths whose aim is to introduce a technocratic global system of human control understand only too well that shutting off travel for economies that rely on tourism is a far bigger killer of economies, and therefore lives, than this virus has ever been.

The message being sent by the sadistic controllers to Africa’s leaders is a simple one: Get serious about imposing vaccines and the technocratic population control measures for which which vaccines are the delivery system … or else.

Covid containment policies represent a desperate authoritarian response to permanent decline. This cannot end well for the West and if the West is a sinking ship, then Africa must not blindly tether itself to this Titanic disaster.

December 23, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Pfizer, FDA Dodge Media Questions About Pfizer Comirnaty Vaccine

By Seth Hancock | The Defender | December 22, 2021

Two media outlets last week requested, but failed to obtain, clarity from Pfizer on whether its fully licensed Comirnaty COVID vaccine is available in the U.S.

Reporting by The Ohio Star and National File highlighted the ongoing debate over whether the vaccine can legally be mandated, and whether Pfizer can be held liable for injuries related to the vaccine.

The Star reported that despite asking multiple times whether the Comirnaty vaccine is in use, Pfizer would not answer the question.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in August granted full approval, or Biological License Application Approval (BLA) — for the Comirnaty vaccine for individuals age 16 and older.

The approval, granted without a formal advisory committee meeting or public comments, prompted a number of questions including:

  1. What, if any, differences exist between the formulations used in the fully licensed Comirnaty vaccine and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine being distributed under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).
  2. If/when the fully licensed vaccine would be available in the U.S.

Seeking an answer to the latter question, The Star reached out to Pfizer, the FDA and to Ohio’s largest health system, OhioHealth.

A spokeswoman for OhioHealth confirmed the system’s 12 hospitals “are currently distributing the Pfizer vaccine that does not have the Comirnaty branding label.”

In response to whether the Comirnaty vaccine is being used elsewhere in the U.S., Pfizer told The Star in an email:

“The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine (EUA labeled product) is currently being shipped; however, please be advised that the COMIRNATY and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine have the same formulation and can be used interchangeably. They are made using the same processes, and there are no differences between them in safety or effectiveness.”

Pfizer’s claim that the two vaccines can “be used interchangeably” is inconsistent with FDA statements, The Star said, citing an FDA Q&A page that states the two vaccines are “legally distinct.”

The FDA reaffirmed that distinction, telling The Star the “statutory authorities governing BLAs and EUAs are distinct and provide different legal requirements.”

The FDA “did not directly address” The Star’s initial question about the specific difference between Comirnaty and the EUA vaccine, or why Pfizer is not shipping Comirnaty if the formulas are “interchangeable.”

However, in a Dec. 9 notice of reissuance of the EUA for the original Pfizer vaccine to give booster shots to 16 and 17-year-olds, the FDA said:

“[a]lthough COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) is approved to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 16 years of age and older, there is not sufficient approved vaccine available for distribution to this population in its entirety at the time of reissuance of this EUA.”

The Star also reached out to Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, asking if Ohio’s public universities are following the state’s law, HB 244, which prohibits public institutions from mandating a vaccine that is not fully approved.

Bethany McCorkle, Yost’s communications director, responded that HB 244 does not apply because “the FDA fully approved the vaccines.”

National File, following up on The Star’s reporting, also contacted Pfizer to ask if Comirnaty is in use. Pfizer told National File the “EUA-labeled product will still be shipped and usable until its expiry date.”

Pfizer did not respond to National File’s follow-up requests for additional clarification.

Comirnaty ‘not available at this time’

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a chart showing the current procedural terminology description for the Comirnaty BLA-licensed vaccine states Comirnaty is “not orderable at this time.”

The current procedural terminology description includes a statement from Pfizer:

“At present, Pfizer does not plan to produce any product with these new NDCs (National Drug Code) and labels over the next few months while EUA authorized product is still available and being made available for U.S. distribution. As such, the CDC, AMA (American Medical Association), and drug compendia may not publish these new codes until Pfizer has determined when the product will be produced with the BLA labels.”

According to a Dec.16 letter from the FDA’s acting chief scientist, Jacqueline A. O’Shaughnessy, Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines exported from the U.S. are allowed only if “the regulatory authorities of the country in which the vaccine will be used are fully informed that this vaccine is subject to an EUA and is not approved or licensed by FDA.”

O’Shaughnessy’s letter states there is “a significant amount of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine that was manufactured and labeled in accordance with this emergency use authorization. The authorization remains in place with respect to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for this population.”

In a Twitter exchange last weekend, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) cited O’Shaughessy’s letter to refute a tweet by Joe Gerth, a columnist for the Louisville Courier-Journal, who claimed Comirnaty is available.

Can vaccines be ‘interchangeable’ and ‘legally distinct’ at the same time?

Misrepresentations by media and public officials — like those of the Louisville Courier-Journal and Ohio attorney general claiming the Pfizer vaccines in use in the U.S. are FDA-approved — coupled with the FDA’s own ambiguous documents and public statements have given rise to public confusion and legal questions.

Pfizer’s refusal to directly address questions posed by The Ohio Star and National File only adds to the lack of clarity. As political commentator and attorney Robert Barnes told The Star :

“It is an illicit bait and switch. There is no FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine available in the U.S. The unavailable FDA biologic license approved drug is not medically identical and has to abide different manufacturing standards. As important, you have fewer legal rights and fewer legal remedies when you take an EUA drug than a biologic licensed drug. This directly impacts the legal rights of all Americans.”

The FDA’s assertion that the Comirnaty and Pfizer vaccines are “legally distinct” yet “interchangeable” is at the center of legal arguments around whether one, both — or neither — of the two vaccines can be mandated.

lawsuit brought by members of the military against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) challenging the DOJ’s COVID vaccine mandate for all service members highlights some of the arguments.

A federal judge on Nov. 12 denied plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction against the DOJ mandates.

However, in his ruling, the judge stated — contrary to claims by Pfizer and the FDA — that the FDA-licensed Comirnaty vaccine is not interchangeable with Pfizer-BioNTech’s EUA-labeled vaccine.

Judge Allen Winsor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida said the service members showed the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) is requiring them to submit to EUA-labeled vaccines, yet “defense counsel could not even say whether vaccines labeled ‘Comirnaty’ exist at all.”

Judge Winsor wrote:

“In the DOD’s view, this is fine because the contents of EUA-labeled vials are chemically identical to the contents of vials labeled ‘Comirnaty’ (if there are any such vials). According to the DOD’s argument, this means servicemembers are not required to accept ‘a product authorized for emergency use.’ …

“Rather, the DOD argues that once the FDA licensed Comirnaty, all EUA-labeled vials essentially became Comirnaty, even if not so labeled. Thus, the DOD argues, the ‘product’ injected is a chemical formulation that has received full FDA licensure — not merely an EUA.”

Judge Winsor called that argument “unconvincing.”

The distinction between an EUA product and one that is fully licensed raises other legal questions. For instance, the FDA fact sheet on the Comirnaty vaccine states:

“This EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and COMIRNATY will end when the Secretary of HHS determines that the circumstances justifying the EUA no longer exist or when there is a change in the approval status of the product such that an EUA is no longer needed.”

The statement appears to suggest the Pfizer-BioNTech and Comirnaty vaccines are EUA, and that both EUAs will end under the conditions noted.

Another key difference between fully licensed and EUA vaccines relates to the issue of liability. Under the 2005 Public Readiness and Preparedness Act (PREP Act), EUA vaccines are accompanied by a far-reaching liability shield that protects all parties involved with the product from lawsuits.

Specifically, if one is injured by an EUA vaccine, the only way to claim damages and receive compensation is to apply to the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, an administrative process under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which authorized the vaccines.

At this time, the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine may have no liability shield, making it subject to product liability laws that allow those injured by it to potentially sue for damages, although Pfizer asserts the vaccine is protected under the PREP Act as well.

Children’s Health Defense, following the Comirnaty approval, sued the FDA arguing the approval was a “bait in switch” to provide cover for vaccine mandates.

Seth Hancock is a freelance reporter for The Defender.

© 2021 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

December 23, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | , , | 2 Comments

The Associated Press put out a hit piece on RFK Jr. in retaliation for the success of “The Real Anthony Fauci”

The mainstream media are incapable of facing the truth about Pharma, it would reveal their own complicity in crimes against humanity

By Toby Rogers | December 18, 2021

The blue check bourgeoisie are very sad right now. They want to be in control, they want to be looked up to, and they are watching in horror as their entire worldview and standing in society slips from their grasp and goes down the drain. In their shame and humiliation the object of their ire becomes Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

RFK Jr. is everything they are not. He is smarter and more successful than they are. But more than that, RFK Jr. has moral character, something that is in vanishingly short supply in mainstream newsrooms these days. He has also more reach. COVID-19 information on RFK Jr.’s website (The Defender) is shared more often on social media than the corporate nonsense coming from CNN, NPR, the NY Times, the Washington Post, and the CDC (no surprise there really).

As RFK Jr.’s new book, The Real Anthony Fauci rose to the top of the bestseller list in recent weeks, the blue check bourgeoisie started to panic because his work reveals, amongst other things, that they are charlatans. So the Associated Press assigned six “reporters” to put out a 4,000-word hit piece on RFK Jr. This appears to be part of a wave of paid retribution stemming from RFK Jr.’s extraordinary record of successfully challenging the dishonest Pharma narrative.

The AP hit piece reveals nothing new about RFK Jr. but it tells us heaps about the worldview and mindset of the corrupt white collar class that makes their bread defending the Pharma cartel.

Whether you like him or not, RFK Jr. is a serious scholar. The Real Anthony Fauci is 480 pages and involved a team of over 20 world-class research scholars working for over a year. It is perhaps the most damning indictment of a political figure in American history. It deserves a serious reading.

What’s fascinating about the AP hit piece is that they are terrified to engage with the actual argument itself. Their sole interaction with the book consists of a quick keyword search for the words “ivermectin” and “hydroxychloroquine”.

The AP writes,

“Kennedy uses the book to push unproven COVID-19 treatments such as ivermectin, which is meant to treat parasites…”

Imagine thinking that this was some sort of gotcha!? We are left with one of two unpleasant possibilities — either the AP writers are just plain dumb or they are lying. I’m not sure which is worse.

The AP seems unaware that William C. Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2015 for the discovery and development of ivermectin (back in the 1970s).

The AP seems unaware that the World Health Organization has ivermectin on its list of essential medicines.

The AP seems unaware that there are 136 studies on the safety and effectiveness of ivermectin in connection with SARS-CoV-2 and they are all available (here).

The AP seems unaware that 3.7 billion doses of ivermectin have been used safely worldwide since 1987.

The AP seems unaware that ivermectin is a broad-spectrum anti-viral, anti-bacterial, anti-parasite, anti-inflammatory that also appears to have anti-cancer properties and it’s more gentle than aspirin.

Remember, the AP had six reporters working on this, and not a single one of them could locate any of these available facts???

The blue check bourgeoisie are obsessed with trying to defend vaccines and discredit ivermectin even as they refuse to read any of the underlying scientific literature because to understand the truth of this situation would reveal that everything that they believe is a lie.

Later in the article, the AP is breathless and freaked out that RFK Jr. is pretty good at raising money (according to the AP, RFK Jr.’s non-profit Children’s Health Defense brought in $6.8 million in 2020). Okay, but Autism Speaks brought in $94.7 million in 2020 and accomplished absolutely nothing so $6.8 million for fighting global Pharma totalitarianism seems like a bargain by comparison.

The corrupt mainstream are fixated on this notion (surely invented by one of the big Pharma PR firms) that opposing vaccine mandates is somehow profitable. It shows that these people have no ability to mentally position-switch (the foundation of empathy) and put oneself in the shoes of another. Everyone in the movement for medical freedom who battles in the trenches every day knows that challenging the Pharma cartel results in endless bigotry from former friends, family, and colleagues; routine death threats; and a massive, lifelong decline in income. No one would ever endure this level of abuse for the money.

This angle of attack is also strange and illogical because these reporters never question the hundreds of billions of dollars that Pharma makes from vaccines and the prescription drugs used to treat vaccine injury (EpiPens, asthma inhalers, diabetes treatments, Risperdal, etc.). If, as the AP alleges, the lure of a modest non-profit salary is somehow corrupting then how corrupting are the trillions of dollars that Pharma is making from the pandemic!? It’s weird that these self-appointed guardians of the “Truth(TM)” never stop to think through where their logic is taking them.

The article is a sad time-capsule that perfectly symbolizes the intellectual and moral collapse of the mainstream news industry in the face of the pandemic. Reporters never challenge power anymore. They do not do any investigative research. Their jobs are not well paid and being a reporter is no longer a viable career path. Instead, these “reporters”, many just out of college, are auditioning for a future job with a Pharma PR firm and it shows.

As some point though these stenographers for the cartel have to realize that everyone is laughing at them. Indeed in just the last few days one can see The Atlantic, the NY Times, and the Washington Post all starting to get nervous and hedging their bets with articles (usually just Opinion pieces for now) that undermine some aspect of the Pharma narrative. The public already realizes that the emperor has no clothes and the corrupt bougie media class is rightly worried that they have lost whatever credibility they once had by associating themselves with the criminal Pharma regime.

(Nope, not gonna link to the article, fascists do not deserve clicks.)

I rate the AP hit piece 12 clowns (out of 10) for its total inability/unwillingness to engage in good faith scientific discussion.

December 23, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | 1 Comment

Psychiatry: The Marketing of Madness: Are We All Insane?

ccdhfr | January 3, 2021


The definitive documentary on psychotropic drugging—this is the story of the high-income partnership between drug companies and psychiatry which has created an $80 billion profit from the peddling of psychotropic drugs to an unsuspecting public. But appearances are deceiving. How valid are psychiatrist’s diagnoses—and how safe are their drugs? Digging deep beneath the corporate veneer, this three-part documentary exposes the truth behind the slick marketing schemes and scientific deceit that conceal a dangerous and often deadly sales campaign.

December 23, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | Leave a comment